Wait, Tupac's Alive?!

On Monday, PBS posted an article that rapper Tupac Shakur was still alive and living in New Zealand. However, it turned out to be a false article, placed on the website by hackers who were angered by coverage of WikiLeaks.

According to the New York Times, security experts call these attacks "reputational" on media companies who publish things that the hackers are not happy with. The companies are apparently vulnerable to these attacks because they "depend on online advertising and subscription revenue from Web sites that can be upended by the clicks of a hacker’s keyboard." The hacker can simply take away revenue from a Web site, even by just shutting it down for a few hours. Time equals money.

The attacks were "said to be motivated by a “Frontline” film about WikiLeaks that was broadcast and published online on May 24." The hackers, who are supporters of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, felt that the film had shed both the Web site and Assange in a negative light.

This hasn't been the first attack on a Web site who had been critical of something others didn't agree with. Last December, hackers shut down web sites owned by Gawker Media. Apparently, "Gawker had been critical of hacker groups like the one called Anonymous that had attacked security firms and Web sites of the Egyptian government."

So is this form of protest alright to do so? Is it okay for hackers to illegally hack a web site and shut down their revenue because of something they don't agree with?

I think there's a point when people are going to far and I believe that's what has occurred with these hackings. There's one thing of protesting something when a company commits an awful act or something of that sort. But there's another when they are just expressing their beliefs. The hackers are committing illegal acts, and although some may be funny, I just don't feel like that's the right way to go about it. Perhaps they can make their own web site and condemn what they disagree with, or they can create a protest rally. But I think the hacking has taken things a little too far.

In the Interest of National Security

It is said that ignorance is bliss, but is it really? Can we not handle the truth? WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, has been all over the news. Recently, the website released approximately 250,000 American diplomatic cables. Here's an article about it from the New York Times.

WikiLeaks has been a large thorn in the side of the American government, and these latest disclosures have proven to be detrimental. The article states that,

"The White House said the release of what it called “stolen cables” to several publications was a “reckless and dangerous action” and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk."

These specific cables tell of U.S. relations with other countries, including a "dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel" and the discussions of a unified Korea should the North collapse.

But what's really important about these cables it that they "depict the Obama administration struggling to sort out which Pakistanis are trustworthy partners against Al Qaeda, adding Australians who have disappeared in the Middle East to terrorist watch lists, and assessing whether a lurking rickshaw driver in Lahore, Pakistan, was awaiting fares or conducting surveillance of the road to the American Consulate."


With the latest Perilous Times presentations in class, the government withholding information from its people tends to reoccur numerous times. But is it right for the government to do this? Should we be kept ignorant?

I don't think so. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that "knowledge is an antidote to fear" and I completely agree with him. When we are living in such fearful times, we need to know what's going on from our government. We shouldn't have to find out information from leaked documents, they should be supplied to us. Many would argue that its safer to keep the people ignorant in the interest of national security. These are perilous times after all. But how can we know who to vote for if we can't even trust the government to supply us with the truth? How can we unite as a country against terrorism if we don't know the gravity of the situation?