Hack attack! Taking down criminal media sites
lulu | 29.03.2003 08:55
The war-makers are routinely hacking anti-war sites. Activists can, and probably should, use the same tools to bring down the criminal corporate media websites.
A basic principle long embedded at the core of western legal systems is the right to use force to protect oneself, family and community from harm. Bush has gone to war to "protect" America, that's how unquestionable the right of self-protection is.
But Bush fabricated an enemy. He is running a protection racket, just like any other group of gangsters. In this sense, his war is not real in terms of its justification. It's built on a big pile of lies.
On the other hand, the people of the world have a REAL enemy and a real and very serious threat to their peace and freedom - the same things Bush is supposedly protecting. And, confronted with such a threat, we are surely justified in taking whatever action is necessary to protect ourselves, individually and collectively.
Why do we continue to swallow the propaganda that strong, effective action is wrong, that it's inconsistent with peace? Sometimes you just have to stand up tall for your rights and do what you have to do to protect them.
This is a very critical point in world events. There could be a global people's revolution or we could just resign ourselves to living the slave-life on a prison planet. And it's dreadfully obvious that if we don't get out of passive mode and tool up for more serious and effective engagement, then our fate will shortly be sealed.
One of the most powerful tools available to us is the Internet. Indeed, the Indymedia network and many other alternative news sites are evidence of this. So is the amazing ability now of activists to quickly organize global actions. However, this is not unique to the activist community. Anyone can do it now. The world has gone global. It's just that the Internet is still in its early days and hasn't been hijacked yet (not for lack of trying).
But there are other ways the Internet can be "used". This war is mainly a propaganda war at its core and the war machine is using electronic tools to the max. Look at how many Arab and alternative websites have been continuously hacked since the war began. Why aren't we doing this too as a counter measure to check their propaganda? Are we just going to let them spout off their lies and do nothing practical to shut them up? It doesn't make sense to just sit there and do nothing, under some pretense of being "peaceful".
I consider myself a pacifist. I don't like to fight. I don't even like moderate confrontation. But this situation has got so out of hand and is so dangerous for the whole world that I now believe it's ok to hack down someone's website if they are part of the Big Lie on which today's insane situation is built. I believe I have not only a right, but a DUTY to myself and my world, to do everything I can to remove this cancer from humanity.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going out with a gun. There are better ways to make a difference. Once of them is something we can all, collectively do quite easily, and that is to coordinate attacks on selected websites that are primary sources of pro-war propaganda. This can be done so easily, yet few are doing it. Why not? Because it's "illegal"? The anti-war movement has already, falsely, been given credit for it, so what are we waiting for?
DDOS (distributed denial of service) may be a 4-letter word, but we shouldn't be afraid of it. It's really our friend. And since it's mostly the corporate/government world that has all the websites and mostly the little people who have all the computers that visit those websites, we have the perfect scenario. If only we would use it.
There are simple little tools that you can run from your own computer to attack a website simply by requesting a whole whack of pages. If many people conspire to do this at the same time their servers could grind to a half, depending on what kind of traffic they can handle.
A basic DDOS tool is extremely simple to make. Using one does no permanent damage. For information, try these websites for a start. They have downloadable online action tools. A search on Google will probably reveal others.
http://epidemic.ws/antimafia/ (WOW!)
http://www.fraw.org.uk/ehippies/ (targets vary)
http://www.kbiz.ca/wartools/ (media related)
Articles:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,13483,00.html
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/032510downi.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/07/DoS.attacks.idg/
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=60162&group=webcast
But Bush fabricated an enemy. He is running a protection racket, just like any other group of gangsters. In this sense, his war is not real in terms of its justification. It's built on a big pile of lies.
On the other hand, the people of the world have a REAL enemy and a real and very serious threat to their peace and freedom - the same things Bush is supposedly protecting. And, confronted with such a threat, we are surely justified in taking whatever action is necessary to protect ourselves, individually and collectively.
Why do we continue to swallow the propaganda that strong, effective action is wrong, that it's inconsistent with peace? Sometimes you just have to stand up tall for your rights and do what you have to do to protect them.
This is a very critical point in world events. There could be a global people's revolution or we could just resign ourselves to living the slave-life on a prison planet. And it's dreadfully obvious that if we don't get out of passive mode and tool up for more serious and effective engagement, then our fate will shortly be sealed.
One of the most powerful tools available to us is the Internet. Indeed, the Indymedia network and many other alternative news sites are evidence of this. So is the amazing ability now of activists to quickly organize global actions. However, this is not unique to the activist community. Anyone can do it now. The world has gone global. It's just that the Internet is still in its early days and hasn't been hijacked yet (not for lack of trying).
But there are other ways the Internet can be "used". This war is mainly a propaganda war at its core and the war machine is using electronic tools to the max. Look at how many Arab and alternative websites have been continuously hacked since the war began. Why aren't we doing this too as a counter measure to check their propaganda? Are we just going to let them spout off their lies and do nothing practical to shut them up? It doesn't make sense to just sit there and do nothing, under some pretense of being "peaceful".
I consider myself a pacifist. I don't like to fight. I don't even like moderate confrontation. But this situation has got so out of hand and is so dangerous for the whole world that I now believe it's ok to hack down someone's website if they are part of the Big Lie on which today's insane situation is built. I believe I have not only a right, but a DUTY to myself and my world, to do everything I can to remove this cancer from humanity.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going out with a gun. There are better ways to make a difference. Once of them is something we can all, collectively do quite easily, and that is to coordinate attacks on selected websites that are primary sources of pro-war propaganda. This can be done so easily, yet few are doing it. Why not? Because it's "illegal"? The anti-war movement has already, falsely, been given credit for it, so what are we waiting for?
DDOS (distributed denial of service) may be a 4-letter word, but we shouldn't be afraid of it. It's really our friend. And since it's mostly the corporate/government world that has all the websites and mostly the little people who have all the computers that visit those websites, we have the perfect scenario. If only we would use it.
There are simple little tools that you can run from your own computer to attack a website simply by requesting a whole whack of pages. If many people conspire to do this at the same time their servers could grind to a half, depending on what kind of traffic they can handle.
A basic DDOS tool is extremely simple to make. Using one does no permanent damage. For information, try these websites for a start. They have downloadable online action tools. A search on Google will probably reveal others.
http://epidemic.ws/antimafia/ (WOW!) http://www.fraw.org.uk/ehippies/ (targets vary) http://www.kbiz.ca/wartools/ (media related) Articles:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,13483,00.html http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/032510downi.html http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/07/DoS.attacks.idg/ http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=60162&group=webcast
lulu
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
I'm virtually lost for words
29.03.2003 09:49
"DDOS (distributed denial of service) may be a 4-letter word, but we shouldn't be afraid of it. It's really our friend."
No it is not our friend, not it is not collective action, a DDoS can be launched by one script kiddy -- do something more useful than support this nonsense -- get on the streets to protest against this war.
"A basic DDOS tool is extremely simple to make. Using one does no permanent damage."
You have no idea of what you are talking about -- do you want to see Indymedia DDoS'ed off the net?
More on this debate:
I'm _really_ starting to get pissed off with all the newswire articles advocating DDoS attacks -- I'm going to argue that these items should be regarded as spam and hidden.
Chris
Internet as a political space
29.03.2003 11:25
A discussion on ddos attacks is going on in many comments.
I would like to ask you, lulu, and others, to consider the wider implications of calls like this.
You say:
"The war-makers are routinely hacking anti-war sites."
Which sites have been "hacked" by war-makers?
The new Al Jazeera internet presence has been down since last Wednesday. It is not clear wether this is due to a ddos attack or simply technical problems because of overload. Al Jazeera is not an "anti-war-site" in the sense of campaigning for peace, but simply a corporate media outlet in the region.
Which other sites have been down?
The indymedia servers had problems in the last days, but this is not surprising if you consider the amount of traffic.
To my knowledge, none of the uk-anti-war sites was "hacked". Check the long list of alternative news outlets under
Control of the internet:
The internet is still a space where alternative grassroots groups can have a voice, in addition to corporations and governments. Indymedia is an expample.
At the same time, governments and corporations are trying to get control of it. They are working on something like an internet legislation, that could easily make things like indymedia illegal. (WSIS) Look at how companies are trying to sue Internet providers for even linking to radical websites.
This process of "them" controlling the internet is what we need to deal with. I am adamant that sabotage of corporate and government websites is _NOT_ the way forward. There are too many of them. They have the bandwidth. We need to fight politically, not try to destroy a virtual power plant with a hammer.
If we try that, they could very easily close the door to the internet for us. The price for bringing a few official websites down for an hour or two is too high. We have to do better than that. The power is not on our side. They don't need to "hack" - they can simply order an IP to shut down a site, if it, for example, calls for illegal action (see radikal). We have to act tactically, not strategically.
Internet as a space of counter information:
Indymedia is contributing its bit by offering a platform about people's ideas and actions for social change, and I firmly believe that a well-maintained indymedia site is much more efficient than bringing a few official sites down for a few hours. Sites like indy can make people think, while they are contributing. At the moment, Indymedia is becoming like an alternative archive of what people think about the war and what they do against it. This is invaluable and worth protecting.
About ddos attacks
You talk about "hacking down websites" collectively.
the word "collectively" is the clue to the matter of cyberactivism. If you consider the internet as a political space, we must find ways for collective political articulation. A ddos attack carried out by some script kiddies is not a collective political act. All it signifies is this: "There are a few individuals out there who have the skills to write a little script that can temporarily bring down a website". This is about the power of IT knowledge, not about a social movement.
These unthoughtful ddos attacks are irresponsible, they can endanger people without informing them about the risks they are taken. The other day, somebody posted a script on the imc uk newswire. When you clicked on the right hand column, the attack was automatically activated. But I, for my part, want to be able to decide in which actions I participate.
You say: "A basic DDOS tool is extremely simple to make. Using one does no permanent damage." I disagree. It's not enough to make a DDOS tool. You need to use it with care, you have to be aware of the risks you take, the risks for others, you need to connect it to a strong social movement. DDos actions remain in the space of symbolic actions, just like blocking a street. They won't "cleanse" the internet of anyone's propaganda, just like a street blockade stops traffic for a while, then business goes on as usual. But some people have made their disagreement clear. If you block a street, you know that you risk being arrested, but you do it because you think that your action is the last resort to make your voice heard. And anyway, I don't like the notion of cleansing - thats what the governments are doing.
By making indymedia known as a forum for half-baked cyberattacks, you would put the entire project including the people who work at it at risk.
transmitter