The article also talked about scammers sending around 12 million emails per purchase. That doesn't mean the article is now strongly implying that sending an email is criminal. I see your point. But I would suggest that a reader seeing this sort of implication needs to go back and re-read the article again.

My password is "thatsmyluggagecombination". It's much better than the old standby "wordpassesyou".

I didn't see anywhere in the article where it labeled solving CAPTCHAs as a crime. And I don't remember ever seeing anyone claiming that a CAPTCHA prevents unauthorized access either. What the article does say is that a CAPTCHA solving service is one of the tools that criminals employ in their trade. And while it might seem futile to use a CAPTCHA, doing so induces a cost to criminals that tends to limit how many criminals continue to operate.

In my experience, CAPTCHAs never completely solve the problem of scammers trying to abuse my environment. But invoking a CAPTCHA and changing it once in awhile does weed out a very high percentage of junk accounts.

If one doesn't need control - why do it? The information and channel have value. If there is no value, then the Icelandic Government is playing games with those who think that they are genuinely participating in reform. If it does have value, then basic steps to ensure that the channel exists and the information collected is handled properly is well worth the small cost of establishing it. Not supporting a company who's sole purpose is to abuse that exchange of information might also be a good step as is not forcing participation in that system to be a part of reform.

If it's cheap, why not set up one's own environment and control all data and meta-data while further reducing the possibility of disruption or mis-use?

I think it's unlikely that the US Government has any interest in Iceland's constitutional reforms. Let's not get caught up in the minutia of the example. It is simply an example of control. If data, meta-data, and services exist on my own infrastructure (even if I'm renting that infrastructure) I have much better control and understanding of what is being done with it. Reliance on a 3rd party, especially one that has already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with service and data, seems to be a considerable step backwards. Especially when alternatives exist.

The issue isn't corporations or commerce. It is control. Pens, paper, and fuel are all commodity items that are (within reason) interchangeable. Cars and laptop computers are a little more unique compared to the previous list. However, there are still aspects of commodity - a Ford car can server much the same function as a BMW same as a Dell laptop can serve in place of a HP. Once I purchase said commodity, the deal is done. I own and control it and can make use of it in any manner I see fit. Telephone systems are an interesting animal. They tend to be monopolies - either Gov't run or Gov't granted. And a large part of that is the logistical difficulty in laying down network medium in the physical world. But even then, the modern age has seen a drive to introduce competition among land-line carriers and mobile phone networks. In short, your list does not compare apples to apples.

Again - the real issue is control. We have an amazing communications network using a multitude of open protocols that enable anyone with a modest budget to participate. And we're increasingly using this open communications network as merely a means to access a proprietary network; facebook. The attraction to Facebook is that the barrier to entry is even less than using other open protocols. But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network. And let's be frank - Facebook is not the common carrier that the phone companies were. Facebook exists to deliver your information (that you provide and can be gleaned by what you provide) to advertisers and anyone else who have interest in your information.

You can bet that there would be an outcry from Iceland officials if a US Federal agents' dragnet collected information involving this constitutional reform activity. We've already seen how it works with Twitter and the Fed's pursuit of Wikileaks. Why would Iceland continue to trust, much less encourage, more activity within the uncontrolled confines of yet another proprietary network?

There is a choice. There is a wide open network on which numerous well-tested and very functional open protocols exist that can be managed with even the meager budget that Iceland is likely to command. They could have access to a wide audience, control their own service, and control their own information. Yet they chose to pander to a corporation's private marketing machine.

Kind of the point, really. Yes - we can all snicker at over-priced hammers. But the kind of tech that's being produced for big budget military is orders of magnitude more impressive than the hacks being described here (and there's nothing wrong with a good hack). But both have their place and can be appreciated for the technology involved.

Which doesn't mean US troops on the line aren't doing plenty of DIY themselves.

No - less "this car is out of control" and more "this car is accelerating beyond normal capable speed with the help of gravity." Of course, explaining the joke kind ruins the fun but your way is good too.

I suspect that's where he lost control and went over the guardrail.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Having gone through this song and dance every time Wikileaks is mentioned or anything can remotely be used to mention Wikileaks, it all starts to sound like the same tune with the same singers. That isn't fair to you.

I completely agree that criticism should be placed where warranted and, in fact, nothing is above criticism. I'm inclined to believe that there is plenty of criticism for both Wikileaks and US officials.

Has Manning been treated properly? I honestly find that hard to say. I know I wouldn't want to be him right now. But I also know that military environments are completely alien to civilian life. What is completely sane within a military context can seem insane in civilian life. Add on the fact that he is suspect of a massive security breach and likely to be on suicide watch and I have a hard time determining if the reports of his situation are unduly biased.

I'm saying even if Wikileaks offered the spark to get the fires going, we shouldn't ignore the fact that the situation was intensely volatile beforehand. People keep pushing Wikileaks as delivering massive revelations but when I dig, I find that many of the revelations just aren't there. What Wikileaks did do is capture imagination. Which alone might be enough to ignite a spark of revolution.

I agree that putting Manning on the cast of The Jersey Shore would be inhumane and I only mention it in jest. My mentioning Jersey Shore is an expression for disdain over Manning's supporters and a rejection that he should be seen as a hero. I'm not entirely sure that invoking so-called reality TV is an announcement of guilt.

Manning does deserve a fair trial and I hope that he does get one. If he is innocent of the charge, I hope the poor guy gets off, gets out, and fades in to obscurity to continue his life as a free man. If not - I hope he is convicted accordingly (I would be against capital punishment as I don't agree that we are in an actual state of war).

This is a real stretch of terms. Wikileaks and Anonymous are doing considerably more than setting up stand-alone, uncontrolled networks. If the Government ever manages to prosecute members from those two groups, it won't include accusations of knowing how to set up WAPs in adhoc mode.

Fair point. I must admit, I was thinking long term and overlooked the fact that he is already experiencing just the beginning of what life will be like for him if convicted.

This is old ground. I find it rather disingenuous to treat Wikileaks as the sole fount from which freedom in the Arab states sprung. I would even go so far as to suggest that this was going to happen with or without Wikileaks. Otherwise it opens up some rather interesting questions as to exactly when US-sourced information is credible, when it isn't, and how easy it would be for the supposed diabolical US Government to manipulate the world.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Manning exposed no smoking guns. He provided no evidence of horrific crime and provided little insight to anything that wasn't already reported or known. Manning deserves no medal for putting his own freedom on the line for, in the end, not blowing any whistles. But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore.

None the less - here and now. Today. We can build stand-alone networks. We can encapsulate our traffic in strong encryption. We can do many things on our own without Government grant. And while there are various bureaucratic hooks that might, possibly be employed in some dystopian future... that isn't today. If anything, the systems that are being put together by Government contractors are likely to be little better than anything we can put together ourselves today (budgets and frequencies aside).

Yes. Very good. That's a link to a story about the Pentagon's statements. Nowhere in that entire article does it support the concept that a stand-alone network is an act of war. Feel free to provide a quote if you disagree.