EPT:D
MasterCard Website Down- Hackers support WikiLeaks - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
:D | ||
|
exeexe
Denmark937 Posts
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 | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:19 exeexe wrote: 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. | ||
|
ZeroCartin
Costa Rica2390 Posts
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.  Agreed | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
| ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
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. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:19 Roe wrote: why doesn't the US gov just hack 4chan? :D Cause when 4chan figures it out, the logs will wind up on wikileaks =P | ||
|
exeexe
Denmark937 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:22 mahnini wrote: 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. Yeah but also consider the follwing that the government can lie that they KNOW - they dont guess or assume - They know that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so there is a need to go to war, and as a consequence people could die. Anyways if you arent prepared to die you shouldnt go to war in the first place. One difference between a soldier and a citizen who lives in the battlezone, is that the soldier had a choice to go there while the citizen didnt. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
I'm not going to claim that Wikileaks is perfect and shit rainbows; they haven't harmed anyone yet but someday, sooner or later, they are going to kill someone with their information. This is absolutely true, and unavoidable. Those who claim that it isn't so are deluded...albeit somewhat less deluded than those who crap out the party line, that WIkileaks is a zealot terrorist organization that indiscriminately murders people. Or even those hypothetical people, who we REALLY, REALLY could have used a decade ago. Seriously, where were those guys? However, what some hypothetical people miss is that EVERY organization, be it a news corps, a government, The Red Cross, or even that lemonade stand down the street runs this risk, that people might die because of their actions and methodology. Every single organization will, if run in the "long run", cause people to die. The question is, is the hypothetical risk worth the absolutely real gains? Judging from what they've been releasing, the answer is yes. | ||
|
exeexe
Denmark937 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:30 acker wrote: Where the hell were these hypothetical people a decade ago, when they could have actually been useful? You gotta organise and grow before you can do action | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:18 tnud wrote: 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" | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
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. Well, I think the question here is whether you trust those who govern and decide what information to classify. In my opinion, experience tells us that it might be wise not to. Lets assume that most people act rationally and strive to increase their personal welfare (not my idea but a good one nonetheless). Lets further assume that people in power are not better then the average chap. Will they abuse the system to their advantage if they get the opportunity? Maybe not all of them but some certainly do. Would they be open to suggestions from those who can offer money and influence? Probably. So, there is a non-negligable temptation to abuse power for the personal benefit (or of that of friends, partners etc.). Can we do something to prevent that? Depends. It depends on how well the mechanisms of social control work. The more can be kept secret the easier it is to abuse power. Given the recent history of political decision making in germany and other western democracies I am rather pessimistic with regards to the effectiveness of our social control mechanisms. Hence, every opportunity to reveal immoral or illegal behavior on parts of powerful entities (goverment, large corporations) is welcome. My personal view (backed by tons of research from social psychology) is that most people are good folks until they have the opportunity to cheat, lie and steal for their own benefit wihtout anyone else noticing. Simple solution: limit the occurence of such situations. This comes from a person that tried to change the system for 10 years and realized it is not possible (in Germany) unless you are at the very top (10 years of membership in a political party) and once you are there, you will probabaly have lost interest in changing the system because you would work against yourself. | ||
|
Bartuc
Netherlands629 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:30 acker wrote: Where the hell were these hypothetical people a decade ago, when they could have actually been useful? I'd have to say that public opinion and civil climate wasn't right for things such as these at that time. The power of nightmares reigned supreme. | ||
|
CanucksJC
Canada1241 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:36 Deadlyfish wrote: "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'. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:25 Krigwin wrote: 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. | ||
|
Minzy
Australia387 Posts
He received some information, he had the choice to keep it to himself, or share, he chose to share. The governments fault for not keeping it "classified" enough, clearly the millions if not billions of dollars in tax payer money wasn't enough, good to know the people's money is being spent wisely *cough*. He made them look like fool's and now he has to pay? lol. And those rape charges, though they could be true, i wouldnt be surprised if they just threw some hookers at him and made them claim assault/rape, get him in jail for anything, then keep him there. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
Anyone remember the Toy War from the early 90s? Internet "hacktivism" is nice, but when you cross the line between protest activity and willful destruction of property it becomes a much more serious crime that shouldn't be allowed or supported by anyone. In the Toy War case, an internet group deliberately shut down operations of an internet-based toy company over a dispute over the domain name, eventually driving the company out of business (months after, but the damage had been done). No discernible difference between that and simply burning down a physical store. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On December 09 2010 05:47 mahnini wrote: 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. | ||
|
Ympulse
United States287 Posts
Actually doing some malicious hacking and DDOS-ing gov't websites would have been a better, if less publicized, strike. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
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. Not only has not a single person died as a consequence of wikileaks, but Nato had stated that while looking for people to put under protection as a result of these leaks...they couldn't find anyone who actually needed Nato protection. | ||
| ||
