![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhain my email box i found an alert from avaaz, one of the groups i support and trust to tell me the truth:
Right now, the Avaaz website is under massive attack. An expert is telling us that likely only a government or major corporation could launch an attack this large, with massive, simultaneous and sophisticated assaults from across the world to take down our site.
[…]
Because of top-notch security, our site is still up, but it's not enough. We need to show these actors that when they attack Avaaz, they're messing with people. And people-power can't be intimidated or silenced, it only grows stronger. Click below to donate to an Avaaz defense fund to take our security to the next level, and show our attackers that whatever they throw at us only makes us stronger:
you can read the whole newsletter here.
i am sorry, but this raises a whole lot of red flags, and i don't think it's the sort of flags avaaz would like to raise. it smells of conspiracy theories, and of scam for money.
now, i don't actually believe the organisation has gone over to the dark side, but i do feel like i am being manipulated. instead of information on the attack -- what form of attack is it (telling us the basics won't compromise security)? who's the expert? is it a knowledgeable third party confirming this? what leads the expert to legitimately believe this is organised by a government or a large, nasty corporation a la murdoch? -- instead of giving me something, anything to lend credence to the claim, their first and only action is to ask me for more money. asking me for money donated via the very site that is under attack -- that doesn't seem prudent to me. and how will my immediate, urgent donation help mitigate this attack? i can't see how. and if it's solely for future prevention of more attacks, then it's not URGENT, is it, and we can have some calm and knowledgeable analysis first.
so yeah. donation is not gonna happen. i have no doubt that it takes lots of money to do all they do, and there is nothing wrong with asking for donations to help with website and network security. but not like this. that sets a dangerous precedent for donating to advocacy groups; and i rather it not get set. i donate to such groups because they do the work i believe in. i don't want hyper-emotional cries for help to guilt me into donating more; and i don't want organizations i believe in behaving like they need URGENT EMERGENCY appeals to cover their administrative costs -- that's what scam artists do.
and yes, i sent this to them. via the web form on their website that's "under massive attack", since that's the only way to contact them online. *sigh*.
Right now, the Avaaz website is under massive attack. An expert is telling us that likely only a government or major corporation could launch an attack this large, with massive, simultaneous and sophisticated assaults from across the world to take down our site.
[…]
Because of top-notch security, our site is still up, but it's not enough. We need to show these actors that when they attack Avaaz, they're messing with people. And people-power can't be intimidated or silenced, it only grows stronger. Click below to donate to an Avaaz defense fund to take our security to the next level, and show our attackers that whatever they throw at us only makes us stronger:
you can read the whole newsletter here.
i am sorry, but this raises a whole lot of red flags, and i don't think it's the sort of flags avaaz would like to raise. it smells of conspiracy theories, and of scam for money.
now, i don't actually believe the organisation has gone over to the dark side, but i do feel like i am being manipulated. instead of information on the attack -- what form of attack is it (telling us the basics won't compromise security)? who's the expert? is it a knowledgeable third party confirming this? what leads the expert to legitimately believe this is organised by a government or a large, nasty corporation a la murdoch? -- instead of giving me something, anything to lend credence to the claim, their first and only action is to ask me for more money. asking me for money donated via the very site that is under attack -- that doesn't seem prudent to me. and how will my immediate, urgent donation help mitigate this attack? i can't see how. and if it's solely for future prevention of more attacks, then it's not URGENT, is it, and we can have some calm and knowledgeable analysis first.
so yeah. donation is not gonna happen. i have no doubt that it takes lots of money to do all they do, and there is nothing wrong with asking for donations to help with website and network security. but not like this. that sets a dangerous precedent for donating to advocacy groups; and i rather it not get set. i donate to such groups because they do the work i believe in. i don't want hyper-emotional cries for help to guilt me into donating more; and i don't want organizations i believe in behaving like they need URGENT EMERGENCY appeals to cover their administrative costs -- that's what scam artists do.
and yes, i sent this to them. via the web form on their website that's "under massive attack", since that's the only way to contact them online. *sigh*.
no subject
on 2012-05-04 00:01 (UTC)I agree. I think there are genuine attacks against organisations that are spreading word about political, social and environmental knowledge and alerts. But this one seems a little too alarmist with little information. And rather than give valid, certifiable information they are going for alarmist and emotional "give us money" tactics. Keep us informed on if you get a response!
no subject
on 2012-05-04 23:08 (UTC)no subject
on 2012-05-04 02:57 (UTC)Maybe they should have gotten an expert who was actually an expert in some related field? I'm sure the expert who told them that probably IS an expert in SOMETHING -- maybe she's an expert glassblower, or juggler, or pharmacist, or something. Just not an expert in computer stuff.
no subject
on 2012-05-04 20:39 (UTC)no subject
on 2012-05-04 23:51 (UTC)no subject
on 2012-05-04 23:50 (UTC)and it isn't quite THAT easy to coordinate a sustained DDoS attack on a large site. the big ones we hear about are not done by script kiddies, but by competent hackers. btw, if i didn't know you better, i'd rag on you about the pronoun choice here -- why does it have to be a woman who's incompetent at computer stuff? ;) coincidentally avaaz's CTO has been a woman for the last 5+ years, and judging by their site, she seems quite competent. and, heck, if there really was a 3 day attack, the fact that the site wasn't down for long, and continued to function well, is actually a credit to their network people. earlier this week, the UK organised crime SOCA site went down due to a DDoS attack, and was down for more than a day. anonymous have also claimed to shut down the CIA's site just a day or so ago, and it was indeed down for several hours.
i don't actually suspect total incompetence here; i'm more inclined to put it down to a tendency of paranoia inside avaaz -- when you are frequently smeared and otherwise attacked by the people you're taking on, you come to expect attacks by them. or maybe a miscommunication; something like non-techie saying to techie "OMG; could this be an attempt by the syrian government to shut us down!?"; the techie saying "well, yeah, theoretically it could", and the non-techie running with that.
i'm mostly disturbed by the begging bowl right next to the sensationalist hyping.
no subject
on 2012-05-05 17:29 (UTC)