WikiLeaks nearly immune to takedown, says researcher

It is kind of evident to the naked eye now that Wikleaks seeems to resist take down very well... I recenrly found a It WL were strangled every way possibe. Kicked off servers, political pressure, visa and paypal froozen. Ddos atacks and a hell of a lot of bad press.
In the face of such advesity they seem to have done remarkable well. Last time i checked last night there were over 1000 WL sites up and running. Spanning across countries and continents.
'The Swiss site (wikileaks.ch) itself has been heavily reinforced to avoid a repeat of what happened with EveryDNS, Cowie said. To mitigate the possibility of one DNS provider once again shutting off the domain as EveryDNS did, WikiLeaks this time has signed up with separate DNS service providers in eight different countries, including Switzerland, Canada and Malaysia.' - source below
The legel entaglement involved in getting all these removed will be immense and im sure the US will not even try. Thy tried that before and it made matters worse. All the governmental atacks have done is made WL stronger. Donations flooded in, online supporters rushed to there aid. Hackavists held battle lines (and thats not over yet) and more sites went up.
This age of instant communaction works both ways and tools like twitter and google were paramount in keeping WL alive.. There was even a flash protest in london when he was arrested...
These cables are having an affect, polical jobs have been lost, dimplomatic ties lost and to me the biggest affect of all is seeing the nature of government acting like a child throwing its toys out the pram...

www.computerworld.com...

kx

reply to post by purplemer


Great post, thanks.

Cut of one branch and three more grow!

reply to post by wcitizen

Yes someone on ats describes it like fighing a three headed hydra.. Chop one head off and two more grow..
I thought that very apt.
It shows the power of people on mass working together and its a lovely thing...

kx

Don't be fooled that Wikileaks is invincible. Yes, the site has been mirrored by thousands, and they have protected their site by spreading it across many DNS's in several countries. But what about the people involved? Wikileaks is a closed-circuit - not just anyone can be in the inner circle. If the people who run the site are taken down, Wikileaks as a website is done. It's not democratically owned and operated, it's not owned 'by the people'. It is owned and operated by a finite amount of people in the know - don't think for a second that these people are completely anonymous and safe.

However, the idea of transparency lives on, and I can only hope more transparent and inclusive sites come in to take Wikileak's place.

Originally posted by pforkp
Don't be fooled that Wikileaks is invincible. Yes, the site has been mirrored by thousands, and they have protected their site by spreading it across many DNS's in several countries. But what about the people involved? Wikileaks is a closed-circuit - not just anyone can be in the inner circle. If the people who run the site are taken down, Wikileaks as a website is done. It's not democratically owned and operated, it's not owned 'by the people'. It is owned and operated by a finite amount of people in the know - don't think for a second that these people are completely anonymous and safe.

However, the idea of transparency lives on, and I can only hope more transparent and inclusive sites come in to take Wikileak's place.

I'm well aware of it - and so is the OP. It does say 'nearly immune'. I have no doubt at all that Wikileaks are more aware of it than anyone else and have already got contingency plans for all sorts of scenarios. Literally undreds of mirror sites are being created, these will survive because attacks on any one of these will spawn more mirror sites. They will not be able to remove the existing information from the web. And Wikileaks has spawned a new generation of whistleblowing sites, which are already being created and will soon also be releasing material all over the net. For sure WL is not invincible. Neither are TPTB, by the way!

reply to post by wcitizen


True that they can't remove existing information and the physical site from the web, but it's future leaks that could be in danger - as well as the entire leaking structure being popularized by Wikileaks that touts 'transparency' and 'good journalism' as its mottos. To survive, the inner circle must use the very same cloak-and-dagger methods to shroud their group and inner workings in secrecy. Don't want your finances to be totally cut off? Hide where you keep them and who you receive financing from. Don't want the people who run the site taken down? Don't tell anyone who is actually involved - instead, instate a media face (ala Assange) to take flack. Let alone hidden decision making processes on what leaks are 'legitimate' or 'important', protecting sources of information, releasing feints via twitter, etc.

If TPTB (assuming they aren't involved in the workings of Wikileaks) force a securitization and a further shrouding of 'transparent' operations, isn't this dismantling the very ideas and premises that Wikileaks supposedly stand for? The people running the site are not immune, and the whistleblowing structure and culture is not immune either.

Originally posted by pforkp
reply to post by wcitizen

 

True that they can't remove existing information and the physical site from the web, but it's future leaks that could be in danger - as well as the entire leaking structure being popularized by Wikileaks that touts 'transparency' and 'good journalism' as its mottos. To survive, the inner circle must use the very same cloak-and-dagger methods to shroud their group and inner workings in secrecy. Don't want your finances to be totally cut off? Hide where you keep them and who you receive financing from. Don't want the people who run the site taken down? Don't tell anyone who is actually involved - instead, instate a media face (ala Assange) to take flack. Let alone hidden decision making processes on what leaks are 'legitimate' or 'important', protecting sources of information, releasing feints via twitter, etc.

The Inner Circle already has to use the same cload-and-dagger methods to an extreme degree, to shroud their group in secrecy. That's the whole point. They act in cloak and dagger secrecy to pursue their secret agenda. Secrecy is what ensures their survival. The leaks terrify them so much because it puts their secrecy, and therefore their whole evil agenda, at risk. The tendency will be to clamp down even more on their own communication systems to try to protect themselves...and in doing so they become less efficient, and less able to function effectively. They don't have the strength which Wiki has, in that millions of people around the world are galvanising to help them. Because what Wiki is doing is transparent, the world knows what is going on. The dark ones can only function in darkness and the dark space has to get smaller and smaller as the leaks continue, in order to try to protect their dark secrets. Thus they tighten their own noose more and more.

If TPTB (assuming they aren't involved in the workings of Wikileaks) force a securitization and a further shrouding of 'transparent' operations, isn't this dismantling the very ideas and premises that Wikileaks supposedly stand for? The people running the site are not immune, and the whistleblowing structure and culture is not immune either.

No,I think adopting the option of reducing transparency further exposes their desire for secrecy. The only way they can counter public opinion, the only way they can repair trust with other diplomats and with the public is by adopting more transparency - and that reduces them from being able to operate in darkness and in secret.

The whole point of this strategy is to reduce the cabal;s ability to operate in secrecy, away from accountability and into transparency, which is their death knell.

The Inner Circle already has to use the same cload-and-dagger methods to an extreme degree, to shroud their group in secrecy. That's the whole point. They act in cloak and dagger secrecy to pursue their secret agenda.

I think you misunderstood. I was talking about the increased secrecy in Wikileaks, and the increased necessity for secrecy by whistleblowers because of their circumstance.

I'm saying that Wikileaks can't say they're being transparent and open - they're paradoxically forced to become less transparent by releasing documents, and their whole operation is largely secretive. It's this corruption of transparency (who do we expect it from? Can there even be true transparency? Who is defining what we think transparency is?) that is under attack. The very concept of what Wikileaks supposedly represents is not immune, and in being increasingly secretive about its own operations while saying that they represent the epitome of transparency, Wikileaks is paradoxically corrupting what transparency means. They are "accidentally" damaging any future attempts to create or demand "transparent" systems.

In more recent acts of defense on by the US. Site like twitter have now been targeted opreation payback accounts have been suspended and the operation payback group on FB has been suspended too...
This is in an effort to halt the growing cyber ataks by reducing there ability to communicate..

kx