The Anonymous WikiLeaks protests are a mass demo against control

The actions against MasterCard and Amazon are not 'hacking'. People are just finding a way to protest in a digital space

• • By Richard Stallman
  • guardian.co.uk



Spanish protesters wear masks of the 'Anonymous' group and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Photograph: Jon Nazca/REUTERS

The Anonymous web protests over WikiLeaks are the internet equivalent of a mass demonstration. It's a mistake to call them hacking (playful cleverness) or cracking (security breaking). The LOIC program that is being used by the group is prepackaged so no cleverness is needed to run it, and it does not break any computer's security. The protesters have not tried to take control of Amazon's website, or extract any data from MasterCard. They enter through the site's front door, and it just can't cope with the volume.

Calling these protests DDoS, or distributed denial of service, attacks is misleading, too. A DDoS attack is done with thousands of "zombie" computers. Typically, somebody breaks the security of those computers (often with a virus) and takes remote control of them, then rigs them up as a "botnet" to do in unison whatever he directs (in this case, to overload a server). The Anonymous protesters' computers are not zombies; presumably they are being individually operated.

No – the proper comparison is with the crowds that descended last week on Topshop stores. They didn't break into the stores or take any goods from them, but they sure caused a nuisance for the owner, Philip Green. I wouldn't like it one bit if my store (supposing I had one) were the target of a large protest. Amazon and MasterCard don't like it either, and their clients were probably annoyed. Those who hoped to buy at Topshop on the day of the protest may have been annoyed too.

The internet cannot function if websites are frequently blocked by crowds, just as a city cannot function if its streets are constantly full by protesters. But before you advocate a crackdown on internet protests, consider what they are protesting: on the internet, users have no rights. As the WikiLeaks case has demonstrated, what we do online, we do on sufferance.

In the physical world, we have the right to print and sell books. Anyone trying to stop us would need to go to court. That right is weak in the UK (consider superinjunctions), but at least it exists. However, to set up a website we need the co-operation of a domain name company, an ISP, and often a hosting company, any of which can be pressured to cut us off. In the US, no law explicitly establishes this precarity. Rather, it is embodied in contracts that we have allowed those companies to establish as normal. It is as if we all lived in rented rooms and landlords could evict anyone at a moment's notice.

Reading, too, is done on sufferance. In the physical world, you can buy a book with cash, and you own it. You are free to give, lend or sell it to someone else. You are also free to keep it. However, in the virtual world, e-readers have digital handcuffs to stop you from giving, lending or selling a book, as well as licences forbidding that. Last year, Amazon used a back door in its e-reader to remotely delete thousands of copies of 1984, by George Orwell. The Ministry of Truth has been privatised.

In the physical world, we have the right to pay money and to receive money – even anonymously. On the internet, we can receive money only with the approval of organisations such as PayPal and MasterCard, and the "security state" tracks payments moment by moment. Punishment-on-accusation laws such as the Digital Economy Act extend this pattern of precarity to internet connectivity. What you do on your own computer is also controlled by others, with non-free software. Microsoft and Apple systems implement digital handcuffs – features specifically designed to restrict users. Continued use of a program or feature is precarious too: Apple put a back door in the iPhone to remotely delete installed applications and anotherin Windows enabled Microsoft to install software changes without asking permission.

I started the free software movement to replace user-controlling non-free software with freedom-respecting free software. With free software, we can at least control what software does in our own computers.

The US state today is a nexus of power for corporate interests. Since it must pretend to serve the people, it fears the truth may leak. Hence its parallel campaigns against WikiLeaks: to crush it through the precarity of the internet and to formally limit freedom of the press.

States seek to imprison the Anonymous protesters rather than official torturers and murderers. The day when our governments prosecute war criminals and tell us the truth, internet crowd control may be our most pressing remaining problem. I will rejoice if I see that day.

• Copyright 2010 Richard Stallman – released under the Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs Licence

I am going to watch The Lady (a movie depicting Aung San Suu Kyi's life)

Aung San Suu Kyi's tragic love and incredible life come to the big screen | World news | The Guardian

Aung San Suu Kyi's tragic love and incredible life come to the big screen

First pictures revealed as filming of The Lady – which covers tortuous journey of Burma heroine – nears completion


The Lady Aung San Suu Kyi and her husband, Michael Aris, played by Michelle Yeoh and David Thewlis, in the Luc Besson-directed film The Lady. Photograph: Magali Bragard

Filming in Oxford is almost complete on an Anglo-French big screen version of the remarkable life of Aung San Suu Kyi with Michelle Yeoh as the Burmese opposition leader and David Thewlis as her university academic husband.

The Guardian today publishes the first stills from a Luc Besson-directed movie which will be called The Lady, the name by which she is known by a Burmese population banned from saying her real name.

Aung San Suu Kyi was released from her latest period of house arrest by Burma's generals in November, which meant Yeoh could meet the woman she is playing.

Yeoh told the Guardian: "The first thing we did is hug and I thought you are really skinny, man. One of the first things she said was 'why doesn't the BBC world service have more music?'

"You feel a real sense of calm when you're with her. She's a very striking figure. She is so proud of her culture and the best way to show it is with dignity and elegance. She has a glow and an aura about her."

The film will chart her remarkable journey from housewife bringing up her children in Oxford to taking on the power of Burma's generals by becoming opposition leader.

It will build up to that awful choice she had to make between country and family when her husband, Michael Aris, was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Yeoh, who made her name in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was instrumental in getting Besson on board to direct, helping to set up a meeting with the producer Andy Harries – who made The Queen – and the French director at Cannes.

Besson said Aung San Suu Kyi was "more of a heroine than Joan of Arc" and he hoped the film would get her ongoing fight better known.

"It is the fight of a woman without any weapons, just her kindness and her mentality. She is very Gandhi like.

"She says we should have the right to decide our future, we should have the right to express ourselves. She is asking for things we all have and don't even think about any more.

"How often in history do you have a person, a woman, who never curses, never steals anything, never does anything illegal and you put her under house arrest for 24 years, it is just insane."

The film is a co-production between Besson's Europacorp and Harries's Left Bank Pictures and has been written by the novelist and screenwriter Rebecca Frayn – Harries's wife and the daughter of Michael Frayn.

Harries said the genesis of the project goes back to the early 1990s when he and his wife visited Burma. "At the time Suu Kyi had just won the election but was under house arrest. It was an extraordinary experience for us. On the one hand, it is a stunningly beautiful country but on the other it is frightening – the austerity, the poverty, the sadness of the people. We weren't really allowed to go anywhere and people were scared of talking to us. It left a long impression on both of us."

The film is not a biopic, said Harries. It will be set between 1988 – when Aung San Suu Kyi left Oxford to visit her sick mother and ended up staying – and 1999, the year Aris died after being diagnosed with cancer. Aris had been forbidden from entering Burma, a decision that left Aung San Suu Kyi with the almost impossible decision of whether to stay or go.

"The film builds to that incredible and depressing crossroads," said Harries. "That is the human tragedy of it all."

Harries had something of a road to travel to get where they are today. When, about three years ago, the project was in its early stages Aung San Suu Kyi had slipped under the radar – she wasn't news.

After 18 months research and writing by Frayn they had a script but bad timing.

"We were slipping in to the recession and this was going to be a tough, expensive movie," said Harries. It was too costly for it to be TV and came as Hollywood was veering towards bankable popcorn movies and away from risky drama."

Harries ploughed on nevertheless, deciding that key to the whole project would be the actor playing Aung San Suu Kyi. "There was never any doubt in my mind about who should play her, Michelle Yeoh was perfect."

There is about three weeks of filming left and it is due for an autumn release.

The script was sent to her agent. "Michelle rang me 24 hours later saying she'd read the script and she was coming to London to meet me. We met, she looked at me and said 'this is a fantastic script, how are we going to do it?' "

Although they are making the film without Aung San Suu Kyi's permission, Harries said they felt a heavy obligation to get it right. "This is a very interesting story, a powerful story and, I think, an important story. She has not had the publicity that, say, Mandela had.

"Her situation is remarkably similar, she is one of those extraordinary people driven by principle who are determined to bring about change peacefully."

Harries said writing the script involved talking to people involved in the story including monks, activists, diplomats and academics. "It is a bit like a jigsaw involving a very wide group of people who knew her, knew him, knew the family.

"A lot of the story, or the story we wanted to tell … of their relationship, is not known. It is a fantastic love story."

What? Hi-tech terrorist?

Julian Assange like a hi-tech terrorist, says Joe Biden | Media | The Guardian

The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to a "hi-tech terrorist", the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration.

Biden claimed that by leaking diplomatic cables Assange had put lives at risk and made it more difficult for the US to conduct its business around the world.

His description of Assange shows a level of irritation that contrasts with more sanguine comments from other senior figures in the White House, who said the leak had not done serious damage.

Interviewed on NBC's Meet the Press, Biden was asked if the administration could prevent further leaks, as Assange warned last week. "We are looking at that right now. The justice department is taking a look at that," Biden said, without elaborating.

The justice department is struggling to find legislation with which to prosecute Assange.

Asked if what Assange had done was criminal, Biden seemed to suggest it would be considered criminal if it could be established that the WikiLeaks founder had encouraged or helped Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst suspected of being behind the leak. Biden claimed this was different from a journalist receiving leaked material.

"If he conspired to get these classified documents with a member of the US military that is fundamentally different than if someone drops on your lap … you are a press person, here is classified material."

Asked if he saw Assange as closer to a hi-tech terrorist than the whistleblower who released the Pentagon papers in the 1970s, which disclosed the lie on which US involvement in Vietnam was based, Biden replied: "I would argue it is closer to being a hi-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers. But, look, this guy has done things that have damaged and put in jeopardy the lives and occupations of people in other parts of the world.

"He's made it more difficult for us to conduct our business with our allies and our friends. For example, in my meetings – you know I meet with most of these world leaders – there is a desire now to meet with me alone, rather than have staff in the room. It makes things more cumbersome – so it has done damage."

The interview, though broadcast yesterday, was conducted on Friday. In an interview the previous day, he had been more neutral about WikiLeaks, saying: "I don't think there's any substantive damage."

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, led criticism of the WikiLeaks revelations at the end of November when she accused the website of mounting an "attack" on the world.

Untitled

WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

via ScribeFire

Snaptu: Let's hope the WikiLeaks cables move us closer to open diplomacy | Peter Singer

If citizens are kept in the dark about their government's activities, they cannot hold it to account

At Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson, who was president of the university before he became president of the United States, is never far away. His...

Click here to read the full story

--
This email was sent to you from Snaptu mobile application.