Philosophy Now Forum

Typist wrote:Let's all use the Internet to undermine the government that brought us the Internet!!

Typist wrote:Let's analyze your plan.

The Internet is what gives the little guys, the average person, power in this current controversy. That's what you're celebrating, right?

Ok, so what happens when we little people use our new found power irresponsibly? What happens when we all start celebrating the use of denial of service attacks to attack anybody we disagree with?

Typist wrote:The Net becomes inaccessible to everybody, except maybe the big corps and governments who have the biggest budgets and most advanced experts.

Typist wrote:Little people lose their power.

The appropriate and effective way to use our power would be to organize support for candidates who will change the government's information management policy to whatever we feel is appropriate.

Typist wrote:And if that doesn't work, if people don't vote for our program and candidates, grow up and be adults, and recognize that in a democracy nobody gets their way all the time.

Typist wrote:I support a review of information policy.

Your way of going about it is self defeating. Once you convince everybody that denial of service attacks are glamorous and glorious, you can kiss your power goodbye.

Typist wrote:Actually, on second thought...

Given the quality of content on most of the Net, maybe clogging it up and shutting it down is not such a bad plan.

I got deeply involved in the Net starting in 1995. At the time, like a lot of people, I suffered from the fantasy that the Net would become an island of intelligence.

This fantasy was somewhat understandable, given that this had been true up until that time. Before the Net was made accessible to the broad public, typically one had to have an intelligent job to access the net, thus the overall level of content was higher than average.

Of course that has all changed, and now the Net is not really much different than TV. Do we really need another flavor of TV? Probably not.

Ok, hit my DSL provider with a denial of service attack, I'm ready.

That would indeed suck. But has this happened so far? MasterCard and PayPal have acted irresponsibly by simply believing the US State Department's claim that they were facilitating illegal activities, which the US Justice Department hasn't confirmed.

Typist wrote:The Net becomes inaccessible to everybody, except maybe the big corps and governments who have the biggest budgets and most advanced experts.

US government attacks on wikileaks actually caused it to grow stronger, causing multiple individuals and entities to mirror the site.

You pretend to be an advocate of the "little people" while in fact you're advocating that the "little people" only engage themselves on those playing fields, where the "big people" have the clear advantage (bigger budgets, bigger media presence).

Or perhaps those you support should grow up and recognize that they can't stop the signal.

I haven't convinced anybody of that, nor do I try to. They are however an effective pressure tool that can be used by "little people" against "big people", but not vice versa, while most other tools only work the other way round.

Typist wrote:

That would indeed suck. But has this happened so far? MasterCard and PayPal have acted irresponsibly by simply believing the US State Department's claim that they were facilitating illegal activities, which the US Justice Department hasn't confirmed.

Mastercard and Paypal are businesses which have a right to do business with whomever they choose. I tend to agree both companies suck big time, but denial of service is not the way to respond to that.

Not doing business with these companies is the way to go. If the protest was limited to people cutting up their credit cards, it would have my respect.

i blame blame wrote:It is more important for the wikileaks supporters to succeed than to have your respect:

Typist wrote: All of which can be hit by attacks of various kinds. The Net is like any other corner of civilization, it depends on most people acting in a civil manner. Once everybody pulls out their guns and starts shooting it out, the guys with the biggest guns win.

Guess what?

That's not you.

Typist wrote:I'm an advocate of civilization. The little guy has no chance whatsoever in an environment of chaos.

Typist wrote:You have a very naive view that you can control and limit the chaos to only the targets of your choice.

Typist wrote:Once you have sold the concept "if you disagree with somebody, shut them down" to enough people, you have pulled the rug out from under your own power.

Without the support of governments all over the world, the Internet is over.

The power the U.S. government has that you don't recognize is that every government in the world now understands they could be next.

Perhaps you've heard of another tool little people have, legal democracy? Oh, whoops, I forgot, you're too lazy. Ok, that won't work, my bad.

Typist wrote: Political Fact Of Life: You're not going to succeed unless you win the respect of people in the middle.

Typist wrote:People like me would support a thorough review of the information classification system. Except that now you've negatively branded the cause with vigilante digital violence. You've placed an obstacle in the path we would have take to agree with you.

Typist wrote:This is an old story. After the election victories of President Bush, people of your persuasion would fill their blogs with insults to those who voted for Bush, calling them imbeciles etc. Insulting those who you need to persuade in order to win. Smart?

Typist wrote:What events like these teach us is that people of your persuasion aren't actually serious about public policy. You're just addicted to a phony moral superiority pose, an agenda which offers nothing to us.

Typist wrote:This is why you always lose.

Typist wrote:Evidence: You finally got rid of Bush, and replaced him with your guy. And what did you get? More of Bush's policies, now being managed by a liberal democrat.

Case In Point: Obama has just approved an extension of Bush tax cuts for the super rich.

Typist wrote:Moral Of The Story: People on your side sometimes have good points, but you're politically incompetent, which is why you're always in the glorious minority.

Typist wrote: Mastercard and Paypal are businesses which have a right to do business with whomever they choose.

You're still not getting it, are ya. For every server that get's blocked, ten more will be set up.

Typist wrote:if you weren't consumed by the usual leftist need for a moral superiority pose, you'd see that.

Typist wrote:

You're still not getting it, are ya. For every server that get's blocked, ten more will be set up.

The process of finding every server with Wikileaks data, and launching an attack on that server can be fully automated. Thus, it doesn't matter if you have dozens, hundreds or thousands of mirror sites. It's all the same to a tireless bot. And as you would correctly add, counter attacks can be automated as well. So where does that leave us?

It leave us with you closing your eyes to the truth..
And allowing your government to pass information about you, and things that concern you, to 3 million government officers world wide, whilst not allowing YOU to see it.
Because that is why wikileaks has managed to find this stuff - it was all an open secrete because 3 million alrady had access to it.


Classified By: AMBASSADOR CHARLES A. FORD FOR REASONS 1.4 (b and d)

¶1. (S) Summary: Honduran President Jose Manuel &Mel8 Zelaya Rosales is a throwback to an earlier Central American era, almost a caricature of a land-owner &caudillo8 in terms of his leadership style and tone. Ever the rebellious teenager, Zelaya,s principal goal in office is to enrich himself and his family while leaving a public legacy as a martyr who tried to do good but was thwarted at every turn by powerful, unnamed interests. Various public statements over his tenure suggest he would be quite comfortable as a martyr who tried but failed honorably in his attempt to seek out social justice for the poor. He is comfortable working with the Armed Forces and until recently with the Catholic Church, yet resents the very existence of the Congress, the Attorney General and Supreme Court. Over his two and a half years in office, he has become increasingly surrounded by those involved in organized crime activities. End Summary.

¶2. (S) I have gotten to know Mel Zelaya quite well over my tenure as Ambassador, and offer these personal reflections on his character, his views of the United States, and on what his presidency means for our interest in the region with the objective of informing future policy choices.

¶3. (S) Personally, I have found Zelaya to be gracious and charming, quite willing to tell me whatever he thinks I want to hear at that moment. For example, in the period June-August 2007, we must have met weekly, with his agenda focused on explaining his nomination of Jorge Arturo Reina (who lost his U.S. visa for past terrorist connections) as the UN Ambassador, his presence in Managua at Sandinista celebrations and his intentions with regard to Hugo Chavez. It was interesting to see how his explanations differed from meeting to meeting, almost as if he had no recollection of our exchange just a few days before.

¶4. (S) In the period May-June 2006, Zelaya pressed me hard to obtain President Bush,s approval of his plan to join PetroCaribe. When he met in early June with President Bush who confirmed our strong opposition to his intention, Zelaya later told me that he was surprised that this item had been on our agenda. In short, over an almost three year period it has become crystal clear to me that Zelaya,s views change by the day or in some cases by the hour, depending on his mood and who he has seen last.

5.(S) Not surprisingly, Zelaya has no real friends outside of his family, as he ridicules publicly those closest to him. In the days preceding his inauguration, Zelaya without prior notification canceled a country team briefing for his new cabinet. Over a private lunch he explained that he trusted no one in his government and asked me the question: &Who is the most powerful; the person with a knife behind the door or the person outside the door who knows there is someone behind the door with a knife?8 It is clear to me that tactically he will work with almost anyone, but strategically he stands alone.

¶6. (S) Zelaya also has been quite erratic in his behavior. Despite his often harsh public rhetoric, such as describing U.S. immigration policy against illegal aliens as "persecution" by "fascists", Zelaya would meet again with President Bush in a heartbeat. At one point he even planned to go uninvited to a bilateral Bush-Berger meeting in Guatemala. Zelaya not only allowed the first visit of a U.S. warship to mainland Honduras in 22 years, but he delivered a TEGUCIGALP 00000459 002 OF 004 ringing speech extolling bilateral relations on the ship's deck, only briefly expressing pride in Honduras' capture and execution of the American interventionist William Walker. Always suspicious of American intentions, he inexplicably submitted to a psychological profile at my Residence - twice. His erratic behavior appears most evident when he deliberately stirs street action in protest against his own government policy - only to resolve the issue (teacher complaints, transportation grievances, etc) at the last moment. This approach to problem solving seems to be Zelaya's way of gaining acceptance, challenging the established political power structure, and moving his agenda - which is not populist or ideological, but is based on popular appeal.

¶7. (S) Zelaya remains very much a rebellious teenager, anxious to show his lack of respect for authority figures. Cardinal Andres Rodriguez has told me that not only did he not graduate from university but he actually did not graduate from high school. The Cardinal should know, as he was one of his teachers. The problem is that Mel has acted in this juvenile, rebellious manner his entire life and succeeded in reaching the highest office in the land. No need to change now. He will continue to lead a chaotic, highly disorganized private life.

¶8. (S) There also exists a sinister Zelaya, surrounded by a few close advisors with ties to both Venezuela and Cuba and organized crime. Zelaya's desperate defense of former telecommunications chief Marcelo Chimirri (widely believed to be a murderer, rapist and thief) suggests that Chimirri holds much over Zelaya himself. Zelaya almost assuredly takes strong medication for a severe back problem and perhaps other drugs as well. His vehement attacks on the press have reportedly endangered journalists opposed to Zelaya's policies. His style and tone in order to get his way is one of intimidation and bullying, threatening tax inspections and worse rather than substantive debate on issues. Zelaya's inability to name a Vice Minister for Security lends credibility to those who suggest that narco traffickers have pressured him to name one of their own to this position. Due to his close association with persons believed to be involved with international organized crime, the motivation behind many of his policy decisions can certainly be questioned. I am unable to brief Zelaya on sensitive law enforcement and counter-narcotics actions due my concern that this would put the lives of U.S. officials in jeopardy.

¶9. (S) Finally, Mel is very much a son of Olancho, aware of his roots in the land and his family's ties to Honduras since the 1500,s. Unlike most other Honduran leaders in recent times, Zelaya,s view of a trip to the &big city8 means Tegucigalpa and not Miami or New Orleans. While he and his family have been part of the Honduran landscape for 400 years, they have not until recently inter-married with the Honduras elite in Tegucigalpa or San Pedro Sula. His son's marriage in 2006 to one of the country's leading Honduran-Arab families was very important to Zelaya yet a complex event, signifying acceptance into the very elite group that he so very much resents.

¶10. (S) I have found Zelaya,s real views of the United States hidden not too very deeply below the surface. In a word, he is not a friend. His views are shaped not by ideology or personal ambitions but by an old-fashioned nationalism where he holds the United States accountable for Honduras, current state of poverty and dependency. Zelaya,s public position against the Contra War and against the establishment of Joint Task Force Bravo at Soto Cano Air TEGUCIGALP 00000459 003 OF 004 Force Base are manifestations of this underlying viewpoint.

¶11. (S) Other behavior by the President confirms, in my view, the depth of his feeling. While Zelaya was open to our point of view of the selection of key members of his Cabinet, he was absolutely closed to listening to us on his appointment of his Ambassador to the OAS and to his appointment of Jorge Arturo Reina as Ambassador to the UN. The Honduran voting record in the UN in terms of coincidence with US positions is at the lowest point in decades.

¶12. (S) More revealing, at public events with key officials present, Zelaya will make clear that anyone interested in becoming President of the country needs first to get the blessing of the American Ambassador. Personally, in private conversations at the Residence, Zelaya has recounted to me, multiple times how a previous American Ambassador had ordered the President of the Honduran Congress to accept the Presidential candidacy of Ricardo Maduro, even though in Zelaya,s view Maduro was Panamanian-born and thus ineligible. Other sources have documented Zelaya,s views on this point where his anger and resentment are more apparent than in his exchanges with me. It is clear by the way he recounts the story that on one level he resents very much this perceived dependency yet accepts it exists and looks to me to define for him the rules of the game. He becomes frustrated at times when he believes I am not carrying out this responsibility.

¶13. (S) Most noticeable to me has been his avoidance of public meetings with visiting US officials. Whether Cabinet officials or CODELs, Zelaya always is a gracious host, but never comes out of the meeting to have his picture taken publicly with our visitors, as he is so anxious to do with other visitors from Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Almost all of our meetings take place at my Residence rather than at the more public setting of the Presidential Palace. He made no attempt to disseminate his may photo ops with President Bush after the June 2006 meeting in Washington. The fact is that the President of the country prefers to meet quite often in the privacy of my Residence but not to be seen in public with American visitors.

¶14. (S) Finally, Zelaya recently is fond of saying that we need to improve our communication, which I interpret to mean that we need to agree with him more often. A similar fate has befallen Cardinal Rodriguez who used to meet, as I do, regularly with the President. As the Cardinal in recent months has found himself in disagreement with Zelaya and is not participating publicly in his projects, Zelaya is working increasingly with pastors in the evangelical community. The Cardinal recently told me that he and the President hardly speak now as the President is unhappy that he doesn't agree with the direction Zelaya is taking the country. For Zelaya, communicating means agreeing unquestionably with his point of view.

¶15. (S) GOING FORWARD: The last year and a half of the Zelaya Administration will be, in my view, extraordinarily difficult for our bilateral relationship. His pursuit of immunity from the numerous activities of organized crime carried out in his Administration will cause him to threaten the rule of law and institutional stability. Honduran institutions and friendly governments will need to be prepared to act privately and in public to help move Honduras forward.

¶16. (S) We will need, in my view, to continue to engage Zelaya whenever we can in order to minimize damage and to TEGUCIGALP 00000459 004 OF 004 protect our core interests. As a rebellious teenager, he will need a significant space to move, in but we must be very direct in our conversations with him as to our core interests. Despite his feelings towards us, he does respect the role the U.S. Embassy is still perceived to play in Honduran society and will expect us in private to be direct and clear in our views. Using an analogy from American football, we will need to continue to carry out an aggressive bend but not break defensive game plan in the run up to the next elections in November 2009. In this way, I believe we can engage Zelaya intensely in the hope of so as to minimizing damage to Honduran democracy and the economy

You want to go to war.

Ok, as a person of logic I'm sure you'll agree that before going to war it would be logical to first understand who one's allies and enemy's would be. Right?

Ok, let's find out who your allies in this war will be.

Please provide us with a list of every government, corporation and individual who wants to see their private data published on Wikileaks or similar sites.

Please provide us with a list of everybody who wants to see the Net brought to it's knees in a global denial of service war.

The entities on these lists will be your allies in the information war you wish to launch.

Do Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc or any of the big hosts or net connection providers want to see their private data splashed across the web? Does any government want to be a victim?

Probably not, so you can count on all the big players all across the globe, those with the majority of talent and resources, becoming your enemy.

And I remind you, these governments and corporations whose private info you wish to "liberate" have control over the physical infrastructure of the Net.

All the Wikileaks supporters have are individual computers, which are worthless unless connected to the Net, which you don't control.

Wait, this is just the beginning of your problems.

Your enthusiasm arises from a notion that this process of stealing private information property and splashing it across the web can be limited to those you don't like. You think you've discovered a new weapon that nobody else will have.

Once the public understands that everybody will be vulnerable in the age of chaos you are offering us, they will turn on the movement you support. Once their own data is stolen and published, and the data of organizations they support, they will turn to governments, and demand a solution.

The choice we have online is the same choice we've always had offline. Rule of law, or chaos.

You're not going to be able to sell the public on chaos, because a lawful and peaceful alternative is available to anybody who is serious. Change laws you don't like by a legal process.

If you can't change the law legally, it's because most people don't agree with you.

Nobody wants all information to be public. You're fighting a lost cause, and if you weren't consumed by the usual leftist need for a moral superiority pose, you'd see that.