MasterCard Website Down- Hackers support WikiLeaks - Page 19

On December 11 2010 22:44 sc4k wrote:
Everyone who wants to know if Wikileaks has done anything useful should check this out:

http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/

apologies if already posted but I haven't come across on TL so far

On December 10 2010 01:53 Krigwin wrote:

Secondly, I would disagree with your presumption that diplomats, or more accurately, the governments they represent, should have the same rights to privacy as private citizenry. I wouldn't spy on my neighbor's mail ordinarily, but if my neighbor was an ambassador partly appointed because of officials that I voted into power and that mail was materials relevant to his job that I care a certain amount about, I should have the rights to view that mail if I so wished, and that shouldn't be considered spying on his privacy. Governments are beholden to us, the people, we are the sovereign. Public servants are just that - they are servants of the public. I am of the public, I deserve to know what's going on with my government. If most of this stuff is just pointless fluff as you put it anyways, there shouldn't be a problem - who would care enough to go sifting through all of it?

On December 12 2010 04:34 furymonkey wrote:


I disagree on this, reason we voted on a governament is so they can make certain level of decision for us. Our vote means our trust in them to make the right decision. Although some choice might not be the best (perception), but they are always doing their best for the good of their country.

Known everything what the governament do does not make them to make a better decision, it only complicate matters as it can make bureaucracy even slower. Because no matter how simple a decision is, there will always be opposition. You'd be surprise how many people out there will sift through everything just to pick bones from an egg. If everyone has their say on a matter, nothing will ever get done.

In regard of how to regulating those people, there is already a system for that. Ambassadors has their boss to listen to, and their boss has senate to answer for.

Also if everyone gets to know everything what the foreign ministry knows, it will be difficult for the governament to obtain information from foreign countries, as not all the information they share wants to go to the public, and that will actually makes it harder for the governament come up with the right policy.

On December 12 2010 05:08 Krikkitone wrote:


"Trust but verify"

We can only trust them to make good decisions, if we can verify what decisions they have made and what information was there.

As for everyone having their say... That is why some people are in charge. They make decisions, but everyone should get to hear all the input and get their own "say" as to whether it was a good or not good decision Afterwards. This allows an official to be punished for not upholding the trust.

There are a few cases where privacy/secrecy/confidentiality are justified in the case of government, but they are few and far between.

On December 12 2010 05:23 furymonkey wrote:


Like I said, no matter what kind of decision, there will always be people who won't agree with, even you listed out the pros and cons. If everyone get their own say and input isn't that just same as voting? Isn't this contradict to the purpose of putting someone in charge? Why not just have vote for everything in the first place?

On December 12 2010 05:43 Krikkitone wrote:


Let's review representative democracy

Step 1: You have a vote for an official (or a vote for someone that appoints an official)

Step 2: The official makes various governmental decisions/actions

Step 3: There is (surprise) another vote (either for the official or the person that appointed them)

The official doesn't Wait for everyone to get their say... the decisions are made in step 2...and the people don't get their say on each individual decision. The people do get their say on the Total sum of all the official's decisions on Step 3.

How do you make the second vote if you can't look at that official's decisions? If you can't get access to the information.

For you to trust someone, you have to know them. I can't just walk up to you and say "Trust me". After you have known me for a while, Then you can trust me... but if I never tell you anything, and you know nothing about my real life you should NOT trust me.



Now, if someone is voted "dictator-for-life" then there is really no need for us to know anything and secrecy is just fine... but voting for a "dictator-for-life" is about the stupidest and most evil version of democracy I can imagine.

On December 12 2010 06:13 furymonkey wrote:


I don't see what you're trying to achieve by having some sort of public opinion after the decision is already made. It would just be stupid, as there will be critics for everything. And for many of the decision, you won't know it's good or bad till the result comes in, it isn't as simple as choosing between apple and orange. And to be honest, decision at this level aren't made by a single individual, they have a closet of think-tanks and experts.

On December 12 2010 06:13 furymonkey wrote:

Obviously if their decision is bad enough, bad impact will arise, everyone will know, and it will impact the next election, position or cabinet change.

On December 12 2010 06:13 furymonkey wrote:

The checks you refer already are in place, you simply just don't need everyone in the country to be involve in all the issues.

On December 12 2010 06:13 furymonkey wrote:
The person who appointed them will also look at how well they are doing, as it will impact his own position as well.

On December 12 2010 06:13 furymonkey wrote:

Some sort of trust has already given when the person is elected or appointed, before they get their spot, their history and achivements is checked by the public.

Several blogs and Web sites had posted variations of this sentence: “EasyDNS.net has cut off DNS service to WikiLeaks.”
....
WikiLeaks had indeed lost the support of the company that was providing the connection between the domain name wikileaks.org and the WikiLeaks Web servers. But that company was EveryDNS, a free provider based in the United States.

On December 12 2010 05:04 RelZo wrote:
Official website of Operation: Leekspin
http://leekspin.com/
+ Show Spoiler +

I guess I should give some content if I don't want to get banned, so breaking news: Operation: Payback is over. All cheer for Operation: Leakspin.

On December 13 2010 16:46 Liquid_Turbo wrote:
So we are about to experience an rival website to wikileaks, openleaks.org. Apparently some people within the wikileaks domain weren't too happy about how the website was being run, and that Assange was too much like a dictator. Openleaks will not have a 'face' to the website.

Should be pretty interesting to see what happens to wikileaks and whether this site will succeed or fail.

On December 12 2010 05:43 Krikkitone wrote:
Now, if someone is voted "dictator-for-life" then there is really no need for us to know anything and secrecy is just fine... but voting for a "dictator-for-life" is about the stupidest and most evil version of democracy I can imagine.

On December 13 2010 15:16 vetinari wrote:


Half an hour later, I still can't stop humming that tune.

Mods, plz perma ban this guy.

On December 10 2010 01:53 Krigwin wrote:

Of course there are critics of every decision... but there are also supporters of every decision. If the average person decides the criticisms of the decisions made outweight the support of the decisions made, then they can act against the official

On December 10 2010 01:53 Krigwin wrote:

How do you check their history and achievements if people don't know about it?

When you apply for a job you give them permission to do a background check on you. And if you work for someone, they usually can look at all your work computer files without your permission. (because you work for them)

It should be easier to execute someone than to have a document/communication of the government declared secret.

On December 14 2010 04:52 furymonkey wrote:



You kept going back what I have stated. If every decision is based on popularity, why don't you just have a referendum for every decision? Because you seems to suggest as soon some official didn't make a popular choice, he should be fired immediately.

Then why not just grab a random guy off the street, give him the official job? Because making popular decision isn't hard. What we need is someone that is expert in the matter, and willing to make unpopular decision even if he has to.

Popular decision aren't always the best either, average citizen does not always have the knowledge to understand the matters. People could be short-sighted with immediate or short-term benfits instead of long term implication.

On December 10 2010 01:53 Krigwin wrote:

How do you check their history and achievements if people don't know about it?

When you apply for a job you give them permission to do a background check on you. And if you work for someone, they usually can look at all your work computer files without your permission. (because you work for them)

It should be easier to execute someone than to have a document/communication of the government declared secret.

On December 14 2010 05:14 Krikkitone wrote:

If enough of the decisions of the official are sufficiently unpopular, then they should be removed... and that's what elections do... otherwise elections are pointless.

The official is expected to make a set of decisions that will Overall be more popular... because the people are the only one's qualified to judge what they want... Overall.

That is actually incredibly difficult, because criticism is easy and there are a whole lot of consequences for every decision.

On December 14 2010 05:14 Krikkitone wrote:

They work indirectly for me.. and every other voter.

As for hurting the country. you are presenting 2 options
1. The country makes bad decisions because they are made without complete information
2. The country makes bad decisions because they are made without accountability

I'd rather hurt my country in the first way.... you would rather hurt your country in the second.

I'll take a stupid government over an uncontrolled one. (depending on How stupid and How uncontrolled... Anarchy is bad.)