EPTMasterCard Website Down- Hackers support WikiLeaks - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
| ||
|
Bartuc
Netherlands629 Posts
 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? 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). | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:29 funkie wrote: 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? 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? | ||
|
Bartuc
Netherlands629 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:38 JWD wrote: 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. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
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? 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. | ||
|
TallMax
United States131 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:44 HellRoxYa wrote: 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. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:43 Bartuc wrote: 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). | ||
|
imsorrisuck
United States17 Posts
Here are the people that caused it. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
| ||
|
Bartuc
Netherlands629 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:50 Offhand wrote: 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. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:38 JWD wrote: 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.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. 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. | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:43 Bartuc wrote: 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. | ||
|
cha0
Canada498 Posts
| ||
|
Vequeth
United Kingdom1116 Posts
http://blog.securetrading.com/2010/12/mastercard-maestro-3-d-secure/ | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:01 VIB wrote: 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. | ||
|
RelZo
Hungary397 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:34 red_b wrote: if you honestly believe 4chan is responsible youve obviously not spent enough time there. If you honestly believe 4chan had nothing to do with it youve obviously not spent enough time there. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
It's all subjective, but this is my take. | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
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. Or do they just want people to hear them. That's no doubt part of what they're after. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Bartuc
Netherlands629 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:01 JWD wrote: 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. | ||
| ||
