I said a few weeks ago in one of my blogs:

Some may think this information dump is a good thing, for our freedom, for transparency. I can't disagree with that from an idealistic point of view. From a pragmatic point of view, I don't know. I am personally concerned of a bigger clampdown of information. Sometimes there is a right way of going about things and a wrong way -- it doesn't have anything to do with what's legal. It has to do with what is best for our fragile democracy.

and I am feeling more strongly about this statement than ever before.

There are those that are celebrating the acts of Wikileaks. They are celebrating transparency, as an act of true patriotism. Will they celebrate when the government's website is taken down?

It just happened to Sweden.

Knowing they are capable of that, what will they say when they have their bank accounts hacked? Cellphone? How about the nation's power grid? How about when they decide to take down Wall Street, and financial institutions? Is that worth it in the name of revealing the "truth"?

It looks like the answer will soon be forthcoming. THIS is what Julian Assange has wraught. I wonder if the ends justify the means or vice versa.

One thing I do know: it's not going to get better anytime soon. It may not be a country attacking, but this is an attack -- you can be assured that nations will fight back. This is no longer about freedom of speech, this is designed to create insecurity among people as well as governments.

Fasten your seatbelts -- it's gonna be a bumpy ride. Welcome to the world's first cyber war, where we don't really know who is fighting it.

The reality, though, is that if it's possible to do these things just to make a political point, it's possible to do something much more serious. In anticipation of more serious hacking attacks, the US Government is re-classifying cyber attacks as acts of war:

The US government is rewriting its military rule book to make cyber-attacks a possible act of war, giving commanders the option of launching retaliatory military strikes against hackers backed by hostile foreign powers.

The Pentagon has concluded that the laws of armed conflict can be widened to embrace cyberwarfare in order to allow the US to respond with the use of force against aggressive assaults on its computer and IT infrastructure.
[...]
Pentagon officials disclosed the decision to the Wall Street Journal, saying it was designed to send a warning to any hacker threatening US security by attacking its nuclear reactors, pipelines or public networks such as mass transport systems. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," an official said.

The new strategy would adapt the existing right of self-defence contained in the UN charter by bringing cyberweapons under the definition of armed attacks.

Is this a good development? On one hand, it seems that it's necessary. On the other hand, it seems like fertile ground for suppression, as well as easy-to-fake false flag attacks to justify military action. Such is the stuff of unintended consequences. Hackers acting under the guise of freedom may actually be triggering a response that makes matters worse.

The 11 FISA judges, chosen from throughout the federal bench for seven-year terms, are all appointed by the chief justice. In fact, every FISA judge currently serving was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who will continue making such appointments until he retires or dies. FISA judges don’t need confirmation -- by Congress or anyone else.

The chief justice would get to name three of the 11 FISA judges, and each of the four congressional leaders would get two appointments each. The result would be a guaranteed mixture of Republicans and Democrats serving on the court — a far cry from the current situation, in which the court is made up of 10 Republicans and one Democrat.