EPTMasterCard Website Down- Hackers support WikiLeaks - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GnaR
United States73 Posts
| ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:13 Aim Here wrote: Aim Here, I'd love if you responded to my post quoting yours, on page 2. Imagine some property (say, a small office building, or a company car) that is worth less to MasterCard than a few hours of uptime on mastercard.com. Would you also be in favor of 4chan blowing up that building, or torching that car? (Note that the car/building hypo is favorable to you, because destruction of the car or office building wouldn't be as much harm to MC's customers as taking down mastercard.com) | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
I think the logic behind it was "America is trying to shut down wikileaks, better hack MC site". You sure are "rebels" haha  I think someone should hack 4chan, that would be too ironic. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:18 Deadlyfish wrote: So Mastercard didnt support wikileaks, so a bunch of hackers though it would be a great idea to annoy innocent people by closing the mastercard site down? I think the logic behind it was "America is trying to shut down wikileaks, better hack MC site". You sure are "rebels" haha I think someone should hack 4chan, that would be too ironic. I like the initiative. Unilateral punishment is never good when dealing in huge world affairs. | ||
|
SCC-Faust
United States3736 Posts
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers Yeah, because "scriptkiddies" would be a better word to use in a report for the general public. Why are people so anal about terminology when it comes to hacking? Did everyone suddenly become a "hacker"? So many pretentious people on these forums... This was a bad move though. What the hell do they think they're accomplishing? I support Wikileaks and what Julian is doing, I don't support a bunch of rampant teenagers randomly DDOSing websites without even giving it a second thought. DDOSing won't fix anything... if anything it'll make tensions even worse. If you want to help Wikileaks, try not fighting fire with fire. When you go out of the way to try and destroy things, you're making a mockery of what Wikileaks is trying to do. | ||
|
Banksy
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
SCC-Faust
United States3736 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:29 Banksy wrote: You can join too No man. Can you try to pay attention? http://www.businessinsider.com/cyber-hackers-that-took-down-swiss-bank-site-have-now-taken-down-mastercardcom-2010-12 "Mastercard says working to suspend acceptance of mastercards on WikiLeaks until situation resolved." | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:44 HellRoxYa wrote: This is not the same thing. Private organisations, groups and in this case websites, have the right to refuse membership over any grounds they so please (unless the law explicitly forbids it). TL is a private website and thus has the right to refuse any member on any grounds. The difference is that MasterCard (among others apparently) seem to have given in to pressure which Anon conciders wrong, and that is why they need to be punished. They will fight in any way they can. Sure we can discuss whether their approach is a good one or not, but your analogy isn't accurate in the slightest. Sorry but that part I bolded is just so ridiculous to me. Just for clarification, I fully support TL's right to ban obnoxious users to the same extent that I support my right to throw unruly guests out of my own home. You are right that private organisations have different rules from public companies. The point I was making is that if those rules are broken is it up for the courts to decide, and not people who "consider it wrong and that is why they need to be punished." | ||
|
OTIX
Sweden491 Posts
Shutting down the MC site obviously has no impact whatsoever but it does help to bring even more attention to what's happening. | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:19 JWD wrote: Maybe 4chan should have taken some hostages from MasterCard management instead? Or at the very least, destroyed some of MasterCard's physical property, like by blowing up an empty office building or something (might well cause MC less losses than having its website down for hours)? Then all of you supporters of this attack would really get excited? I am opposed to illegal, destructive retaliation against a private business for its lawful business decisions. And a bit disgusted that so many TLers aren't. well said. Any company has the right to deny service to any customer, for any reason they wish.... that is the law. When I go in to a shop, they can kick me out or refuse to serve me if they wish, and if i then cause havok in the store.... I am breaking the law. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:29 funkie wrote: Let's get something clear here. When someone gets banned, it's not because of their "free speech" if because of their language, their misbehavior and they "abuse" of free speech. Get it, pumpkin? Sorry but all of that is free speech. Throwing the words "abuse of" in front of free speech doesn't make it any less of free speech. Somebody can randomly post 10,000 links of goatse in every single thread and that is still free speech. You have a right to free speech and TL has a right to ban you for speech it does not like, and rightfully so. I'm not complaining of TL's moderation I am just stating a simple fact. This is not even exclusive to TL, there are countless examples of people being punished for free speech: The Dixie Chicks, Don Imus, Keith Olbermann etc. Who gets to decide that its okay to hack mastercard for dropping Assange or if its okay to hack MSNBC for suspending Olbermann, or the Dixie Chicks record label for dropping them, or TL for banning the guy that posted 10,000 goatse links? Does Anon get to decide this or should the courts get to decide this? It sickens me that some people think the former should decide. btw its even in the TL ten commandments "We are not obligated to observe anyone's notions of "free speech" or even "fairness."" | ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:43 OTIX wrote: If what Paypal, MC and VISA have done is in fact legal then that is even more reason to be outraged. These corporations basically have the power to destroy any retailer or donation-supported organisation in the world. There has to be laws in play to prevent them from wielding that power, much like any corporation that controls vital infrastructure. I suppose americans are used to major corporations having significant political influence but I think most people would agree that that is not an acceptable situation. Shutting down the MC site obviously has no impact whatsoever but it does help to bring even more attention to what's happening. So you want companies to have no power over the services they offer to others? I just don't follow, MC Visa and Paypal aren't the only companies that offer these services. | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:18 JWD wrote: Aim Here, I'd love if you responded to my post quoting yours, on page 2. Imagine some property (say, a small office building, or a company car) that is worth less to MasterCard than a few hours of uptime on mastercard.com. Would you also be in favor of 4chan blowing up that building, or torching that car? (Note that the car/building hypo is favorable to you, because destruction of the car or office building wouldn't be as much harm to MC's customers as taking down mastercard.com) First off, I'm fairly ambivalent about these DOS tactics that Mastercard is using, mostly because I can't predict the likely effects of them (and as far as morality is concerned, I believe that the judgement of morality of an action hinges purely on the predictable consequences of that action). It partly hinges on the likelihood of what the state can get away with, and do, if these attacks became really successful, and I'm not sure about that - currently what's going on is a bog-standard DDOS, of little or no consequence in the medium to long term. There's also the issue of Anonymous being a small, unaccountable, group of people wielding some power out of proportion to their numbers, but that's a problem for a later date - currently the DOSes are just propaganda (and far more effective at that than the jester, the anti-Wikileaks counterpart). As for the damage to physical property you're suggesting, the case there is more clearcut, since it's happened before - there was a spate of left-wing 'urban guerrilla' type actions in the late '60s and early '70s that were similar to the ones you suggest. Some of the groups (like the Red Brigade in Italy, or Red Army Fraction in Germany) did commit terrorist bombings and assassinations, so they're not applicable here. The Angry Brigade in the UK, or the Weather Underground in the US, did mostly restrict themselves to property damage and issuing communiques (although the Weather Underground were going to do a rather nasty terrorist bombing initially, until the bombmaker blew himself up - the remaining members of the WU were a less violent bunch). All that came out of those guys was that lots of people were scared of secretive elite groups planting bombs (even if they weren't aimed at people), the fear among the public led to a lot of state repression, and no social change, and I think that if a group like that sprang up today it would get more fear and even less support. So yes, I'm against bombing an empty building the way you describe. Bombs are scary. Scaring people is usually bad. Now smashing up the property of people who are up to no good CAN be done in a way that doesn't create massive amounts of fear among the general population. The mass anticapitalist demos of the late 1990s and early 2000s did involve some rioting and property damage, but in a way that didn't cause mass fear among the general population. There was a lot of state repression (most notably at the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001), but since it was the protesters who came off worse, physically, and it made for good propaganda if the robocops of the Italian State were shown to be evil fascist thugs, it did have the effect of tempering the state. I was protesting the G8 summit in 2005, and the strategy of the state there was mostly to work with (or appear to work with - a lot of the announcements at the end of the summit were fraudulent, but it was a start) the NGOs in order to hijack the anticapitalist demonstration - because they realised they wouldn't have easily gotten away with just storming peaceful protesters in their beds and torturing them, as happened at Genoa. Some people did get clobbered, and the police tactics probably weren't entirely legal, but in general, the filth were on their best behaviour. In short, I wouldn't object to destroying the property of Mastercard in certain circumstances (or even on general principles, I'm a 'property is theft' kinda guy!), but the way you propose it should be done would be out of the question. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
This entire cyberwar kinda reminds me of the American Civil Rights Movement or even standard union sit-ins for some reason; nonviolent, illegal actions designed to curry attention for a cause. Which is definitely a better analogy than bombings or hostage taking; one is to deny use of a service, and the other is to commit violent destruction of life and property. Amusingly enough, MasterCard accepts donations to the KKK and other white supremacist parties. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
EDIT: It's over 1700 now.. EDIT: 1800... | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:58 Kralic wrote: So you want companies to have no power over the services they offer to others? I just don't follow, MC Visa and Paypal aren't the only companies that offer these services. He never said that. He got a very good point. You are overreacting by saying they should have "NO" power; he said they shouldn't have the power to completely screw up an organization relying on donations. Of course they should be able to control what they do, but to a certain extent. Just because you got a private company dosn't mean you can do jackshit with it, there are many laws you have to follow, atleast in the countries with an existing socal security... | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:18 Bartuc wrote: Hm, I'm not sure that the scale has any potential effect on whether or not it is violent. Consider a major event disturbed by a group of people of certain environmental/political beliefs by blocking access to that event. What matters most in terms of scale is that the induced impact is higher, but if this impact is supported by the general populus and no violence/direct damage occurs, then objectively I wouldn't nessecarily say that such a high scale impact event is bad. Still, even when general populus is against said impact/political motivation I might still support it because I agree with them. There's plenty of political causes that are vigorously protested/demonstrated for by a poilitical minority. I think this is very subjective and depends on you as a person as to whether you think it is bad or not. In terms of the violence that would be nessecary to stop entrance to the bank, I disagree. The way I concider it is if you stand between potential user and mastercard in a real world situation without applying violence to stop the user, you would cause indirect and potential damages (for lack of better terms/explanation). If you use violence (e.g. pushing the other person away) the other person receives direct damage to himself and his property. I think the latter is not the case when paraphrasing it to the online situation. All good points. You're absolutely right that scale doesn't go to violence. As I pointed the difference in scale out, I was thinking "but this doesn't differentiate the bank picketing analogy, on principle." Actually after continuing to think about your bank picketing analogy, I can't find any good way to differentiate it. So I now think that "violent" was probably the wrong word. I edited my first post accordingly. Thanks for that illuminating thought. Aim Here, thanks for your post. I really have to study now but I hope to respond to it later. | ||
|
RiotSpectre
United States163 Posts
Of course, members of Anon may now be wanted in Sweden for some hastily concocted sexual offense allegations... | ||
|
Natt
France253 Posts
| ||
|
Neivler
Norway911 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:43 OTIX wrote: If what Paypal, MC and VISA have done is in fact legal then that is even more reason to be outraged. These corporations basically have the power to destroy any retailer or donation-supported organisation in the world. There has to be laws in play to prevent them from wielding that power, much like any corporation that controls vital infrastructure. I suppose americans are used to major corporations having significant political influence but I think most people would agree that that is not an acceptable situation. Shutting down the MC site obviously has no impact whatsoever but it does help to bring even more attention to what's happening. When you get an account with any of the companies you both agree on a contract. I am not sure but I would guess they are not allowed to deny your account, when you have no broken any of their regulations. | ||
| ||
