|
On December 09 2010 03:03 Sultan.P wrote:
Kudos to JWD as his opinions tend to always be well thought out, cohesive and very reasonable.
People who support these "hacktivists" should also consider how their criminal actions are affecting mastercard shareholders, mastercard's customers and also the market in general. This behavior can't go unpunished as this unlawfulness potentially threatens the whole system.
Well thats the point. The system is fucked up.
And the reason they are doing it is because Groups like mastercard/visa... and amazon are all caving in to political pressure. Which is a extreme hit to Transparency and information for everyone. Enemies of free information, are enemies of the people and are political assailants of tyranny are they not?
|
I am opposed to illegal, destructive retaliation against a private business for its lawful business decisions.
Edit: to be clearer: I don't see why downtime on MC's website shouldn't be compared to vandalizing some other MC property. If you support these DDoS attacks, surely you must support the destruction of some other MasterCard property that is less valuable than a few hours of uptime on MC's website (e.g. a small office building, a company car)?
Honestly, I agree with JWD on this one. Vandalism is vandalism. The people in this thread agreeing with it, seem to be very young. Wikileaks should fight this in court, and they should have anon supporting them in protest. That's how a democracy works. Not "wahh I didn't get what I want, so let's burn the building!"
Thats a bull viewpoint. First of all illegality does not morally condemn anything. We have to look at causes and effects.
Your right, that these acts are similar to vandalism in the sense that they cause the company financial damage. So does a variety of protests, including picketing, union strikes and "walk ins", which often harass and deny legitimate customers from the companies services.
The core difference between a DDOS and violent acts against property are twofold. First of all, one has the potential to escalate and hurt lives. When your burning buildings and cars, its only a matter of time before "someone loses an eye", so to speak. Second, a DDOS attack is a temporary loss of service, much like initiating walk ins on restaurants or factory strikes.
People who support these "hacktivists" should also consider how their criminal actions are affecting mastercard shareholders, mastercard's customers and also the market in general. This behavior can't go unpunished as this unlawfulness potentially threatens the whole system.
I guess you would condemn the alabama bus boycotts or union strikes because they cause "financial instability"? Morally condemning something in a democratic society for causing nothing more then "Financial instability" is absolute bull, it puts you on the level of CPC members condemning basic human rights for causing "Social Instability"
|
On December 09 2010 02:39 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 02:17 Krigwin wrote:On December 08 2010 23:19 JWD wrote:
Maybe 4chan should have 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. Wow, that's some pretty ferocious strawmanning there, especially from a mod. Blocking access to a website is equivalent to blowing up buildings now? Also, "lawful business decisions", I had a good laugh there. The evidence against MasterCard has yet to pile up, but the decisions of PayPal, Amazon, and EveryDNS have been anything but lawful. This situation has started to reveal to us the coercive power of the long reach of the US government, and people are getting rightfully pissed off. I've already had this response to my post, and addressed it, on the same page: Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 23:29 JWD wrote:On December 08 2010 23:25 Aim Here wrote: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 violent retaliation against a private business for its lawful business decisions. And a bit disgusted that so many TLers aren't. Because anyone who supports shutting down a website is automatically going to support violence against people? Of course not necessarily, but it's an interesting thought question. If it's awesome for 4chan to destroy MC's website, surely a few days of one of MC's top executives' time isn't a big deal? Or, as I also asked, what about some physical property worth less than a few hours' uptime for mastercard.com? If you support these attacks, surely you must also support the destruction of other, less valuable, MC property. I don't see why downtime on MC's website shouldn't be compared to vandalizing some other MC property. My articulation of this point obviously wasn't very effective, because instead of answers to the useful thought question ("If you support these attacks, surely you must also support the destruction of other, less valuable, MC property?") I am only getting generic responses about a strawman or slippery slope argument. Also: the lawfulness of MC's denial of support for WikiLeaks has already been discussed in this thread too — on what basis do you think it was unlawful?
Why shouldn't downtime of a website be compared to actual destruction of property? Well, maybe because the two are not analogous: Anonymous is not destroying the MasterCard website, they are preventing access. Instead of blowing up a building, that would be similar to blocking the entrance to the building, as others have pointed out. This, your point is an illogical strawman. It's not a "useful thought question", it's a nonconstructive and ludicrous appeal to ridicule designed to get people to agree with you for no real logical reason: "oh you support DDoS attacks? clearly you must support BLOWING UP BUILDINGS!" You discredit yourself and you lower the quality of the discussion in one post.
As for why I think the lawfulness of MC's actions are suspect, well, again, as I stated, the evidence is not clear yet, but judging by the evidence we do have on PayPal, Amazon, EveryDNS, and et cetera, I think it's safe to say that this decision was not based on a simple matter of deciding which customers to deny service to. In fact I think it's safe to say the US government is somehow involved. In fact I think it's safe to say there was probably some communication from the State Department. Now is it legal for MasterCard to deny service due to such causes? Perhaps, that's under question already as legal action is being brought up against such organizations. Is it lawful? Definitely not.
On December 09 2010 02:39 JWD wrote:
And Krigwin, both times you have responded to a post of mine in General you've found it necessary to point out that I am a mod. Just to be clear: my opinions in General threads are not in my capacity as a mod, so I don't see how my status as a mod is relevant.
I point out your moderator status because, as I see it, mods should be held to a higher standard of posting quality. I don't find straw men and appeals to ridicule very high quality. I find them unusual coming from a moderator, in fact. I could be wrong, feel free to correct me here.
|
Oh, Internet. You always entertain me in the morning.
Also, since when does DDoSing a site equal hacking it? Huffington makes it seem like they were destroying or stealing information from MasterCard, not just blocking access to it.
|
Yup the blowing up building was a bit to strong in the connotation department. I akin it more to breaking into a large bank that does a lot of transactions and then basically covering it in toilet paper then welding the doors shut. Although it's not physically violent it is fiscally damaging how much so i do not know, that's probably best to a credit company like mastercard of visa to estimate. Still this isn't like breaking a window this is closer to breaking 100 windows.
In other words if you support fiscally hurting another company, then where do you draw the line? It's not a passive move and thus it is aggressive so it could be considered violent on some level.
|
On December 09 2010 03:15 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:03 Sultan.P wrote:
Kudos to JWD as his opinions tend to always be well thought out, cohesive and very reasonable.
People who support these "hacktivists" should also consider how their criminal actions are affecting mastercard shareholders, mastercard's customers and also the market in general. This behavior can't go unpunished as this unlawfulness potentially threatens the whole system. You know, there was a time in Germany where the law said you need to kill people of certain confessions. Just because something is the law, it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. In a democracy (real democracy, not the joke of a masked feudal system most Western Countries have - seriously, the US has like 350 million citizens and presidency is somehow inheritable?) the sovereign is the people. Hence, the people have the constitutional right to (armed) resistance if someone incuding the government actively works against the consitution. One could argue whether that is already the case. But in a world where laws are made to protect the wealth of few on the cost of the welfare of the many, where war is waged for economic interests, where the pubic is actively mislead in order to prevent the sovereign (read "the people") from making informed political decisions (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?), I think we are pretty close to noticing that something is fundamentally wrong. Question is, are you still comfortable to play the game when you know its rigged? Some of you may be, I am not. As a German, I was educated to be suspicious of authority because it can go downhill pretty quickly if everyone complies. Hence, I thin it is legitimate to voice your dissent and, since politicians no longer listen to people, we need to get their attention somehow. You may argue that the attacks on MC, VISA etc. are vandalism. But you may also take into account that they are vandalism according to the rules of a system that a lot of people no longer feel represented by.
Thank you for this post. I wish more people thought like you.
|
Also to be considered:
The reason all the compnaies ike MC, Visa, PayPal etc. officially is that WiKiLeaks has violated copyrights and, therefore, violated the terms of use.
The EXACT SAME must be said about all the news agencies that participated in publishing, such as the New York Times and Germany's SPIEGEL. However, no such actions were taken against the news companies, that is, I could still buy my SPIEGEL abonnement via credit card if I wanted to.
Hence, what makes the WL case to frsutrating is that the "law" is applied selectively. If it becomes arbitratry who is held to the letter of the law and who is not, shit is about to hit the fan.
|
This is why wiki-leaks supporters are hated. Instead of actually going for a government website, they went for a public company that actually hurts lot of people/customers. IT is in MC's legal RIGHT to REFUSE service TO ANYONE they deem to WANT. There is nothing ILLEGAL about them refusing service. ANY business has the RIGHT to refuse YOU SERVICE, it's not ILLEGAL despite what you think.
As for people justifying the DDOS attacks as not doing any harm, they ARE doing harm. They are blocking a SERVICE that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands use EVERY day to perform transactions. If you block people from doing transactions, it means company loses money. Same way if they were to DDOS Amazon, the company would be losing money as it's business is a ONLINE service.
The only thing this attack has managed to do is give less support to wiki-leaks and more hate to wiki-leaks supporters. Congratulations gentlemen/ladies you just did more harm to your cause than you can ever do as good.
|
On December 09 2010 03:30 BeJe77 wrote:
This is why wiki-leaks supporters are hated. Instead of actually going for a government website, they went for a public company that actually hurts lot of people/customers. IT is in MC's legal RIGHT to REFUSE service TO ANYONE they deem to WANT. There is nothing ILLEGAL about them refusing service. ANY business has the RIGHT to refuse YOU SERVICE, it's not ILLEGAL despite what you think.
As for people justifying the DDOS attacks as not doing any harm, they ARE doing harm. They are blocking a SERVICE that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands use EVERY day to perform transactions. If you block people from doing transactions, it means company loses money. Same way if they were to DDOS Amazon, the company would be losing money as it's business is a ONLINE service.
The only thing this attack has managed to do is give less support to wiki-leaks and more hate to wiki-leaks supporters. Congratulations gentlemen/ladies you just did more harm to your cause than you can ever do as good.
I already said they have done something. Why must i repeat my self. Its not about whats in the law its about whats happening. Is it illegal for the government to kill thousands of civilians in iraq and afghanistan? apparently not. So nothing to see there. The isuse is they are caving in to political pressure.....................
|
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
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.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA.
|
On December 09 2010 03:35 exeexe wrote:
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
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.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA.
This x1000. Why do so many people fight this? Our governments need to be transparent. We need to see what they are doing. Even a Recent president said it him self who was ironically shot.
|
On December 09 2010 03:15 Electric.Jesus wrote:
You know, there was a time in Germany where the law said you need to kill people of certain confessions. Just because something is the law, it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
In a democracy (real democracy, not the joke of a masked feudal system most Western Countries have - seriously, the US has like 350 million citizens and presidency is somehow inheritable?) the sovereign is the people. Hence, the people have the constitutional right to (armed) resistance if someone incuding the government actively works against the consitution.
One could argue whether that is already the case. But in a world where laws are made to protect the wealth of few on the cost of the welfare of the many, where war is waged for economic interests, where the pubic is actively mislead in order to prevent the sovereign (read "the people") from making informed political decisions (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?), I think we are pretty close to noticing that something is fundamentally wrong.
Question is, are you still comfortable to play the game when you know its rigged? Some of you may be, I am not. As a German, I was educated to be suspicious of authority because it can go downhill pretty quickly if everyone complies. Hence, I thin it is legitimate to voice your dissent and, since politicians no longer listen to people, we need to get their attention somehow.
You may argue that the attacks on MC, VISA etc. are vandalism. But you may also take into account that they are vandalism according to the rules of a system that a lot of people no longer feel represented by.
I respect a person who says that Law X is fucked up and works within the system to make a change in the law for a reasonable purpose. Obviously when the US laws said it was OK to enslave blacks this is morally horrific and should be changed, but I'm glad it was done within the system. I don't think many people value consistency as much as they should because this gives a lot of peace of mind to the general population.
In my view, and I might be totally wrong, your statements of " a world where laws are made to protect the wealth of few on the cost of the welfare of many and where the public is actively mislead in order to prevent to people from making informed decision" is just overboard and willfully ignorant. Corporate laws protects a corporate entity and also protects the shareholders of those corporations, whether it be public corporations or small businesses. Please don't give me the Marxist rant that the system is evil and corporations are impeding on citizen's rights in attempts to justify the criminal actions of hackers who are affecting the well being of people who play by the rules and rely on the protection of the law when making their decisions on what to do with their money.
If you want to make a change, let's work within the system, and if there's a better way I'll be all for it. Address specific problems and don't speak in abstractions, please. If you think our form of government is just fundamentally flawed and nothing can be done to improve it except an overthrow, well I just oppose you and your ideals.
|
On December 09 2010 03:33 FindingPride wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:30 BeJe77 wrote:
This is why wiki-leaks supporters are hated. Instead of actually going for a government website, they went for a public company that actually hurts lot of people/customers. IT is in MC's legal RIGHT to REFUSE service TO ANYONE they deem to WANT. There is nothing ILLEGAL about them refusing service. ANY business has the RIGHT to refuse YOU SERVICE, it's not ILLEGAL despite what you think.
As for people justifying the DDOS attacks as not doing any harm, they ARE doing harm. They are blocking a SERVICE that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands use EVERY day to perform transactions. If you block people from doing transactions, it means company loses money. Same way if they were to DDOS Amazon, the company would be losing money as it's business is a ONLINE service.
The only thing this attack has managed to do is give less support to wiki-leaks and more hate to wiki-leaks supporters. Congratulations gentlemen/ladies you just did more harm to your cause than you can ever do as good. I already said they have done something. Why must i repeat my self. Its not about whats in the law its about whats happening. Is it illegal for the government to kill thousands of civilians in iraq and afghanistan? apparently not. So nothing to see there. The isuse is they are caving in to political pressure.....................
Hello there MR. Righteous, What about 9/11, Spain, U.K. and many other countries that have been terrorist bombed by groups who could give a SHIT about innocent civilians? It's a war, in a war bombing military targets produces civilian casualties, especially when militant groups hide in residential locations. THIS is nothing NEW, it's part of a war. The military can't do anything about it, not any nations. There is a difference between "war" casualties caused to civilians and those few that are done by a humans excuse for a soldier who does it on purpose to kill innocent civilians.....
Where is also all this proof that these companies are caving in to the pressure by the government? Like JWD has pointed out it could be BECAUSE of the damage wiki-leaks is doing, companies figured it might actually do A LOT OF HARM to their business. Same way for instance companies dropped TIGER WOODS once they found out he was cheating on his wife, or when Michael Phelps smoked weed and companies dropped him. THEY did it because it can harm their business reputation if they support people like them.
I have no idea why you bring up the WAR when this discussion is about DDOS attack on a public company which is causing it to lose business because IT was within their right to refuse service.
|
On December 09 2010 03:39 Sultan.P wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:15 Electric.Jesus wrote:
You know, there was a time in Germany where the law said you need to kill people of certain confessions. Just because something is the law, it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
In a democracy (real democracy, not the joke of a masked feudal system most Western Countries have - seriously, the US has like 350 million citizens and presidency is somehow inheritable?) the sovereign is the people. Hence, the people have the constitutional right to (armed) resistance if someone incuding the government actively works against the consitution.
One could argue whether that is already the case. But in a world where laws are made to protect the wealth of few on the cost of the welfare of the many, where war is waged for economic interests, where the pubic is actively mislead in order to prevent the sovereign (read "the people") from making informed political decisions (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?), I think we are pretty close to noticing that something is fundamentally wrong.
Question is, are you still comfortable to play the game when you know its rigged? Some of you may be, I am not. As a German, I was educated to be suspicious of authority because it can go downhill pretty quickly if everyone complies. Hence, I thin it is legitimate to voice your dissent and, since politicians no longer listen to people, we need to get their attention somehow.
You may argue that the attacks on MC, VISA etc. are vandalism. But you may also take into account that they are vandalism according to the rules of a system that a lot of people no longer feel represented by.
I respect a person who says that Law X is fucked up and works within the system to make a change in the law for a reasonable purpose. Obviously when the US laws said it was OK to enslave blacks this is morally horrific and should be changed, but I'm glad it was done within the system. I don't think many people value consistency as much as they should because this gives a lot of peace of mind to the general population. In my view, and I might be totally wrong, your statements of " a world where laws are made to protect the wealth of few on the cost of the welfare of many and where the public is actively mislead in order to prevent to people from making informed decision" is just overboard and willfully ignorant. Corporate laws protects a corporate entity and also protects the shareholders of those corporations, whether it be public corporations or small businesses. Please don't give me the Marxist rant that the system is evil and corporations are impeding on citizen's rights in attempts to justify the criminal actions of hackers who are affecting the well being of people who play by the rules and rely on the protection of the law when making their decisions on what to do with their money. If you want to make a change, let's work within the system, and if there's a better way I'll be all for it. Address specific problems and don't speak in abstractions, please. If you think our form of government is just fundamentally flawed and nothing can be done to improve it except an overthrow, well I just oppose you and your ideals.
i don't think speaks in abstractions at all.
"(weapons of mass destruction, anyone?)" you call that abstract ?
|
On December 09 2010 03:35 exeexe wrote:
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
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.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA.
anonymity leads to distrust which besides a few individuals is the majority of wikileaks. Not only does wikileaks pertains to illegally obtaining information they just pour it out for anyone to see not just trusted news outlets, which can lead to accusations of severally aiming to hurt countries as quite of bit of what they leaked was low end classified documents. Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency.
|
Also, let's stop the illogical association fallacies.
Anonymous does not make up the bulk of "Wikileaks supporters". In fact, I'd hazard a guess that most of the Anonymous members involved in this are probably not even Wikileaks supporters in the first place, probably most of them didn't even know anything about Wikileaks until this leak. There are many Wikileaks supporters that disapprove of Anonymous, just like there are many anti-Scientology activists who disapprove of Anonymous. This situation isn't even really about Wikileaks, it's about MasterCard and these other organizations.
Let's make a deal: you don't accuse Wikileaks supporters of supporting "vandalism" or "terrorism" or whatever, and I won't accuse defenders of MasterCard's actions of supporting corporatism and fascism.
|
On December 09 2010 03:46 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:35 exeexe wrote:
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
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.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA. anonymity leads to distrust which besides a few individuals is the majority of wikileaks. Not only does wikileaks pertains to illegally obtaining information they just pour it out for anyone to see not just trusted news outlets, which can lead to accusations of severally aiming to hurt countries as quite of bit of what they leaked was low end classified documents. Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency.
Excellent point my friend, I have yet to see any leaks on other countries. So far it's just one nation being singled out in the fire.
|
@Krigwin
But pertaining to this thread what about those who support anonymous' actions, that is justifiable that those supports can fall into that category. A group is measured by their most vocal and active part not by their majority. It may sound odd but that is what people pay attention to.
|
On December 09 2010 03:52 BeJe77 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:46 semantics wrote:On December 09 2010 03:35 exeexe wrote:
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
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.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA. anonymity leads to distrust which besides a few individuals is the majority of wikileaks. Not only does wikileaks pertains to illegally obtaining information they just pour it out for anyone to see not just trusted news outlets, which can lead to accusations of severally aiming to hurt countries as quite of bit of what they leaked was low end classified documents. Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. Excellent point my friend, I have yet to see any leaks on other countries. So far it's just one nation being singled out in the fire.
ya not many other nation act like the US so it wouldn't happen. by act i mean "wage war on economic interests"
It's not an attack its a defense for democracy. The US is attacking democracy and ethics here.
|
On December 09 2010 03:46 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:35 exeexe wrote:
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
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.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA. anonymity leads to distrust which besides a few individuals is the majority of wikileaks. Not only does wikileaks pertains to illegally obtaining information they just pour it out for anyone to see not just trusted news outlets, which can lead to accusations of severally aiming to hurt countries as quite of bit of what they leaked was low end classified documents. Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency.
Well it's noteworthy that Wikileaks did not illegally pertain information, they got it from thirds. And I'd say that it's likely heavily sided to leaking US government documents because there's obviously a lot of people within the system who are not happy what is going on around them and become whistle blowers and leak documents to media and press (in this case wikileaks) in this fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
