I have spent a good amount of time today conducting some research on “Operation Payback,” (sometimes also called “Operation Avenge Assange”) and pondering whether or not it represents a tactical toolbox that is appropriate as a response to the recent trend of government and corporate entities attempting to cut off support (financial and otherwise) from wikileaks.

(If you aren’t familiar with the background of this story, here’s some background.)

First, of course, I wanted to be on the “inside” of the story and really see the play-by-play of what was happening.  I tried to go to the publicly announced planning center, a chat room on irc.anonops.net.  Unfortunately, this domain name had also been the target of the volley of attacks that was transpiring.  However, a nice gentlemen in the #wikileaks channel of irc.freenode.net directed me to the server by IP address: 88.198.224.117.  Do have a visit with your IRC client if you are interested.

Upon arrival, I was prompted to check out #operationpayback, the central meeting spot for these hacktivists.  Once in the channel, I was astounded at the pace of the conversation – about 5-7 comments EVERY SECOND.

Most were updates on the state of the LOIC (Low-Orbit Ion Cannon), the tool of choice for taking mastercard.com down from the Internet (LOIC is, or at least was, a fairly mainstream tool for testing server defenses).  The tone was absolutely jovial – mastercard.com was down, and the mainstream media regarded the events of this chatroom as headline-worthy.

Yet, I did not get a sense of constructive, radical civic duty.  In fact it seemed to me that the average age (judging by comment maturity and grammer) was probably about 14.

I do understand how a person of a different bent might derive a bit of glee from the spectacle of the denial of service attack being coordinated.  I, however, noticed a very different sentiment unfold in my gut:

Mere destruction of existing power structures, without contemporaneous (or, for that matter, preceding) construction of alternatives is unlikely to ever result in sustainable positive change.

May I suggest to all the people who are distressed about Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and whomever else abandoning Wikileaks that their mission needs to be to build peaceful, sustainable alternatives to Amazon, Visa, and Mastercard?

May I further suggest that this is the only truly radical use of information technology?  Destruction has been possible (and in fact normative) since the beginning of time.  Only now, however, is parallel construction possible.

Stop the temper tantrum.  Stop the blame game.  Instead, just work toward an information age where the the quasi-censorship that has characterized the industrial age is mathematically precluded at the infrastructural level.  I suspect that thanks for this work will come not only from Wikileaks (and all those who are spiritually motivated by its basic premises) but in fact also from governments and corporations too.  Everybody has an interest in the tech infrastructure working more efficiently and smoothly, and this will naturally translate to lower costs and increased availability in disadvantaged communities.

Make no mistake: I’m not happy about the treatment wikileaks is getting. But is this really the best that we can come up with as a response? Have we really run out of civil, ethical, and constructive ways to deal with these kinds of issues? If so, doesn’t that make us as bad as “them?”

I urge the young, tech-savvy people who are concerned about technological freedom: shut down LOIC, start up Eclipse and Miro, and get to work – there’s plenty to be done.

This was just brought to my attention by Jessica Sloan, a friend of mine who is a Registered Nurse (and also a daughter of a Registered Nurse) in New York.

Now, without any legislative backing or public hearings, the New York State Health Commissioner has made an “emergency executive order” demanding that Jessica, her mother, and every other medical service professional to be vaccinated with both the seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccines.  If they decline to allow this, they’ll lose their jobs.

Remember, these are not government employees.  They are private citizens who have worked hard to build a career around helping people be healthy.  They know better than anyone the risks of being, or declining to be, injected with swine flu vaccine.

A recent small protest on the steps of the New York State Capitol in Albany got a bit of news attention, with local TV coverage,

Later, a lawsuit filed got more coverage, and the decision of a New York State judge got even more coverage when he issued a restraining order against the State, preventing it from vaccinating people until a hearing is held.  The hearing is scheduled to begin October 30.

Many health care professionals have said they’ll be fired rather than allow themselves to be injected with the vaccine.  As with all flu vaccines, it’s quite risky.  In addition to the typical risks, though, the plaintiffs say that this vaccine was rushed to market hastily and has already caused more sickness than usual.

Does anybody have the relevant documents?  I’m looking for, but cannot find:

• The text of the mandate
• The brief filed by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and the response, if any, from the state
• The restraining order
• Any kind of press release from the State defending the mandate

I have started a facebook group.  Please invite!

Freedom to Tinker has the story today about bills introduced in a number of states that seek to prohibit the use of encryption by home internet users.

The underlying message here is simple:  You must expose yourself to surveillance.  You may not take any steps to defend yourself against state or corporate incursion into your privacy.

This reminds me of the order in Seattle back in 1999 that made gas masks illegal.  The thought process seems the same:  Your communication data and your muccous membranes must be exposed to the state so that they can be utilized to control you.

This is major news.

A google search for the phrase “Connecticut Governor” yields a drug-policy reform site as the #1 result, dropping her official website to #2.

What does this mean?

While Google doesn’t tell the public exactly how its pagerank system works, we know that it primarily assesses links.  It sees each link as a “vote” that the website being linked to is relevant to phrases near the link.

In this case, the phrase “Connecticut Governor” normally points to the official website for the office of the Connecticut Governor.  However, now, with all the attention on the movement to decriminalize cannabis in Connecticut, it seems that there are more and/or stronger links for the phrase “Connecticut Governor” to the website of the Drug Policy Alliance, one of the leading organizations advocating sensible drug policies in Connecticut and around the world.

A few years ago, a concerted effort, called a “Google Bomb,” was made to tie the phrase “miserable failure” to George W. Bush.  This event, on the other hand, seems to be entirely organic and incidental.

Was this intentional and targeted?

As far as I can tell, absolutely not. There is no evidence of efforts to actually game the pagerank system.  Instead, it just seems that many thousands of people saw fit to link to drug policy reform websites when writing about the Connecticut Government.

Why is this politically significant?

As a tech-activist, I often observe that certain types of trends formulate first on the web and later on the streets and in the statehouses.

In this case, I believe this to be the clearest indication yet that drug policy reform is not a second-rate issue or a “third rail,” but is actually the #1 domestic policy concern across a wide array of the American populous.

Check out this screen shot: