Okay, so I get all the wackiness that’s been going on with Wikileaks.  On a good day, or perhaps given enough beer, I can even see both sides of the battle.  It feels, from an outsider’s perspective, very much like a “no bad attention” sort of situation for all concerned.  Immaturity on all sides of the table, people jumping to conclusions, people jumping on bandwagons, people jumping off cliffs, all kinds of jumping going on.

The thing that’s got me puzzled right now is the hacker assaults on the site.  I mean, okay, probably a percentage of these are govt. controlled hackers doing what they get paid to do.  They’re probably *our* govt controlled hackers, though I can see the benefits of taking out Wikileaks for any number of other, more tightly controlled countries.  I always thought of hackers as being the “information should be free” set, the rebels, the guys who truly want transparency in all things information related.  So shouldn’t they be helping Wikileaks out?  Or is the “me too” mindset taking hold and Wikileaks has simply presented itself as a target worth taking on.  How the heck do you grade such things?  I mean, with the number of assaults on the site, how can you tell whose hack brought it down?  Or does it even matter.