Operation Payback appeared to first report the outage, which has been confirmed throughout the morning by DownForEveryoneOrJustMe.com. The group tweeted:
@Anon_Operation WE ARE GLAD TO TELL YOU THAT http://www.mastercard.com/ is DOWN AND IT'S CONFIRMED! #ddos #wikileaks Operationayback(is a bitch!) #PAYBACK
DDOS attacks, also known as denial of service, were used to take down WikiLeaks.org before it was forced to move to WikiLeaks.ch.
Such an attack would -- and apparently did -- interrupt access to the MasterCard website, but there is no indication that it would impact any of the company's day-to-day financial transactions. As of 8:25 a.m. ET, there have been no known reports of problems with point-of-sale transactions.
TechCrunch is reporting that the attack has been linked to 4Chan and Anonymous and may have targeted other sites as well:
4Chan and the Internet vigilante group Anonymous have backed Operation Payback has also lead efforts against the RIAA. 4Chan is organizing their WikiLeaks and Julian Assange support efforts through the @Anon_Operation Twitter account and here.
Attacks have also hit Paypal and Swiss bank PostFinance and other sites which have refused service to Assange. EveryDNS.net, Visa as well as Amazon are also possible targets.
On December 08 2010 22:13 imsorrisuck wrote: MasterCard.com has been down since about 5 a.m. ET. According to the BBC, hackers who support WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are taking credit.
On December 08 2010 22:13 imsorrisuck wrote: MasterCard.com has been down since about 5 a.m. ET. According to the BBC, hackers who support WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are taking credit.
rofl nice pun.
As much as I think Wikileaks isn't a really good thing, I don't understand why people who support Wikileaks would not be free to donate their money. Paypal and Mastercard blocking donation are really sad
Visa will be next since they just withdrew support as well. You can only imagine how big their botnet is to be able to pull something like this... crazy
Also, for anyone who still say there's no proof that Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and others are taking off support for wikileaks because of government pressure. Now there's some solid evidence. As Paypal just admitted that they blocked wikileaks because they received a phone call from the state department telling them to do so:
They told paypal that it was illegal, which is obviously not true. Something is only illegal once it's ruled as so in court. Which didn't happen here. The state department had no authority to do that. And paypal had no legal reasons to.
This is somehow a fight for internet's freedom. People who can, should indeed unite and show that internet should remain free and that people are going to fight for it.
On December 08 2010 22:33 angelicfolly wrote: This isn't going to help their "cause".
It might, if they actually keep this up and successfully clog up the payment processing sites (rather than just the shiny corporate propaganda websites) of the likes of Mastercard and PayPal around Christmastime. The bad guys would certainly have to sit up and take notice then, though obviously the first thing they'd do would be to try to take down the Anonymous people.
What's next, Amazon? Or perhaps they might go after more vocal people against wiki leaks.
Amazon would be pretty hard to DDOS, but if Anon thought it was feasible, I'm sure they'd have a go. Senator Lieberman, who badgered Amazon into throwing Wikileaks off their servers DID have his website attacked a few days ago.
On December 08 2010 22:33 angelicfolly wrote: This isn't going to help their "cause".
It might, if they actually keep this up and successfully clog up the payment processing sites (rather than just the shiny corporate propaganda websites) of the likes of Mastercard and PayPal around Christmastime. The bad guys would certainly have to sit up and take notice then, though obviously the first thing they'd do would be to try to take down the Anonymous people.
What's next, Amazon? Or perhaps they might go after more vocal people against wiki leaks.
Amazon would be pretty hard to DDOS, but if Anon thought it was feasible, I'm sure they'd have a go. Senator Lieberman, who badgered Amazon into throwing Wikileaks off their servers DID have his website attacked a few days ago.
"...the bad guys...", lol no.
If they where to clog the payment processing sites that legal grounds. Not to mention having a good part of the consumers angry over their financial situation. Point is your MESSING with the population now not the so called "bad guys".
If they did attack Amazon, they would lose a lot of support. It's basically blackmail if you will. Not something you want to do if you want a "good" cause.
On December 08 2010 22:33 angelicfolly wrote: This isn't going to help their "cause".
It might, if they actually keep this up and successfully clog up the payment processing sites (rather than just the shiny corporate propaganda websites) of the likes of Mastercard and PayPal around Christmastime. The bad guys would certainly have to sit up and take notice then, though obviously the first thing they'd do would be to try to take down the Anonymous people.
What's next, Amazon? Or perhaps they might go after more vocal people against wiki leaks.
Amazon would be pretty hard to DDOS, but if Anon thought it was feasible, I'm sure they'd have a go. Senator Lieberman, who badgered Amazon into throwing Wikileaks off their servers DID have his website attacked a few days ago.
"...the bad guys...", lol no.
If they where to clog the payment processing sites that legal grounds. Not to mention having a good part of the consumers angry over their financial situation. Point is your MESSING with the population now not the so called "bad guys".
If they did attack Amazon, they would lose a lot of support. It's basically blackmail if you will. Not something you want to do if you want a "good" cause.
They are stepping over a line here.
Necessary loses for the greater good? How else do you combat something like this, other than taking down someones useless personal site?
Yeah it's bad that random internet users will have to "suffer" (wtf suffer, it's not that bad if you can't buy something off amazon) but knowing that Amazon fell into political pressures into breaking over the freedom of speech, they deserve this. They deserve not being able to make money (any downtime for amazon is a big lose of money for them).
On December 08 2010 22:33 angelicfolly wrote: This isn't going to help their "cause".
It might, if they actually keep this up and successfully clog up the payment processing sites (rather than just the shiny corporate propaganda websites) of the likes of Mastercard and PayPal around Christmastime. The bad guys would certainly have to sit up and take notice then, though obviously the first thing they'd do would be to try to take down the Anonymous people.
What's next, Amazon? Or perhaps they might go after more vocal people against wiki leaks.
Amazon would be pretty hard to DDOS, but if Anon thought it was feasible, I'm sure they'd have a go. Senator Lieberman, who badgered Amazon into throwing Wikileaks off their servers DID have his website attacked a few days ago.
"...the bad guys...", lol no.
If they where to clog the payment processing sites that legal grounds. Not to mention having a good part of the consumers angry over their financial situation. Point is your MESSING with the population now not the so called "bad guys".
If they did attack Amazon, they would lose a lot of support. It's basically blackmail if you will. Not something you want to do if you want a "good" cause.
They are stepping over a line here.
Necessary loses for the greater good? How else do you combat something like this, other than taking down someones useless personal site?
Necessary loses? LOL how ironic that statement is.
So they resort to the same tactic that they champion against?
On December 08 2010 22:48 VIB wrote: Both Mastercard and Visa are getting sued for pulling support illegally:
If they where to clog the payment processing sites that legal grounds. Not to mention having a good part of the consumers angry over their financial situation. Point is your MESSING with the population now not the so called "bad guys".
If they did attack Amazon, they would lose a lot of support. It's basically blackmail if you will. Not something you want to do if you want a "good" cause.
They are stepping over a line here.
Well remember that these guys aren't Wikileaks, this is Anon, who are kindof the military wing of 4chan. Wikileaks has no control over those guys whatsoever, they're a law unto themselves.
And remember that those angry consumers are either going to blame Paypal/Mastercard/Visa and complain at the corporations who find themselves unable to provide a decent service, or they're going to blame Anon and sit at home and grumble - they're not going to hop onto IRC and try to hunt down this Anon group in some act of internet vigilanteism on behalf of their bankers. The net effect will probably be to amplify the DDOS attack, if anything.
If there IS a tactical (as opposed to ethical, that's a matter between you and your rabbi) problem with DDOSing the bad guys, it's going to be with any resulting state repression and surveillance of the net - pissing off shoppers won't have much of an effect.
On December 08 2010 22:54 Pika Chu wrote: Stepping over a line why?
Yeah it's bad that random internet users will have to "suffer" (wtf suffer, it's not that bad if you can't buy something off amazon) but knowing that Amazon fell into political pressures into breaking over the freedom of speech, they deserve this. They deserve not being able to make money (any downtime for amazon is a big lose of money for them).
just fyi, you're posting this on a website that routinely bans people for their speech. You think it's okay for those banned users to hack TL for payback because TL censored their free speech?
If they where to clog the payment processing sites that legal grounds. Not to mention having a good part of the consumers angry over their financial situation. Point is your MESSING with the population now not the so called "bad guys".
If they did attack Amazon, they would lose a lot of support. It's basically blackmail if you will. Not something you want to do if you want a "good" cause.
They are stepping over a line here.
Well remember that these guys aren't Wikileaks, this is Anon, who are kindof the military wing of 4chan. Wikileaks has no control over those guys whatsoever, they're a law unto themselves.
And remember that those angry consumers are either going to blame Paypal/Mastercard/Visa and complain at the corporations who find themselves provide a decent service, or they're going to blame Anon and sit at home and grumble - they're not going to hop onto IRC and try to hunt down this Anon group in some act of internet vigilanteism on behalf of their bankers. The net effect will probably be to amplify the DDOS attack, if anything.
If there IS a tactical (as opposed to ethical, that's a matter between you and your rabbi) problem with DDOSing the bad guys, it's going to be with any resulting state repression and surveillance of the net - pissing off shoppers won't have much of an effect.
let's get rid of this Bad guy Good guy label.
These guys are supporters of wiki leaks right? Until they are denounced, I would assume they are operating on friendly terms.
Angry consumers are more likely to support their government when they are told that because of "supporters" of wki leaks they where "harmed" in some way.
Really, this could blow up bigtime in the US's face. It's not acceptable for mthem to think they own the internet and can just go around DDOS-ing websites as they like without suffering retribution.
When this is all over, I hope Wikileaks finds and publishes the names and methods of the hackers who shut down these sites. Seriously, you can whine cause someone else won't let you use their service to pay you, that might hurt their business enough to make them think twice, but attacking them for going against what you want?
These sites have security problems which were exposed, and to gain what? The company probably won't fall for the same shit twice, so the hackers have traded in exploitation of this particular problem for what? All they've shown is that they like to bully to get what they want. It's like 4chan's becoming the North Korea of internet culture, mostly a nuisance lead by a whiny dictator.
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)?
well it's perrty bad for Wikileaks that they are now directly connected with 4chan, also known as the sh1thole of the internet. I wouldnt even be surprised if this is a conspiracy, although not that likely.
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? I'm not quite sure if that's a 'strawman' or 'slippery slope' fallacy, or both.
Though I suppose it might explain some of the death threats from some fairly respectable sources calling for the murder of Assange or even using death threats against his son as leverage.
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?.
On December 08 2010 22:54 Pika Chu wrote: Stepping over a line why?
Yeah it's bad that random internet users will have to "suffer" (wtf suffer, it's not that bad if you can't buy something off amazon) but knowing that Amazon fell into political pressures into breaking over the freedom of speech, they deserve this. They deserve not being able to make money (any downtime for amazon is a big lose of money for them).
just fyi, you're posting this on a website that routinely bans people for their speech. You think it's okay for those banned users to hack TL for payback because TL censored their free speech?
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?
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 take down MC's website, maybe 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.
On December 08 2010 22:54 Pika Chu wrote: Stepping over a line why?
Yeah it's bad that random internet users will have to "suffer" (wtf suffer, it's not that bad if you can't buy something off amazon) but knowing that Amazon fell into political pressures into breaking over the freedom of speech, they deserve this. They deserve not being able to make money (any downtime for amazon is a big lose of money for them).
just fyi, you're posting this on a website that routinely bans people for their speech. You think it's okay for those banned users to hack TL for payback because TL censored their free speech?
You're paraphrasing his post's underlying argumentation with the policy TL whilst he's not actually discussing TL policies (besides, both situations might have wildly different background stories for him).
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really. Edit: upon further consideration of analogy to picketing or some similar "denial of service" protest I think "violent" was too colorful a word. Edited original post accordingly. Thanks for provoking the thought, Bartuc.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
On December 08 2010 23:29 funkie wrote: Way to support the bully-movement. :cheers:
I don't see why it's impossible to oppose destructive retaliatory acts like these attacks but still support WikiLeaks. Perhaps I am a staunch WikiLeaks fan but just believe it and its supporters should stick to lawful, non-destructive defensive measures (for example, the lawsuits against MC etc.). The kind of "for us or against us" attitude in your post scares me.
But maybe by "the bully-movement" you meant 4chan's attacks?
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
Nothing is actually destroyed, only access is blocked due to many people blocking the entrance to their facilities at the same time. I'd compare it more to a few thousand people standing around the entrance of a bank blocking everybody who comes in and out. I'd define it as civil disobedience rather than violence.
On December 08 2010 22:54 Pika Chu wrote: Stepping over a line why?
Yeah it's bad that random internet users will have to "suffer" (wtf suffer, it's not that bad if you can't buy something off amazon) but knowing that Amazon fell into political pressures into breaking over the freedom of speech, they deserve this. They deserve not being able to make money (any downtime for amazon is a big lose of money for them).
just fyi, you're posting this on a website that routinely bans people for their speech. You think it's okay for those banned users to hack TL for payback because TL censored their free speech?
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.
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?
This is funny. If you extend what you're saying to a broader picture, the US are trying to say Wikileaks (and Assange) have been "abusing free speech". What I'm trying to say is that your logic is flawed.
My personal opinion on this is that unless there's a better way to combat the US governments "we do whatever we want and all the companies and governments of the world must bow to us"-attitude then I'm behind this. If there's consequences both ways then both governments and companies will be less willing to just bow down and kiss the US' feet just because it's easy and convinient.
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?
This is funny. If you extend what you're saying to a broader picture, the US are trying to say Wikileaks (and Assange) have been "abusing free speech". What I'm trying to say is that your logic is flawed.
My personal opinion on this is that unless there's a better way to combat the US governments "we do whatever we want and all the companies and governments of the world must bow to us"-attitude then I'm behind this. If there's consequences both ways then both governments and companies will be less willing to just bow down and kiss the US' feet just because it's easy and convinient.
While I agree with your statement, I'm pretty sure funkie's only referring to what happens on TL. As in, you only get banned on TL for being a dick, freedom of speech comes second.
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
Nothing is actually destroyed, only access is blocked due to many people blocking the entrance to their facilities at the same time. I'd compare it more to a few thousand people standing around the entrance of a bank blocking everybody who comes in and out. I'd define it as civil disobedience rather than violence.
Yes, and picketers routinely block access to whatever organization they are picketing. But here on the internet it's important to remember that it's not the real world, and that most people still consider it a place where you can get away with anything. This goes both ways as the government pressuring web businesses is equally inappropriate (and far more terrifying).
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
Nothing is actually destroyed, only access is blocked due to many people blocking the entrance to their facilities at the same time. I'd compare it more to a few thousand people standing around the entrance of a bank blocking everybody who comes in and out. I'd define it as civil disobedience rather than violence.
Yes, and picketers routinely block access to whatever organization they are picketing. But here on the internet it's important to remember that it's not the real world, and that most people still consider it a place where you can get away with anything. This goes both ways as the government pressuring web businesses is equally inappropriate (and far more terrifying).
I agree with you on the point that some things on the internet are definately bad, though this extends to the real world as well of course. The blade cuts both ways, it's easy to draw inaccurate conclusions on things going on there though as they are immaterial and thus you will often end up with a polarized point of view. I do approve of this particular action though because I believe that this is a non-violent reaction to a conscious action by Mastercards, an action that I sincerely disrespect and consider injust.
On December 08 2010 23:38 JWD wrote: Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
It's not up to YOU to decide what's lawful. It's up to a court to rule that out. Refuse to service is not as black or white as you make it sound. These laws change a lot, are very subjective and often times get ruled differently from similar cases. Wikileaks does have a case against MasterCard and Visa, hence why they're being sued. http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
Illegal or not. It's on the very least immoral for MC to make this decision. At least according to the supporters. Who are defending what they find moral.
They are succumbing to government pressure. Meaning they're doing this out of political motivation. That alone, is illegal in many countries. I wouldn't know about the US specifically. But on the very least, it's immoral to do so.
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
Nothing is actually destroyed, only access is blocked due to many people blocking the entrance to their facilities at the same time. I'd compare it more to a few thousand people standing around the entrance of a bank blocking everybody who comes in and out. I'd define it as civil disobedience rather than violence.
There's a fine line to be sure. But I disagree that "nothing is actually destroyed," in the sense that mastercard.com is MC's property, and MasterCard is suffering every second that it is down. Ensuing damage to MC's business is permanent (if difficult to measure).
The analogy to blocking a bank entrance is nice, and has got me thinking pretty hard. This particular "entrance" (mastercard.com) has tens of thousands of visitors a day (plus it's much more important to MasterCard than any one physical location), so in scale the analogy is definitely way off. And I mean, presumably some sort of aggression would be necessary to stop bank customers from simply walking through the crowd to go in the bank.
As for calling a DDoS attack mere "civil disobedience," my immediate reaction is that such an attack is much too aggressive to fall within the connotative meaning of that term.
But all this is getting away from the thrust of my point, which is that it's not right for 4chan to harm (whether through "violent retaliation" or mere "civil disobedience") MC for MC's lawful business decision.
I think this is pretty stupid by Anon. I am supportive of Assange and his cause and am totally against the government tracking him down and prosecuting him now to stop his leaks but this move to attack mastercard.com is not going to help anything. To use the bully analogy that someone threw out on an earlier page. If the US Government is the bully and mastercard.com is the one being pressured into denying support, instead of going for the bully Anon decides to beat up the victim after the first bully already bullied them into withdrawing support? It's like the government beat up mastercard.com and then Anon came by after and stole mastercard's lunch money.
On December 08 2010 23:38 JWD wrote: Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
It's not up to YOU to decide what's lawful. It's up to a court to rule that out. Refuse to service is not as black or white as you make it sound. These laws change a lot, are very subjective and often times get ruled differently from similar cases. Wikileaks does have a case against MasterCard and Visa, hence why they're being sued. http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
Of course it's up to the courts, and I think it's pretty slam dunk to say that MC acted within the bounds of the law as it stands today. From the article you linked, which I'm accepting as accurate:
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.
Here, I can think of a ton of "specific business interests" that MC can identify to justify cutting off WikiLeaks. I mentioned some in my post above. Think of it this way: if it's legal for Wal-mart to refuse to sell stuff on moral grounds, MC absolutely has a legitimate reason to deny WL service.
On December 09 2010 00:01 VIB wrote: They are succumbing to government pressure.
Source for this? There are plenty of equally plausible alternative theories. For example, maybe MC just decided that, since it's an American company and appreciates American laws and the US government, it would cut off WikiLeaks for the damage that WL has caused US foreign policy.
Sidenote: hate to abandon this thread, but I really need to study.
On December 08 2010 23:54 RoosterSamurai wrote: Why mastercard though, of all websites...?
Anonymous has been going against the sites of people who, in their view, have been attacking Wikileaks, as part of its campaign against internet censorship. Mastercard was the second of the online payment processing companies to boycott Wikileaks, so the DOS is in retaliation for that (they'd already DOS'ed Paypal).
Don't you think they would go after a government website??
As part of the Wikileaks campaign, they have attacked the site of the Swedish prosecutor who was going after wikileaks, and the US senator who pressured Amazon into dropping the Wikileaks site. So far, the US government has yet to do anything concrete and verifiable to directly attack wikileaks.
Anonymous has attacked government websites in the past, as part of other campaigns, such as against Australian government censorship or internet filesharing, so I don't think they'll be too scared of blocking a government entity, once one of them steps up to the plate and actually launches a formal attack on Wikileaks. They need specific targets to attack, though. I'm sure Anonymous can't just go 'GOVERNMENT BAD! LET'S GO!" and attack the Office of Coordinated Regional Statistics for South West Dakota and expect people to join in.
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
Nothing is actually destroyed, only access is blocked due to many people blocking the entrance to their facilities at the same time. I'd compare it more to a few thousand people standing around the entrance of a bank blocking everybody who comes in and out. I'd define it as civil disobedience rather than violence.
There's a fine line to be sure. But I disagree that "nothing is actually destroyed," in the sense that mastercard.com is MC's property, and MasterCard is suffering every second that it is down. Ensuing damage to MC's business is permanent (if difficult to measure).
The analogy to blocking a bank entrance is nice, and has got me thinking pretty hard. This particular "entrance" (mastercard.com) has tens of thousands of visitors a day (plus it's much more important to MasterCard than any one physical location), so in scale the analogy is definitely way off. And I mean, presumably some sort of aggression would be necessary to stop bank customers from simply walking through the crowd to go in the bank.
As for calling a DDoS attack mere "civil disobedience," my immediate reaction is that such an attack is much too aggressive to fall within the connotative meaning of that term.
But all this is getting away from the thrust of my point, which is that it's not right for 4chan to harm (whether through "violent retaliation" or mere "civil disobedience") MC for MC's lawful business decision.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
On December 08 2010 22:54 Pika Chu wrote: Stepping over a line why?
Yeah it's bad that random internet users will have to "suffer" (wtf suffer, it's not that bad if you can't buy something off amazon) but knowing that Amazon fell into political pressures into breaking over the freedom of speech, they deserve this. They deserve not being able to make money (any downtime for amazon is a big lose of money for them).
just fyi, you're posting this on a website that routinely bans people for their speech. You think it's okay for those banned users to hack TL for payback because TL censored their free speech?
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."
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.
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.
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.""
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, 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
Nothing is actually destroyed, only access is blocked due to many people blocking the entrance to their facilities at the same time. I'd compare it more to a few thousand people standing around the entrance of a bank blocking everybody who comes in and out. I'd define it as civil disobedience rather than violence.
There's a fine line to be sure. But I disagree that "nothing is actually destroyed," in the sense that mastercard.com is MC's property, and MasterCard is suffering every second that it is down. Ensuing damage to MC's business is permanent (if difficult to measure).
The analogy to blocking a bank entrance is nice, and has got me thinking pretty hard. This particular "entrance" (mastercard.com) has tens of thousands of visitors a day (plus it's much more important to MasterCard than any one physical location), so in scale the analogy is definitely way off. And I mean, presumably some sort of aggression would be necessary to stop bank customers from simply walking through the crowd to go in the bank.
As for calling a DDoS attack mere "civil disobedience," my immediate reaction is that such an attack is much too aggressive to fall within the connotative meaning of that term.
But all this is getting away from the thrust of my point, which is that it's not right for 4chan to harm (whether through "violent retaliation" or mere "civil disobedience") MC for MC's lawful business decision.
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.
Anon is such a wildcard, and I think they absolutely prefer it that way. I support Wikileaks and freedom of information, but a DDOS attack against MC is pretty childish. I doubt it will accomplish anything.
Of course, members of Anon may now be wanted in Sweden for some hastily concocted sexual offense allegations...
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.
On December 09 2010 01:53 RiotSpectre wrote: Anon is such a wildcard, and I think they absolutely prefer it that way. I support Wikileaks and freedom of information, but a DDOS attack against MC is pretty childish. I doubt it will accomplish anything.
Of course, members of Anon may now be wanted in Sweden for some hastily concocted sexual offense allegations...
Hah, have you been to 4chan? Odds are they wouldn't have to be concocted.
There was a bit of quibbling over whether or not this is civil disobedience on the last page. When an action is designed with damage as its primary goal, it is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience requires respect and a desire to change wrongs by doing right. This is a clear case of uproar against wrongs by doing more wrong.
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.
As long as these people dont block the actual cash transfers I am fine with it. I mean otherwise it could result in a major inconveniense. I assume it will be an inconvenience to you if TL was hacked because they banned Big T.
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.
That statement is not true. To a certain extent, yes a company has the right to deny service, but saying they can for any reason is false. (Discrimination ?)
On December 09 2010 01:53 RiotSpectre wrote: Anon is such a wildcard, and I think they absolutely prefer it that way. I support Wikileaks and freedom of information, but a DDOS attack against MC is pretty childish. I doubt it will accomplish anything.
Of course, members of Anon may now be wanted in Sweden for some hastily concocted sexual offense allegations...
. This is a clear case of uproar against wrongs by doing more wrong.
Dont take what I will say as a justification of fighting fire with fire being right, but isnt that what the US government is doing to Wikileaks ? (''They did wrong to us, so lets do wrong to them (baseless accusations, defamation, etc'')
(This is not me supporting Anon, I disagree with their actions, but Im saying that theyre not the only ones at fault here)
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?
I've already had this response to my post, and addressed it, on the same page:
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 take down MC's website, maybe 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. But my articulation of this point obviously wasn't very effective, because instead of answers to the useful thought question ("If you support these attacks, would you support more serious retaliation against MC? Or, surely, you must at least also support the destruction of other, less valuable, MC property?") I am only getting generic responses about a strawman or slippery slope argument. I edited my post to be clearer.
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?
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. And it's TL policy that a moderator not make any close moderating decisions related to a debate/argument/dispute that he's involved in (so, for example, rather than editing out a link to 4chan's DDoS client myself, I referred the post to other mods asking for a second, uninterested opinion). Bottom line: my status as a mod is irrelevant, and you don't need to keep bringing it up.
The US State Department, Visa and MC have a cosy arrangement. Seems the US Govt.acts as their agent and now they act as agents of the US Govt.
The US Govt. is spending public dollars to protect their private profits so why shouldn't Visa and MC pitch in on behalf of the State Dept.?
And, I don't think that the thread has considered that the DDOS attacks on WikiLeaks began on November 28th. I thought that the one who threw the first punch was generally considered to be responsible for starting the fight.
On December 08 2010 23:19 JWD wrote: 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!"
I don't really see how what MC did was unlawful. In this case however, I completely disagree with them, it seems silly too me that MC has never done this before, I have seen several people say you can donate to the KKK on their site, a much more hateful and violent organization then wikileaks. The fact they do this now, tells me(without any proof, just me speculating) that the government has pressured these businesses. This is pretty disturbing, These companies just shutting down wiki leaks way of doing business without wiki leaks doing anything different then other outrageous organizations in the world is sad to me. I have no doubt that they had a lawful reason for not giving service to wikileaks, as most contracts you sign with a company let them cover their ass. I am sure the TOS says that they can refuse wiki leaks in this situation. However, refusing wikileaks after allowing wiki leaks knowingly to conduct the business they now find improper using there site for so long, and now changing the rules since they were pressured by the government scares me.
I like what Zerg_Russian said and I pretty much agree with him
As lawful as mastercard acted, I disagree with their morals. As unlawful as anon acted, I support the morality behind it.
It's all subjective, but this is my take.
I don't know if I support these hacks, but I do understand them, and I really feel that this situation is growing bigger than I thought it would. It does mean a lot to me, the "free press". I am not one to fool myself with wanting 100% government transparency, but I am tired of people hiding behind "national security" and hiding things that are completely not national security issues. The reason they think it is, is because the nation would be pissed off at them if they found out what they did.
So i assume im not allowed to recruit more people to help spam here then? I liked what wikileaks was doing, the fact the government took it down angers me and i should be able to show it in some way shape or form
On December 09 2010 01:53 RiotSpectre wrote: Anon is such a wildcard, and I think they absolutely prefer it that way. I support Wikileaks and freedom of information, but a DDOS attack against MC is pretty childish. I doubt it will accomplish anything.
Of course, members of Anon may now be wanted in Sweden for some hastily concocted sexual offense allegations...
Hah, have you been to 4chan? Odds are they wouldn't have to be concocted.
There was a bit of quibbling over whether or not this is civil disobedience on the last page. When an action is designed with damage as its primary goal, it is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience requires respect and a desire to change wrongs by doing right. This is a clear case of uproar against wrongs by doing more wrong.
because of course like good citizens we should just accept freedom of speech violations
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.
On December 08 2010 22:15 Tomken wrote: Anon_Operation hwaiting.
More like Anal_Operation. Are they even serious? Julian Assange has come to the police station himself and said he was ready to face any charges (which are not related to WikiLeaks in any way) and this self-proclaimed Internet vigilantes think they're going to help him by attacking some websites to show their "support"? I mean, come on.
Why do people always back up on something being lawful or not? Plenty of things are lawful and still cause tremendous damage, are based on and support a system which continuously acts in an inadequate way in response to the needs of those who compromise that system and are means to ends that defy the wellbeing of all but a few.
Maybe what MC is doing is within the legality of the industry they operate but it is real fucked up nonetheless and challenging that isnt wrong on the basis that it is challenging something lawful.
That said, the problem from which both parties actions stem is far more subtle and complex than they're making it out to be.
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.
"Hey guys, MasterCard won't let people donate to WikiLeaks. This obviously means that WikiLeaks will go bankrupt. Let's shut the site down to shaft all its customers!"
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 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:
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 03:03 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.
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.
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 03:30 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.
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 03:35 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 03:35 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 03:35 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.
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.
Oh so wait, the U.S. is the only baddy in the entire world? So we need to single it out?
I mean why are you worried about your country's cables being leaked? You just said not "many" other nations behave like the U.S. so nothing to hide, please do show to the rest of the world that there is nothing to hide...
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.
It's actually not a matter of a lot of people being unhappy. It only takes one with access. They also did illegal obtain classified documents by simply not having the clearance in US law it would be illegal upon acquisition as they are not cleared or read in. Not everything they take is illegal but they have committed in such acts.
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.
The US is not alone in their actions... They are meerly the face of most of it because the US still has citizens who support such actions. War is highly unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons but the US was not alone in the decisions. There were many reasons for entering into Afghanistan and Iraq to simply put it up to economic interests is well wrong.
What people fail to understand is protests always cost the company that they protest against money. People are comparing this to bombing and other destruction, but the largest difference is nobody will get hurt by this. MC, Visa, PayPal, exc have all done something that people consider wrong, and these companies are pretty much untouchable legally due to the support that they get from the government and their immense teams of lawyers which they spend millions of dollars on. This is like going to block the entrance of a bank, but instead of 100 people blocking the entrance of one bank there are 1800+ people blocking the entire chain. Protests during the civil rights movement were never 100% legal. One of the prominent figures, Malcolm X (who is generally regarded as the bad guy in schools but actually was one of the main reasons for the success of the movement) as well as the woman's suffrage movement in England both used illegal protests and bordered on violent. These were much worse than what Anon is doing now yet both are regarded as good movements. I like that the internet is finally getting involved in the fight for freedom of speech.
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.
Why do people pretend they are international lawyers when the only thing they know about law is the 2-3 american movies they watched.
''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.''
This is utterly wrong, and the use of caps lock just make you look even more clueless then you are.
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.
Oh god stop, please stop, you are either in the Bush family or something is really wrong with you. What kind of argumentation is that. Saying that killing is justified because your president said ''were at war'' but that hacking a website is extremely wrong because your president said ''its wrong'' makes you really look like a person who weighs his thought a lot.
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.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they leaked that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they leaked that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they leaked that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they leaked that too.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
On December 09 2010 03:48 Krigwin wrote: 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.
I dont understand why i should accept this deal? I wanna say what i wanna say and i would not gain anything from this deal. I dont know where you come from but i come from a place that fought stubborned for the right of freedom of speech.
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.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
gg u.s. hegemony.
Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. And their submissions of data is taken by their word as unless they sellout another person you don't know by which means they obtained the data, as far as governments are concerned when classified material is taken it's always done illegally. It also doesn't help that Assange open said his goal is to hurt the US.
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.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
gg u.s. hegemony.
Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. And their submissions of data is taken by their word as unless they sellout another person you don't know by which means they obtained the data, as far as governments are concerned when classified material is taken it's always done illegally. It also doesn't help that Assange open said his goal is to hurt the US.
On December 09 2010 04:00 semantics wrote: e US is not alone in their actions... They are meerly the face of most of it because the US still has citizens who support such actions. War is highly unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons but the US was not alone in the decisions. There were many reasons for entering into Afghanistan and Iraq to simply put it up to economic interests is well wrong.
There were many reasons for entering Iraq, and by that you mean there was a lot of oil right ?
Just listening to your speech I have the impression to be watching a US politician on TV.
''Lets invade Iraq for the good of our people and clear out the WMD''
''Wikileaks has obtained the information illegaly, lets bring them to justice'' (its actually a us military that obtained it illegaly, wikileaks just published it)
''All the leaks are aimed at the US, its a plot to bring us down'' (Or maybe the US is the country that does by far the highest amount of illegal actions on the international level (but yeah, i guess i shouldnt call these actions illegal, because the US said they were justified... oh wait))
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.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
gg u.s. hegemony.
Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. And their submissions of data is taken by their word as unless they sellout another person you don't know by which means they obtained the data, as far as governments are concerned when classified material is taken it's always done illegally. It also doesn't help that Assange open said his goal is to hurt the US.
Perfect example of American politician speech
''WIKILEAKS ILLEGALLY STOLE THE DOCUMENTS''
''You don't know by which means they obtained the data''
In order to counter the argument that someone stole the data for wikileaks, you replied there is no way to know for sure, but a couple of posts before you accused wikileaks of doing so illegally, gotta plug yourself on something.
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.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
gg u.s. hegemony.
Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something.
They gave out raw data in the previous cases too.
Fine I redact to "leaked".
I don't get your point.
The point is that journalism is about reporting on the data not handing out the data to everyone in a raw format. Esp when it was classified documents, it doesn't matter how little they matted to national security to just put them out there in a raw format is closer to espionage then to journalism. As you are not allowing a small group see the data. You allowing anyone and with that information if they are looking for a means to cause harm they now have been given a tool to do so. It's to me like leaving a loaded gun out on the street for anyone to use how they will, sure 98% of the people will just gander though it but it's the 2% that goes around shooting people. Journalism is leaving that gun open to the public in a locked clear case. So the public knows what it is and why it's where but cannot use it to their own means in such extreme matters.
I'm always poor with metaphors lol so ionno how this is going to go over.
On December 09 2010 04:00 semantics wrote: e US is not alone in their actions... They are meerly the face of most of it because the US still has citizens who support such actions. War is highly unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons but the US was not alone in the decisions. There were many reasons for entering into Afghanistan and Iraq to simply put it up to economic interests is well wrong.
There were many reasons for entering Iraq, and by that you mean there was a lot of oil right ?
Just listening to your speech I have the impression to be watching a US politician on TV.
''Lets invade Iraq for the good of our people and clear out the WMD''
''Wikileaks has obtained the information illegaly, lets bring them to justice'' (its actually a us military that obtained it illegaly, wikileaks just published it)
''All the leaks are aimed at the US, its a plot to bring us down'' (Or maybe the US is the country that does by far the highest amount of illegal actions on the international level (but yeah, i guess i shouldnt call these actions illegal, because the US said they were justified... oh wait))
Actually the person who gave the data away committed one crime, and wikileaks committed a different one by accepting it. People like to simplify things so it seems like they have the key to everything. I never said anything about WMD you just put words into my mouth. I never said i wanted wikileaks shut down you see me not in support of wikileaks actions and you brand me a color that you do not like. I simply do not like how wikileaks allows raw data to been seen by anyone i much rather have them be a distributor to trusted groups.
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.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
gg u.s. hegemony.
Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something.
They gave out raw data in the previous cases too.
Fine I redact to "leaked".
I don't get your point.
The point is that journalism is about reporting on the data not handing out the data to everyone in a raw format. Esp when it was classified documents, it doesn't matter how little they matted to national security to just put them out there in a raw format is closer to espionage then to journalism. As you are not allowing a small group see the data. You allowing anyone and with that information if they are looking for a means to cause harm they now have been given a tool to do so. It's to me like leaving a loaded gun out on the street for anyone to use how they will, sure 98% of the people will just gander though it but it's the 2% that goes around shooting people. Journalism is leaving that gun open to the public in a locked clear case. So the public knows what it is and why it's where but cannot use it to their own means in such extreme matters.
I'm always poor with metaphors lol so ionno how this is going to go over.
But doing just the same has won them awards every single time it didn't have to do with the U.S.
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.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
gg u.s. hegemony.
Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something.
They gave out raw data in the previous cases too.
Fine I redact to "leaked".
I don't get your point.
The point is that journalism is about reporting on the data not handing out the data to everyone in a raw format. Esp when it was classified documents, it doesn't matter how little they matted to national security to just put them out there in a raw format is closer to espionage then to journalism. As you are not allowing a small group see the data. You allowing anyone and with that information if they are looking for a means to cause harm they now have been given a tool to do so. It's to me like leaving a loaded gun out on the street for anyone to use how they will, sure 98% of the people will just gander though it but it's the 2% that goes around shooting people. Journalism is leaving that gun open to the public in a locked clear case. So the public knows what it is and why it's where but cannot use it to their own means in such extreme matters.
I'm always poor with metaphors lol so ionno how this is going to go over.
Or, countries could be transparent, which would eliminate any risk of harm to other people. Why should information be hidden because it can cause harm, shouldnt this kind of actions just not be done in the first place ?
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.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
gg u.s. hegemony.
Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something.
They gave out raw data in the previous cases too.
Fine I redact to "leaked".
I don't get your point.
The point is that journalism is about reporting on the data not handing out the data to everyone in a raw format. Esp when it was classified documents, it doesn't matter how little they matted to national security to just put them out there in a raw format is closer to espionage then to journalism. As you are not allowing a small group see the data. You allowing anyone and with that information if they are looking for a means to cause harm they now have been given a tool to do so. It's to me like leaving a loaded gun out on the street for anyone to use how they will, sure 98% of the people will just gander though it but it's the 2% that goes around shooting people. Journalism is leaving that gun open to the public in a locked clear case. So the public knows what it is and why it's where but cannot use it to their own means in such extreme matters.
I'm always poor with metaphors lol so ionno how this is going to go over.
On December 09 2010 04:00 semantics wrote: e US is not alone in their actions... They are meerly the face of most of it because the US still has citizens who support such actions. War is highly unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons but the US was not alone in the decisions. There were many reasons for entering into Afghanistan and Iraq to simply put it up to economic interests is well wrong.
There were many reasons for entering Iraq, and by that you mean there was a lot of oil right ?
Just listening to your speech I have the impression to be watching a US politician on TV.
''Lets invade Iraq for the good of our people and clear out the WMD''
''Wikileaks has obtained the information illegaly, lets bring them to justice'' (its actually a us military that obtained it illegaly, wikileaks just published it)
''All the leaks are aimed at the US, its a plot to bring us down'' (Or maybe the US is the country that does by far the highest amount of illegal actions on the international level (but yeah, i guess i shouldnt call these actions illegal, because the US said they were justified... oh wait))
Actually the person who gave the data away committed one crime, and wikileaks committed a different one by accepting it. People like to simplify things so it seems like they have the key to everything. I never said anything about WMD you just put words into my mouth. I never said i wanted wikileaks shut down you see me not in support of wikileaks actions and you brand me a color that you do not like.
They committed a crime by accepting confidential information ? Under which legal system I would like to ask. ( I would also gladly hear the relationship between said legal system and Wikileaks (oh and btw, the US laws do not apply to the world))
You never said anything about WMD, I said that it was the justification to the war in Iraq (which you backed up).
I also never said that you said you wanted wikileaks shut down, my point wasnt even based around that.
On December 08 2010 22:54 Pika Chu wrote: Stepping over a line why?
Yeah it's bad that random internet users will have to "suffer" (wtf suffer, it's not that bad if you can't buy something off amazon) but knowing that Amazon fell into political pressures into breaking over the freedom of speech, they deserve this. They deserve not being able to make money (any downtime for amazon is a big lose of money for them).
just fyi, you're posting this on a website that routinely bans people for their speech. You think it's okay for those banned users to hack TL for payback because TL censored their free speech?
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?
Well, if you can be banned for abuse of free speech then you never really had free speech to begin with. Preempting any "fire in a crowded room" arguments, shouting fire in a crowded room is not an abuse of free speech; "free speech" protects the freedom to express ones opinions, not the freedom to incite panic in a crowd under false pretense of mortal danger.
Not that there's anything wrong with being banned for what you say here; this is a private website with terms of use and people are free to voice their opinions elsewhere. Expecting freedom of speech here is like being told you can draw on someone's house under the condition that the drawing is not offensive to the home owner, and then expecting the right to draw whatever you want on it.
Gogo home of the brave and land of the free. I really, really hope that MC and VISA blocked WikiLeaks without pressure from the US government, because that would mean they are not afraid of using extremely underhand strikes when someone crosses them.
jk, I personally think WikiLeaks is a brilliant site, giving us the highest degree of transparency in media in a long time. I don't, however, agree on attacking websites just because they don't support a certain case. This is about as childish as when anon found out how to use scripts on YouTube and abused it on Justin Bieber videos until the loophole was closed.
On December 09 2010 04:18 Slaughter wrote: Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently.
Why is he an asshole again?
Have you ever seen the guy speak? Hes not some Jesus figure doing this because its good like everyone likes to spew. He does this because it fucking gets him off. Hes just a jackass looking to get off on causing chaos.
On December 09 2010 04:18 Slaughter wrote: Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently.
Why is he an asshole again?
Have you ever seen the guy speak? Hes not some Jesus figure doing this because its good like everyone likes to spew. He does this because it fucking gets him off. Hes just a jackass looking to get off on causing chaos.
He also rapes women, eats childrens, and hates the U S of A, yeah, we heard it before.
On December 09 2010 04:18 Slaughter wrote: Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently.
Why is he an asshole again?
Have you ever seen the guy speak? Hes not some Jesus figure doing this because its good like everyone likes to spew. He does this because it fucking gets him off. Hes just a jackass looking to get off on causing chaos.
Thats the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
Bill Gates is such a fucking asshole, he just gets off by helping people and donatin lul, its how he gets his kicks.
On December 09 2010 03:53 semantics wrote: @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.
No, it's not justifiable and it's fallacy by association. I don't measure all religious people by the Westboro Baptist Church. Maybe you do. Maybe you think it's "justifiable", but don't speak for all of us. In fact if you do think that, then just don't speak at all, judging from the fallacies, untruths, and plain falsehoods you've spewed all over this thread I think we'd all be for the better.
For instance, claiming that Wikileaks has commited some crime. Even the Justice Department is having a hard time making that claim, so I don't know where you're basing those accusations from. Or thinking that receiving information is somehow an illegal act. That's so bizarre I'm not even sure how that's supposed to make sense in the first place.
I really admire the guy and I think he serves the people of the world thro his work on wikileaks, and so does anon, creating the fear of "popular" backlash against NGO underdogs.
This is the age of information and we are seeing a high tech virtual war over information.
To Anon, attacking wikileaks is like attacking switzerland, they are neutral, its a friggin crime, and something must be done to it.
And im sure all MS users and shareholders and very sad their website is down, well im glad, I like to see a circus on fire, too bad we dont have many of these recently.
On December 09 2010 04:18 Slaughter wrote: Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently.
Why is he an asshole again?
Have you ever seen the guy speak? Hes not some Jesus figure doing this because its good like everyone likes to spew. He does this because it fucking gets him off. Hes just a jackass looking to get off on causing chaos.
He also rapes women, eats childrens, and hates the U S of A, yeah, we heard it before.
He's a journalist who believes in an idea firmly, and is wanted for publishing stuff not meant to the public with an excuse for "rape" on Sweden *which I believe to be complete bullshit*.
On December 09 2010 04:18 Slaughter wrote: Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently.
Why is he an asshole again?
Have you ever seen the guy speak? Hes not some Jesus figure doing this because its good like everyone likes to spew. He does this because it fucking gets him off. Hes just a jackass looking to get off on causing chaos.
He also rapes women, eats childrens, and hates the U S of A, yeah, we heard it before.
He's a journalist who believes in an idea firmly, and is wanted for publishing stuff not meant to the public with an excuse for "rape" on Sweden *which I believe to be complete bullshit*.
This was sarcasm.... (In reply to what the other guy spooting nonsense about Assange getting high off pissing people)
The accusations of rape in Sweden shouldnt really be brought up in this topic, when I typed it I knew I might be making a mistakes (because I knew some people would bring it up)
I was not saying that I think he didnt rape these women, that I dont know, the justice will decide, I was just trying to make an ''general uninformed statement'' to continue in the other guys line of thought.
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet.
On December 09 2010 04:18 Slaughter wrote: Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently.
Why is he an asshole again?
Have you ever seen the guy speak? Hes not some Jesus figure doing this because its good like everyone likes to spew. He does this because it fucking gets him off. Hes just a jackass looking to get off on causing chaos.
He also rapes women, eats childrens, and hates the U S of A, yeah, we heard it before.
He's a journalist who believes in an idea firmly, and is wanted for publishing stuff not meant to the public with an excuse for "rape" on Sweden *which I believe to be complete bullshit*.
This was sarcasm.... (In reply to what the other guy spooting nonsense about Assange getting high off pissing people)
The accusations of rape in Sweden shouldnt really be brought up in this topic, when I typed it I knew I might be making a mistakes (because I knew some people would bring it up)
I was not saying that I think he didnt rape these women, that I dont know, the justice will decide, I was just trying to make an ''general uninformed statement'' to continue in the other guys line of thought.
I am sorry, I was referring to Slaughter not you I knew your comment was sarcasm
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet.
4chan will go to such lengths as closing down a site! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
4chan is so overrated, they do a few things here and there, nothing special, and they think of themselves as defenders of freedom or something. Considering the kind of stuff posted on 4chan i'm surprised they havent closed down their own site yet.
On December 09 2010 03:30 BeJe77 wrote: 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.
Of course it does harm, but MasterCard is nothing like Amazon. They aren't peddling wares online. Point of Service transactions are still working normally; the only thing that might be down is people's ability to pay bills or check information status. It's unclear if people are unable to use MasterCard payments from other sites, but one would imagine that they keep their verification services separate from their front end.
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet.
4chan will go to such lengths as closing down a site! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
.
I dont think you fully undestand the potential destruction that could be created from closing down a website, especially with the current tensions in the economy.
Some companies could lose millions of dollars if their website got closed for a day or two.
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet.
4chan will go to such lengths as closing down a site! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
4chan is so overrated, they do a few things here and there, nothing special, and they think of themselves as defenders of freedom or something. Considering the kind of stuff posted on 4chan i'm surprised they havent closed down their own site yet.
4chan nowadays are filled with retards and social outcasts, but among them, there are ppl that know what they're doing. You obviously haven't been around ~5 years ago, I don't think you know how many people's lives they fucked over.
On December 09 2010 03:30 BeJe77 wrote: 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.
Of course it does harm, but MasterCard is nothing like Amazon. They aren't peddling wares online. Point of Service transactions are still working normally; the only thing that might be down is people's ability to pay bills or check information status. It's unclear if people are unable to use MasterCard payments from other sites, but one would imagine that they keep their verification services separate from their front end.
MasterCard stated that online transactions should not be affected. Presumably their website being down only affects the ability of people to access the services provided on that website. And I imagine there is no effect whatsoever on MasterCard transactions in the real world. People are really exaggerating the damages caused by Anonymous here. I'd be more concerned with PayPal being down than any of these other websites.
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.
On December 09 2010 03:52 BeJe77 wrote: 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.
I don't think you've been following Wikileaks for very long. Wikileaks has leaked massive amounts of documents from other nations besides The United States of America.
A simple perusal of Wikipedia's article on Wikileaks proves this to be true.
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet.
4chan will go to such lengths as closing down a site! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
4chan is so overrated, they do a few things here and there, nothing special, and they think of themselves as defenders of freedom or something. Considering the kind of stuff posted on 4chan i'm surprised they havent closed down their own site yet.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Where the hell were these hypothetical people a decade ago, when they could have actually been useful?
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.
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet.
4chan will go to such lengths as closing down a site! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
4chan is so overrated, they do a few things here and there, nothing special, and they think of themselves as defenders of freedom or something. Considering the kind of stuff posted on 4chan i'm surprised they havent closed down their own site yet.
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"
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.
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet.
4chan will go to such lengths as closing down a site! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
4chan is so overrated, they do a few things here and there, nothing special, and they think of themselves as defenders of freedom or something. Considering the kind of stuff posted on 4chan i'm surprised they havent closed down their own site yet.
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"
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'.
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.
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.
lucky it didnt mess with the actual transfer system or anything, buying my computer parts today lol. Its funny how the Media is all hating on him, yet they're the ones sifting through every single file for anything remotely news worthy.
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.
It's one thing to support Wikileaks, but to launch a DDoS attack against MasterCard with intent to cause harm isn't right in any sense.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
This guy clearly has little to no clue what he's talking about... 4chan is the last thing I'd wanna mess with on internet, and there's a lot of shit on internet.
4chan will go to such lengths as closing down a site! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
4chan is so overrated, they do a few things here and there, nothing special, and they think of themselves as defenders of freedom or something. Considering the kind of stuff posted on 4chan i'm surprised they havent closed down their own site yet.
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"
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'.
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
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.
Just a thought... Maybe you should think about that before going to war?
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
this quote stood out to me from one of the posters here.
Honestly, the general public is dumb as shit. Most are just lambs to whatever popular opinion somebody more articulate than them have said. I shudder to think what the world might be like if governments actually listened to what the masses think.
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.
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.
well i think that's just it. people aren't realizing how much damage this can cause because they see some relevant results. releasing this information puts people in the know which i guess makes them feel safe but it also gives other people access to information they shouldn't. like i said before it's a nice resource but of course like all fads people just see the one side like they like about things. there's a difference between leaking relevant information about scandals and corruption but indiscriminately releasing confidential information is not a good thing.
i can understand why people would want wikileaks to remain but i also implore them to consider the consequences of their actions which people are keen to glaze over in the name of "truth".
On December 08 2010 22:30 qwaykee wrote: i love how they call scriptkiddies hackers
And I would laugh in the face of every Mastercard security specialist if the site has really been taken down via scriptkiddies. Way to fail at the job.
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
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.
Just a thought... Maybe you should think about that before going to war?
whether or not we have gone to war has no bearing on the concept i tried to demonstrate.
On December 09 2010 00:11 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: As lawful as mastercard acted, I disagree with their morals. As unlawful as anon acted, I support the morality behind it.
I feel the same way. Morality should never be confused with the legality, even though what is illegal is usually also immoral. This case is definitely an exception IMO.
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
this quote stood out to me from one of the posters here.
Honestly, the general public is dumb as shit. Most are just lambs to whatever popular opinion somebody more articulate than them have said. I shudder to think what the world might be like if governments actually listened to what the masses think.
Maybe most poeple are dumb as shit. but democracy says that all are to have equal rights. If you dislike that then you should probabaly think abut a military career in North Korea and aim for a good position there. I agree that democracy might have a flaw in that idiots get to vote. But then again, maybe people are becoming increasingly naive and uninformed specifically because because they are being constantly shut out. I think this is a vicious cycle where the idea that stupid people must not participate leads to results that justify the idea via self-fulfilling prophecy.
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.
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.
well i think that's just it. people aren't realizing how much damage this can cause because they see some relevant results. releasing this information puts people in the know which i guess makes them feel safe but it also gives other people access to information they shouldn't. like i said before it's a nice resource but of course like all fads people just see the one side like they like about things. there's a difference between leaking relevant information about scandals and corruption but indiscriminately releasing confidential information is not a good thing.
i can understand why people would want wikileaks to remain but i also implore them to consider the consequences of their actions which people are keen to glaze over in the name of "truth".
The way I see it is, that if Wikileaks got the Documents and given the fact that apparently more than a million persons had access to them, EVERY secret service of even the smallest country already had those documents so the disclosure only destroyed the naive view of them not having them and the thereafter tightened security measurements help the USA.
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
this quote stood out to me from one of the posters here.
Honestly, the general public is dumb as shit. Most are just lambs to whatever popular opinion somebody more articulate than them have said. I shudder to think what the world might be like if governments actually listened to what the masses think.
Right, but the solution to a public being dumb or uninformed is to inform them, not reduce or filter the information being sent to them, how on earth would that make anything better?
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.
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.
well i think that's just it. people aren't realizing how much damage this can cause because they see some relevant results. releasing this information puts people in the know which i guess makes them feel safe but it also gives other people access to information they shouldn't. like i said before it's a nice resource but of course like all fads people just see the one side like they like about things. there's a difference between leaking relevant information about scandals and corruption but indiscriminately releasing confidential information is not a good thing.
i can understand why people would want wikileaks to remain but i also implore them to consider the consequences of their actions which people are keen to glaze over in the name of "truth".
The way I see it is, that if Wikileaks got the Documents and given the fact that apparently more than a million persons had access to them, EVERY secret service of even the smallest country already had those documents so the disclosure only destroyed the naive view of them not having them and the thereafter tightened security measurements help the USA.
Yep that's how I feel, the actual implications of such widely distributed documents being released publicly is minimal (I can't imagine a single super power didn't already have access to them). The reason big government is cranky here is because it is a significant embarrassment. (And I suppose embarrassments make us look weak to others.)
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
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.
Just a thought... Maybe you should think about that before going to war?
Many people join the army because they want to defend their country. They didn't choose to go to Iraq, and even those who did so believed that it was in the best interests of the US/World. It's not about whether or not the war was right, it's about the people who are still there, and the fact that there are people who would delight in being able to use information provided by wikileaks to murder american troops, or Iraqi civilans who aided in the invasion. Because of this, wikileas does have the moral responsibility to make sure that the information is either dated, not related to the identities of people who could be put at risk, etc. So far they've been pretty good at that (the video of the american troops shooting down Journalists was something the world needed to see), but recently they've been way more extreme with their releases. As far I know there's only been a couple identities exposed or something like that, but people need to realize that if wikileaks actually continues on this path, people could die.
In this case, there's a fine line between exposing war crimes and committing them. What scares me the most is that people are ready to call any potential deaths resulting from leaks of information as casualties in the interests of freedom information. People like that actually give some measure of credibility to the constant stream of idiocy coming from politicians about the whole issue.
If you think fighting for freedom of information should be carried out indiscriminately, without consideration for casualties or the property of companies that have no interest but to extricate themselves from the mess, then your philosophy is no better than the one you're condemning the US government for following.
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
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.
Just a thought... Maybe you should think about that before going to war?
Many people join the army because they want to defend their country. They didn't choose to go to Iraq, and even those who did so believed that it was in the best interests of the US/World. It's not about whether or not the war was right, it's about the people who are still there, and the fact that there are people who would delight in being able to use information provided by wikileaks to murder american troops, or Iraqi civilans who aided in the invasion. Because of this, wikileas does have the moral responsibility to make sure that the information is either dated, not related to the identities of people who could be put at risk, etc. So far they've been pretty good at that (the video of the american troops shooting down Journalists was something the world needed to see), but recently they've been way more extreme with their releases. As far I know there's only been a couple identities exposed or something like that, but people need to realize that if wikileaks actually continues on this path, people could die.
In this case, there's a fine line between exposing war crimes and committing them. What scares me the most is that people are ready to call any potential deaths resulting from leaks of information as casualties in the interests of freedom information. People like that actually give some measure of credibility to the constant stream of idiocy coming from politicians about the whole issue.
If you think fighting for freedom of information should be carried out indiscriminately, without consideration for casualties or the property of companies that have no interest but to extricate themselves from the mess, then your philosophy is no better than the one you're condemning the US government for following.
Agreed. Wikileaks should anonymize the infromation wherever possible. Also, I think they should primarily publish information that uncovers unethical behavior, violation of laws and blatant lies. But if in doubt, I think the right of the public to be informed outweighs potential risks to individuals.
Otherwise, potential risk to others can be used as a killer-argument. Whenever goverments or corporations behave unethically or violate laws that will cause anger or aggression (which is mostly understandable because people dislike being lied to or exploited) and that bears the risk of someone getting hurt.
My alternative solution: stop with the nonsense and do it like Kant did (categorical imperative). That way, no one gets hurt. Also, if you don't engage in unethical or criminal activities, you won't be bothered by wikileaks.
j/k Actually this is serious and I feel bad for MasterCard. I Really do not like WikiLeaks,specially after releasing those documents. It is seriously textbook espionage what the people working for that site are doing. Hope every single one of them pays the price for their errors.
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
this quote stood out to me from one of the posters here.
Honestly, the general public is dumb as shit. Most are just lambs to whatever popular opinion somebody more articulate than them have said. I shudder to think what the world might be like if governments actually listened to what the masses think.
Maybe most poeple are dumb as shit. but democracy says that all are to have equal rights. If you dislike that then you should probabaly think abut a military career in North Korea and aim for a good position there. I agree that democracy might have a flaw in that idiots get to vote. But then again, maybe people are becoming increasingly naive and uninformed specifically because because they are being constantly shut out. I think this is a vicious cycle where the idea that stupid people must not participate leads to results that justify the idea via self-fulfilling prophecy.
Oh I believe that everybody should have equal rights. I just dont believe they should have equal say in everything. I wouldnt want to talk to 20 regular old people on my street, instead of talking to 1 nuclear scientist on how to build a nuclear reactor for my battlecruiser.
and yes maybe people are more than ever pawns because of the government. But I think most people dont care. I have no data or evidence to back up such a claim but I would think most people would be happy enough if they have a job/career that pays and maybe a partner and some friends without knowing that their government assassinated a rogue leader in Africa or something. People might SAY "oh thats so horrible. im so glad I got informed", but few people actually really care that it happened.
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
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.
Just a thought... Maybe you should think about that before going to war?
Many people join the army because they want to defend their country. They didn't choose to go to Iraq, and even those who did so believed that it was in the best interests of the US/World. It's not about whether or not the war was right, it's about the people who are still there, and the fact that there are people who would delight in being able to use information provided by wikileaks to murder american troops, or Iraqi civilans who aided in the invasion. Because of this, wikileas does have the moral responsibility to make sure that the information is either dated, not related to the identities of people who could be put at risk, etc. So far they've been pretty good at that (the video of the american troops shooting down Journalists was something the world needed to see), but recently they've been way more extreme with their releases. As far I know there's only been a couple identities exposed or something like that, but people need to realize that if wikileaks actually continues on this path, people could die.
In this case, there's a fine line between exposing war crimes and committing them. What scares me the most is that people are ready to call any potential deaths resulting from leaks of information as casualties in the interests of freedom information. People like that actually give some measure of credibility to the constant stream of idiocy coming from politicians about the whole issue.
If you think fighting for freedom of information should be carried out indiscriminately, without consideration for casualties or the property of companies that have no interest but to extricate themselves from the mess, then your philosophy is no better than the one you're condemning the US government for following.
Then don't go to war. You know, a country can exist and you can protect it without declaring wars and such.
On December 09 2010 06:53 SharkSpider wrote: If you think fighting for freedom of information should be carried out indiscriminately, without consideration for casualties or the property of companies that have no interest but to extricate themselves from the mess, then your philosophy is no better than the one you're condemning the US government for following.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Ben Franklin
It's ridiculous that the leakers are being blamed. If the politicians didn't commit and hide illegal or dubious activities in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.
If anyone finds this interesting, both Facebook and Twitter have just shut down Anon's/Operation Payback's sites respectively.
My question is, will these attacks raise awareness and outrage about what these financial institutions are doing, or will it cast a bad light on Wikileaks and Assange?
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)
AIM i think you are taking this WAAAAAAY out of context... like your needing to prove your point by exaggerating things here. Just because someone supports the fact the MC website went down doesn't mean they would want a building blown up? Stop assuming things.
At the end of the day, the governments will use this wikileaks 'event' as an excuse to censor the internet and take away sites that are NEEDED even if you don't think they are. I dont mind if they take down all the stuff that should be taking down (ie child pornography etc). But if i go on the internet one day and want to look up "ROSWELL" or "JFK Assassination cover up" and get no search results.
That will be the day the internet died. bye bye miss internet pie.
So in summary, Im happy that there are groups out there doing something about this and not letting it slip under the establishments 'rug' of silence so quickly. BUT that doesn't mean i want to burn a car of blow up a building.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Ben Franklin
It's ridiculous that the leakers are being blamed. If the politicians didn't commit and hide illegal or dubious activities in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.
Why everyone is quoting the same thing from BF over and over again? He said that in the XVIII-th century, things have changed since then. And essential liberty refers to the Bill of Rights in the US (the second amendment specifically), other countries have their own you know, and this quote can mean a lot of different things to different people.
Edit: And how about giving up essential liberty for permanent safety? This seems fine with the quote.
j/k Actually this is serious and I feel bad for MasterCard. I Really do not like WikiLeaks,specially after releasing those documents. It is seriously textbook espionage what the people working for that site are doing. Hope every single one of them pays the price for their errors.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Ben Franklin
It's ridiculous that the leakers are being blamed. If the politicians didn't commit and hide illegal or dubious activities in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.
Why everyone is quoting the same thing from BF over and over again? He said that in the XVIII-th century, things have changed since then. And essential liberty refers to the Bill of Rights in the US (the second amendment specifically), other countries have their own you know, and this quote can mean a lot of different things to different people.
Edit: And how about giving up essential liberty for permanent safety? This seems fine with the quote.
Somehow I think permanent safety and modern politics don't really mix :-)
Attacking MasterCard is liable to affect more so there innocent customers than the company itself. Crashing a website or accessing information illegally and redistributing it to the masses is what starts propositions to nullify internet privacy.
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
would be funny if a poster tried to buy something with one of the cc #s listed only to find out it was his own.
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
would be funny if a poster tried to buy something with one of the cc #s listed only to find out it was his own.
I think it'd be a lot more amusing if all of the people caught illegally using the CC #s were charged and convicted of the appropriate crimes.
On December 09 2010 08:04 Sclol wrote: their twitter and pastebin account has been deleted
np i copyd em in .txt if some work, huge giveaway on steam games soon
You realize you are just stealing from most likely completely innocent people? I will refrain from hurling expletive insults at you. But really, people like you don't deserve to be a part of communities like TL and should be banned.
It's just childish behaviour, really. Nothing unexpected though, from a 'community' like 4chan. It's all well and fine to be an internet tough guy behind multiple proxies, but in real life, heh. Many of these internet vigilantes (which are engaging in a clearly illegal activity, by the way) are socially inept and don't contribute positively to society. This is just another way of them trying to express themselves publicly and to gain attention, nothing more.
And I think what Wikileaks is doing is ridiculous. How they can claim that they are not endangering lives in the warzones is beyond me.
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
Managing public response is also something that any competent company should do. They completely underestimated the backlash that it would generate and now they are paying the price.
Stealing CC numbers actually does hurt the CC companies as well as the little guy. The consumers of those cards are not legally responsible for identity fraud and the CC companies are obligated to pay the charges.
11.15pm: Take any stories about hacked "lists" of credit card numbers with a large pinch of salt: they are almost certainly rubbish based on a quick analysis of the purported numbers circulating.
I'm sorry to dissapoint you guys who were hoping to use these on christmas shopping.
The credit card numbers exposed are probably fake. They were discussing faking a reveal to give companies more bad press.
PayPal is proving extremely resilient to their efforts.
Small pockets of MasterCard are shut down, including the site. They are still figuring out if they're affecting VISA transactions. Most vendors are still able to execute transactions. This stunt, while deplorable, is doing very little direct damage. It's a very effective publicity stunt.
I understand where the people are coming from supporting Anon_Operation, even though I disagree with their methods. But the train wreck is still very big so I will pass the popcorn.
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
Managing public response is also something that any competent company should do. They completely underestimated the backlash that it would generate and now they are paying the price.
Stealing CC numbers actually does hurt the CC companies as well as the little guy. The consumers of those cards are not legally responsible for identity fraud and the CC companies are obligated to pay the charges.
No, the Credit Card's insurance company will pay the massive volume of cash producing a hike in the MasterCard's insurance rate which will be reflected in increased interest rates and fees for consumers. There is obviously the reactionary choice to switch Credit Card companies but those in debt have no choice and this is hurting them more than anyone else. Especially if they end up being victims of CC # fraud.
On December 09 2010 08:31 palookieblue wrote: It's just childish behaviour, really. Nothing unexpected though, from a 'community' like 4chan. It's all well and fine to be an internet tough guy behind multiple proxies, but in real life, heh. Many of these internet vigilantes (which are engaging in a clearly illegal activity, by the way) are socially inept and don't contribute positively to society. This is just another way of them trying to express themselves publicly and to gain attention, nothing more.
And I think what Wikileaks is doing is ridiculous. How they can claim that they are not endangering lives in the warzones is beyond me.
I don't know if you know this but a large portion of the world's GDP growth in the past 2 decades has come from the rise of the internet. I don't know what sort of point you are trying to make by insulting people you'll never meet in real life but to pretend that the internet is somehow unimportant is outright false.
There is always a tradeoff to be made in any situation. You may endanger lives to increase transparency of a process. You may pay more in taxes to have better security. You may have less rights for better security. You may allow someone to get tortured in a back room if it means finding a nuclear bomb. Every life has a price that can be tacked onto it from an objective perspective.
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
Managing public response is also something that any competent company should do. They completely underestimated the backlash that it would generate and now they are paying the price.
Stealing CC numbers actually does hurt the CC companies as well as the little guy. The consumers of those cards are not legally responsible for identity fraud and the CC companies are obligated to pay the charges.
No, the Credit Card's insurance company will pay the massive volume of cash seeing a rake in the MasterCard's insurance rate which will be reflected in increased interest rates and fees for consumers. There is obviously the reactionary choice to switch Credit Card companies but those in debt have no choice and this is hurting them more than anyone else. Especially if they end up being victims of CC # fraud.
Were such rate increases not recently regulated by law?
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
Managing public response is also something that any competent company should do. They completely underestimated the backlash that it would generate and now they are paying the price.
Stealing CC numbers actually does hurt the CC companies as well as the little guy. The consumers of those cards are not legally responsible for identity fraud and the CC companies are obligated to pay the charges.
No, the Credit Card's insurance company will pay the massive volume of cash seeing a rake in the MasterCard's insurance rate which will be reflected in increased interest rates and fees for consumers. There is obviously the reactionary choice to switch Credit Card companies but those in debt have no choice and this is hurting them more than anyone else. Especially if they end up being victims of CC # fraud.
Were such rate increases not recently regulated by law?
Rate increases in relation to operating cost increases are completely legal. Only profit grabbing rate hikes are regulated.
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
Managing public response is also something that any competent company should do. They completely underestimated the backlash that it would generate and now they are paying the price.
Stealing CC numbers actually does hurt the CC companies as well as the little guy. The consumers of those cards are not legally responsible for identity fraud and the CC companies are obligated to pay the charges.
No, the Credit Card's insurance company will pay the massive volume of cash seeing a rake in the MasterCard's insurance rate which will be reflected in increased interest rates and fees for consumers. There is obviously the reactionary choice to switch Credit Card companies but those in debt have no choice and this is hurting them more than anyone else. Especially if they end up being victims of CC # fraud.
Were such rate increases not recently regulated by law?
Rate increases in relation to operating cost increases are completely legal. Only profit grabbing rate hikes are regulated.
I thought the recent law in the US prevented hikes on rates of existing debt? New debt can be taken out at your own decision.
Edit: from wikipedia card act article: "Gives cardholders the right to cancel their card and pay off their existing balance at the existing interest rate and repayment schedule if they get hit with an interest rate hike; gives cardholders 3 billing cycles after the rate increase to say no to these new terms."
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)
AIM i think you are taking this WAAAAAAY out of context... like your needing to prove your point by exaggerating things here. Just because someone supports the fact the MC website went down doesn't mean they would want a building blown up? Stop assuming things.
He is trying to show that the people who do not support both may not be consistent in their beliefs and therefore should probably re-evaluate them.
Unfortunately, the reality for a lot of people who are in debt is not a case of massive debt but consistent debt. This is to say there credit rating is poor and it would be difficult to get a different credit card or line of credit else where but they still need to be able use a credit card or line of credit for some level of what they deem essentials.
Regardless, a rate hike impacts the little guy, whether it be to force them out of there current credit company or suffering the hike... It is hurting them.
I think this post really shows the attitude of some of the people in this thread, and the people behind attacking MC and Visa's websites. These companies, while maybe not doing something you agree with, are doing something in the best interests of their companies, and shareholders. What else should they do? It is illegal to do the opposite.
Also, posting random CC numbers is stealing from the little guy, from the public, from possibly the posters in this thread. How is that protecting Assange, or getting payback or whatever they claim they are doing.
Managing public response is also something that any competent company should do. They completely underestimated the backlash that it would generate and now they are paying the price.
Stealing CC numbers actually does hurt the CC companies as well as the little guy. The consumers of those cards are not legally responsible for identity fraud and the CC companies are obligated to pay the charges.
They're feeling the backlash of some angry anarchists, people with anti-American sentiment, and hackers/wannabe hackers (I will leave that fight to people who know more about that subject than me.) I think that most people on this site forget that this site is a specialized group, and their opinion does not necessarily represent the opinion of the majority.
Another thing that some people on this site might disagree with is that whether looking at a corporation or a government, there are things that are worthy of being kept secret from the general public, and from other countries. Though we might live in a world of people telling everyone through Facebook, a blog, or twitter about their trip to the bathroom to brush their teeth, large organizations do not work the same way.
Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
On December 09 2010 08:04 Sclol wrote: their twitter and pastebin account has been deleted
np i copyd em in .txt if some work, huge giveaway on steam games soon
You realize you are just stealing from most likely completely innocent people? I will refrain from hurling expletive insults at you. But really, people like you don't deserve to be a part of communities like TL and should be banned.
You realize its the company's fault and they will pay it back if its true right ?. (and by they I mean usually insurances)
This could bring other issues, but youre making it look worse than it really is.
On December 09 2010 08:04 Sclol wrote: their twitter and pastebin account has been deleted
np i copyd em in .txt if some work, huge giveaway on steam games soon
You realize you are just stealing from most likely completely innocent people? I will refrain from hurling expletive insults at you. But really, people like you don't deserve to be a part of communities like TL and should be banned.
Yes, ofc i would rather go to jail and have games, instead of not going to jail and have games, are you really that stupid?
On December 09 2010 08:08 ayababa wrote: edit: im not the guy hes talking about re his q.
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)
AIM i think you are taking this WAAAAAAY out of context... like your needing to prove your point by exaggerating things here. Just because someone supports the fact the MC website went down doesn't mean they would want a building blown up? Stop assuming things.
He is trying to show that the people who do not support both may not be consistent in their beliefs and therefore should probably re-evaluate them.
Well it depends, I think you can agree with the belief but not with the means or context of action as long as you understand that they're two different things and are not mutually exclusive. Belief facilitates action, but action is never fully merited by the belief alone
On December 09 2010 08:48 Saryph wrote:Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
Point is that it's not just "x diplomat says something embarassing about y leader". For instance, this is just in:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
Pretty gross corporate violation of Nigerian sovereignty if you ask me. This whole meta-leak will expose all the dirty little secrets that are kept secret due to conflict of interest with the public and that is a very good thing in my opinion.
NICE, GOOD JOB HACKERS/4CHAN/INTERNET/VIGILANTE GROUP ANONYMOUS XD
Lol at the "vigilante group Anonymous". They talk about 4chan as if it's a terrorist website. Wait. Wait... that reminds me of something!
Check out Fox report's on 4chan/anonymous
Which is hilarious xD hilariously wrong, that is.
Fuck you America, let Wikileaks founder go.
Both Mastercard and Visa are getting sued for pulling support illegally: The company that enables Wikileaks to accept credit and debit card donations says it will take legal action against Visa Europe and Mastercard.
o.o whoa, thanks for the link! xD And hi again, VIB ^_^
On December 09 2010 08:48 Saryph wrote:Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
Point is that it's not just "x diplomat says something embarassing about y leader". For instance, this is just in:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
Pretty gross corporate violation of Nigerian sovereignty if you ask me.
Like I said in the part of my post you quoted, if there are gross violations of law or RoE or something comparable, then of course bringing it to light is acceptable, I have no problem with the idea of whistleblowers. However, publishing irrelevant wires and documents that just damage relations between two countries or diplomats (an example I remember is someone complaining about the poor quality of the kitchen/dining staff of some foreign leader/diplomat) does not serve any purpose, it is just glorified gossip, and is not necessary.
On December 09 2010 08:48 Saryph wrote:Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
Point is that it's not just "x diplomat says something embarassing about y leader". For instance, this is just in:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
Pretty gross corporate violation of Nigerian sovereignty if you ask me.
Like I said in the part of my post you quoted, if there are gross violations of law or RoE or something comparable, then of course bringing it to light is acceptable, I have no problem with the idea of whistleblowers. However, publishing irrelevant wires and documents that just damage relations between two countries or diplomats (an example I remember is someone complaining about the poor quality of the kitchen/dining staff of some foreign leader/diplomat) does not serve any purpose, it is just glorified gossip, and is not necessary.
This has been brought up time and again: who are you to decide what is "irrelevant"? And how do you propose Wikileaks objectively measure this relevance and thus only leak materials more to your personal liking?
Well what is the purpose of Wikileaks? Is it to try to publish all of these only Facebook and blog worthy documents to the world because apparently reading about our friends taking a jog is no longer enough, or is it to act as a whistleblower site? I always thought it was hailed as secure website that someone could dump information to in order to do just that: be a whistleblower.
You might have a different definition or belief than me, and that is fine, but I just do not see the relevance in knowing what a foreign minister had to drink at a party last night.
Like I said in the part of my post you quoted, if there are gross violations of law or RoE or something comparable, then of course bringing it to light is acceptable, I have no problem with the idea of whistleblowers. However, publishing irrelevant wires and documents that just damage relations between two countries or diplomats (an example I remember is someone complaining about the poor quality of the kitchen/dining staff of some foreign leader/diplomat) does not serve any purpose, it is just glorified gossip, and is not necessary.
Wikileaks is NOT beholden to the United States of America. What's distasteful or trivial for us might be incredibly valued somewhere else. It's incredibly difficult to make moral judgments on which cables are "right" or "wrong" to release.
Like, for instance, the cables showing that the Swedish government might have been complicit in US Espionage against Sweden's own citizens. Or that the United States pressured the German government into dropping charges involving German citizens, in Gitmo. Or even showing UK pressure against Scotland in the Lockerbie Bomber case.
The British had a kick at one of their princes for being...well, unprincely in character in a leak. To Guardian readers, this was fairly important, they have mixed feelings about the monarchy. To an US observer, this would have been pure gossip.
And so forth. Very hard to determine, even from the "trivial" cables, what is actually trivial.
So they leave it up to the newspapers in question to do so. Wikileaks seldom publishes cables on its own; they wait for the newspapers to pick, choose, and censor them.
Both Mastercard and Visa are getting sued for pulling support illegally: The company that enables Wikileaks to accept credit and debit card donations says it will take legal action against Visa Europe and Mastercard.
o.o whoa, thanks for the link! xD And hi again, VIB ^_^
The best part is when the guy goes: "... and she bought a dog *WOOOF* @ 3:51" lol pretty funny
Why everyone is quoting the same thing from BF over and over again? He said that in the XVIII-th century, things have changed since then. And essential liberty refers to the Bill of Rights in the US (the second amendment specifically), other countries have their own you know, and this quote can mean a lot of different things to different people.
Edit: And how about giving up essential liberty for permanent safety? This seems fine with the quote.
How the fuck does one attain permanent safety? Forever is a long time.
Actually this is serious and I feel bad for MasterCard. I Really do not like WikiLeaks,specially after releasing those documents. It is seriously textbook espionage what the people working for that site are doing. Hope every single one of them pays the price for their errors.
Learn to read then.
Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, lest the legitimate holder of the information change plans or take other countermeasures once it is known that the information is in unauthorized hands.
Wikileaks was given information by someone who committed espionage. If you just suddenly told me a bunch of state secrets, I have not committed espionage...you have.
They're feeling the backlash of some angry anarchists, people with anti-American sentiment, and hackers/wannabe hackers (I will leave that fight to people who know more about that subject than me.) I think that most people on this site forget that this site is a specialized group, and their opinion does not necessarily represent the opinion of the majority.
Judging by news comments, they do, coming from the most moderate of America's news channels.
On December 09 2010 08:48 Saryph wrote:Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
Point is that it's not just "x diplomat says something embarassing about y leader". For instance, this is just in:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
Pretty gross corporate violation of Nigerian sovereignty if you ask me.
Like I said in the part of my post you quoted, if there are gross violations of law or RoE or something comparable, then of course bringing it to light is acceptable, I have no problem with the idea of whistleblowers. However, publishing irrelevant wires and documents that just damage relations between two countries or diplomats (an example I remember is someone complaining about the poor quality of the kitchen/dining staff of some foreign leader/diplomat) does not serve any purpose, it is just glorified gossip, and is not necessary.
This has been brought up time and again: who are you to decide what is "irrelevant"? And how do you propose Wikileaks objectively measure this relevance and thus only leak materials more to your personal liking?
It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote: To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing?+ Show Spoiler +
How is it ridiculous to filter information? How do you know the point of wikileaks? This kind of absolutism is too boring for words. You can release information that is important in any manner you want to. Who are you to say Julian's direct mission is to destroy countries?
Paypal has partially relented about their boycott of Wikileaks. Whether this was because they were caught lying about a letter from the US State Department to Wikileaks, or because of the political pressure/boycotting/DoS attempts from Wikileaks supporters is anyone's guess.
They've still frozen the Wikileaks account, but they have decided to stop holding on to Wikileaks' money. Nice to know the corporate world can be persuaded to stop stealing other people's money outright, eventually.
Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
How is it ridiculous to filter information? How do you know the point of wikileaks? This kind of absolutism is too boring for words. You can release information that is important in any manner you want to. Who are you to say Julian's direct mission is to destroy countries?[/QUOTE]
You apparently didn't comprehend what I was trying to say, I never even came close to implying his mission was to destroy countries. What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some. I'm sensing some sort of language barrier or something, because you completely went off into left field from what I was saying.
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
It's easy to say that from your armchair, but the hypocrisy these cables have brung up is unbelievable. What if you weren't so lucky and were born into an poor Saudi Arabian family, let's say you made a big mistake and commited adultery, you would then be charged with the death penalty. It sucks huh?
But guess what, a wikileaks cable just released has found that the "rich kids" in your new country have in fact been consuming alcohol and having mass orgies, both of which are strictly prohibited in Saudi Arabian law, in fact, some of the party goers have even been linked to the Saudi royal family.
The difference between you, this possible dead you and the party goers?
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious
How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit?
One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless.
Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not.
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious
How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit?
One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless.
Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not.
Name one thing these cables revealed that people didn't already know.
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
yea, because all the wikileaks guys are clearly criminals, that's why the lost in courts....
... oh wait!
You guys still have to show some evidence that those leaks really hurt any innocent people at all.
On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote: What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some.
I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life?
Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks.
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious
How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit?
One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless.
Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not.
Name one thing these cables revealed that people didn't already know.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
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.
On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote: To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing?+ Show Spoiler +
What he said was indeed dangerous thinking, but it was nonetheless true. The fact is that it is impossible to have an objective view of what should not be disclosed and what should be (especially when it comes with politics), so sometimes you just dont have any other choice then to ask for EVERYTHING to be public, yes its dangerous, but its the only way that you can be sure of the truth.
When you take that to the context of an organization that is against hiding infirmation, filtering kinda goes against that organization's purpose.
(Yes, they could have filtered the gossipy stuff,etc, but I think theres a reason they did not, and its the fact that they are against any form of censorship)
On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote: What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some.
I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life?
Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks.
Again, sometimes when youre against censorship, you just cant censor yourself, maybe the government should have thought about this before, Wikileaks are to blame, but only because there was someone to blame before.
Also, there is no actual proof of any people being in danger right now with what has been leaked.
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious
How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit?
One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless.
Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not.
Name one thing these cables revealed that people didn't already know.
Is that a joke? Jesus, scroll to the top of the page you posted in and there's an example right there.
Its pretty well known that the Nigerian oil industry is corrupt.
Its really pathetic that some losers on the internet have some idiotic noble sentiment that they're promoting freedom or whatever by inconveniencing mastercard users for a few hours.
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
I release all of it shark, because any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship. You can never trust a government, especially one that has grown as large as ours has in the United States. I firmly believe that, and I am willing to sacrifice my security for my liberty. If you really believe that our government can be trusted to tell us everything except that which is absolutely putting people at risk, you are naive and open to exploitation.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote: To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing?+ Show Spoiler +
What he said was indeed dangerous thinking, but it was nonetheless true. The fact is that it is impossible to have an objective view of what should not be disclosed and what should be (especially when it comes with politics), so sometimes you just dont have any other choice then to ask for EVERYTHING to be public, yes its dangerous, but its the only way that you can be sure of the truth.
When you take that to the context of an organization that is against hiding infirmation, filtering kinda goes against that organization's purpose.
(Yes, they could have filtered the gossipy stuff,etc, but I think theres a reason they did not, and its the fact that they are against any form of censorship)
On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote: What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some.
I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life?
Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks.
Again, sometimes when youre against censorship, you just cant censor yourself, maybe the government should have thought about this before, Wikileaks are to blame, but only because there was someone to blame before.
Also, there is no actual proof of any people being in danger right now with what has been leaked.
I've never stated that the information out there has actually done that. Some people say it has, some say it hasn't, and the same is echoed through various journals/publications/whatever. I'm not going to open myself up to that debate. Either way, my challenge was to the position that it is okay to release something purely on the basis of truth without giving heed to any of the damages it might cause.
Either way, you've gotten in to it, so why not explain what you mean about the how the government should have thought of having their classified information leaked all over the internet before they went to war. Any country with troops stationed anywhere hostile has information that, if leaked, could mean the death of their soldiers. If you honestly believe that it's okay to make them casualties in some "war" for free information, then how can you condemn the US soldiers for murdering reporters in Iraq and calling them casualties too. If you want to take the moral high ground, then generally that means adopting a more morally acceptable philosophy than the one you're attacking. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept that some information should be kept from the general public.
On December 09 2010 11:32 MerciLess wrote: I release all of it shark, because any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship. You can never trust a government, especially one that has grown as large as ours has in the United States. I firmly believe that, and I am willing to sacrifice my security for my liberty. If you really believe that our government can be trusted to tell us everything except that which is absolutely putting people at risk, you are naive and open to exploitation.
Don't make the assumption that I believe the US government to be capable of making that decision correctly on their own. I don't. Either way, you're saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, which really can't be backed logically, and you're advocating letting people die just so that you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you didn't withold any information. If anything's wrong here, it's on your end.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
I dont think anyone said that wikileaks is trying to save the world. Releasing unfiltered information might not be the way to prove that the world is fucked, but when the world gets too fucked up, you need to do something to stop things, and sometimes the only way to truely fight something terribly and utterly wrong, is by doing another wrong.
(Would you imagine the consequence if Wikileaks said it would release only the information that it thought was useful to be released ? Or should they have asked the US what to release ? Or UK ? Or Canada ? You will always piss someone off, and some things will always pertain to some people in particular, so you either release it all or dont release anything.)
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious
How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit?
One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless.
Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not.
Name one thing these cables revealed that people didn't already know.
Is that a joke? Jesus, scroll to the top of the page you posted in and there's an example right there.
Its pretty well known that the Nigerian oil industry is corrupt.
Its really pathetic that some losers on the internet have some idiotic noble sentiment that they're promoting freedom or whatever by inconveniencing mastercard users for a few hours.
First of all, did you even read what you quoted? You're accusing me of shit that has nothing to do with what i've written. I was initially responding to someone who was not talking about the mastercard issue.
Anyway, if you can't understand the value of actual documents proving the corrupt and sovereignty impairing actions of major corporations, then there isn't really a point in having this discussion in the first place.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
I'd ask you to define 'saving the world' and to give your opinion on how to go about bringing positive change to a clearly broken and corrupt system, but I have a feeling I'd be disappointed with the answer.
I think the world is taking steps closer to the obvious truths that my family was brought up to believe, that we are all brothers and sisters and that the borders surrounding us are put their to create class and wealth, not protect.
The internet is making these borders look worse and worse and more imaginary.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
Ye. People rioting in the streets. that would never happen.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote: To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing?+ Show Spoiler +
What he said was indeed dangerous thinking, but it was nonetheless true. The fact is that it is impossible to have an objective view of what should not be disclosed and what should be (especially when it comes with politics), so sometimes you just dont have any other choice then to ask for EVERYTHING to be public, yes its dangerous, but its the only way that you can be sure of the truth.
When you take that to the context of an organization that is against hiding infirmation, filtering kinda goes against that organization's purpose.
(Yes, they could have filtered the gossipy stuff,etc, but I think theres a reason they did not, and its the fact that they are against any form of censorship)
On December 09 2010 11:22 SharkSpider wrote:
On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote: What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some.
I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life?
Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks.
Again, sometimes when youre against censorship, you just cant censor yourself, maybe the government should have thought about this before, Wikileaks are to blame, but only because there was someone to blame before.
Also, there is no actual proof of any people being in danger right now with what has been leaked.
I've never stated that the information out there has actually done that. Some people say it has, some say it hasn't, and the same is echoed through various journals/publications/whatever. I'm not going to open myself up to that debate. Either way, my challenge was to the position that it is okay to release something purely on the basis of truth without giving heed to any of the damages it might cause.
Either way, you've gotten in to it, so why not explain what you mean about the how the government should have thought of having their classified information leaked all over the internet before they went to war. Any country with troops stationed anywhere hostile has information that, if leaked, could mean the death of their soldiers. If you honestly believe that it's okay to make them casualties in some "war" for free information, then how can you condemn the US soldiers for murdering reporters in Iraq and calling them casualties too. If you want to take the moral high ground, then generally that means adopting a more morally acceptable philosophy than the one you're attacking. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept that some information should be kept from the general public.
On December 09 2010 11:32 MerciLess wrote: I release all of it shark, because any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship. You can never trust a government, especially one that has grown as large as ours has in the United States. I firmly believe that, and I am willing to sacrifice my security for my liberty. If you really believe that our government can be trusted to tell us everything except that which is absolutely putting people at risk, you are naive and open to exploitation.
Don't make the assumption that I believe the US government to be capable of making that decision correctly on their own. I don't. Either way, you're saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, which really can't be backed logically, and you're advocating letting people die just so that you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you didn't withold any information. If anything's wrong here, it's on your end.
Im not saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, I am saying that since it is impossible to establish an OBJECTIVE way to decide whether or not some information should be censored, you dont have the choice but to release it all. (Well you always have a choice until you decide to be completely neutral)
I would be FOR censorship if there was some universal objective point of view that you could adopt in order to do it, the fact of the matter is that you cant. (What is bad for one is often good for someone else, who are you to judge whos the good one and whos the bad one)
(Im not backing the argument of ''if you give the governments the right to censorship they will abuse it, I think it is flawed, my issue with censorship is the fact that people with censor what ''should be censored'' in their opinion, but is it the opinion of everyone ? of course not.)
On December 09 2010 11:47 MerciLess wrote: Shark, the fact that governments become corrupt over time if unchecked has been demonstrated repeatedly in history.
Way to latch on to one argument and ignore everything else I've said. Either way, your definition of unchecked doesn't match what you said earlier, and you're giving an exceptionally vague statement without actually going in to why you think that. The statement "all governments will increase censorship if they're allowed to do a bit of it" is an almost undefendable position in terms of debate. One would simply find one example of a government in history that didn't release some information, but was otherwise considered pretty good. If you're going to say something that people can disagree with, at least provide some preamble to arguments you might make, or say something that puts you in a position you have the means to defend, ie, that censorship can be increased over time if it's allowed to go unchecked, or something like that.
On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote: To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing?+ Show Spoiler +
What he said was indeed dangerous thinking, but it was nonetheless true. The fact is that it is impossible to have an objective view of what should not be disclosed and what should be (especially when it comes with politics), so sometimes you just dont have any other choice then to ask for EVERYTHING to be public, yes its dangerous, but its the only way that you can be sure of the truth.
When you take that to the context of an organization that is against hiding infirmation, filtering kinda goes against that organization's purpose.
(Yes, they could have filtered the gossipy stuff,etc, but I think theres a reason they did not, and its the fact that they are against any form of censorship)
On December 09 2010 11:22 SharkSpider wrote:
On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote: What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some.
I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life?
Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks.
Again, sometimes when youre against censorship, you just cant censor yourself, maybe the government should have thought about this before, Wikileaks are to blame, but only because there was someone to blame before.
Also, there is no actual proof of any people being in danger right now with what has been leaked.
I've never stated that the information out there has actually done that. Some people say it has, some say it hasn't, and the same is echoed through various journals/publications/whatever. I'm not going to open myself up to that debate. Either way, my challenge was to the position that it is okay to release something purely on the basis of truth without giving heed to any of the damages it might cause.
Either way, you've gotten in to it, so why not explain what you mean about the how the government should have thought of having their classified information leaked all over the internet before they went to war. Any country with troops stationed anywhere hostile has information that, if leaked, could mean the death of their soldiers. If you honestly believe that it's okay to make them casualties in some "war" for free information, then how can you condemn the US soldiers for murdering reporters in Iraq and calling them casualties too. If you want to take the moral high ground, then generally that means adopting a more morally acceptable philosophy than the one you're attacking. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept that some information should be kept from the general public.
On December 09 2010 11:32 MerciLess wrote: I release all of it shark, because any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship. You can never trust a government, especially one that has grown as large as ours has in the United States. I firmly believe that, and I am willing to sacrifice my security for my liberty. If you really believe that our government can be trusted to tell us everything except that which is absolutely putting people at risk, you are naive and open to exploitation.
Don't make the assumption that I believe the US government to be capable of making that decision correctly on their own. I don't. Either way, you're saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, which really can't be backed logically, and you're advocating letting people die just so that you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you didn't withold any information. If anything's wrong here, it's on your end.
Im not saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, I am saying that since it is impossible to establish an OBJECTIVE way to decide whether or not some information should be censored, you dont have the choice but to release it all. (Well you always have a choice until you decide to be completely neutral)
I would be FOR censorship if there was some universal objective point of view that you could adopt in order to do it, the fact of the matter is that you cant. (What is bad for one is often good for someone else, who are you to judge whos the good one and whos the bad one)
Courts can't objectively decide who is guilty or not in many cases, but judgments are still passed. You simply can't use lack of objective qualifiers as an excuse to do things that are unethical. If you're worried about censoring based on imperfect rules, then you should be much, much more worried about the idea that ethics don't apply in non-objective situations. The idea that people are out there applying that line of thought to their actions would scare me far more than to think some piece of information was withheld from me because it was in a grey area between putting lives at risk and being okay to release.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
On December 09 2010 11:47 MerciLess wrote: Shark, the fact that governments become corrupt over time if unchecked has been demonstrated repeatedly in history.
Way to latch on to one argument and ignore everything else I've said. Either way, your definition of unchecked doesn't match what you said earlier, and you're giving an exceptionally vague statement without actually going in to why you think that. The statement "all governments will increase censorship if they're allowed to do a bit of it" is an almost undefendable position in terms of debate. One would simply find one example of a government in history that didn't release some information, but was otherwise considered pretty good. If you're going to say something that people can disagree with, at least provide some preamble to arguments you might make, or say something that puts you in a position you have the means to defend, ie, that censorship can be increased over time if it's allowed to go unchecked, or something like that.
On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote: To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing?+ Show Spoiler +
What he said was indeed dangerous thinking, but it was nonetheless true. The fact is that it is impossible to have an objective view of what should not be disclosed and what should be (especially when it comes with politics), so sometimes you just dont have any other choice then to ask for EVERYTHING to be public, yes its dangerous, but its the only way that you can be sure of the truth.
When you take that to the context of an organization that is against hiding infirmation, filtering kinda goes against that organization's purpose.
(Yes, they could have filtered the gossipy stuff,etc, but I think theres a reason they did not, and its the fact that they are against any form of censorship)
On December 09 2010 11:22 SharkSpider wrote:
On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote: What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some.
I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life?
Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks.
Again, sometimes when youre against censorship, you just cant censor yourself, maybe the government should have thought about this before, Wikileaks are to blame, but only because there was someone to blame before.
Also, there is no actual proof of any people being in danger right now with what has been leaked.
I've never stated that the information out there has actually done that. Some people say it has, some say it hasn't, and the same is echoed through various journals/publications/whatever. I'm not going to open myself up to that debate. Either way, my challenge was to the position that it is okay to release something purely on the basis of truth without giving heed to any of the damages it might cause.
Either way, you've gotten in to it, so why not explain what you mean about the how the government should have thought of having their classified information leaked all over the internet before they went to war. Any country with troops stationed anywhere hostile has information that, if leaked, could mean the death of their soldiers. If you honestly believe that it's okay to make them casualties in some "war" for free information, then how can you condemn the US soldiers for murdering reporters in Iraq and calling them casualties too. If you want to take the moral high ground, then generally that means adopting a more morally acceptable philosophy than the one you're attacking. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept that some information should be kept from the general public.
On December 09 2010 11:32 MerciLess wrote: I release all of it shark, because any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship. You can never trust a government, especially one that has grown as large as ours has in the United States. I firmly believe that, and I am willing to sacrifice my security for my liberty. If you really believe that our government can be trusted to tell us everything except that which is absolutely putting people at risk, you are naive and open to exploitation.
Don't make the assumption that I believe the US government to be capable of making that decision correctly on their own. I don't. Either way, you're saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, which really can't be backed logically, and you're advocating letting people die just so that you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you didn't withold any information. If anything's wrong here, it's on your end.
Im not saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, I am saying that since it is impossible to establish an OBJECTIVE way to decide whether or not some information should be censored, you dont have the choice but to release it all. (Well you always have a choice until you decide to be completely neutral)
I would be FOR censorship if there was some universal objective point of view that you could adopt in order to do it, the fact of the matter is that you cant. (What is bad for one is often good for someone else, who are you to judge whos the good one and whos the bad one)
Courts can't objectively decide who is guilty or not in many cases, but judgments are still passed. You simply can't use lack of objective qualifiers as an excuse to do things that are unethical. If you're worried about censoring based on imperfect rules, then you should be much, much more worried about the idea that ethics don't apply in non-objective situations. The idea that people are out there applying that line of thought to their actions would scare me far more than to think some piece of information was withheld from me because it was in a grey area between putting lives at risk and being okay to release.
Courts can't objectively decide who is guilty or not in many cases, but they still do everything possible (or should) in order to make it as objective as it could be.
There is also a major difference when you come to comparing a Courts decision and the international release of classified documents.
This difference is the fact that in one case, there are guidelines that have been accepted by the population, while in the other there is not.
When you decide to live in a country, you thereby agree to live by this country's laws and regulations. You accept to be judged under the laws, even when theres a part of subjectivity involved in them.
When it comes to the international release of documents, the subject gets tricky. There are no more agreements between all parties as to what should and should not be done, what is acceptable and what is not (to a certain extent, which is international law, but anyone that studied it knows how unreliable it is). Subjectivity in one subject is accepted by said countries, while its not in some other, subjectivity in this different subject is accepted by these other countries, but not the rest.
This situation creates too many problems (who should decide what should be censored and what should not be ?), while in the case of Courts decisions, there is already an agreement on what should be subjective and what should not be.
tldr : I dont have a problem with subjectivity when people ''agreed'' to it. I have a problem with subjectivity when its not everyone that agrees to it, in which case you can either decide to be subjective by taking someones opinion (lets censor only what this or this country tells us to censor) OR you go for a total objectivity.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
so you're basically saying: The cables leaked some stuff that is messed up, (and there is also no proof that the cables did hurt anybody innocent) but since the information won't do anything against it itself, we shouldn't do anything? and just live the lies?
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
so you're basically saying: The cables leaked some stuff that is messed up, (and there is also no proof that the cables did hurt anybody innocent) but since the information won't do anything against it itself, we shouldn't do anything? and just live the lies?
well, sounds good to me.
You want people to do something about it, but your argument is posing hypothetical questions to me? genius. You would understand if you had the slightest clue about world politics and how shit actually works.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
So you're essentially arguing that even though you can't think of a better way to try to make our society less corrupt, you know with absolute certainty that we shouldn't be trying to make this evidence of corruption public because "it wont do anything"? That's some deep brilliant shit man.
How do I stop this "terrible injustice I have uncovered"? I don't know the perfect answer to that, but as far as I can discern, supporting the release of incriminating documents seems pretty high on the priority list of someone interested in removing corruption - as exposing it is likely the first step in removing it.
What troubles me more is that your tone implies that you don't believe that social injustices are occurring. (I'm gathering this from your sarcastic reference to the "injustices I have uncovered").
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
So you're essentially arguing that even though you can't think of a better way to try to make our society less corrupt, you know with absolute certainty that we shouldn't be trying to make this evidence of corruption public because "it wont do anything"? That's some deep brilliant shit man.
How do I stop this "terrible injustice I have uncovered"? I don't know the perfect answer to that, but as far as I can discern, supporting the release of incriminating documents seems pretty high on the priority list of someone interested in removing corruption as exposing it is likely the first step in removing it.
What troubles me more is that your tone implies that you don't believe that social injustices are occurring. (I'm gathering this from your sarcastic reference to the "injustices I have uncovered").
My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it.
On December 09 2010 12:40 AttackZerg wrote: He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
Why the fuck don't you think of a real argument? or did you get 6k posts by posting this one line bullshit?
On December 09 2010 12:46 uSnAmplified wrote: My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it.
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.
On December 09 2010 12:40 AttackZerg wrote: He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
Post count does not make his argument invalid simply because you don't like what he has to say. These documents are potentially just as bad as they are potentially good. Corruption is a terrible thing, but its not okay to help people by endangering US defense personnel instead. You people talk about how the US and other Gov's are terrible because all this corruption is hurting others but you praise a group of people who endanger Defense personnel by posting their names for the bad guys to see???
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
So you're essentially arguing that even though you can't think of a better way to try to make our society less corrupt, you know with absolute certainty that we shouldn't be trying to make this evidence of corruption public because "it wont do anything"? That's some deep brilliant shit man.
How do I stop this "terrible injustice I have uncovered"? I don't know the perfect answer to that, but as far as I can discern, supporting the release of incriminating documents seems pretty high on the priority list of someone interested in removing corruption as exposing it is likely the first step in removing it.
What troubles me more is that your tone implies that you don't believe that social injustices are occurring. (I'm gathering this from your sarcastic reference to the "injustices I have uncovered").
My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it.
Only read 6 pages of this, is that enough to reply? If not, delete this post.
Besides play by play of this exciting drama, which I wish I could read without sifting through the rest, the thread is dominated by people naively conceiving authority or government, and people correcting them. i.e. use of force by the government is okay, but by other individuals, it's vandalism. while this might even be true, ppl making use of this claim haven't really backed it up very much, but instead are satisfied with labeling the acts vandalism.
i'd go a step further. when you use force to try to influence others' views, back in the 80's or 90's we def. called that terrorism. i am expecting the u.s. to call these attackers, if they are at all successful, "cyber terrorists." they are basically damaging/costing their targets with some ideological aim, and they are not legitimate users of force (i.e. "a government"), so they are "terrorists" then, in one of the ways the word was once defined in the u.s.
however, in the case that they remained super successful, and were never stopped, at some point they would basically be like our cyber government, just zapping anything they deemed deserving, and people would out of fear try to stay in line and not have such punishment come down upon them. in this way they would be functioning much like a government. the only difference, i think, between terrorists and governments, would be their success rate. once everyone comes to expect, and accept as just a state of affairs, a source of power, they are acting as a government, i think. if they are being thwarted by the government, not accepted as a state of affairs, but just treated like some freaks who are resisting the government(s) but will ultimately lose, then we can label them "terrorists."
so what we're seeing here is a power struggle, and assuming that the government(s) of the world beat these hackers, in the end they'll be cyber criminals, and these governments will have their way... even if a lot of people of certain cliques and age groups feel that these companies did wrong, or that wikileaks doesn't deserve this, or that mc deserves this, etc. on top of that, though, maybe these companies being sued for being unfair to wikileaks, or the state department being sued for its behavior in these cases (or other govts being sued) could play out interestingly too.
we're seeing the law be resisted here. civil disobedience, or criminal disobedience? i think civil disobedience means they're not obstructing government from finding/prosecuting them, they're just like, i'm doing this, arrest me if you want. if they are attacking in some way that keeps them from being stopped/caught, then that's just, well, an attack. cyber warfare. i think u.s. could deal with it if it ultimately came to that, but they don't wanna tip their hand over something like this. a cyber civil war forces them to show their cyber capabilities prematurely? probably won't happen. oh well.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote: If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
So you're essentially arguing that even though you can't think of a better way to try to make our society less corrupt, you know with absolute certainty that we shouldn't be trying to make this evidence of corruption public because "it wont do anything"? That's some deep brilliant shit man.
How do I stop this "terrible injustice I have uncovered"? I don't know the perfect answer to that, but as far as I can discern, supporting the release of incriminating documents seems pretty high on the priority list of someone interested in removing corruption as exposing it is likely the first step in removing it.
What troubles me more is that your tone implies that you don't believe that social injustices are occurring. (I'm gathering this from your sarcastic reference to the "injustices I have uncovered").
My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it.
On December 09 2010 12:40 AttackZerg wrote: He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
Why the fuck don't you think of a real argument? or did you get 6k posts by posting this one line bullshit?
On December 09 2010 08:31 palookieblue wrote: It's just childish behaviour, really. Nothing unexpected though, from a 'community' like 4chan. It's all well and fine to be an internet tough guy behind multiple proxies, but in real life, heh. Many of these internet vigilantes (which are engaging in a clearly illegal activity, by the way) are socially inept and don't contribute positively to society. This is just another way of them trying to express themselves publicly and to gain attention, nothing more.
And I think what Wikileaks is doing is ridiculous. How they can claim that they are not endangering lives in the warzones is beyond me.
I don't know if you know this but a large portion of the world's GDP growth in the past 2 decades has come from the rise of the internet. I don't know what sort of point you are trying to make by insulting people you'll never meet in real life but to pretend that the internet is somehow unimportant is outright false.
There is always a tradeoff to be made in any situation. You may endanger lives to increase transparency of a process. You may pay more in taxes to have better security. You may have less rights for better security. You may allow someone to get tortured in a back room if it means finding a nuclear bomb. Every life has a price that can be tacked onto it from an objective perspective.
I wasn't talking about the internet, I was referring to 4chan/anon. It's like equating the human body to the anus. I'm also not trying to insult, just being realistic. I would hope to think most people have got better things to do than trying to bring down legitimate websites for a bullshit 'cause', and feeling like a badass because you won't get caught. But 'anon' has a lovely history of being collective dickheads, and judging by recent activity I doubt anything has changed. People who think DDoS/DoS is funny, I don't know what to say to you. What would be funny to me is that everyone involved got some jail time for their illegal activity. Wouldn't that put a smile on some 'anon' faces.
Regarding the second part of your post, I agree tradeoffs are a part of life. However when it's not your life or a loved one's in the balance it certainly makes these things easier to do.
If you can't post without belittling other people's post count, calling people names, posting crappy youtube videos, or promoting the posting of crappy youtube videos,
Somebody used the blocking bank analogy before. It is somewhat inaccurate. A more accurate analogy would be to imagine if there were many people blocking a poster on a bank wall but people could easily enter the bank premises to do their banking.
That's right, folks. mastercard.com is a poster on a wall.
Somebody used the blocking bank analogy before. It is somewhat inaccurate. A more accurate analogy would be to imagine if there were many people blocking a poster on a bank wall but people could easily enter the bank premises to do their banking.
That's right, folks. mastercard.com is a poster on a wall.
Sincerely, BearJewSlava.584
A poster that millions of people view and it a big part of mastercard. Just because people can use their credit cards does not mean the site is not vital to the.
I'm a bit concerned for the skiddies doing this - normally the fact that there's a thousand or so doing it means that there's no prosecution.. but attacks of this scale, well, I'm concerned they may find themselves in hot water is all.
This whole thing just feels like a bunch of nerds trying to be important. Changing the world with cyber crime won't do anything but put a bigger gap between the people that have the power and the people that want the power. Do you really think the powers that be care that much about the internet, even in todays age?
I wonder how many people who are "helping" this attack, and "helping" wikileaks actually have the balls to stand in front of a tank, or march the white house in protest of something they see unjust. People need to stop trying to create political change while hiding behind a computer monitor, and start doing it the old fashioned way, in person where your face can be seen for the beliefs you claim to have.
On December 09 2010 14:23 Filter wrote: This whole thing just feels like a bunch of nerds trying to be important. Changing the world with cyber crime won't do anything but put a bigger gap between the people that have the power and the people that want the power. Do you really think the powers that be care that much about the internet, even in todays age?
I really think they do. Remember that the US government started it with the (D?)DOS on WikiLeaks. Well, unless it actually was a bunch of "patriotic hackers", but I'm doubtful of that.
On December 09 2010 14:56 Maul wrote: 4chan.org is now down... the empire strikes back? Could just be a regular outage but the timing is suspicious imo.
If wikileaks is being supported by hackers that can take on a major credit card company they must have alternate agendas. These hackers aren't acting of their own accord they received orders from some of the top brass at wikileaks. As I suspected in the wikileaks drops the bomb thread, they are up to their own nefarious purposes.
On December 09 2010 15:43 undyinglight wrote: If wikileaks is being supported by hackers that can take on a major credit card company they must have alternate agendas. These hackers aren't acting of their own accord they received orders from some of the top brass at wikileaks. As I suspected in the wikileaks drops the bomb thread, they are up to their own nefarious purposes.
Where do you get this information from? I've been following events as they happen on boards.4chan.org/b/ and anonops.net. They're not hackers and they're not following orders. They're using a simple to use program that uses DDoS or DoS attacks to overload webservers and they're doing it as a form of protest. You can participate or not yourself, just as everyone else is doing. Note that these attacks are considered illegal.
Please don't post your uninformed opinion as fact.
On December 09 2010 15:43 undyinglight wrote: If wikileaks is being supported by hackers that can take on a major credit card company they must have alternate agendas. These hackers aren't acting of their own accord they received orders from some of the top brass at wikileaks. As I suspected in the wikileaks drops the bomb thread, they are up to their own nefarious purposes.
You dont have to be some famous super hacker to make a DoS attack on some site. Some 4chan script kiddies just denied access to a web page. You could do that too, it is not difficult to get the tools for that. I doubt there is any connection between Wikileaks and these "hackers"
People at 4chan will use everything as an excuse to do some DoS attacks.
Also, the only way people can still protest and influence society is to take all your money off the banks. If everyone collects their money, all banks will go broke and the financial system will go into meltdown. The whole financial sector does nothing good for society. They only shove around money while draining society of resources and talent. And they decide what politicians get elected.
On December 09 2010 16:00 Kirameki wrote: People at 4chan will use everything as an excuse to do some DoS attacks.
Also, the only way people can still protest and influence society is to take all your money off the banks. If everyone collects their money, all banks will go broke and the financial system will go into meltdown. The whole financial sector does nothing good for society. They only shove around money while draining society of resources and talent. And they decide what politicians get elected.
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...
On December 09 2010 16:00 Kirameki wrote: People at 4chan will use everything as an excuse to do some DoS attacks.
Also, the only way people can still protest and influence society is to take all your money off the banks. If everyone collects their money, all banks will go broke and the financial system will go into meltdown. The whole financial sector does nothing good for society. They only shove around money while draining society of resources and talent. And they decide what politicians get elected.
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...
On December 09 2010 15:43 undyinglight wrote: If wikileaks is being supported by hackers that can take on a major credit card company they must have alternate agendas. These hackers aren't acting of their own accord they received orders from some of the top brass at wikileaks. As I suspected in the wikileaks drops the bomb thread, they are up to their own nefarious purposes.
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.
As much as I enjoy reading about the anon success, I do not think this is a very good method of dealing with this issue. 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.
On December 09 2010 12:46 uSnAmplified wrote: My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it.
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?
i hope all those people calling for his murder/assasination realise they are actually commiting a felony, which means they have actually commited more crime than julian assange has.
On December 09 2010 16:00 Kirameki wrote: People at 4chan will use everything as an excuse to do some DoS attacks.
Also, the only way people can still protest and influence society is to take all your money off the banks. If everyone collects their money, all banks will go broke and the financial system will go into meltdown. The whole financial sector does nothing good for society. They only shove around money while draining society of resources and talent. And they decide what politicians get elected.
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.
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.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
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!
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
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!
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.
On December 09 2010 16:00 Kirameki wrote: People at 4chan will use everything as an excuse to do some DoS attacks.
Also, the only way people can still protest and influence society is to take all your money off the banks. If everyone collects their money, all banks will go broke and the financial system will go into meltdown. The whole financial sector does nothing good for society. They only shove around money while draining society of resources and talent. And they decide what politicians get elected.
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.
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.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
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!
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?
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.
You think it's a coincidence? Not only talking about the coincidences he points in the video. But the coincidences of the timing the charges are brought up. And all the many many inconsistence in it, since it was first brought up. Remember that he is the first guy in the history of humanity to be hunt by interpol under accusations of "sex without a condom". And that's just one of the many absurd coincidences and inconsistencies.
It would be like winning a lottery 10 times in a row for the sex charges to be serious and not at all political motivated.
About the German (Angela Merkel) discussion: I (and all people I know) dont really care what American diplomats think about her. I think it's normal, that each government has a file/opinion about person X. What we do care about is the "additional" information - like Westerwelle (our foreign minister) saying "I will tell everything from my meetings with diplomats form Iran/China to the USA". But this has nothing to do with the USA - but with the credibility of our minister. And those actions (giving away diplomatic information to the USA) are really really troubling.
On December 09 2010 23:33 braammbolius wrote: TurpinOS, why don't you try reading before writing. Jebus.
On December 09 2010 17:49 Kirameki wrote:
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. .
Ive read this.
Youre basically just stating a fact everyone knows (the financial sector has big issues), and your answer to that solution is some extremely utopic and impossible solution, does that really help the situation ?
(If only a few people pull out their savings, nothing will happen to the system, only them will be penalized, the fact of the matter is its never going to happen for everyone to take out their savings, so its pointless).
On December 10 2010 01:07 TurpinOS wrote: (If only a few people pull out their savings, nothing will happen to the system, only them will be penalized, the fact of the matter is its never going to happen for everyone to take out their savings, so its pointless).
How will they be penalized? The banks won't pay them the .1% interest rate on cash in demand accounts? That's a penalty?
Speaking of which, that is exactly the reason why I personally have thousands of dollars in cash on hand. The banks don't give you anything.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
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!
I would first disagree with your presumption that Wikileaks should only release materials that reveal implication in some crime. Two reasons: Wikileaks releases information to a global audience and therefore what may be a crime by European standards may not be a crime somewhere else, and whatnot, and secondly, Wikileaks may have access to materials that reveal implication in highly unethical acts that might not be illegal (for example, US diplomats bribing South American countries to accept Guantanamo prisoners in exchange for meetings with Obama).
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?
There are tons of other reasons Wikileaks should not censor themselves unduly (it would go against being anti-censorship, there's no way to objectively measure "relevance", Wikileaks would then be accused of selective editing, et cetera), but these are the two principal flaws in your reasoning.
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.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really. Edit: upon further consideration of analogy to picketing or some similar "denial of service" protest I think "violent" was too colorful a word. Edited original post accordingly. Thanks for provoking the thought, Bartuc.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
If they 'weighed the costs' I don't see how you can argue against 4chan. This is the real world, when you do something that's very obviously ethically fucked according to most of the population (and especially when it's the part that cares enough to do something about it), you should "weigh in" the capability of retaliation against your bullshit. Something being legal does not mean all people will morally agree with it, and something being illegal does not mean it's morally wrong to everyone.
This is awesome. It shows companies like Mastercard they can't do whatever they want just because it's "legal." You should fear the people, even as a private company, because that is who you will answer to in the end.
On December 10 2010 01:07 TurpinOS wrote: (If only a few people pull out their savings, nothing will happen to the system, only them will be penalized, the fact of the matter is its never going to happen for everyone to take out their savings, so its pointless).
How will they be penalized? The banks won't pay them the .1% interest rate on cash in demand accounts? That's a penalty?
Speaking of which, that is exactly the reason why I personally have thousands of dollars in cash on hand. The banks don't give you anything.
Interest and credit are the too biggest reasons to use banks, not because you can safe your cash up. Have fun buying a home if you dont use the banks.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
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!
I would first disagree with your presumption that Wikileaks should only release materials that reveal implication in some crime. Two reasons: Wikileaks releases information to a global audience and therefore what may be a crime by European standards may not be a crime somewhere else, and whatnot, and secondly, Wikileaks may have access to materials that reveal implication in highly unethical acts that might not be illegal (for example, US diplomats bribing South American countries to accept Guantanamo prisoners in exchange for meetings with Obama).
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?
There are tons of other reasons Wikileaks should not censor themselves unduly (it would go against being anti-censorship, there's no way to objectively measure "relevance", Wikileaks would then be accused of selective editing, et cetera), but these are the two principal flaws in your reasoning.
i do so love reading your posts..pwnage every time
On December 09 2010 23:25 TurpinOS wrote: 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.
Why? You basically say it makes sense but won't work in the second part of your post.
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.
You missed the point. We are talking about the financialization of the economy that happened the last 20 years. Not about currency and trades. It's not an utopia. We used to have a normal economy.
People always are going to be greedy, want more, and want more than other people. You just have to make a fool-proof system. A system that isn't designed to destroy itself like the current one. The financial crisis is a direct result of the system we have now. The booms and busts we have are a direct result of the system we have right now. If we don't replace it with a new system, we will probably get a bigger crisis down the road.
Also, once all the big banks are gone they no longer have the power to influence politics and the people can elect politicians who then can put laws in place to prevent it from happening again.
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.
No one will know what the exact result will be. When just one bank collapsed the entire system almost went crashing down. But that doesn't mean we will go back to bartering at all. If countries don't bail out banks, countries won't go broke and currency will probably be harder and more stable then it is right now. I am not an economic expert and I don't know if this will actually be a good thing to do. I don't say we should do it. I am just pointing out that right now it's the only power the people still have. People are breaking the law DoS'ing mastercard and all those other sites. But instead they could go and collect their savings, over which they barely receive interests anyway and are often used to invest in things you would disapprove off, like cluster weapons, drilling oil, destroying the rainforest, etc.
2. Do you really think it would be feasible to ask the whole world to stop using banks ?
That's not it at all. Banks are good. I am just saying people actually have the power to let the current financial sector crash. This would mean many banks right now would go broke. But these banks are the cause of our problems. They aren't merely banks. They have financialized and corrupted society. I don't think there are many 'good banks' left and if that is the case I don't know if the people can deliberately protect them. We will have to start up normal banks once the current ones are gone. Then we can have democratic oversight in those 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.
You realize this has happened, right? You realize this is actually what the financial crisis was, right?
You only need person in the media to call for a bank run and it may every well happen. If someone like Glenn Beck or Bono or whoever tomorrow calls for people to collect all their savings, that may already result in banks crashing. Especially when people know people are pulling their savings and they will lose theirs as well if the bank indeed crashes.
And it may very well happen. The tea party people in the US are quite crazy already. But they are extremely deluded. Once they realize those fueling the tea party will lead them to even more tyranny they will get even more angry, spiteful and cynical. When people get mad enough and feel they are powerless they will have to power to let the whole system crash.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
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!
I would first disagree with your presumption that Wikileaks should only release materials that reveal implication in some crime. Two reasons: Wikileaks releases information to a global audience and therefore what may be a crime by European standards may not be a crime somewhere else, and whatnot, and secondly, Wikileaks may have access to materials that reveal implication in highly unethical acts that might not be illegal (for example, US diplomats bribing South American countries to accept Guantanamo prisoners in exchange for meetings with Obama).
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?
There are tons of other reasons Wikileaks should not censor themselves unduly (it would go against being anti-censorship, there's no way to objectively measure "relevance", Wikileaks would then be accused of selective editing, et cetera), but these are the two principal flaws in your reasoning.
1) If it isn't considered a crime in the country of the diplomat who performs the act, then (unless it violates a greater law than the countries, i.e. Geneva convention, human rights or a parallel) it isn't illegal. That is a pretty central point of the western diplomatic system - i.e. diplomats don't even have to pay parking tickets (most do anyhow as a courtesey); they act as an extended part of a sovereign country. You can disagree with that, but that is what todays international standards are.
2) When you argue that you should have full disclosure it's hard to disagree with you, as long as you talk about to your own countrys files - you haven't got any right to other countries files. And that is the problem with Wikileaks is that EVERYONE in the world get's full disclosure. But even if we stick with the thought that every citizen should have full disclosure to everything the government does, some information is simply too risky to be made public for safety reasons (i.e. location of military bases, schematics of governmental complexes etc.) Whilst the regular chit-chat that I've criticized Wikileaks for releasing doesn't fall in this category, this category is merely an extension of it and would have to be considered if you are to judge Wikileaks morally (consistency of morals is what I'm going at here). And if international diplomacy are to function (without which international cooperation is made almost impossible) confidentialty is needed.
3) I wouldn't mind a change of the diplomatic system to a more open one as the one you describe where every citizen has full disclosure, but one must keep in mind that if one such existed, a lot of these cables would never have been written - there is a pretty big difference between wording something when in confidentiality and when everyone has acces. I know that I for one have changed my wording of the medical journals I dictate quite a bit after the patients got easier acces (and that is actually a very good change!).
4) There is a way to measure "relevance" (or well, I still think relevance is the wrong word - I would much rather use something like "worth making public") - it is the one used by doctors when they are asked to disclose what a patient has told them (there might be other ways, but this system is pretty well proven). There is actually at pretty famous, at least here in DK, case where a demonstration evolves violently, several gets wounded (shot) and are patched up at the major hospital in Copenhagen. The police afterwards demands disclosure of the journals so they can arrest the misdemeanors. All the doctors refused to do so, a ruling of the court supported them afterwards. Point is confidentialty is a pretty major thing which shouldn't just be broken unless there is something seriously sinister amiss - i.e. a crime of war or against humanity (and the case of bribing South American countries would imo fall under the last - just like everything else in connection with Guantanamo).
The new project, “Openleaks,” has been under way for some time and will be launched Monday.
This new website is being made by some former Wikileaks members. It will run similarly to wikileaks. But with one important difference. Openleaks will not publish the leaks themselves on their websites. Instead, they will hand out the leaks to media partners and leave it up to them to decide what to do with it.
Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.
“We intend to split the work in a way where we handle only the anonymity and receiving end of the information,” says another colleague.
On December 11 2010 11:12 Sir.Kimmel wrote: committing a denial of service is exactly the same thing as terrorism....
I honestly hope these script kiddies are happy
You're joking, right?
Anyways, the Anonymous people seem to have changed tack, since that DOS was on a highway to nothing, and they realise that as much as anybody. The latest idea is called 'Operation Leakspin', which involves surreptitiously inserting audio of people reading out portions of the cables into various bits of film footage and uploading the videos to Youtube under misleading titles. Think of it as mass geopolitical rickrolling!
Much more constructive than the DDOS, whilst at the same time giving 4channers an outlet for their innate urge to troll.
As much as I disagree with Anons raiding various websites, I do very much enjoy the general consensus that people are willing to act with their own "power" - their computer.
I hope to see this "eVigilance" evolve into something doing actual good, instead of causing bad publicity to the flagships such as Wikileaks. Already many alternative measures has been suggested, and perhaps it is only a matter of time, before someone finds a method that has a "real" use, _and_ the Anons can and will commit too.
apologies if already posted but I haven't come across on TL so far
I haven't seen that before, thanks for sharing. Some interesting stuff: "Wikileaks revealed how US troops used Iraqi civilians as human bomb detectors"
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?
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The person who appointed them will also look at how well they are doing, as it will impact his own position as well.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
Impacts don't arise instantaneously... and if you don't know who to blame those imacts on you can't hold them accountable in the next election.
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.
Everyone that can vote is always involved in all the issues, unless you have an issue decided by a non-democratic official (the people are not involved in issues decided by the kings and queens)... but they Are involved in all the other issues.
The way in which FBI officers conduct their investigations is MY responsibility (it is a responsibility shared with all other American citizens)... since it is my responsibility, I ought to know how they do it. Same with the way tax policy is set, the designation of national parks and where and how we go to war.
If I lived in the UK then I could legitimately say there are some "governmental" issues I am not involved in (where the Queen visits, etc.)
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.
Not if the people who voted for the appointer don't know about it. Why would an elected official fire a terrible appointee, if the voters didn't know the appointee was terrible.
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.
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.
The horde of DDoS derptards attacked the wrong target when they went after EasyDNS due to mistaken blog posts and twitter messages. From the NYTimes,
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.
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 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.
IIRC, Julius Caesar and subsequent Emperors of Rome, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler were voted dictator for life by their respective populations.
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
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.
You sounded like every officials are directly working for you. Which isn't true, they are working for whoever appointed them. In this case, the ambassador are working for the governament who appointed them, and the appointer knows everything about the ambassadors, hence the foreign cable. The only people you have direct controls are people who you elected, if you ain't happy with their policy or decision, you can change.
If you want sercret from other country, you would want to build your reputation for holding sercret. And why do you want sercret? So governament can make the right decision or policy based on foreign country's view on a matter. Now you want to take the reputation away, reduce the willingness others to share sercret, you are hurting your country.
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
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.
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 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.
You sounded like every officials are directly working for you. Which isn't true, they are working for whoever appointed them. In this case, the ambassador are working for the governament who appointed them, and the appointer knows everything about the ambassadors, hence the foreign cable. The only people you have direct controls are people who you elected, if you ain't happy with their policy or decision, you can change.
If you want sercret from other country, you would want to build your reputation for holding sercret. And why do you want sercret? So governament can make the right decision or policy based on foreign country's view on a matter. Now you want to take the reputation away, reduce the willingness others to share sercret, you are hurting your country.[/QUOTE]
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.)
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.
That's what I was being saying the whole time.
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.)
Anarchy means no or hardly any governament, different to a uncontrolled governament. I don't support uncontrolled governament either, but you simply dont need to sacrifice one for another.
Parliament are responsible for making sure the governament to maintain accountability, so the system is already in place.
On December 14 2010 05:36 furymonkey wrote: Anarchy means no or hardly any governament, different to a uncontrolled governament. I don't support uncontrolled governament either, but you simply dont need to sacrifice one for another.
Parliament are responsible for making sure the governament to maintain accountability, so the system is already in place.
I agree that you can have some government without it being uncontrolled, but your second sentence is Really funny... satire.. trolling?
Parliament are responsible for making sure the governament to maintain accountability, so the system is already in place
Let's see if i can Ilustrate it
Enron are responsible for making sure the Enronto maintain accountability, so the system is already in place.
Yes that worked reall well.
"You can trust me"..Why? Because I say you can trust me And you can trust me
Unless "Parliament" =/="Government" then you have problems.
Sorry I didn't make it clear, the governament I was referring to is the people whoes in power, people who are running the office.
Since not all parliament members are from the same party, you'll find them question officials whenver they can. Parliament members are also elected by people, so the proportion of the parliament members who support are also some indication what about public wants.
You can always take your issue up to your local MPs, and that's how they work, a representative of the people. They are tasked to keep the ones who is running the office in check.
On December 14 2010 07:45 furymonkey wrote: Sorry I didn't make it clear, the governament I was referring to is the people whoes in power, people who are running the office.
Since not all parliament members are from the same party, you'll find them question officials whenver they can. Parliament members are also elected by people, so the proportion of the parliament members who support are also some indication what about public wants.
You can always take your issue up to your local MPs, and that's how they work, a representative of the people. They are tasked to keep the ones who is running the office in check.
Admittedly having a multiparty system helps... as would a proper division of power ie a "President" not selected by Parliament.
However, some parts of government hide secrets from other parts, concentrating the power.
About the German (Angela Merkel) discussion: I (and all people I know) dont really care what American diplomats think about her. I think it's normal, that each government has a file/opinion about person X. What we do care about is the "additional" information - like Westerwelle (our foreign minister) saying "I will tell everything from my meetings with diplomats form Iran/China to the USA". But this has nothing to do with the USA - but with the credibility of our minister. And those actions (giving away diplomatic information to the USA) are really really troubling.
I can't really speak much about securecode, but I can tell you this: Mastercard team responsible for making sure that mastercard.com and securecode are working was aware of every step they were taking.
EPT
ayback(is a bitch!) #PAYBACK
![[image loading]](http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Unx2YBWG6DbYrM:http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/174/trollface.png&t=1)
