EPTMasterCard Website Down- Hackers support WikiLeaks - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sas01
Canada303 Posts
| ||
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
On December 09 2010 16:33 sas01 wrote: This is a liberal blogger, and i love his take on all this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ZoOZ4fI4&feature=sub That was a good video, pretty much summed up my views in words better than i could have done. The US government are very sad hypocrites in my eyes :/ | ||
|
NoobieOne
United States1183 Posts
On December 09 2010 16:33 sas01 wrote: This is a liberal blogger, and i love his take on all this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ZoOZ4fI4&feature=sub Thats a good point. A I can't agree with his conspiracy theory about the sex charges but I think other than that he conveys my ideas right. | ||
|
Lowkin
Canada232 Posts
On December 09 2010 15:36 Maul wrote: Some humour on the topic: Also, visa.com is down in case it hasn't already been mentioned. http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/visa.com Did Canada Actually imply that Assange should be assassinated? That's what the video suggests. | ||
|
Xahhk
Canada540 Posts
| ||
|
Almania
145 Posts
Link. He has a good laugh about it too. | ||
|
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
On December 09 2010 15:47 Maul wrote: Where do you get this information from? I've been following events as they happen on boards.4chan.org/b/ and anonops.net. Please don't post your uninformed opinion as fact. http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.anonops.net ruh roh | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On December 09 2010 16:57 Almania wrote: Former adviser to the PM called for his assassination. Link. He has a good laugh about it too. Tom Flanagan lives in my city and wrote one of my Political Science textbooks. It's kind of surreal. | ||
|
Nixda
119 Posts
I much prefer a legal way to react to this, and will change to a different credit card company next year. I decide on my own to whom I pay my hard-earned money, and if Mastercard thinks obstructing payments is the way to keep me as a customer, then they are wrong. I am having a credit card to make money transactions easier, not more difficult. If enough customers change away from mastercard/VISA then they will achieve more than by denying access to a website. DDoS attacks probably aren't sustainable for a very long time anyway - but stopping to pay that companies money is, and completely legal besides. | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
On December 09 2010 12:55 Almania wrote: 3 million people had clearance to access these cables. I would bet every major intelligence agency of the world has already read every single one of them. All WikiLeaks is doing is letting the public know what everyone else already does. Also this is messed up. Just think, that's your tax dollars at work. It's amazing that people are so outraged about Wikileaks but nobody gives a shit about stuff like this. 2 billion dollars of US taxpayer money is being given to a company which is doing corrupt evil things with it and the US government is trying to hide this information from the public, but Wikileaks are the bad guys? The thing is if you read stuff outside the mainstream media there are so many cases of complete corruption by firms with close ties to politicians (like Halliburton) that get ignored. It's like the American people think 'we don't mind if our government is corrupt just please don't tell us about it'. That's not to say that I think Wikileaks couldn't have been more selective but, really, do you want a government that can get away with what they are getting away with unchecked? | ||
|
Slix36
United Kingdom145 Posts
| ||
|
Kirameki
96 Posts
On December 09 2010 16:14 Uriel_SVK wrote: Where are people acrually getting this crap? Destroying financial sector? Have you even thought about this? I would be living with my parents until my 50 years if I would not be able to borrow money from the bank, I would not be able to buy car.... Not speaking about that, that only a few first people would be able to get their money, after the banks would bancrupt all the money people put there would be lost... It's not fight club stuff. Even economics Nobel laureate Paul Volcker has voiced these concerns. He has said things like “I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence.” and "Only Financial Innovation Has Been “ATM Machine” It's a serious debate and issue in the economic world. The financial sector just shoves around money. How does this make a society richer? We are probably better off without a proper financial system. And now we have a corrupt and failing one, who also control the politicians, and who deliberately start economic booms and busts. They turned the whole society into a big lottery. And there's nothing we can do about it. Voting, demonstrating, all doesn't work. But one has one v very powerful tool; pulling your savings. The financial sector is extremely weak against that. Once a bank run starts, the bank will fall. I am not saying we ought to be without banks. Banking in itself is good. I see top economists have serious doubts about the theory behind the financial sector as it developed the last 20 years or so. And I know the current financial sector in practice is corrupt and abusing power. You have an alternative? It will seriously damage economies world wide. But then at least we will live in freedom again and be able to build up a sustainable progressive democratic society. | ||
|
hixhix
1156 Posts
| ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On December 09 2010 17:49 Kirameki wrote: You have an alternative? It will seriously damage economies world wide. But then at least we will live in freedom again and be able to build up a sustainable progressive democratic society. I would like that.  And I think that wikileaks opens the opportunity to exactly that. For all those that actually believe in the concept of democracy and personal liberties and that are pissed off about the way that this beautifiul concept is ridiculed by the actions of our governments, those fighting for transparency provide hope that change is still possible. Hence, they have my support. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On December 09 2010 11:23 Krigwin wrote: You think the assessment on Angela Merkel is irrelevant. Some Germans might disagree. Why is your opinion of the cable more valuable than that of those Germans? I mean, besides the fact that they apparently have not been equipped with a brain, according to you. Please just answer me this. I hear these same points made over and over here but I have yet to have any of the internet morals police honestly answer me why they feel they are a good enough authority to decide what's relevant for 6 billion people. It's very interesting that there are so many people who think they have the right idea on how Wikileaks should be run. Here's an idea: start your own whistleblowing platform, then you get the final say on which stuff should be released. Wikileaks is not beholden to you. Wikileaks is not some kind of organization that survives based on your opinion. The only people that decide what Wikileaks should release are the people who make up Wikileaks. Also, very cute there on the "it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks", I got a good laugh out of that. Thanks for defining my morals for me, very gracious of you. The reason why it is not relevant (or more correctly, shouldn't be released) is that the cable didn't hold anything illegal. It held a statement about what sort of person the diplomat percieved Angela Merkel to be. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but diplomatic post is actually protected by certain laws - as in it shouldn't be made public. Whilst the germans might find it interesting what a diplomat wrote about Angela Merkel, the cable was a diplomatic one, protected by the same (and more) laws as any private letter. Or are you actually saying that opening your neighbours letters are okay because you would like to know what he thinks of you? Do you think it is okay for a doctor to go to the media when any (famous) person consults him/her? Are you against privacy - and by that I mean the one mentioned in pretty much every single constitution ever made by any democratic country? Because when releasing cables like the one about Angela Merkel, which contains a personal assesment and 0 proof of anything illegal, that is essentially what you are pissing on; peoples privacy. Unless you are willing to answer yes to all of the above questions then you've not only found out why some cables shouldn't be released, you've also found out why I wrote it would be impossible to support Wikileaks morally since you wouldn't be consistent! Privacy and confidentialty is a privilege that everyone enjoys. This should only be violated in the most extreme cases, not because it contains something interesting! | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On December 09 2010 21:17 Ghostcom wrote: The reason why it is not relevant (or more correctly, shouldn't be released) is that the cable didn't hold anything illegal. It held a statement about what sort of person the diplomat percieved Angela Merkel to be. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but diplomatic post is actually protected by certain laws - as in it shouldn't be made public. Whilst the germans might find it interesting what a diplomat wrote about Angela Merkel, the cable was a diplomatic one, protected by the same (and more) laws as any private letter. Or are you actually saying that opening your neighbours letters are okay because you would like to know what he thinks of you? Do you think it is okay for a doctor to go to the media when any (famous) person consults him/her? Are you against privacy - and by that I mean the one mentioned in pretty much every single constitution ever made by any democratic country? Because when releasing cables like the one about Angela Merkel, which contains a personal assesment and 0 proof of anything illegal, that is essentially what you are pissing on; peoples privacy. Unless you are willing to answer yes to all of the above questions then you've not only found out why some cables shouldn't be released, you've also found out why I wrote it would be impossible to support Wikileaks morally since you wouldn't be consistent! Privacy and confidentialty is a privilege that everyone enjoys. This should only be violated in the most extreme cases, not because it contains something interesting! Here's two things that make your final arguments look a little weird. 1. The same governments that have been trying to eliminate individual rights with regards to privacy for years (data retention, dragnet investigation, unwarranted eavesdropping, camera surveillance etc.) are now bichting because someone vioated their privacy. Is it just me or is that more than a little bogot? 2. You compare individuals who have little power and need protection within in legal system to entities such as governments which are not individuals, which not only have tremendous power but also make the rules. That is, you axiomatically say that privacy is equally a right of individuals and insitutions. However, I challenge that axiom because there is no normatively rational to support it. In fact, it is a matter of taste (and(or trust) how much privacy one wants to grant to certain institutions. Most importantly, however, in a democracy the decision how much privacy a government should be allowed MUST be made by the people and not by the government. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? | ||
|
TurpinOS
Canada1223 Posts
On December 09 2010 17:49 Kirameki wrote: It's not fight club stuff. Even economics Nobel laureate Paul Volcker has voiced these concerns. He has said things like “I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence.” and "Only Financial Innovation Has Been “ATM Machine” It's a serious debate and issue in the economic world. The financial sector just shoves around money. How does this make a society richer? We are probably better off without a proper financial system. And now we have a corrupt and failing one, who also control the politicians, and who deliberately start economic booms and busts. They turned the whole society into a big lottery. And there's nothing we can do about it. Voting, demonstrating, all doesn't work. But one has one v very powerful tool; pulling your savings. The financial sector is extremely weak against that. Once a bank run starts, the bank will fall. I am not saying we ought to be without banks. Banking in itself is good. I see top economists have serious doubts about the theory behind the financial sector as it developed the last 20 years or so. And I know the current financial sector in practice is corrupt and abusing power. You have an alternative? It will seriously damage economies world wide. But then at least we will live in freedom again and be able to build up a sustainable progressive democratic society. You are joking here right ? Nothing you just said makes sens. Technically, yes, if everyone would not use the financial system anymore, it would collapse. There are two big issues here though. 1. Even if the WHOLE system would collapse, the only direct repercussions would be that eventually it would get built back into what is it, like it or not, you need a form of currency to do trades, and once you have that people start wanting more then the others. I would also like you to imagine what it would be like in the meantime, before the system gets back on its feet, I really dont see how people would benefit from it. The current system has its major major flaws, but going back to a basic form of trading between people would definately have its bigger problems. 2. Do you really think it would be feasible to ask the whole world to stop using banks ? I mean, its a cool theory, but I can list you millions of nice theories in practice that would never be appliable in this society. Once you come to that conclusion, I fail to see how they help with the discussion. | ||
|
nehl
Germany270 Posts
On December 09 2010 22:33 Electric.Jesus wrote: Here's two things that make your final arguments look a little weird. 1. The same governments that have been trying to eliminate individual rights with regards to privacy for years (data retention, dragnet investigation, unwarranted eavesdropping, camera surveillance etc.) are now bichting because someone vioated their privacy. Is it just me or is that more than a little bogot? 2. You compare individuals who have little power and need protection within in legal system to entities such as governments which are not individuals, which not only have tremendous power but also make the rules. That is, you axiomatically say that privacy is equally a right of individuals and insitutions. However, I challenge that axiom because there is no normatively rational to support it. In fact, it is a matter of taste (and(or trust) how much privacy one wants to grant to certain institutions. Most importantly, however, in a democracy the decision how much privacy a government should be allowed MUST be made by the people and not by the government. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? maby it is not ok that they published these letters. i think it is good, but maby im wrong. but it shows that the us government and their diplomats dont respect the german government. and many other governments are not respected either. they just act like they would do, and thats not ok at all. it desroys trust between these countries. but what make me listen to this whole affair, is that the us government shut down the side. this reaction was so stupid. it shows that the usa doesnot respect the press freedom at all. just shut it down, so they cannot publish our secret documents. it is like in russia, where jurnalists are getting poisened or attacked. they really should just change their behaviour. only because they pay more money in military than any other country, they think they can do everything without consequences. thats what pisses me of. wikileaks may choose what they publish, but they dont publish fakes, and if they would, why wouldnot the us government simply proof it? in fact they just agreed, that they wrote it (at least the diplomat in germany does). so it seems to be true, and therefor they shut down the server? wtf? this is medieval bahaviour, and i wonder wha not more has happend since then. it is not only the us government. the german does what it wants as well, and lies the german habitants, but no one ever reacts seriously. why? | ||
|
braammbolius
179 Posts
Jebus. | ||
|
SCC-Faust
United States3736 Posts
On December 09 2010 16:33 sas01 wrote: This is a liberal blogger, and i love his take on all this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ZoOZ4fI4&feature=sub Great video. Seriously sums up how I feel. | ||
| ||
