Hacked blogger seeks Russia probe - 20 views

• 
  #1 Kathleen Tan on 16 Aug 09

   

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8194395.stm
  
  To sum it up, the article is about a russian blogger who asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to hold an inquiry, claiming that russian hackers have co-ordinated an attack that hit Facebook and Twitter where he holds accounts.
  
  Georgy has posted a series of videos and blog entries criticising Russia for its conduct during the five-day conflict with Georgia a year ago over its disputed region of South Ossetia.
  
  Those hackers were able to prevent millions of people gaining access to world famous social networking sites merely "to block one blogger" because of his "unpleasant and unacceptable" position, he suggested.
  
  "They took internet vigilantism into their own hands to try to blast him off the web, but in the process blasted Twitter off instead."
  ~~~
  
  My question is, should any individual or any state have the right to restrict free speech or control content that goes onto the web (which is international and owned by no one)?
  If so, when should individuals be empowered with this capacity to moderate and monitor online content?
  
  The problem is that some content is genuinely objectionable, and some censorship is genuinely abhorrent, and we have no easy way to decide when somethign should be freely expressed or not.
  
  And of course another problem is that the these hackers that have cost major networking sites hours of downtime (as well as other invisible costs), causing widespread collateral damage without any lasting or constructive objective in mind will probably get away scot free, because the law has yet to catch up fast enough to police the net and trace most hackers. Standalone cases such as these might eventually come to naught despite all the inconvenience and damage caused.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8194395.stm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8194395.stm</a> <br /> <br /> To sum it up, the article is about a russian blogger who asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to hold an inquiry, claiming that russian hackers have co-ordinated an attack that hit Facebook and Twitter where he holds accounts. <br /> <br /> Georgy has posted a series of videos and blog entries criticising Russia for its conduct during the five-day conflict with Georgia a year ago over its disputed region of South Ossetia. <br /> <br /> Those hackers were able to prevent millions of people gaining access to world famous social networking sites merely "to block one blogger" because of his "unpleasant and unacceptable" position, he suggested. <br /> <br /> "They took internet vigilantism into their own hands to try to blast him off the web, but in the process blasted Twitter off instead." <br /> ~~~ <br /> <br /> My question is, should any individual or any state have the right to restrict free speech or control content that goes onto the web (which is international and owned by no one)? <br /> If so, when should individuals be empowered with this capacity to moderate and monitor online content? <br /> <br /> The problem is that some content is genuinely objectionable, and some censorship is genuinely abhorrent, and we have no easy way to decide when somethign should be freely expressed or not. <br /> <br /> And of course another problem is that the these hackers that have cost major networking sites hours of downtime (as well as other invisible costs), causing widespread collateral damage without any lasting or constructive objective in mind will probably get away scot free, because the law has yet to catch up fast enough to police the net and trace most hackers. Standalone cases such as these might eventually come to naught despite all the inconvenience and damage caused.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top