Wikileaks Mirror Taken Down: Host Buckles Under Demands from Upstream Provider | Electronic Frontier Foundation

[glen ep ropella]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/weakest-links-host-buckles-when-upstream-provider
--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Fuck 'em.  There are 1,426 other mirrors, plus uncounted "stealth" mirrors out there ready to go live if needed.

--Doug

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Glen Ropella G1 <[hidden email]> wrote:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/weakest-links-host-buckles-when-upstream-provider
--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen ropella]

Douglas Roberts wrote  circa 01/03/2011 08:00 PM:
> Fuck 'em.  There are 1,426 other mirrors, plus uncounted "stealth"
> mirrors out there ready to go live if needed.

That misses the point, though.  It's not about Wikileaks.  It's about
the (some particular, not all) corporations and the systemic culture of
fear.  It's about SiteGround and SoftLayer and their choosing to shut
down a customer just because they can ... or because they fear the
consequences of [gasp] siding with their customer.

The same thing happened with AT&T et al regarding the warrant-less wire
tapping thing.  The customers of the big corporations have their privacy
violated; then those same customers roll right over and buy a bunch of
AT&T locked iPhones!  That'll sure discourage AT&T's bad behavior, eh?

That's the point.  Paying attention to who exhibits good behavior and
who exhibits bad behavior (especially when aliases abound and actors are
embedded in layer upon layer of obfuscating shells) takes more effort
than simply mirroring some one-off set of documents.  We have to reward
good behavior and avoid or penalize bad behavior.

It's important to at least _identify_ SiteGround and SoftLayer as the
bad guys, along with Amazon, Paypal, Visa, MasterCard, etc.  I'm almost
free of Paypal.  I still have to use Amazon for work; but I no longer
buy anything personal through them.  I haven't found a way to rid myself
of Visa and MasterCard; but I'm trying.

On the one hand, such constraints limit me in what seem to be important
ways.  E.g. Not buying MP3s from Amazon means I may have to buy actual
CDs, with a bunch of wasteful one-use plastic and the costs of shipping
(not just my out of pocket but also the carbon footprint of shipping
from, say, Europe).  Or, e.g., not using Dropbox, because it relies on
Amazon, may force me to maintain my rsync-over-ssh nightmare. [grin]
But I'd rather make my life more interesting or simple, than reward
people for their bad behavior.

I am currently looking for a new (cheaper) VPS provider.  And I now know
I will _not_ use SiteGround or SoftLayer.

> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Glen Ropella G1 <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/weakest-links-host-buckles-when-upstream-provider

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Glen Ropella wrote:

Douglas Roberts wrote  circa 01/03/2011 08:00 PM:

Fuck 'em.  There are 1,426 other mirrors, plus uncounted "stealth"
mirrors out there ready to go live if needed.

That misses the point, though.  It's not about Wikileaks.  It's about
the (some particular, not all) corporations and the systemic culture of
fear. 

And I think that singling out the specific individual corporations or people who get caught out acting in the manner which is otherwise generally approved and accepted misses the point as well.

BP's gulf spill was not (merely) a simple reflection of their personal, specific bad behaviour, it was a consequence of an entire industry, of the very nature of capitalistic, consumerist industry (what our world, the first world is built upon) and it *intrinsic* search for higher profits through increased volumes and exported/denied risk.

It has always been the case that industry has arranged for the majority of the risk or consequences to fall somewhere besides inside their boundaries.  This is generally (to owners/shareholders called good business).  The coal miners lungs were only the mine's problem insomuch as they needed to replace those individuals in the mines no longer able to work effectively.  Exxon Corporation was only risking the loss of a shipful of crude oil and the ship when they allowed the Valdiz to be grounded/punctured as it was.   Union Carbide was risking only the loss of a highly profitable plant in Bhopal India when they took the industrial risks (which the Indian Government allowed because they were only risking the loss of a single community if a disaster struck) that lead to the 1984 disaster.

Do we buy gasoline or other petroleum products that ultimately came from BP and Exxon, or industrial chemicals/products from Union Carbide still?  Many boycotted them as best they could at the time of the accidents, but then either returned to patronizing them after a suitable period of mourning/indignation or pushed their products into wholesale markets where we never see the source but continue to reap the convenience/benefits/marginal-effeciencies of their risk-taking (at other's expense).  Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Union Carbide are all still doing swimmingly... in fact I suspect most everyone here with money invested in mutual funds or similar profits (poorly these days) hold part ownership in all three... and probably Amazon too.

I'm not trying to defuse the righteous indignation against these things, or the desire to not reinforce bad behaviour, but rather trying to point out that the problems we face are deeper and more systemic than the specific behaviour of specific corporations/groups in specific circumstances. 

 The Swedes complicity with the Assange thing may implicate them specifically, but probably doesn't absolve most of the first world who would very likely cooperate with the USA in the same circumstances.  And the third world as well, maybe more quickly to avoid being declared a "rogue state" and offered up their own helping of "shock and awe".

Buy.Com is not necessarily a better place to throw your one-stop online shopping than Amazon simply because they don't offer hosting services and didn't have the opportunity to decline Wikileaks hosting, etc. I'd guess they'd do the same in a heartbeat!   And Itsy.com for all it's wonderful handmade goods doesn't offer what most of us think we need.

I strongly agree with Glen's last statement, the only challenge is to not stop with the most obvious or recent offenders, but to apply it even more deeply.

But I'd rather make my life more interesting or simple, than reward
people for their bad behavior.

We are a crowd with at least one thing in common... most of us are rabid technophiles and very likely (over?) optimizers...  my experience is that the vocal ones here are generally liberal/progressive in their social ideals, but we have such huge heads that we try to know everything.  I'm surely doing it right here, noticing that for every Amazon, PayPal, Visa, MasterCard or SiteGround/SoftLayer there are thousands more that have not had the opportunity (yet) to show their ugly stripes, and we are likely to blindly throw our support to them in indignation over those who got caught before we will actually question the underlying assumptions of what these industries (convenience in purchasing, online/virtual goods, internet services, etc.) imply for us.   I know plenty of folks who diss WalMart but live for their trips to Target and Whole Foods.  It really only barely computes... or not.

I wonder sometimes why, in the frictionlessness of our new economy and virtual marketplaces that we don't have more voluntary, collectivism?   Why are there not CoOperative ISPs, Virtual Marketplaces, Credit/Purchase-Card systems, Gasoline/Oil/Mineral exploration/production systems, Insurance (Life, Auto, Health) Systems?   Even Itsy and Craigslist are privately held, even if they are not conventional in their profit motives.

If we vote more with our $$ than our votes, why can't we have at least as (hopefully much moreso) righteous options for how we spend those $$ and obtain those services/products as we do for electing officials... wait!  Why don't we have as good of choices for our elected officials as we do for our acquisition of goods and services?  Wait... it all sucks!   Why? 

Surely there is more we can do than shift around subtly in the shades of grey, moving our votes from one evil to a (currently perceived to be) lesser one.  Or not?

Is it as simple as economies of scale?  Is it as simple as "Power is Corruption" joined with "Money is Power"? 

More questions than answers.. I know.  But I can't watch these kinds of things unfold without asking them of myself, and sometimes I can't listen to the conversations here without wanting to ask the larger group the same questions.

- Steve



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen ropella]

Steve Smith wrote circa 11-01-04 08:57 AM:

> Glen Ropella wrote:
>> Douglas Roberts wrote  circa 01/03/2011 08:00 PM:
>>> Fuck 'em.  There are 1,426 other mirrors, plus uncounted "stealth"
>>> mirrors out there ready to go live if needed.
>> That misses the point, though.  It's not about Wikileaks.  It's about
>> the (some particular, not all) corporations and the systemic culture of
>> fear.
>
> And I think that singling out the specific individual corporations or
> people who get caught out acting in the manner which is otherwise
> generally approved and accepted misses the point as well.

Hm.  It seems to me that the systemic problem you're pointing out is
caused by our unwillingness to identify and avoid reinforcing the bad
behavior.  The reason such bad behavior is otherwise generally approved
and accepted is because not enough people even notice or think about it.
 We see this sort of behavior all the time and we think, "Meh, so what?
 Aren't corporations _supposed_ to be sociopathic?  That's the way our
society works!"

I see this in microcosm all the time.  I see my friends take jobs with
companies without negotiating any significant ownership.  They typically
say that they need the job too badly to press the negotiation.  Or they
claim that the stock's not worth anything, anyway.  Similarly, most of
the tech people I know would rather have a boss than be a boss... or
even have to help organize a decision process other than autocratic.
Even here in the People's Republic of Portland, commitment to
collectives is mostly lip service.  They _expect_ companies to trample
over individuals.  That's just how it works!  They expect their
employers to fire them at will.  They expect to "get a job" instead of
"creating jobs".

The only way around that systemic issue that I know of is to identify
the good and bad behavior and reward and ignore/punish it, respectively.
 To ignore it is to approve of and accept it.  That ignoring is the
cause of the systemic dysfunction.

> It has always been the case that industry has arranged for the majority
> of the risk or consequences to fall somewhere besides inside their
> boundaries.

Well, I'm not a very good student of history; but my guess is that this
isn't necessarily true, emphasizing your phrase "always been the case".
 Perhaps there have always been exploiters in the system.  That I could
buy.  And perhaps there are periods where the defectors are more common
than the cooperators.  I suspect now might be one such time.  But to say
that industry has always externalized costs assumes a great deal of
intelligence on the part of industry.  Perhaps one might say that
industry always _tries_ to externalize costs, but often fails (as
evidenced by the huge percentage of companies that fail)?

And we have to be careful not to conflate "always" with "everywhere".  I
suspect companies reared in some societies/cultures are more
exploitative than those reared in other societies/cultures.  It's also
true that companies consist of multi-scale subgroups, many of which
operate on different principles (almost by definition).  This allows
multinationals to have different standards in one country from another
but retaining the same (or an illusion of same) identity.

I think your brush is a bit too broad, is all.

Again, ultimately, the problem lies with the acceptance and approval of
the society in which the corporations sit.  And how can we, or the
corporation, know what's acceptable or unacceptable unless we identify
good and bad behavior?  So, it's rooted in identifying it.

> Do we buy gasoline or other petroleum products that ultimately came from
> BP and Exxon, or industrial chemicals/products from Union Carbide
> still?

Yes, of course we do.  But as was suggested in some of the Wikileaks
philosophy, the point is not to root out and eliminate all evil, or even
secrecy.  The point is simply to make it _difficult_, to regulate it.
You don't have to leak every secret.  You only have to impress upon the
bad guys that you're there and unless they're very careful, we will
identify their bad behavior.

Such regulation actually makes the bad guys efficient because they pay
closer attention to where and when they engage in the bad behavior (e.g.
keeping secrets -- unlike with the Bush admin stamping every document
that slides across anyone's desk).

> Many boycotted them as best they could at the time of the
> accidents, but then either returned to patronizing them after a suitable
> period of mourning/indignation or pushed their products into wholesale
> markets where we never see the source but continue to reap the
> convenience/benefits/marginal-effeciencies of their risk-taking (at
> other's expense).

Boycotts are useless.  What matters is the steady regulation ... the
continual pressure that bad behavior will be spotted.  In many cases,
you don't even need any sort of punishment.  (I'm sure Nick or someone
else can even cite evidence that punishment doesn't work nearly as well
as positive reinforcement.)  All you need is _awareness_ ... identification.

> I'm not trying to defuse the righteous indignation against these things,
> or the desire to not reinforce bad behaviour, but rather trying to point
> out that the problems we face are deeper and more systemic than the
> specific behaviour of specific corporations/groups in specific
> circumstances.

Yes, it is deeper and more systemic.  But I'm proposing that the cause
of the systemic problems are simply lack of attention.  We don't pay
attention to where our gasoline comes from; hence those who provide it
can do whatever they want.  If we paid attention, that wouldn't be the case.

And I'm a big believer in leading by example.  If I expect others to pay
attention, I have to pay attention.  Hence, the point is to identify
SiteGround, SoftLayer, AT&T, Amazon, Visa, etc. and identify the bad
behavior.  Frivolously cutting off a customer, spying on your customers,
etc. is bad behavior.  And it doesn't matter if the bad actors go out of
business or suffer economically.  It also doesn't matter if the agenda
of the customer is sustained and achieved (e.g. the 1426 other cable
mirrors).  What matters is that the bad actors are publicly called out
for their behavior.

> I strongly agree with Glen's last statement, the only challenge is to
> not stop with the most obvious or recent offenders, but to apply it even
> more deeply.

Yes.  It takes a sustained and nontrivial effort.  If we're not willing
to make that effort, then we deserve the result.

> I'm surely doing it right here, noticing that for every
> Amazon, PayPal, Visa, MasterCard or SiteGround/SoftLayer there are
> thousands more that have not had the opportunity (yet) to show their
> ugly stripes,

Precisely the point.  If we identify the bad actors and the bad
behavior, then those other guys who have yet to be shamed in some way,
will think twice before exposing their bad behavior... they may even
avoid the bad behavior altogether.  But if we do and say nothing, then
there's no reason for them to behave any differently.  In fact, there's
plenty of "good business" reasons for them to behave like the other bad
actors.

> I wonder sometimes why, in the frictionlessness of our new economy and
> virtual marketplaces that we don't have more voluntary, collectivism?  
> Why are there not CoOperative ISPs, Virtual Marketplaces,
> Credit/Purchase-Card systems, Gasoline/Oil/Mineral
> exploration/production systems, Insurance (Life, Auto, Health)
> Systems?   Even Itsy and Craigslist are privately held, even if they are
> not conventional in their profit motives.
>
> If we vote more with our $$ than our votes, why can't we have at least
> as (hopefully much moreso) righteous options for how we spend those $$
> and obtain those services/products as we do for electing officials...
> wait!  Why don't we have as good of choices for our elected officials as
> we do for our acquisition of goods and services?  Wait... it all
> sucks!   Why?
>
> Surely there is more we can do than shift around subtly in the shades of
> grey, moving our votes from one evil to a (currently perceived to be)
> lesser one.  Or not?
>
> Is it as simple as economies of scale?  Is it as simple as "Power is
> Corruption" joined with "Money is Power"?

Personally, I think it's all a matter of attention.  The more abstracted
you are from your products, the worse it'll get.  What you don't know
_will_ hurt you (or someone else).  It has little to do with autocratic
versus collective rule and everything to do with how motivated each
consumer is to actually understand how their products come into being.

There are some efforts that require autocratic rule, quick decisions,
single points of responsibility.  And there are some that require
collective rule.  But to remain efficient, both types require sufficient
attention from their customers.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

I think maybe we are roughly on the same page.

My concern boils down to something pretty simple.  I believe that
non-human entities, (e.g. corporations, governments, etc.) of a certain
complexity, act like simple organisms which often means acting in
parasitic and opportunistic ways.   I acknowledge that some of these
entities which might be operated by single individual humans or very
small groups have a chance of being mere "extensions" of the individuals
and therefore more likely to behave in the manner the individuals would.

I worry that overly simplistic, or superficial attempts to "hold them
accountable" at best do little and at worst make them stronger and more
clever.   I think a strong analogy with the misuse of antibiotics and
the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be applied here.   I
believe that all of our institutions (government, corporate, religious,
etc.) have been "trained" by us to maintain relatively effective
camouflage, to hide their worst depradations while presenting  a
"kinder, gentler, greener, more organic, etc." face to us.

I'm not saying that trying to get Amazon and Visa and MC and PayPal and
... to act better by "voting with our feet" is not motivated and might
even have a positive effect.   I'm saying, I think it is at best "a good
start".   We are a society of complacency... we will knee-jerk against
the latest bad actor while supporting smugly those who didn't get caught
(this time).

I've been switching cell service providers every few years because I get
fed up with the one I have, only to grow to discover that the next one I
choose (often with careful research) has a whole different set of bad
behaviours...   It leads to an a-virtuous cycle... and I fear that much
of our attempts to "punish" the bad actors risks that (or worse, see my
antibiotic-resistance analogy above).

I'm not prescribing a specific solution here, I don't have one, but I
*do* think we need to look (even) more deeply at the problem before we
think we have it solved.   We may be doing little or perhaps aggravating
it unwittingly.

- STeve



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Owen Densmore]

While I agree that we have responsibilities to understand the net/corporate environment and take our small stands, the more core issue is simply the network itself.

Unfortunately, it is not easily managed by the private sector.  The cellular network is not mobile .. you cannot take your verizon phone to europe, it is CDMA rather than GSM.  Europe decided cellular technology was a core resource and thus regulated it from the start, in particular creating the GSM standards body to insure all carriers were interoperable.

The internet is similar: it is just not well matched to the private sector.  Services ON the internet are, but not the internet itself.  It must be interoperable everywhere, worldwide, and it must have clear rights of way.  Lawrence Lessig got it right in his books about Code is Law.

Its frightening to think of .. but I think the internet should be like water, a public utility.  And likely best managed by smaller governmental units like the county.

Bullies are bullies and are likely to try to control local utilities, but there is evidence that local governments do succeed in managing utilities of various kinds.  I think they could handle internet.

    -- Owen


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen ropella]

Steve Smith wrote circa 11-01-04 11:31 PM:
> I think maybe we are roughly on the same page.

Mostly, yes.  However, I didn't intend to focus on the reward/punish
aspect.  Sorry for the distraction.  My primary point is about
identification.  What anyone does with the data gained by paying
attention is their business.  Indeed, what anyone regards as good and
bad behavior is their business.  I'm certain that many of my friends
think SiteGround and SoftLayer made Good decisions.  I disagree;
regardless, it's important to draw attention to their decisions so that
those attending can judge for themselves.  Those who fail to pay
attention fail in their duty to themselves and their network.

To be clear, I'm positing that the _cause_ of the systemic problem is
lack of attention.  So, calling out good and bad behavior and naming
good and bad actors is not just a good start and it's not treating the
symptom rather than the cause.  Calling it out is treating the cause.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

I'm with you on the awareness angle... I appreciate your clarification
about reward/punish, it is key, and helps illuminate what I was niggling
at.

Too often, in our drive to reward/punish, we occlude the rest of our
awareness, we seek someone to "blame" or "credit" to the point of
ignoring the field of play they are in, the other actors right in line
behind/next-to them... rotating through a series of "whipping boys" to
take our wrath rather than seeing the obvious causes and then, often
even when we see through to the first layer of causes, we stop there and
don't recognize how those are often merely symptoms of deeper causes.

You also make the point that many would consider the choices being made
by the "bad actors" as being "good choices" and therefore identifying
them as "good actors".  All this leads to polarization and divisions
that are perhaps unproductive...   I am surrounded by judgements by my
friends and colleagues which I must hold in suspension to avoid this
polarization.  I happen to like a lot about the implications of the
activities of the WikiLeaks but don't necessarily demonize those who
find themselves unable to support them.

- Steve

>> I think maybe we are roughly on the same page.
> Mostly, yes.  However, I didn't intend to focus on the reward/punish
> aspect.  Sorry for the distraction.  My primary point is about
> identification.  What anyone does with the data gained by paying
> attention is their business.  Indeed, what anyone regards as good and
> bad behavior is their business.  I'm certain that many of my friends
> think SiteGround and SoftLayer made Good decisions.  I disagree;
> regardless, it's important to draw attention to their decisions so that
> those attending can judge for themselves.  Those who fail to pay
> attention fail in their duty to themselves and their network.
>
> To be clear, I'm positing that the _cause_ of the systemic problem is
> lack of attention.  So, calling out good and bad behavior and naming
> good and bad actors is not just a good start and it's not treating the
> symptom rather than the cause.  Calling it out is treating the cause.
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen ropella]

I found this "documentary" interesting:

Ethos
http://www.ethosthemovie.com/

"Hosted by twice Oscar nominated actor and activist Woody Harrelson,
Ethos lifts the lid on a Pandora's box of systemic issues that guarantee
failure in almost every aspect of our lives; from the environment to
democracy and our own personal liberty: From terrifying conflicts of
interests in politics to unregulated corporate power, to a media in the
hands of massive conglomerates, and a military industrial complex that
virtually owns our representatives. With interviews from some of todays
leading thinkers and source material from the finest documentary film
makers of our times Ethos examines and  unravels these complex
relationships, and offers a solution, a simple but powerful way for you
to change this system!"

In the end, they propose the same solution we're talking about, here:
know what you're buying when you spend money.  Where does the money go
after you hand it over to Amazon, Apple, Wal-Mart, or to your county for
property taxes?  Or, worse yet, how much of it does Visa or Paypal shave
off through their privileged positions as the man in the middle?

Steve Smith wrote circa 11-01-05 01:58 PM:

> I'm with you on the awareness angle... I appreciate your clarification
> about reward/punish, it is key, and helps illuminate what I was niggling
> at.
>
> Too often, in our drive to reward/punish, we occlude the rest of our
> awareness, we seek someone to "blame" or "credit" to the point of
> ignoring the field of play they are in, the other actors right in line
> behind/next-to them... rotating through a series of "whipping boys" to
> take our wrath rather than seeing the obvious causes and then, often
> even when we see through to the first layer of causes, we stop there and
> don't recognize how those are often merely symptoms of deeper causes.
>
> You also make the point that many would consider the choices being made
> by the "bad actors" as being "good choices" and therefore identifying
> them as "good actors".  All this leads to polarization and divisions
> that are perhaps unproductive...   I am surrounded by judgements by my
> friends and colleagues which I must hold in suspension to avoid this
> polarization.  I happen to like a lot about the implications of the
> activities of the WikiLeaks but don't necessarily demonize those who
> find themselves unable to support them.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org