|
They're using LOIC to DDoS the website, that's hardly hacking. A chimp could do it.
This shit will amount to nothing just like every "raid" anonymous attempts. They think they have power on the internet but they really don't.
This isn't "power" it's just a bunch of people clicking "fire" on their DDoS software. Watch this blow over in a few days.
|
ehehe doesn't seem like it's been picked up yet, but www.visa.com daun for me 
|
On December 09 2010 05:40 CanucksJC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 05:36 Deadlyfish wrote:On December 09 2010 05:18 tnud wrote:On December 09 2010 04:58 Deadlyfish wrote:On December 09 2010 04:52 CanucksJC wrote:On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote:
i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet. 4chan will go to such lengths as closing down a site! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid! 4chan is so overrated, they do a few things here and there, nothing special, and they think of themselves as defenders of freedom or something. Considering the kind of stuff posted on 4chan i'm surprised they havent closed down their own site yet. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. What about that woman who IN A VIDEO, without any tags or leading name, kicked a cat. They found her from the footage and ruined her life for a month lol. "ruined her life", more like "harrassed her". 4chan track a few people down and people make it out to be "ruined several peoples lives" haha Just funny when people say stuff like "4chan strikes again!" or something like that, it should actually read "bunch of idiots thought it would be kinda cool to close down mastercard site, oh - no" Harassing as in... forcing people to suicide right? I don't even know why I'm 'defending' 4chan here, cuz yes, it's filled with a bunch of homosexual faggots, but it's more ridiculous to call themm 'scriptkiddies'.
Pardon me?
|
On December 09 2010 05:22 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 05:19 exeexe wrote:On December 09 2010 05:14 mahnini wrote:
truth isn't some omnipotent all curing concept. sometimes truth has consequences. The following really sums up my thoughts about your post: Lies isn't some omnipotent all curing concept. sometimes lies has consequences i know you're very zealous about being righteous and everything but imagine yourself as someone in out in iraq and you just heard thousand of military logs were just leaked to the public. i'm no expert in military affairs but i would go ahead and guess that it would endanger operations over there and as a consequence people could die.
Just a thought...
Maybe you should think about that before going to war?
|
They just hit visa.com and it went down in about 10 seconds after they started hitting it.
|
If the people with power would start to treat the normal people as fucking human beings and not as pigs then the people with power would have nothing to fear in regards of wikileaks
this quote stood out to me from one of the posters here.
Honestly, the general public is dumb as shit. Most are just lambs to whatever popular opinion somebody more articulate than them have said. I shudder to think what the world might be like if governments actually listened to what the masses think.
|
On December 09 2010 05:59 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 05:47 mahnini wrote:On December 09 2010 05:25 Krigwin wrote:On December 09 2010 05:14 mahnini wrote:
i find it strange how people have started to rally around wikileaks. it's a nice resource sure but i don't think many people understand how it can also be extremely dangerous. classified information remains classified for a reason, sometimes it's because of corruption or sometimes it can just be embarrassing information. on the other hand, the information that is being leaked and also endanger lives and cause international instability. leaking that china doesn't see n.korea as a particularly useful ally sounds great but things like that that are said in private between china and another country shouldn't just be out there because some asshole decides everyone needs to know the "truth".
i remember once wikileaks even leaked it's own donors list and people we lauding it for staying true to the purpose of the site. to me that sounds really retarded because it can directly compromise peoples' lives if say some totalitarian government decided it didn't like you doing that because wikileaks reveals confidential information about it.
truth isn't some omnipotent all curing concept. sometimes truth has consequences. I think people are starting to rally around Wikileaks because it is currently engaged in a battle against forces that they despise - totalitarianism, censorship, the erasure of net neutrality, etc. While it's true that the information provided by Wikileaks can be dangerous, many people weigh the advantages of transparency and free information over the disadvantages of censorship and government restriction of information. A lot of people have concerns over certain parts of Wikileaks' releases, but many more people have even bigger concerns over what other parts of Wikileaks' releases implicate, especially as pertaining to the US government's actions in foreign countries. I regard destruction of the privacy of private citizens (which Wikileaks doesn't actually do) as dangerous also, but not nearly as dangerous as the stuff the cables prove governments are doing. What we're faced with is a choice between one potentially dangerous force and another force that is openly known and proven to be dangerous, and people are choosing to rally around the former. I don't think it's inaccurate to declare this the first real "infowar" as Anonymous has put it, given the movements taken by the US government in this instance - pressuring private companies to disconnect from Wikileaks, for example. If this is truly a conflict between two sides, and one side leaks information while the other side is bombing civilians, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go with the first choice. what good did the release of diplomatic cables actually do? thousands of documents containing sensitive information is an immense risk anyway you cut it especially when some of those cables contain military information and perceived threats by different countries. how do those affect the average person aside from possibly straining international relations? why does anyone need to know secret military logs about what's going on in iraq or afghanistan. how many of these thousands upon thousands of documents actually ended up being newsworthy items and how many just released tons of confidential information to the entire world including people who could do damage with it? i don't think anyone who truly realized the implications of this would consider the risk worth it. I'm not here to explain and justify the release of all of those diplomatic cables. I stated that given a choice between Wikileaks and opposing forces, as is the case, people have chosen to rally around Wikileaks, given the immense danger of these opposing forces. The power of Wikileaks to release tons of diplomatic cables containing sensitive and confidential information that apparently has no immediate benefit and may in fact strain diplomatic relations is also the same power that allows Wikileaks to release other materials that explicitly prove US involvement in stockpiling cluster bombs, or bribing other countries to accept prisoners, or whatever else is the case. If you have concerns with certain leaks and not others, that's understandable and what you have is a particular grievance with the methodology of Wikileaks's operation, not really an opposition to the organization as a whole. The complete and utter truth with total transparency can be just as much of a danger as you put it. But when faced with potential danger at one end and a known danger at the other, people are going to pick the familiar. Wikileaks can be extremely dangerous, yes, but the forces it is currently engaged against are known to be even more dangerous. That is why people would rally around it, to answer your original concern.
well i think that's just it. people aren't realizing how much damage this can cause because they see some relevant results. releasing this information puts people in the know which i guess makes them feel safe but it also gives other people access to information they shouldn't. like i said before it's a nice resource but of course like all fads people just see the one side like they like about things. there's a difference between leaking relevant information about scandals and corruption but indiscriminately releasing confidential information is not a good thing.
i can understand why people would want wikileaks to remain but i also implore them to consider the consequences of their actions which people are keen to glaze over in the name of "truth".
|
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote:
i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
And I would laugh in the face of every Mastercard security specialist if the site has really been taken down via scriptkiddies.
Way to fail at the job.
|
On December 09 2010 06:05 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 05:22 mahnini wrote:On December 09 2010 05:19 exeexe wrote:On December 09 2010 05:14 mahnini wrote:
truth isn't some omnipotent all curing concept. sometimes truth has consequences. The following really sums up my thoughts about your post: Lies isn't some omnipotent all curing concept. sometimes lies has consequences i know you're very zealous about being righteous and everything but imagine yourself as someone in out in iraq and you just heard thousand of military logs were just leaked to the public. i'm no expert in military affairs but i would go ahead and guess that it would endanger operations over there and as a consequence people could die. Just a thought... Maybe you should think about that before going to war?
whether or not we have gone to war has no bearing on the concept i tried to demonstrate.
|
mastercard.com works for me
|
|
|
mastercard back up it seems
|
take down facebook and twitter gogo
|
I love civil disobedience.
|
On December 09 2010 00:11 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
As lawful as mastercard acted, I disagree with their morals. As unlawful as anon acted, I support the morality behind it.
I feel the same way. Morality should never be confused with the legality, even though what is illegal is usually also immoral. This case is definitely an exception IMO.
|
On December 09 2010 06 gostunv wrote:Show nested quote +If the people with power would start to treat the normal people as fucking human beings and not as pigs then the people with power would have nothing to fear in regards of wikileaks this quote stood out to me from one of the posters here. Honestly, the general public is dumb as shit. Most are just lambs to whatever popular opinion somebody more articulate than them have said. I shudder to think what the world might be like if governments actually listened to what the masses think.
Maybe most poeple are dumb as shit. but democracy says that all are to have equal rights. If you dislike that then you should probabaly think abut a military career in North Korea and aim for a good position there.
I agree that democracy might have a flaw in that idiots get to vote. But then again, maybe people are becoming increasingly naive and uninformed specifically because because they are being constantly shut out. I think this is a vicious cycle where the idea that stupid people must not participate leads to results that justify the idea via self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
On December 09 2010 06:07 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 05:59 Krigwin wrote:On December 09 2010 05:47 mahnini wrote:On December 09 2010 05:25 Krigwin wrote:On December 09 2010 05:14 mahnini wrote:
i find it strange how people have started to rally around wikileaks. it's a nice resource sure but i don't think many people understand how it can also be extremely dangerous. classified information remains classified for a reason, sometimes it's because of corruption or sometimes it can just be embarrassing information. on the other hand, the information that is being leaked and also endanger lives and cause international instability. leaking that china doesn't see n.korea as a particularly useful ally sounds great but things like that that are said in private between china and another country shouldn't just be out there because some asshole decides everyone needs to know the "truth".
i remember once wikileaks even leaked it's own donors list and people we lauding it for staying true to the purpose of the site. to me that sounds really retarded because it can directly compromise peoples' lives if say some totalitarian government decided it didn't like you doing that because wikileaks reveals confidential information about it.
truth isn't some omnipotent all curing concept. sometimes truth has consequences. I think people are starting to rally around Wikileaks because it is currently engaged in a battle against forces that they despise - totalitarianism, censorship, the erasure of net neutrality, etc. While it's true that the information provided by Wikileaks can be dangerous, many people weigh the advantages of transparency and free information over the disadvantages of censorship and government restriction of information. A lot of people have concerns over certain parts of Wikileaks' releases, but many more people have even bigger concerns over what other parts of Wikileaks' releases implicate, especially as pertaining to the US government's actions in foreign countries. I regard destruction of the privacy of private citizens (which Wikileaks doesn't actually do) as dangerous also, but not nearly as dangerous as the stuff the cables prove governments are doing. What we're faced with is a choice between one potentially dangerous force and another force that is openly known and proven to be dangerous, and people are choosing to rally around the former. I don't think it's inaccurate to declare this the first real "infowar" as Anonymous has put it, given the movements taken by the US government in this instance - pressuring private companies to disconnect from Wikileaks, for example. If this is truly a conflict between two sides, and one side leaks information while the other side is bombing civilians, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go with the first choice. what good did the release of diplomatic cables actually do? thousands of documents containing sensitive information is an immense risk anyway you cut it especially when some of those cables contain military information and perceived threats by different countries. how do those affect the average person aside from possibly straining international relations? why does anyone need to know secret military logs about what's going on in iraq or afghanistan. how many of these thousands upon thousands of documents actually ended up being newsworthy items and how many just released tons of confidential information to the entire world including people who could do damage with it? i don't think anyone who truly realized the implications of this would consider the risk worth it. I'm not here to explain and justify the release of all of those diplomatic cables. I stated that given a choice between Wikileaks and opposing forces, as is the case, people have chosen to rally around Wikileaks, given the immense danger of these opposing forces. The power of Wikileaks to release tons of diplomatic cables containing sensitive and confidential information that apparently has no immediate benefit and may in fact strain diplomatic relations is also the same power that allows Wikileaks to release other materials that explicitly prove US involvement in stockpiling cluster bombs, or bribing other countries to accept prisoners, or whatever else is the case. If you have concerns with certain leaks and not others, that's understandable and what you have is a particular grievance with the methodology of Wikileaks's operation, not really an opposition to the organization as a whole. The complete and utter truth with total transparency can be just as much of a danger as you put it. But when faced with potential danger at one end and a known danger at the other, people are going to pick the familiar. Wikileaks can be extremely dangerous, yes, but the forces it is currently engaged against are known to be even more dangerous. That is why people would rally around it, to answer your original concern. well i think that's just it. people aren't realizing how much damage this can cause because they see some relevant results. releasing this information puts people in the know which i guess makes them feel safe but it also gives other people access to information they shouldn't. like i said before it's a nice resource but of course like all fads people just see the one side like they like about things. there's a difference between leaking relevant information about scandals and corruption but indiscriminately releasing confidential information is not a good thing. i can understand why people would want wikileaks to remain but i also implore them to consider the consequences of their actions which people are keen to glaze over in the name of "truth".
The way I see it is, that if Wikileaks got the Documents and given the fact that apparently more than a million persons had access to them, EVERY secret service of even the smallest country already had those documents so the disclosure only destroyed the naive view of them not having them and the thereafter tightened security measurements help the USA.
|
On December 09 2010 06:05 gostunv wrote:Show nested quote +If the people with power would start to treat the normal people as fucking human beings and not as pigs then the people with power would have nothing to fear in regards of wikileaks this quote stood out to me from one of the posters here. Honestly, the general public is dumb as shit. Most are just lambs to whatever popular opinion somebody more articulate than them have said. I shudder to think what the world might be like if governments actually listened to what the masses think.
Right, but the solution to a public being dumb or uninformed is to inform them, not reduce or filter the information being sent to them, how on earth would that make anything better?
|
On December 09 2010 06:23 Roe wrote:
mastercard back up it seems
Down again for me 
|
On December 09 2010 06:43 TBO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 06:07 mahnini wrote:On December 09 2010 05:59 Krigwin wrote:On December 09 2010 05:47 mahnini wrote:On December 09 2010 05:25 Krigwin wrote:On December 09 2010 05:14 mahnini wrote:
i find it strange how people have started to rally around wikileaks. it's a nice resource sure but i don't think many people understand how it can also be extremely dangerous. classified information remains classified for a reason, sometimes it's because of corruption or sometimes it can just be embarrassing information. on the other hand, the information that is being leaked and also endanger lives and cause international instability. leaking that china doesn't see n.korea as a particularly useful ally sounds great but things like that that are said in private between china and another country shouldn't just be out there because some asshole decides everyone needs to know the "truth".
i remember once wikileaks even leaked it's own donors list and people we lauding it for staying true to the purpose of the site. to me that sounds really retarded because it can directly compromise peoples' lives if say some totalitarian government decided it didn't like you doing that because wikileaks reveals confidential information about it.
truth isn't some omnipotent all curing concept. sometimes truth has consequences. I think people are starting to rally around Wikileaks because it is currently engaged in a battle against forces that they despise - totalitarianism, censorship, the erasure of net neutrality, etc. While it's true that the information provided by Wikileaks can be dangerous, many people weigh the advantages of transparency and free information over the disadvantages of censorship and government restriction of information. A lot of people have concerns over certain parts of Wikileaks' releases, but many more people have even bigger concerns over what other parts of Wikileaks' releases implicate, especially as pertaining to the US government's actions in foreign countries. I regard destruction of the privacy of private citizens (which Wikileaks doesn't actually do) as dangerous also, but not nearly as dangerous as the stuff the cables prove governments are doing. What we're faced with is a choice between one potentially dangerous force and another force that is openly known and proven to be dangerous, and people are choosing to rally around the former. I don't think it's inaccurate to declare this the first real "infowar" as Anonymous has put it, given the movements taken by the US government in this instance - pressuring private companies to disconnect from Wikileaks, for example. If this is truly a conflict between two sides, and one side leaks information while the other side is bombing civilians, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go with the first choice. what good did the release of diplomatic cables actually do? thousands of documents containing sensitive information is an immense risk anyway you cut it especially when some of those cables contain military information and perceived threats by different countries. how do those affect the average person aside from possibly straining international relations? why does anyone need to know secret military logs about what's going on in iraq or afghanistan. how many of these thousands upon thousands of documents actually ended up being newsworthy items and how many just released tons of confidential information to the entire world including people who could do damage with it? i don't think anyone who truly realized the implications of this would consider the risk worth it. I'm not here to explain and justify the release of all of those diplomatic cables. I stated that given a choice between Wikileaks and opposing forces, as is the case, people have chosen to rally around Wikileaks, given the immense danger of these opposing forces. The power of Wikileaks to release tons of diplomatic cables containing sensitive and confidential information that apparently has no immediate benefit and may in fact strain diplomatic relations is also the same power that allows Wikileaks to release other materials that explicitly prove US involvement in stockpiling cluster bombs, or bribing other countries to accept prisoners, or whatever else is the case. If you have concerns with certain leaks and not others, that's understandable and what you have is a particular grievance with the methodology of Wikileaks's operation, not really an opposition to the organization as a whole. The complete and utter truth with total transparency can be just as much of a danger as you put it. But when faced with potential danger at one end and a known danger at the other, people are going to pick the familiar. Wikileaks can be extremely dangerous, yes, but the forces it is currently engaged against are known to be even more dangerous. That is why people would rally around it, to answer your original concern. well i think that's just it. people aren't realizing how much damage this can cause because they see some relevant results. releasing this information puts people in the know which i guess makes them feel safe but it also gives other people access to information they shouldn't. like i said before it's a nice resource but of course like all fads people just see the one side like they like about things. there's a difference between leaking relevant information about scandals and corruption but indiscriminately releasing confidential information is not a good thing. i can understand why people would want wikileaks to remain but i also implore them to consider the consequences of their actions which people are keen to glaze over in the name of "truth". The way I see it is, that if Wikileaks got the Documents and given the fact that apparently more than a million persons had access to them, EVERY secret service of even the smallest country already had those documents so the disclosure only destroyed the naive view of them not having them and the thereafter tightened security measurements help the USA.
Yep that's how I feel, the actual implications of such widely distributed documents being released publicly is minimal (I can't imagine a single super power didn't already have access to them). The reason big government is cranky here is because it is a significant embarrassment. (And I suppose embarrassments make us look weak to others.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
