I know that Krebs can be pretty polarizing to a lot of people, but let's look at what actually happened here.
>On Sunday, July 10, KrebsOnSecurity contacted Psychz Networks, a hosting provider in Los Angeles, to see if they were aware that they were the sole Internet lifeline for 8kun et. al. Psychz confirmed that in response to a report from KrebsOnSecurity, VanwaTech was removed from its network around the time of the Jan. 6 hearing on Tuesday.
So, he called and asked something to the effect of, "Hey, did you know that you're the only provider for 8kun? Any comment for my report?" and we're to take that as Krebs "[deciding] that political speech is a security threat to the Internet, and he is actively working to further the censorship"?
I'm not quite sure that I can make that leap as easily as you can.
Well I am not you, but Brian Krebs' opening paragraph proudly ends with; "Watkins suggested the outage was somehow related to the work of the committee, but the truth is KrebsOnSecurity was responsible and the timing was pure coincidence."
So to me it appears that Krebs is working against Internet freedom.
Also, I have never visited any 8kun sites or consumed any of their content. I have no stake in their existence, but I believe that they should be allowed to exist. If crimes have been committed by people using their service, the criminals should be dealt with and afforded due process according to the law, instead of removing the entire platform.
>Well I am not you, but Brian Krebs' opening paragraph proudly ends with; "Watkins suggested the outage was somehow related to the work of the committee, but the truth is KrebsOnSecurity was responsible and the timing was pure coincidence."
>So to me it appears that Krebs is working against Internet freedom.
No, it appears that Krebs called up and asked if Psychz Networks knew what they were hosting. Psychz looked into it and decided, "Oh, we didn't know and we'd rather not host this, and it's within the terms for us to pull the plug, so we're pulling the plug."
Psychz could've just as easily told him to go kick rocks and kept it online. In that regard, Krebs is only indirectly responsible for the outage despite his statement otherwise. Your ire should be directed towards Psychz.
>Also, I have never visited any 8kun sites or consumed any of their content.
If you've spent any chunk of your time on the internet, or paid attention to the news, for the past five or six years, you have absolutely "consumed their content", in that it has trickled it's way down to you in one form of another.
>I have no stake in their existence, but I believe that they should be allowed to exist. If crimes have been committed by people using their service, the criminals should be dealt with and afforded due process according to the law, instead of removing the entire platform.
Sure. But just as the moderators of 8kun patrol their platform for content they don't want on it, hosting providers are under no obligation to host content they don't want to host. All Psychz did here was exercise their own free speech. C'est la vie.
>On Sunday, July 10, KrebsOnSecurity contacted Psychz Networks, a hosting provider in Los Angeles, to see if they were aware that they were the sole Internet lifeline for 8kun et. al. Psychz confirmed that in response to a report from KrebsOnSecurity, VanwaTech was removed from its network around the time of the Jan. 6 hearing on Tuesday.
So, he called and asked something to the effect of, "Hey, did you know that you're the only provider for 8kun? Any comment for my report?" and we're to take that as Krebs "[deciding] that political speech is a security threat to the Internet, and he is actively working to further the censorship"?
I'm not quite sure that I can make that leap as easily as you can.