Operation Payback And Wikileaks Show The Battle Lines Are About Distributed & Open vs. Centralized & Closed

from the the-soul-of-the-internet dept

Back in October, I wrote a thought-piece on how "the revolution will be distributed," comparing Wikileaks to Anonymous' "Operation Payback" (whose tactics I disagree with). I noted that the two were very different, and were focused on very different issues, but that both were essentially about distributed and open systems taking on systems that were centralized and closed -- and that the folks in those centralized and closed systems didn't seem to understand this. Thus, all of their reactions did little to fix the challenges they were facing.

It seems that my comparison of the two operations was a bit more prophetic than I expected. In the wake of the latest Wikileaks saga, Operation Payback is getting attention for pointing its DDoS takedown efforts on Visa and MasterCard for their decision to disallow any payments to Wikileaks via their cards.

I still disagree with the tactics of Operation Payback -- which I fear will be counterproductive and could lead many people to think this is all about some "rowdy kids" rather than people with a serious agenda. However, it is rather telling how much attention they're getting. The folks behind Operation Payback point out that they're not affiliated with Wikileaks, but:
We fight for the same reasons. We want transparency and we counter censorship. The attempts to silence WikiLeaks are long strides closer to a world where we can not say what we think and are unable to express our opinions and ideas.
Again, I'm struck by the simple split many have here: it really is an argument between those who believe in distributed and open vs. centralized and closed -- and I'm still not sure if the folks supporting centralized and closed even realize this. Their response, to date, has been to act as if they're fighting a centralized system. They focus on things like Wikileaks' domain and its founder -- as if that's the issue. They target the centralized pieces. And even if you make the argument that Wikileaks needs Julian Assange to stay together, if it were to shut down, it wouldn't take long for a ton of other, similar offerings to spring up in its place. And, they would probably be even more effective (and potentially more damaging).

While I don't necessarily like "war" analogies, what we're seeing is very much a battle between the way people want to see information flow, and one side seems to be still fighting the last war.

Filed Under: anonymous, centralized, closed, distributed, open, operation payback, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2010 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re:

    No, the US government isn't a small group of people, it is "we the people". Americans get their rights to vote, to select the people to lead them and make decisions for them. Democracy of this type means you choose your leaders and let them lead.

    What wikileaks and the 4chan mob is suggesting is anarchy, where everyone is involved in everything all the time, that as citizens we feel some right to interrupt those that the majority chose to lead us, and inflict upon them our minority views.

    What wikileaks et al are doing is terrorism, nothing more and nothing less. It is the minority attempting to impose change on the majority, by any means they see fit, regardless of the damages made to accomplish it. In this manner, they are no different from the IRA, Basque seperatists, the Tamil Tigers, or even Bin Hiding and his friends.

    Wikileaks uses the "you must work with us, or we will reveal things about you" card, which is called blackmail in most places, to terrorize companies and governments. The 4chan children use ddos and other tactics to deny the rights of others at their discretion. They attempt to scare companies (in this case Visa and Mastercard) to do their bidding, or they will punish them. Terrorism at it's finest.

    As for the question of centralizes versus distributed, perhaps this is the best indication of what terrorism is. Armies are centralized forces. Terrorists are distributed cells, none of them powerful enough to win a war, but each with enough power to bring misery to others. As a civilized people, we should not tolerate and not condone terrorist acts, regardless of if it is an actual bomb or a cyber-bomb.

    Watching Techdirt come down on the side of terrorists only makes it easier to understand many of the other opinions expressed here.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.