WikiLeaks, freedom, and the battle of words

WikiLeaks cyberwar: Hackers bring down Swedish government site (The Telegraph).

Now that is a headline to grab your attention with those glitzy buzzwords “cyberwar” and “hackers”.  Even Carole Theriault, a senior security consultant at Sophos, a multi-national computer security firm, is quoted as saying:

If the big companies weren’t locking down their information before, they’re definitely doing it now.

This is really unprecedented and Amazon could be next.

… Hacking is illegal and it’s not just the companies which are the victims of this, it’s also the people who are trying to use their services to shop and the sellers of those items who can’t sell them.

Now I’d like to look at this quote in more detail, so let us break it down:

If the big companies weren’t locking down their information before, they’re definitely doing it now.

Imagine your data is a car which you’re parking on a street that has everything from multi-national corporations to drug dealers and pimps, let’s call that street “The Internet”. Now I’m guessing that most of us would close the doors and lock the car, set the alarm if we’ve had one installed, maybe even go back and check a few times (I can’t be the only one), because we know the cost of locking the door is far less than the cost of replacing the car.  Now here’s my problem with the above statement, big companies have not been locking the car, some of them haven’t even been closing the doors and yet when they come back and find the car has been broken into and the change in the glovebox has been taken they blame everyone but themselves.  When the British government lost public data by leaving laptops on trains, etc. they blamed the forgetful peon who dropped the ball and did not appear to question why someone was carrying such critical data in such an insecure manner in the first place.  We seeing a similar media frenzy now around the persecution of the WikiLeaks website rather than the more interesting question as to why the United States allowed so much critical and private data to be stored so insecurely that a single person could easily remove so much information.

This is really unprecedented and Amazon could be next.

Well DDoS attacks happen pretty frequently, what is unprecedented is the media interest in the case.  I agree Amazon could be next since the group is targeting organisations involved in the case, and Amazon dropped their contract to host the WikiLeaks website.  So guessing that the group might target another major involved party isn’t rocket science.

Hacking is illegal…

Okay here we’re not using the dictionary to it’s fullest are we, and some clarification is needed.  Let’s take a look at how Merriam-Webster define hacking:

Definition of HACK
transitive verb

1. to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows b : to cut or shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes <hacking out new election districts> c : annoy, vex —often used with off
2. to clear or make by or as if by cutting away vegetation <hacked his way through the brush>
3. to manage successfully <just couldn’t hack the new job> b : tolerate <I can’t hack all this noise>

intransitive verb

1. to make chopping strokes or blows <hacked at the weeds>; also : to make cuts as if by chopping <hacking away at the work force> b : to play inexpert golf
2. to cough in a short dry manner
3. loaf —usually used with around
4. 1. to write computer programs for enjoyment
   2. to gain access to a computer illegally

So hacking isn’t illegal in most usages of the word.  Even in the realm of computers most hackers are just people who write computer programs, or in a broader sense people who modify electronic systems to perform tasks beyond which the system was initially designed for enjoyment.  In this sense I would describe myself as a hacker.

What the media describes as hacking is the criminal act of gaining access to a computer system illegally.  Again, the key words here are “criminal act” and “illegally” since many hackers are gainfully employed to use their skills to try and break into computer systems for governments and corporations to test the security which is in place.

What is the purpose of this rant?  Well, it is three fold:

1. Governments, companies, and private individuals need to think more about how their data is stored, and how they secure it.  For too long it has been easier to blame the individual attack rather than the massive security oversight.  This impacts every one of us, because when your personal information gets left on a train, stolen by a disgruntled employee, or accidentally mailed to the wrong person (aren’t governments great), it will be each of us individually footing the bill to prove we are who we claim to be and that the problem was not caused by us.
2. “Hacking” is not illegal.  “Hacking into a computer system with criminal intent” is illegal.  Society needs to understand this, since the continued negative image of hackers in the media encourages a neo-Luddite approach to technology and that in turn leads to the kind of data issues described in #1 above!
3. “Don’t shoot the messenger” – I agree that WikiLeaks was not wise in publishing all this information without some form of fact checking or review.  However, it is vital the members of the public be able to blow the whistle on unfair practices and WikiLeaks performed a useful task in providing a credible location for this.  The problem here is that instead of releasing just information pertaining to wrong-doings (I agree that details about the Blair/Brown British Government’s dodgy dealings over the Lockerbie Bomber’s release should be made public, we need to know how corrupt our political ministers can be) but embassy communications are out of the public domain for a reason, and where they do not specifically unveil a wrong doing they should not be released for no reason.  In this instance the media frenzy around WikiLeaks seems bizarre, if one wrote a threatening letter one wouldn’t expect the authorities to hunt down the typewriter!

Now the big question I find myself pondering is this: Did the US citizen who stole the information and published it on WikiLeaks commit an act of treason?

Protecting the guilty

Jon Venables looks to get away yet again.

The Telegraph – Lack of monitoring of Bulger killer allowed him to develop child porn interest

Even after being arrested for violence, cautioned for Class A drug possession, with his monitors aware of both these interactions with the police and his growing alcohol addiction they decided they’d let him stay free on licence whilst unbeknownst to them he amassed a collection of hardcore child pornography.

Venables also posed online as the mother of an eight-year-old girl offering to sell her daughter for sex, which persuaded other men to send him child pornography.

During all this time he should have been in prison for the muder he committed he was living under a new identity, provided at considerable expense by the British tax payer, just a short distance from where he committed his crime and also where the mother of his victim still lives.

He was able to swap dozens of images of child rape with other paedophiles, which he told police he regarded as “breaking the last taboo”.

To know that the courts have sentenced him to 2 years in prison for possession and distribution of child pornography, knowing that he can be released early for time on remand and good behaviour!

To know that on his release Venables will need a second new identity, which is likely to cost around £250,000. Even after he has shown contempt to the prison system and abused his first identity.

You have to ask why do we spend so much protecting the guilty when so little is spent on helping and protecting the innocent?

As an aside I watched the film “Scum” recently.  This gruesome film about life in a borstal for young offenders in 1970′s Britain brought home how different things are now.  No televisions in the cells, no molly-coddling, but we’ve not seen convictions or crime rates drop with the increase in “human rights”…

Some thoughts on the Saville Inquiry

I wrote this post hurriedly on June 16, 2010, and it has lingered in my draft posts for some time. I don’t know why I never posted it before so I post it here unedited from the original draft form.

After 12 years and £191 million, the Saville Inquiry has found that the 14 people killed by the British military were wrongfully killed as none of them posed a direct threat of causing death or serious injury.  This key finding is something that has been known for many years, and although the report did answer many other questions, and hypothesised as to whether the soldiers shot first for me it did not address a key question:

In 1972, 479 people were killed as part of the conflict known as “The Troubles” (Wikipedia) which means, after the 14 victims of Bloody Sunday, 465 people were killed and no inquiry or explanation for them has been given.

As mentioned in The Telegraphs report of the key findings:

Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, second in command of the Provisional IRA in Derry in 1972, was “probably armed with a Thompson submachine gun” at one point in the day, and though it is possible he fired the weapon, this cannot be proved. But the report concluded: “He did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire.”

So being a known terrorist, carrying a submachine gun  at a banned protest march directed against the military, and possibly (probably, he wasn’t carrying it just for show) firing it at the military or police would not provide any soldier with any justification to open fire? A “wall of silence” existed about what exactly the IRA were doing on the day, with witnesses refusing (intimidated into silence) to name who they saw firing at the soldiers before the incident occurred.

The Saville Inquiry was a purely political gesture started by the Blair appeasement government which freed hundreds of active terrorists under the Good Friday Agreement.  It brought no justice to those killed as it failed to address the motives and actions of the terrorist organisations that forced the events to occur.

Sources:

The Bloody Sunday Inquiry Website

The Telegraph – Bloody Sunday: Key findings

The Telegraph – Bloody Sunday: calls for new ‘truth’ body to investigate Troubles atrocities

The Telegraph – Bloody Sunday: soldiers criticise Saville report findings

Raoul Moat, Facebook, and Freedom of Speech

Story updated – scroll to the finish for the latest news.

******

I read this in The Telegraph today – Facebook defies David Camron and keeps Moat tribute page.

I became quite angry reading the article and posted the following on Facebook:

Guess this shows all Facebook security and privacy policies are worthless, thousands have complained and reported this sick fan page (me included) via emails to Facebook, and via the Report Page links. The page incites violence against the police and those that support them and yet Facebook decides that all these user complaints plus the complaints from the British Government aren’t enough reason to shut down the page. DISGUSTING!

Which lead to a good friend of mine (and fellow ex-Stratford College media student) posting that although it was disgusting, the page should stay since Britain allows for freedom of speech.

Now I am a definite advocate of freedom of speech and expression, I’ve been a member of Reporters without Borders for a number of years (in fact they are the first link on the “Other Places of Interest” page on this blog) and believe strongly in the right to state your own opinion, as long as in doing so you don’t break any laws, personal contracts, or infringe on another persons civil liberties. However, in this case I feel anyone who defends the page’s continued existence under freedom of speech laws is misguided, and hear is why…

Freedom of speech allows you to say what you like, however other laws exist to ensure what you say doesn’t libel anyone, or encourage illegal acts of violence or hatred.  So even walking down the street your freedom of speech is limited in certain ways.  On the internet these freedoms are limited further by the ways we access the web.  You have a contract with your internet service provider, another with your email provider, and even one with Facebook, and these contracts have their own little stipulations and clauses regarding how free you are to say what you please.

Any user of Facebook has by creating their account entered into a contract with Facebook the corporate entity.  Usage of their service is free and available to all as long as you agree to these terms and do not breach the contract.   The terms and conditions can be viewed in the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities which is visible even to those who have not yet created an account.  Therefore although you are allowed by freedom of speech to air your views, you may not air them on Facebook if those views are in breach of the agreement you made with them to use their service in the first place.

So which rules does the R.I.P RAOUL MOAT YOU LEGEND! ♥ page infringe upon?

Let us go back and take a look at Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:

3.6 You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
3.7 You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
3.10 You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

5.1 You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law

As the page consists mainly of comments celebrating Moat’s attack on the police, encouraging more acts of violence against the police and their supporters, and accusing the police of Moat’s eventual suicide we can rapidly tick the boxes marked “infringement” next to the laws above.

I would assume that many hundreds, if not thousands of Facebook users have already clicked the “Report Page” button, since the postings from the page owner, and the “fans” of the page comments include hate speech against the police and those who abhor Moat’s actions, and also direct calls to violence encouraging the shooting of police officers and glorifying Moat’s actions and the shooting of police officers in Northern Ireland over the last few days.

So why do Facebook ignore these complaints, and the request of the Prime Minister to remove the offensive material from their site.  Their official statement on the matter states:

‘Facebook is a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way as they can and do in many other places, and as such we sometimes find people discussing topics others may find distasteful, however that is not a reason in itself to stop a debate from happening.”

Apparently even when that debate is in breach of their own terms and conditions.  I feel the real reason is far easier to explain, while they allow the page to exist they are benefiting from vast amounts of free publicity on every news bulletin and in every newspaper, magazine, and web article that references the site.  Even my own link above is contributing to their appalling behaviour.

Those that left tributes in Rothbury and Fenham may be idiots in my opinion, but are free to leave their gifts as offerings and enjoy their freedom of expression, when the council collect the rubbish and throw it out it is again their freedom to do so.  My post here is me enjoying my freedom of speech and my ability to express my opinion without calling for violence or partaking in hate speech.

In not removing the page Facebook has shown it is more interested in tawdry self promotion than acting responsibly.

UPDATE — UPDATE — UPDATE

July 15, 2010 – Raoul Moat tribute page deleted – The Telegraph

Unfortunately not because Facebook decided apply their terms of service, but because the idiot that created it was getting too much attention for their own comfort.  If you wonder what kind of person creates a page like that, just read the following quote from a radio interview page creator Siobhan O’Dowd had with Talksport’s Ian Collins, broadcast last night:

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Legends get talked about and he’s being talked about so in my eyes he’s a legend.

“I think he’s a legend for keeping them [the police] on their toes. I think it’s funny how he hid. It’s not just me who thinks this.

“It’s about time someone gave the police something to do, that’s what they get paid for trying to catch criminals so at least their wage was deserved.”

Interesting that she uses the freedom of speech argument I discussed earlier!  In other developments I can also report that the floral “tributes” in Rothbury have also been disposed of.

Guess this shows all Facebook security and privay policies are worthless, thousands have complained and reported this sick fan page (me included) via emails to Facebook, and via teh Report Page links. The page incites violence against the police and those that support them and yet Facebook decides that all these user …complaints plus teh complaints from the British Government aren’t enough reason to shut down the page. DISGUSTING!

Why were they out at all

Two rants about “justice”.

First up, the Jon Venables debacle. The Telegraph ran the headline “The Venables case has not been handled well” which must win them some kind of award for most obvious headline.  I’m still confused why he was released so soon.  Under the “Tough on Crime, Tough on the causes of Crime” Labour government he’s been granted a new identity at the tax payers expense ad then breached the conditions of his early release on numerous occasions with impunity if any of the newspaper reports are true.  I don’t believe Jack Straw is protecting Venables at all, I think the whole swirl is a case of what we refer to in the States as CYA (Covering Your Arse) because if the reasons for Venables recall to prison were released I feel Mr Straw would be facing far more difficult questions, like how come he and every other Labour Justice Minister and Home Secretary has worked so hard to protect the criminals while reducing the protection of victims.  My personal opinion is that by breaching the terms of his licence Venables has broken the contract between himself and the government.  Therefore his new identity and freedom are revoked, and the public should be notified of who and where he is, and what he is reported to have done this time, the same as any other criminal.  For those that say “but that would put his life in danger from vigilantes” I’ll reply “well he should have considered that before murdering James Bulger, or before sneaking back into Liverpool, or before taking illegal drugs, or telling his new friends who he really was, or before committing the ‘serious offense’ Jack Straw won’t tell us about!”.  Letting him continue to hide behind a state funded wall of silence is not justice.

While I’m on the topic of laws that protect the criminal and not the victim “Human rights laws stopped Home Office tracking sex offender’s emails“.  Again, this is another example of giving the criminal as many extra chances as they like while punishing the victims.  With more and more cases recently of even those behind bars managing to intimidate their victims, brag about their crimes, and even run their illegal enterprises from behind bars it is time the Government stopped chasing the small-fry MP3 pirate and invested some serious time looking at how you can protect children online from dangerous predators.  We don’t need a nanny state one size fits all solution because we’re not all criminals, we need targetted laws that monitor those who have shown that they disregard the rights and freedoms that the rest of society want to enjoy.  My personal opinion again is why was Chapman at large in the first place, and for the crimes he had previously committed I feel he has revoked his right to private communication, and should have to report all email addresses, social networking accounts, telephone numbers and addresses to the Police.  Failure to report these should result in an immediate custodial sentence, but England seems to be notoriously bad at delivering those.

While you’re thinking about all this, remember that “Prisoner re-offending costs the economy £10billion annually“.  It makes you think the current policy of soft justice just isn’t working.  Maybe the government should stop micromanaging the Police and focus on ensuring prison spaces are available and judges suitably informed to make use of them.