EPT
MasterCard Website Down- Hackers support WikiLeaks - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
| ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
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). | ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
| ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On December 08 2010 22:53 Fa1nT wrote: 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: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11945875 where does it say illegal? All it says is that they will try to force them to allow payments. | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On December 08 2010 22:50 angelicfolly wrote: 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. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States9942 Posts
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? | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:02 Aim Here wrote: 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. | ||
|
Ryps
Romania2740 Posts
Its pretty clear they were pressured by someone to deny them service, so this doesnt really help. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:07 Drey wrote: Do people actually think that the management one day said "Hey I dont like Wikileaks anymore " ? Its pretty clear they were pressured by someone to deny them service, so this doesnt really help. Yes it does. Just being put in pressure doesn't mean you have to fall for it easily. By the way do you guys remember those MasterCard commercials they had for a while? They fit the situation so wonderfully: "Freedom of speech ... priceless. For everything else there's MasterCard" | ||
|
Stenstyren
Sweden619 Posts
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. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5560 Posts
This state censorship makes me sick. | ||
|
TallMax
United States131 Posts
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. | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
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)? | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:07 angelicfolly wrote: 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. I'm using the term 'bad guys' to refer to the likes of Paypal or Mastercard or whatever. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
| ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:19 JWD wrote: Maybe 4chan should have taken some hostages from MasterCard management instead? Or at the very least, destroyed some of MasterCard's physical property, like by blowing up an empty office building or something (might well cause MC less losses than having its website down for hours)? Then all of you supporters of this attack would really get excited? I am opposed to 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. | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:19 Aim Here wrote: I'm using the term 'bad guys' to refer to the likes of Paypal or Mastercard or whatever. Why do you think why asked people to drop those terms? Ideology is a keyword here. | ||
|
funkie
Venezuela9374 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:19 JWD wrote: Maybe 4chan should have taken some hostages from MasterCard management instead? Or at the very least, destroyed some of MasterCard's physical property, like by blowing up an empty office building or something (might well cause MC less losses than having its website down for hours)? Then all of you supporters of this attack would really get excited? I am opposed to 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?. Way to support the bully-movement. :cheers: On December 08 2010 23:07 BlackJack wrote: 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? | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:25 Aim Here wrote: 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. | ||
|
shabinka
United States469 Posts
I just find it funny that they linked it to Anon - because well... they're anonymous. | ||
| ||
