This is what Coldblood (Anonymous) is quoted saying: such attacks "may hurt people trying to get to these sites" but that it was "the only effective way to tell these companies that us, the people, are displeased". <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11935539>
Doesn't that sound familiar? The physical collateral damage caused by terrorists (or nation states for that matter) is also justified by them on similar grounds.
I believe the Anonymous attacks are akin to a first world war, albeit a cyber war. And this is just the start, on a small scale.
I believe that, in the spirit of openness, what Wikileaks is doing is good. And, in fact, it should have taken a very statesman-like stand on the Anonymous attacks. Instead, this is what they say that they neither condemn nor condone these attacks. What! I think the right answer should have been that they condemn such attacks but will encourage peaceful protests (akin to the civil disobedience movement of India). This would be the right thing to say given my take on the issue.
Sure, the nay-sayers would say peaceful "civil disobedience" will not be effective enough. That may have been true in the pre-internet and pre-scocial networking age. Today though, it could have a significant impact. Nobody knows for sure, but time will tell.
Peaceful ways to resolve issues is always the right way. "Force may still be used as a last resort". That last sentence is nebulous and can start endless hypothetical arguments.
Comments are welcome!
Doesn't that sound familiar? The physical collateral damage caused by terrorists (or nation states for that matter) is also justified by them on similar grounds.
I believe the Anonymous attacks are akin to a first world war, albeit a cyber war. And this is just the start, on a small scale.
I believe that, in the spirit of openness, what Wikileaks is doing is good. And, in fact, it should have taken a very statesman-like stand on the Anonymous attacks. Instead, this is what they say that they neither condemn nor condone these attacks. What! I think the right answer should have been that they condemn such attacks but will encourage peaceful protests (akin to the civil disobedience movement of India). This would be the right thing to say given my take on the issue.
Sure, the nay-sayers would say peaceful "civil disobedience" will not be effective enough. That may have been true in the pre-internet and pre-scocial networking age. Today though, it could have a significant impact. Nobody knows for sure, but time will tell.
Peaceful ways to resolve issues is always the right way. "Force may still be used as a last resort". That last sentence is nebulous and can start endless hypothetical arguments.
Comments are welcome!
No comments:
Post a Comment