Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Internet & Networking It looks like several companies are learning what happens when you mess with the internet - and they're learning it the hard way. Several major companies have been hit by the collective powers of Anonymous after 4chan launched several distributed denial-of-service attacks. What many have been predicting for a long time now has finally happened: an actual war between the powers that be on one side, and the internet on the other. Update: PayPal has admitted their WikiLeaks snub came after pressure from the US government, and Datacell, which takes care of payments to Wikileaks, is threatening to sue MasterCard over Wikileaks' account suspension. Update II: Visa.com is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
Order by: Score:
Hmmm
by DavidCollins on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:27 UTC
DavidCollins
Member since:
2010-03-22

"If the old world plays dirty, so should we."

Indeed. Morality has no place in this world. It's all about making ourselves as bad as the people we're fighting.

Thom, I'm dismayed by you're lack of effort to even try to keep the moral highground on this issue.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hmmm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:40 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

David should've just offered Goliath a cup of tea, then?

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Hmmm
by LighthouseJ on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
LighthouseJ Member since:
2009-06-18

I'm wondering where the news about operating systems fits in to this one... oh well. mini-slashdot here we come.

It's interesting how reality is diverging from this alternate universe where Wikileaks apparently has a right to possess and disseminate others' information (aka invasion of privacy) that they want.
You can't wrap yourself in a warm cloak of freedom of information, which others that support Wikileaks, if it's not your information in the first place.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Hmmm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm wondering where the news about operating systems fits in to this one... oh well. mini-slashdot here we come.


You obviously haven't read OSNews for the past two years, so welcome back on board!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hmmm
by brewmastre on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

...It's interesting how reality is diverging from this alternate universe where Wikileaks apparently has a right to possess and disseminate others' information (aka invasion of privacy) that they want.


Umm, what? It's the United States government, they are supposed to represent us...they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us. I'm proud to be an American but that pride is fading. We (the US) cannot hold others to a standard that we ourselves will not live up to.

Reply Score: 12

RE[4]: Hmmm
by LighthouseJ on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm"
LighthouseJ Member since:
2009-06-18

Umm, what? It's the United States government, they are supposed to represent us...they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us. I'm proud to be an American but that pride is fading. We (the US) cannot hold others to a standard that we ourselves will not live up to.


You missed the point of what I said. I was purely discussing the fact that information can only be "free'd" by the originating source. You can apply the same thing I said to doctor-patient or attourney-client privileges.

If someone stole your latest STD screening results and gave them to me, I hyped it up as something juicy to tell your friends and family, then released it on the ground of public health. Did I nobly free information or was I complicit in invading your privacy regardless of how important public health is?
Who gets to decide which is more valuable?

What happened is that someone took information (the "invading privacy" part) and leaked it, and people all around are saying "ohh, it's freedom of information! see how pure the motives are!". That's the divergent part from reality.

As far as what the US Government should do, and if they are working for the citizens, that's a different discussion.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Hmmm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You missed the point of what I said. I was purely discussing the fact that information can only be "free'd" by the originating source. You can apply the same thing I said to doctor-patient or attourney-client privileges.


If either the doctor or the patient committed a crime, and the information would be relevant to the case, then yes, that information would become available.

You can't apply the rules of the individual to a government. We are supposed to check our government - and we can't do that if they just label everything "secret" while waving flags around talking about terrorism a lot.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[6]: Hmmm
by Karitku on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
RE[7]: Hmmm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Now it's filled with Thoms personal opinnions which, by reading what he writes, he managed to learn from local leftwing newspaper. Thom, you might be good at finding nip info on technical stuff, but you suck as reporter.


So, OSNews has gone down the toilet because the opinions presented in the article do not match your own? I love cognitive dissonance theory. You do realise you're free to write your own article which we WILL publish, right? We've done so numerous times before.

Funny how people like you never take me up on that offer.

Also, I'm actually not left at all.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Hmmm
by JAlexoid on Thu 9th Dec 2010 05:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Again, please someone show me something new that Wikileaks have shown us?


How about massive spying campaign on the world leaders - like their DNA! If they were spying on how some negotiations went, what confidential views someone had, that would be expected and nothing to be shamed about, but this is ridiculous!

Oh, and BTW, if WikiLeaks have not shown anything "new", then why the smear campaign on behalf of US government? Think about it, they are panicking over something, it's not just hot air.

Edited 2010-12-09 05:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Freedom of Information Act
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 06:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

is NOT what Assange is taking advantage of.
FoIA has specific procedures to follow. A formal request must be made for specific information. The government can honor that request, first redacting information sensitive to national security, or the govt can refuse, in which case a Court comes into the picture and decides the final outcome (what can be released, what can be kept "secret") and issues a court order to that effect.

Assange hasn't gone through those legal procedures. You know that. He's made no formal request at all, let alone a formal request for specific information.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hmmm
by bisserke on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
bisserke Member since:
2007-03-22

Hmmm... Thom. I think u hit the nail on its head.

You can't apply the rules of the individual to a government. We are supposed to check our government - and we can't do that if they just label everything "secret" while waving flags around talking about terrorism a lot.

Organisations should not be allowed to have the same rights as an individual. And especially governments should be ideally completely transparant. (Freedom of information act... sic)
And all this nonsense make this announcement truly ironic.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTYmAtawT4E6ftkR...

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Hmmm
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"You missed the point of what I said. I was purely discussing the fact that information can only be "free'd" by the originating source. You can apply the same thing I said to doctor-patient or attourney-client privileges.


If either the doctor or the patient committed a crime, and the information would be relevant to the case, then yes, that information would become available.

You can't apply the rules of the individual to a government. We are supposed to check our government - and we can't do that if they just label everything "secret" while waving flags around talking about terrorism a lot.
"

Not necessarily to the public. It depends on the details of the case. However IANAL.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmmm
by brewmastre on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

You can apply the same thing I said to doctor-patient or attourney-client privileges.

If someone stole your latest STD screening results and gave them to me, I hyped it up as something juicy to tell your friends and family, then released it on the ground of public health. Did I nobly free information or was I complicit in invading your privacy regardless of how important public health is?
Who gets to decide which is more valuable?


No, I would compare this more to an employer(the people)-employee(the gov't) relationship. Since they work for us, they have absolutely no right to privacy or a right to keep things from us. They either conform to our standards and be open and honest, or they're fired.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Hmmm
by LighthouseJ on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
LighthouseJ Member since:
2009-06-18

I take your and Thoms' point now.

I'm still in the process of coming to a conclusion about it all. I guess the problem I have is that people seem to see a massive criminal enterprise, but these are just diplomatic cables between two parties that don't want a third party to know about it.
People who suspect the US Government of terrible atrocities are somehow instantly vindicated, even when no atrocities are revealed. I took a furrowed brow to that and still am coming to conclusions about it all.

It would be nice if the government would dish on other countries, but the world doesn't work that way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hmmm
by M.Onty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Since they work for us, they have absolutely no right to privacy or a right to keep things from us.


Constitutions are a little more complicated than that. I don't know much about the States, but the relationship between the people, their representatives and the Crown (or, more generally, the state) in Britain is highly ambiguous. It is far from clear that the people have complete power over their leaders.

My guess would be that in the USA the people can legally choose who holds these powers (such as president), but do not have a clear legal freedom to dictate their actions once chosen. Assuming I'm on the right track, that is not a simple employer and employee relationship and shouldn't be thought of as such.

If I'm not on the right track, I would argue that employees still have a right to privacy under certain sensitive circumstances. You paying someone to do something does not automatically give your the right to know how they did it and---back to Wikileaks---what confidential conversations they had with other professionals whilst doing it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hmmm
by Almafeta on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I was purely discussing the fact that information can only be "free'd" by the originating source.


Unfortunately, that 'fact' is not supported by law.

The entire concept of public domain (an idea that's about two hundred years old) is based around the idea that the government has the power to sieze ownership of IP after a period of time. In this, it is using its power of eminent domain to sieze intellectual property that it cannot trace to an owner just like it might sieze real estate that it cannot trace to an owner - clearly a case where the originating source doesn't free. Even then, this same eminent domain power can be used by the government to arbitrarially change the date of copyright expiration (as has happened a few times in recent memory), granting copyright to or withdrawing copyright from individual owners or entire groups of owners (most notably, the various acts and laws enacted to comply with the Berne Convention, which caused entire swaths of works to come out of the public domain as far as the US was concerned).

Even before copyright expires, in the United States, there is protection of fair use - to prevent copyright law from being used as a bludgeon to stifle public discourse on current events. The personal right to fair use is not circumvented by knowledge becoming public knowledge through illegal means. In this way, a fact (Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father) might enter public knowledge and public discourse even though the primary source (Star Wars) is still copyrighted. It'd still be a crime to steal a copy of Star Wars, but I can read and write and talk about it all I like.

The exceptions you refer to are just that - exceptions. Attorney-client and doctor-patient priviledge are restrictions placed on attornies and doctors so they can perform their jobs; for better or worse, they are not the right to have personal information stay out of public knowledge. For example, if you saw me take two pills of digoxin, you'd be in your rights to blog all day long about what you saw me take and your suspicions about what diseases it implies I have, even though my doctor or attorney would not not have the right to do the same thing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Hmmm
by M.Onty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

The entire concept of public domain (an idea that's about two hundred years old) is based around the idea that the government has the power to sieze ownership of IP after a period of time. In this, it is using its power of eminent domain to sieze intellectual property that it cannot trace to an owner just like it might sieze real estate that it cannot trace to an owner - clearly a case where the originating source doesn't free. Even then, this same eminent domain power can be used by the government to arbitrarially change the date of copyright expiration (as has happened a few times in recent memory), granting copyright to or withdrawing copyright from individual owners or entire groups of owners (most notably, the various acts and laws enacted to comply with the Berne Convention, which caused entire swaths of works to come out of the public domain as far as the US was concerned).


Public domain wasn't created by governments, IP was created by governments for the sake of the artists/manufacturers. Before this occurred works could be copied freely. Therefore there is no seizure as the governments are just changing the date at which this right granted by them shall expire.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hmmm
by subsider34 on Fri 10th Dec 2010 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm"
subsider34 Member since:
2010-11-08

It is not a right but a privilege.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hmmm
by bryanv on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

The way I see it, The Government is my employee. I'm their boss. I pay their paychecks. Without the overwhelming consent (at least in this country) of myself and people like me, they're not to exist.

So, I'd like to know why -- if I'm paying for this stuff to be produced. If I'm paying for them to produce work product, or carry out tasks, etc. Shouldn't it also be my right to inspect the results of my employing them?

WTF?

Every citizen in the US is for lack of a better analogy a 'voting board member' of the government. We should all have access to whatever documents are produced, actions taken, or efforts undertaken at our expense and in our name.

This cloak and dagger government bullshit is not the way it should be.

I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm advocating the restoration of a civic-minded democracy, where the government should be deadly afraid of the populous, rather then hell-bent on subduing them.

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Hmmm - "free'd" by the originating source.
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I don't intend to premote the skript kiddies self-identifying as "anonymous" (they are simply using a DDos pointy-clicky someone else wrote after all).

*But* (cause you knew it was coming)

Wikileaks does not seem to be in the business of breaking into systems to procure information; it was first "free'd" by an original source that had access to it. Wikileaks also seems to have done some work to redact though not remotely as much black strips as the US gov would lay on it before a FOIA request response.

Until Wikileaks starts breaking into systems, I'm going to lay that blame on the insider threat and, as applicable, administrators that didn't lock there systems down. (Why did an analyst have access to that amount of unrelated information and why was an analyst able to duplicate and transport that information?)

Hopefully the outcome of all this is not innocent being harmed but I think the US gov's statements are intentionally overstated. The US gov was caught with it's dick in it's hands not victimized.

Reply Score: 4

FresheBakked Member since:
2010-12-08

I heartily disagree with you, jabbotts...and here is why: By exposing and releasing those Diplomatic Cables, they have become complicant in the theft of the Diplomatic Cables, and are basically guilty of receiving stolen property and being in receivership of illegally-obtained Classified documents. Open-and-shut case.

Reply Score: 0

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

That does show fault on the part of the person who leaked those documents. Unless Wikileaks broke in and took the data; they are no more guilty than NY Times for publishing classified documents that show fault on the part of the government.

Granted, things have escalated on both sides since the instigating video leak put US gov and Wikileaks toe to toe.

The question remains though; has Wikileaks done due diligence? Did they make an honest effort to redact harmful information? Seems to me they did work with third parties to do just that and aproached the US gov several times asking them to review the redactions. In terms of publishing politicians names; they are already public figures.

Don't get me wrong. I'll be right beside you with my pointy stick if harmful civilian outcome is linked directly back to Wikileaks choices. From the other side, do you hold your government accountable for having such information that needs to be hidden to "save face"?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Hmmm
by elsewhere on Thu 9th Dec 2010 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

What happened is that someone took information (the "invading privacy" part) and leaked it, and people all around are saying "ohh, it's freedom of information! see how pure the motives are!". That's the divergent part from reality.


There's no such thing as "invasion of privacy" when it comes to democratic governments. They should be operating in complete transparency. The public they serve is entitled to understand how they operate. You can't compare the wikileaks expose to someone dumpster diving to drag out information on a private citizen. Citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, governments do not.

That said, I will agree that there is a murky area between a citizen's right to know, versus a citizen's need to know. Too much transparency can be a bad thing, the issue is finding the balance.

Personally, I think wikileaks has jumped the shark. They served an interestingly noble purpose at the start, but I'm not sure what noble purpose is now being served by the leak of all these US gov't docs, particularly without providing any context to them. Now, they simply seem to be serving an agenda.

However, I'm very concerned with the implications that any sort of repercussions against wikileaks could have on the internet at large. The real issue is not that wikileaks is releasing this information, the issue is that the US had allowed this information to be released in the first place. Sure, they have the guy that did it in custody, but that doesn't address the fact that he was able to do it in the first place. Wikileaks is complicit in spreading the information, but other than embarrassing the gov't, have they actually broken a law? We've had the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Deep Throat et al. in the past, and the press was protected, why is the situation with wikileaks any different?

The real story is that a low-ranking disenfranchised soldier was able to extract and disseminate this information in the first place. That's a serious breakdown in security policy, representing a violation of the trust the US had inherent in their diplomatic ties.

The huffing and puffing about wikileaks is a smokescreen to conceal that. The info should never have been made available, but it was. At least by having it out in the open, everyone's cards are on the table. If the information had been made secretly available to organizations or nations with more nefarious intents, the repercussions could potentially be more serious. No way to tell.

At the end of the day, the US Gov't is responsible for this happening, the information is now free, and fingerpointing and posturing won't change that.

As far as what the US Government should do, and if they are working for the citizens, that's a different discussion.


Quite, and let's keep in mind, by looking at a reverse perspective of this issue, the White House blocked access to ACTA documents under FOIA by claiming National Security. The pendulum swings both ways.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Hmmm
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 05:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Would you be OK with me obtaining your name and social security number and releasing it on the internet? After all, that's simply government information, everyone has a right to see it, right?

Secondly, Assange admits to having a stolen copy of private emails of private corporations, and says he will release them as well. So the excuse that "All government information wants to be free" (which I don't buy, nor should you, even just based on the Social Security number example I gave above) doesn't even apply to Assange's operation. He'll release private info of private citizens if he feels like it.

Edited 2010-12-09 05:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmmm
by elsewhere on Thu 9th Dec 2010 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Would you be OK with me obtaining your name and social security number and releasing it on the internet? After all, that's simply government information, everyone has a right to see it, right?


I get where you're going and don't disagree, but I'm going to play devil's advocate and point out that there should really not be an issue with publishing an SSN. It is a government record and simply serves as a unique identifier and validation for US citizens to streamline processing of government services. It was never designed to be a form of strong authentication, and it's simply bad policy that allows the SSN to be abused in this way.

If a list was published with every US citizen's name and SSN, it might spark the gov't to reconsider the whole concept and come up with something more secure that would prevent the private sector from utilizing it in an unsecure manner and risking personal identities.

I'm a realist, so I agree with your point, but just thought I'd throw that out there...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Hmmm
by _txf_ on Thu 9th Dec 2010 08:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Except that Wikileaks Redacts information that can be harmful to innocent individuals.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmmm
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Back that up please?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Hmmm
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Back that up please?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messe...

WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Hmmm
by KickEmInDaBitchDitch on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
KickEmInDaBitchDitch Member since:
2010-12-08

" if it's not your information in the first place."

Well sir, I really hate to burst your bubble. But if you are an american citizen it IS "your information". Any information held by the United States government is the property of the people

As an american citizen, I have the right to take my information and distribute it anyway I see fit. The only retribution I should fear should be that of my fellow citizens, not that of the government

Too many people have forgotten our government are our employee's. Not the other way around

Edited 2010-12-08 21:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hmmm
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

So according to this logic, US citizens (and consequently the world) should know the names of CIA agents, undercover FBI and police agents, where nuclear warheads are and how many of them there are, what weak points there are in the electricity distribution networks, etc. Why not make the nuclear codes available on simple request then?

Nobody sane would deny that Wikileaks revealing crimes or misdeeds is good. But, and this is what stalwart supporters like Thom and you don't seem to be able to understand, there's a line that should not be crossed. That line has been crossed with leaking that diplomatic communication... I still haven't seen how these cables revealed a crime. Still haven't seen how it benefits anyone. Someone, give me a concrete example.

Here's an instance of a useless cable (for those who read French, the original is at http://www.leprogres.fr/fr/france-monde/article/4247889/WikiLeaks-i...) that tells how the president was "transitively" chasing his 9 year-old son's rabbit. Translation is mine.

Louis showed up with a puppy and a rabbit in his arms. To shake the ambassador's hand, he put the rabbit on the ground and the puppy started chasing the rabbit, which led to the memorable view of the president running, bent, to catch the puppy, which was chasing the rabbit, while Louis was laughing out loud in the office".

Big crime by the US government there.


As an american citizen, I have the right to take my information and distribute it anyway I see fit. The only retribution I should fear should be that of my fellow citizens, not that of the government

That's not realistic. Juries composed of fellow citizens like you will deem you guilty in many cases. If it's not public knowledge, you have no right to release it unless it's yours. If it's public knowledge, why would you release it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hmmm
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 10:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I still haven't seen how these cables revealed a crime. Still haven't seen how it benefits anyone. Someone, give me a concrete example.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-may-be-r...

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.

► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-mani...
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

Edited 2010-12-09 11:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmmm
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Thanks again for the info. The media have been babbling about the thing without providing examples of where and how the US actions described in the leak are crimes. Except for stealing DNA information (which I am still wondering how it cool ever be of any usefulness to that gov't, but hey, I don't have their devious mind), the rest of it is not a crime by the US gov. Like
"King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran." or "Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available."... hardly a crime, not even by the least lenient standards.

People at Wikileaks are not the saints some have been portraying them as. I wasn't against their actions but that diplomatic thing was too much of a weight on one side of the balance (from my point of view)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Hmmm
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Thanks again for the info. The media have been babbling about the thing without providing examples of where and how the US actions described in the leak are crimes. Except for stealing DNA information (which I am still wondering how it cool ever be of any usefulness to that gov't, but hey, I don't have their devious mind), the rest of it is not a crime by the US gov. Like "King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran." or "Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available."... hardly a crime, not even by the least lenient standards. People at Wikileaks are not the saints some have been portraying them as. I wasn't against their actions but that diplomatic thing was too much of a weight on one side of the balance (from my point of view)


IMO the damaging one for the US is the last one.
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-mani...

This is basically US lies for utterly greedy, selfish purposes. The US shouldn't be playing with the ecological health of the planet all for the sake of the richest 2% of Americans to become even more insanely rich.

However, back to your point, ... if the information revealed via Wikileaks is not an issue, why the furore over it?

It is, after all, the US which is making the claim that Wikileaks is out to damage the US alone. (Clearly this is not so ... Wikileaks seeks to expose corruption and illegal behaviour whoever is perpetrating it.) The US is trying to find a way to bring some trumped-up charge against Assange, and extradite him to the US. The US is the party out to execute whistleblowers and suppress freedom of the press.

So, either the leaks are damaging to the US, and biased against the US, or they are not. Which is it?

Edited 2010-12-09 22:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmmm
by cmack on Thu 9th Dec 2010 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
cmack Member since:
2010-12-09

Uhmmm, no. Sorry you are wrong.

Information isn't owned by anyone. Regardless of what fascist governments attempt to claim.

Information can be:

known,
shared,
learned,
taught,
protected,
seized or captured,
and many other things....

anything but owned. Non-material, Non-physical object cannot be owned. Especially in the US where we hear everyday that we have a free market capitalist system.

Try again.

Information is power. Withholding information from the population is tyranny. That is all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmmm
by panzi on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

Well, David was a horrible person. Decimating and enslaving other nations and killing people as a present to his father-in-law, these are not the deeds of a good man. By today's standards he would be a war criminal. I don't think David even tried the diplomatic approach.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hmmm
by cb88 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

First you are trollin... second had David not killed Goliath they would have been the slaves of the philistines and/or dead (undead slaves anyone?).

I mean bring back the days when you could kill ONE guy and pretty much win the war. Diplomacy doesn't help if they other guys a) want your land b) are on a war rampage or c) are just mean.

Fact is the philistines were only there because the didn't completely eradicate all the previous occupiers of the land... which they were supposed to have done and ended up living among them "diplomatically" you might say so look where diplomacy got them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmmm
by bryanv on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Meh. Redacted. No point in posting this here.

I can sum it up real easy.

How is David any different than Osama Bin Laden?

Edited 2010-12-08 17:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmmm
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
FresheBakked Member since:
2010-12-08

@bryanv - keep your religious beliefs out of this.

There's nothing worse than a religiously-zealotous TROLL!

Go find another bridge!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hmmm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This thread's political enough as it is - let's keep religion out of, okay? ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hmmm
by bryanv on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

I never stated what my religious beliefs are.

I merely pointed out that zionist religions (as a whole) have no issue glorifying the actions of David, while at the same time the large majority of individuals who praise his efforts condemn the efforts of modern individuals whom act and behave much as David did.

I am firmly planted in my own faith, which is one of the faiths I'm speaking of.

Most people, for whatever reason, do not realize how hypocritical they are of modern day conflicts, while praising the exact same tactics used in history.

My only conclusion to this, is that more often than not, the zionist religions of today ignore the history and 'boring' parts of their holy texts and have some seriously thick rose-colored glasses with which they view the past. This confuses me.

These same people shill at the thought of modern 'clean' warfare fueled by the very same motives as most of todays conflicts praise the deeds of the horrifyingly grotesque methods of mass slaughter in the history books which were fought on the same pretexts as todays escalating conflicts.

Hypocrite much?

I am not criticizing any religion. I am criticizing the close-minded nature of most people, who like any good zealot fails to see the negative impacts of their own actions while condemning the exact same qualities in others.

I have no delusions of how evil I am capable of being.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Hmmm
by sakeniwefu on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Yeah, because they had to invade that patch of land.

God told us to take their land and kill them all. We are so good we left some of them alive, and how do they pay us? Sending Goliath. Philistine terrorists want us dead, so we are entitled to kill them!

You'd think after a few thousand years, they'd have learnt a lesson or two.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hmmm
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:15 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

If morality has no place in this world, what's the point at trying to keep the moral highground?!

It can't be both ways.

Edited 2010-12-08 13:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmmm
by DavidCollins on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
DavidCollins Member since:
2010-03-22

My first sentence was intended to be sarcastic.

You comment is yet another indication for me that sarcasm is a bad tool to use on the internet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmmm
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Or just that english is not always your reader native language...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Hmmm
by elsewhere on Thu 9th Dec 2010 07:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Or just that english is not always your reader native language...


I wish more people understood this. Sarcasm isn't universal to all languages, and can be challenging to people for whom English isn't their primary. And hey, isn't that why we created the wink ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmmm
by TheGZeus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Thank you for reminding me of that.
I have an appt, but will reply to my own sarcastic messages and note that they are sarcastic later.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmmm
by Brunis on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

If morality has no place in this world, what's the point at trying to keep the moral highground?!

It can't be both ways.


True, how will you fight knives and guns with a lifted finger!?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmmm
by No it isnt on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:21 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

I'm dismayed by "you're" grammar.

I'm with the internet on this.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hmmm
by Carewolf on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:40 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Not sure if DDos is appropiate against MasterCard, VISA or the Swedish prosecutors office. It all seems to childish.

I only see a few place where it is perfect: EveryDNS that dropped WikiLeaks fearing DDOS attacks. Now that is a perfect target. Is the fear of DDOS attacks 1000 times bigger going to make you take them back, or are you going to admit it was political pressure, huh?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmmm - well pointed out
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Perhaps if the massive numbers of "anonymous" where to contact there local gov representatives or publicize facts showing what these companies did they'd have a more real effect. Maybe make changes rather than temporary inconveniences.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Except... That doesn't work. Change usually comes despite democracy - not because of it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmmm - well pointed out
by M.Onty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm - well pointed out"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Except... That doesn't work. Change usually comes despite democracy - not because of it.


I have a highly skeptical view of democracy's value as the cure-all it has been touted as over the last eighty years. Nevertheless, your opinion strikes me as too pat without explanation. What we might, in my corner of the world, call 6th Form politics. Democracy changes the entire political and media culture of a nation over time, like the sea shaping a cliff-face.

Edited 2010-12-08 20:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hmmm - well pointed out
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm - well pointed out"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

My point was more that if people want change, they should do something that actually results in change. A traffic based denial of service attack only demonstrates that someone needs to better manage their network. Stop playing with .net toys, go out and work to effect change. A DDoS is not the appropriate response outside of getting media attention; they could have gotten media attention without it.

Don't like how the government is behaving, take it up with the government.

Don't like how a business is behaving, cancel your services from them.

DDos? It's like stealling copyrighted content because you are an "activist" sticking it to the big company but never actually bother to send them a letter. I'm all badass; I stole your content because I didn't agree with your pricing structure or some such thing. Your still getting sales from others and I'm actually helping get your content more widely spread to people with morals who will pay if they can't live without.. I'm really sticking it to the man.

One Yes Men prank would have more effect than the thousands of DDos.NET skript kiddies.

The masses of "Anonymous" sending letter to companies stating "These are the products/services you offer which would benefit me however, I can not do business with you as long as you continue to business this way. To date, you have lost ##$ of my sales dollars because of how you do business". Owners, Board of director members and investors are going to take notice when they receive many letter and consider what sales could have been this quarter.

A DDoS of packets; woopty. A DDoS of physical letters that cost the company resources and show exactly how much money they "left on the table"; ok, now we're actually doing something.

Also, Wikileaks has lawyers doesn't it? If a company breaks it's contract with you, you have the option to invite them into court. Or, do what Wikileaks did and take their business elsewhere.


I should clarify, my point is not that things should be changed. It's the ineffective method chosen for trying to make change.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmmm
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 06:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Right, so screw over the millions of people that don't give a damn about Wikileaks or Assange's crusade, and just want to connect to the internet. Yep, let's take the cyberterrorism up a nothch, that'll show 'em who has the moral high ground!! And turn the world against us in the process.

* By "us", I mean wikilieaks and their supporters, of which I am not one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmmm
by TheGZeus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Yeah, how dare protesters make it take longer to get to the mall!
Who cares about their rights!?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmmm
by elsewhere on Thu 9th Dec 2010 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

EveryDNS that dropped WikiLeaks fearing DDOS attacks. Now that is a perfect target. Is the fear of DDOS attacks 1000 times bigger going to make you take them back, or are you going to admit it was political pressure, huh?


EasyDNS is a free service. They weren't worried about political pressure, they were worried about their other 500,000 users. What kind of an SLA are you expecting with a free service?

Plus they gave wikileaks enough notice that they were dropping them, they had time to switch their DNS if they wanted to.

There may be pseudo-villains here, but EasyDNS isn't one of them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmmm
by Carewolf on Thu 9th Dec 2010 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Good point

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmmm
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:24 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
FresheBakked Member since:
2010-12-08

Amen, and Amen.

I'm sure that Thom would be singing a different tune if HIS site was being DDoSed for a similar reason or context.

Nice doube-standard, Thom!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmmm
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:50 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Yes, protest is bad.

Always use the methods set up by corrupt governments to deal with said governments.
-_-

Reply Score: 4

Fair?
by TommyCarlier on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:43 UTC
TommyCarlier
Member since:
2006-08-02

If the government put pressure on these companies (like you say), do they really deserve maltreatment? You want to punish them for not standing up against the US Government? Even if they are "cowards" (for lack of a better word), does cowardice deserve punishment?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fair?
by ciplogic on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:47 UTC in reply to "Fair?"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Yes, he stands on the side of freedom of speech and freedom in general. Also as a journalist, he have to fight the freedom of speech, which at least at one level Assange seems to represent at a greater degree than other policies.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Fair?
by TommyCarlier on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair?"
TommyCarlier Member since:
2006-08-02

Companies have a right to refuse customers that are a liability and that might bring harm to the company. We can't all be as brave as William Wallace, shouting FREEDOM while being gutted.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Fair?
by KrustyVader on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fair?"
KrustyVader Member since:
2006-10-28

That may be true in your country. But in others it's discrimination.

In lots of countries you need a legal reason to ban a client.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fair? - wow.. really
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fair?"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I rather assumed one had a choice of whom they do business with. "sell me something or I'll burn your house down" seems more like extortion than a customer's right to be served. I'd think discrimination would need to be proven rather than defaulted.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fair?
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:20 UTC in reply to "Fair?"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

It's not cowardice, but proactive *private* justice.

Which, AFAIK, is not legal in democracies.
As no governement react saying these companies can't do that without legal backup, it seems that we're not living in democracies, under a State of Laws.

Not a big surprise, though.

When non legal actions are not condemed anymore by governements because they agreed which such actions, there is no more fairness in respecting laws.

Who care, then, that resistance actions are fair or not. It's war. War is never fair.

Edited 2010-12-08 13:24 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Fair? "it's war"
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair?"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"It's war. War is never fair."

No.. it's inconvenience. War is very different.

"war on drugs" (so, prolonged prohibition driving the profitability of criminal drug trafficing and wasting tax dollars imprissoning people for smoking a joint but not far more addictive substances like drinking or smoking)

"war on illegal imigration" (so, war against what the US was founded on; freedom and imigration rather than against employers who under pay and mistreat illegals)

"war on terrorism" (so, war against a technique of war; fear of fear so we can legislate away more freedoms)

"war on wikileaks" (more like "please don't focus on how this information was able to be leaked" war against responsible governance)

I don't see any of it as warfare followed up by land forces holding ground. It's political BS spin.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Fair? "it's war"
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fair? "it's war""
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Okay, okay.

True, tt's not a war, just a conflict with sides spread from all other the world, each using latest technology and attack vectors to cause damage to what is considered critical by the other side.

Happy?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fair? "it's war"
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fair? "it's war""
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'd agree that it is inconvenience. I may even stretch it to espionage. Wake me when pulling a VM from Amazon's cluster results in death and warfare or when DDoS'ing a business network justifies an armed response. Let me know when they put troops and metal on the ground to hold Assange's land holdings.

I mean, I don't think this is all nothing. I just think calling it a war provides a lot more hype and spin rather than reality.

Reply Score: 2

OS news?
by John Blink on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:49 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Please report what has been done using OS's, and not opinion pieces.

There are other websites I can visit for that.

What category does this fit into?

Please don't be upset. This site is not the place for it Thom.

Reply Score: 3

RE: OS news?
by FreeGamer on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:49 UTC in reply to "OS news?"
FreeGamer Member since:
2007-04-13

Agreed. Sometimes Thom treats OSNews like a personal blog - which is annoying given he has a personal blog. However Thom knows his blog articles do not get the exposure OSNews articles get, so when he has something "important" to say, it gets promoted to OSNews.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: OS news?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE: OS news?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, because The New York Times is only about New York. Daring Fireball is only about fireballs with an attitude. Digg is about digging holes, and Slashdot is an interesting websites covering the use of slashes and dots all over the globe. The Washington Post is a newspaper for US Postal Service employees in Washington DC, and the Seattle PI is an industry magazine for private investigators working in the greater Seattle area. Time Magazine details the progress of time all over the world, and Escapist Magazine covers various means of escaping from around the globe.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: OS news?
by Brunis on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OS news?"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

Yes, because The New York Times is only about New York. Daring Fireball is only about fireballs with an attitude. Digg is about digging holes, and Slashdot is an interesting websites covering the use of slashes and dots all over the globe. The Washington Post is a newspaper for US Postal Service employees in Washington DC, and the Seattle PI is an industry magazine for private investigators working in the greater Seattle area. Time Magazine details the progress of time all over the world, and Escapist Magazine covers various means of escaping from around the globe.


What are you trying to say? ..I'm dense and need more examples! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: OS news?
by earksiinni on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OS news?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Tut tut, sir, that made me chuckle ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OS news?
by John Blink on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OS news?"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

Maybe this site should change it's name. Oh wait it wouldn't get the traffic it currently needs to operate.

I found this website all those years ago because I typed "Operating System News" in Google, wait it was Yahoo on top back then.

On articles about SCO vs IBM which was about Linux, it is an okay to do a "My Take" because you could express your opinion about news as it relates to an OS.

BTW am I the only one who enjoys it when you try to put the word "unicorn" in every story, did someone dare you, or make a bet that you can't keep it up for a year? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: OS news?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OS news?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

OSNews is our website, and we get to decide what stories we put up here. It's always been that way. To put it bluntly: you do not get to decide what's "okay". We do. We've been doing what we do now for two years, so this isn't a surprise. Nor was it a gradual change, since we *announced* it two years ago, in great detail.

Luckily, we live in a free world. You can decide what stories to read (you CAN skip stories, you know), and, also, you get to decide what websites to read. You can decide not to read OSNews any longer - and that's fine with us.

Maybe this site should change it's name. Oh wait it wouldn't get the traffic it currently needs to operate.


http://www.osnews.com/permalink?452676

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: OS news?
by Eugenia on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OS news?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

visa.com is down since a few minutes ago. I don't think the DDoS attack on PayPal ever worked, if there was any btw.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: OS news?
by John Blink on Thu 9th Dec 2010 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OS news?"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

If it is okay I will continue to read.

With flashblock and adblock.

Free world.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: OS news?
by boldingd on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OS news?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Yes, because The New York Times is only about New York. Daring Fireball is only about fireballs with an attitude. Digg is about digging holes, and Slashdot is an interesting websites covering the use of slashes and dots all over the globe. The Washington Post is a newspaper for US Postal Service employees in Washington DC, and the Seattle PI is an industry magazine for private investigators working in the greater Seattle area. Time Magazine details the progress of time all over the world, and Escapist Magazine covers various means of escaping from around the globe.


Your witty little retort in no way justifies injecting your own personal opinion into ostensibly factual reporting. Thom gibbering about Thom's opinion - down to handing out your judgement on what people should and should not do - is not journalism.

If you want to be respected like Ars Technica or LWN, try holding yourself to the standards of actual news outlets - at least do us the favor of clearly separating your editorial opinions from the site's factual reporting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: OS news?
by cheemosabe on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OS news?"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

If you want to be respected like Ars Technica or LWN, try holding yourself to the standards of actual news outlets


Isn't it astounding how easy the Internet makes it for people to express their dissatisfaction? Well it also allows you to do things differently just as easily.

You, my man, seem like a brave lad who knows what it takes to makes a successful news site. Not only as successful as OSnews but just as successful as Ars Technica. You're better then Thom so it should be easy.

I personally find OSnews to be just to my liking. Technology news with a stint of (technological) politics.

Edited 2010-12-08 23:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OS news?
by FreeGamer on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OS news?"
FreeGamer Member since:
2007-04-13

What I can't argue with is that you run the site and thus you (and the other editors) get to decide it's content. However please spare us the insulting attempts to justify being off-topic. I respect you more for saying, "What I say goes." However, it's a bit pathetic to retort with sarcastic remarks on how, "Slashdot is an interesting websites (sic) covering the use of slashes and dots all over the globe."

Just because it needs saying... The New York Times is a newspaper that is based in New York. Is OSNews headquarters located in a place called 'OS'? Is that what you are sarcastically trying to tell us? Or are you making a stupid argument because you're unable to come up with a coherent one? ;-)

PS. I like OSNews (and thus, by extension, your articles). I wouldn't try to hold you to a higher standard if I didn't.

Reply Score: 1

RE: OS news?
by fran on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:16 UTC in reply to "OS news?"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

But it does influence OS's

I'm not going to link it though because the leak contains a "may be" and the company has an army of lawyers and in a sense it will also be unfair because it's not really their fault.
The leak however will do some good because the the said company will have to implement better controls or preventative measures.
Does this leak might bring some good in the os world.

Other than that journalist is required and permitted to have opinions these days.
Like it or dont like.

Edited 2010-12-08 15:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: OS news?
by Sauron on Thu 9th Dec 2010 18:25 UTC in reply to "OS news?"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Excuse me! And who are you to dictate what news this site reports or not? This is a issue that effects everybody worldwide and as such needs reporting on. Plus judging by the number of comments to this article, a LOT of people are very interested in what is happening and awaiting news of its final outcome. You it seems are a minority of 1 on this subject. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Two wrongs don't make a right
by davidiwharper on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:52 UTC
davidiwharper
Member since:
2006-01-01

While I feel that what has happened to Wikileaks and Julian Assange personally is a disgrace, I'm not sure that DDOS attacks are an appropriate response. Instead, I wonder whether some of the myriad of lawyers that are circling around Assange right now should mount lawsuits against Amazon, Visa, the Swiss bank, etc. for contract violation.

Get a lot of noisy press coverage, maybe even make a few bob for Wikileaks in the process. Geoffrey Robertson has almost single handedly beaten off more governments in court than sit in the United Nations Security Council. He's perfect for the job.

That's justice, and it's also not illegal.

Edited 2010-12-08 12:54 UTC

Reply Score: 9

May you live in interesting times !
by Neolander on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:55 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, it seems that after years of "good" services, the current world organization is starting to show its cracks, for better and worse.

The upcoming years promise to be quite interesting...

Reply Score: 7

WTF
by adamk on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:59 UTC
adamk
Member since:
2005-07-08

Why in the world would they go after the prosecutor in his sexual misconduct trial?

Reply Score: 5

RE: WTF - kids
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:42 UTC in reply to "WTF"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Because they are kids latching on to whatever "attacks" the chosen brand. A legal response would be more appropriate and effective. I'm glad that's being suggested by a few here.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by _xmv
by _xmv on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:00 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

Just so we're clear the accounts are not only closed but the money is also on hold/seized.

It's a pretty important matter, and while the governments (and in fact, the banks behind them - it's not the other way around, banks dictate the governments) plays that game indeed, please, find something we can do that will change something, except fighting it with any means necessary.
We're listening.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by _xmv
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by _xmv"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Change bank.

But not after having the former well informed about your reason: incompatibility between their ethic behavior and yours.

Fight with your wallet.

Reply Score: 3

The only way to get that to work...
by gfolkert on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by _xmv"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Is to get the Murican Sheeple to do it enmasse.

They still buy things at Walmart, because its cheapest. Never mind that Walmart destroys community companies and then they pull out when all the jobs go away (due to them soaking the business up) and then people move away making.

Voting with your wallet never makes a difference. Though I do it... unless it makes a *SIGNIFICANT* dent in their income, they (the companies) don't quite care.

Edited 2010-12-08 14:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Yeah, 4chan is impossible to stop.
by darseex on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:43 UTC
darseex
Member since:
2010-12-06

If only there was some extremely convenient excuse to shut it down, like thousands of people posting child pornography (and worse) every day. Oh well, that's just crazy talk I guess. This is 4chan we're talking about, not some sort of... hive of scum and villainy or something.

Reply Score: 3

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

I have always been surprised 4chan has never been attacked or vilified by politicians or mainsteam press. They even invent silly metaphorical entities like Anonymous to avoid breaching the subject of 4chan.

Either everyone is trying to mentally block 4chan by refusing to acknowledge their existance, or they are really afraid of them.

Reply Score: 4

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

First, "anonymous" isn't an entity.

Second, I have one word for you: honeypot.

Reply Score: 3

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I have always been surprised 4chan has never been attacked or vilified by politicians or mainsteam press. They even invent silly metaphorical entities like Anonymous to avoid breaching the subject of 4chan.


4chan is a large community, when people refer to 4chan they're generally referring to /b/, which many of the other sites in 4chan hold in disdain.

Anonymous is a subset of /b/ users, which are an even smaller subset of 4chan users.

Vilifying 4chan for the actions of a subset of users is ironically symbolic of what Anonymous is fighting against, the censorship of the internet based on the actions of a few.

Besides, if /b/ is going to be vilified, Anonymous is relatively low on the list of reasons. There are much more disturbing things to deal with first.

Reply Score: 2

Couldn't agree more
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:00 UTC
ralph
Member since:
2005-07-10

I didn't post here for ages, but this time I simply had to lock in. In couldn't agree more with what Thom has said.

The extralegal persecution of wikilieaks is not only a full out assault on what the internet stands for, it's also a full out assault on free speech and freedom of the press. Sadly, many old media outlets are to dumb and to complicit to notice this and rather spend their time being dismissive of those dirty hackers from wikileaks.

Concerning government pressure. The Guardian (one of the few old media outlets worth reading in this matter) reports that Paypal's vice president all but admit that it was government pressure. "State Dept told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward." So if your masters tell you it's illegal that is it? What about, you know, the rule of law, due process etc.?
Of course he's now furiously backpedaling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-embass...

I never thought I'd say this, but: Give em hell, 4chan!

Reply Score: 8

RE: Couldn't agree more
by M.Onty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:09 UTC in reply to "Couldn't agree more"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

The Guardian (one of the few old media outlets worth reading in this matter).


The Guardian has become largely a repository for churnalism. This is unfortunately a consequence of not being able to afford much of their own investigative journalistic articles. They therefore make themselves extra available for stuff like this Wikileaks material.

Reply Score: 1

Difficult position for the media
by reduz on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:28 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

The default answer of the media each time it suffers an attack is "censorship" "freedom of the press is being denied". This is how large economic groups behind mass media attempt to protect themselves. But now that we see a -real- attack against the freedom of the press by the largest of the governments, half of the mass media seems to actually be siding -against- WikiLeaks. So, what is the game then? I can only hope this helps the world to learn a very valuable lession.

Reply Score: 2

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

A lot of the press hasn't been free for years. They have for two decades now even attacked the very concept of the free press, or liberal media as it is also known, by trying to pretend it is the free press and not the state or corporate press that is biased.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"So, what is the game then?"

A while back there was a leaked document discussing how to take out an entity like Wikileaks. The primary aproach was destroying it's credibility. Seems they've been working away at that.

The other question is; if Wikileaks is fully in the right.. why have it's own staff been critical of how the organization is being managed?

When Wikileaks own staff and Cryptomb start being critical of Wikileaks; one has to take a step back and look.

Reply Score: 2

Completely disagree
by runjorel on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:32 UTC
runjorel
Member since:
2009-02-09

Ok, since this is an opinion piece I am going to get in the brawl.

While I understand and appreciate Wikileaks trying to make the U.S. more transparent and therefore more accountable to the international community, two wrongs don't make a right. This information has been illegally obtained and the information is PRIVATE to the U.S. Government and therefore I don't think it's right (morally or legally) to distribute it.

If someone took all of your personal information and started putting EVERYTHING... every comment you made about someone, every action action you've committed etc., chances are you'd be very upset and fighting to get all of your personal information off. Truthfully, it would be an outrage. Attacking the site holding your information hostage is your only option. What are you going to do call the 'Internet Police'?

Finally, if Wikileaks was making information transparent from all over the world, then I *may* feel a little bit more compassion towards them. But the fact that all they do is attack the U.S. just doesn't seem right. You can't say you are fighting for accountability and transparency and then attack only one entity. Otherwise, they are just a bully.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Completely disagree
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:48 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Government != individual.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Completely disagree
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Completely disagree"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Government != Governments

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Completely disagree
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Completely disagree"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

So what would be your stance when Wikileaks publishes the weak points in the electricity distribution network of the whole USA? Or the list of CIA agents and contacts abroad?
Will you finally admit that not everything should be "transparent"?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Completely disagree
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely disagree"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So what would be your stance when Wikileaks publishes the weak points in the electricity distribution network of the whole USA? Or the list of CIA agents and contacts abroad?
Will you finally admit that not everything should be "transparent"?


I never said everything should be transparent. You're just making that up to strengthen your otherwise weak argument.

Edited 2010-12-09 11:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Fine. So why don't you just tell where the line is for you? I'm wondering where you draw it when revealing classified diplomatic cables is fine by you, that's all.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Completely disagree
by Brunis on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:55 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

I'm getting sick of hearing this Apples to Oranges comparison of privacy. Like the US Government is some poor individual, (who's private emails revealing sexual preference or some weird shit like that) is entitled to privacy.

I don't think they should publish military tactics on a public website for all to see before they attack another non-democratic regime for personal financial gain, crying wolf about some non-existing WMD's. Guess we'll fall for it again when it's time to suppress the people of Iran. Cause surely it's up to the US to decide who get's to have A-Bombs. Because we want someone who uses them responsibly to decide that!

It's not really Wikileaks' fault that the US has so much shit to reveal and so many people ready to rat their own company out. Kill the Messenger for gods sake!!! That'll stop the corruption and whistleblowing for sure!

Reply Score: 7

RE: Completely disagree
by dylansmrjones on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:16 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The government is our employee, making daily decisions on our behalf (whether we want it to or not). It cannot have secrets for us, its employer.

We are entitled to this information and that's all there is to it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Completely disagree
by M.Onty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Completely disagree"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

That's not all there is to it. See my response to a similar point earlier:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?452681

Edited 2010-12-08 21:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Completely disagree
by ichi on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:19 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Finally, if Wikileaks was making information transparent from all over the world, then I *may* feel a little bit more compassion towards them. But the fact that all they do is attack the U.S. just doesn't seem right. You can't say you are fighting for accountability and transparency and then attack only one entity. Otherwise, they are just a bully.


That's not true. Check all their published information, not just the most recent items.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Completely disagree
by _txf_ on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:50 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

But the fact that all they do is attack the U.S. just doesn't seem right. You can't say you are fighting for accountability and transparency and then attack only one entity. Otherwise, they are just a bully.


Congrats on not doing any research or even being informed on what wikileaks has done.

Even a reasonable comment is worthless if all you do is buy into the rhetoric....

Edited 2010-12-08 15:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Completely disagree
by LB06 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:02 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
LB06 Member since:
2005-07-06

You're completely overseeing one crucial detail. The government has been democratically elected by the people. The US constitution starts with "We the people". Democracy = Demos & Kratos = People & Power. So it's the people who should be in charge in a democracy. Unfortunately we tend to forget.

The people have granted the government certain powers. Great powers that can easily be abused. That's why the first amendment is so crucial. The people have to be legally protected against a government. They have to be able to voice their opinion. They have be able to scrutinize the government and it's the press' task to inform the people about what's going on. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. Also, the Judicial body has to be able independently review the law and again check the government adheres to the democratic laws, like the first amendment.

Right now, all these valuable principles are being violated. Without a court order, the government has taken down numerous Wikileaks facilities. Facilities that are crucial for a democracy. People do no longer have the right or the possibility to protest against the government by donating money to opposing forces. People no longer have the right to scrutinize the government, the press no longer has the right to inform the people. All this without any court approval.

I'm not suggesting that everything the government does should be a 100% transparent in the tiniest details. There's a tradeoff to be made, but right now that tradeoff is swinging toward the government. Wikileaks is simply trying to restore this balance.

Very insightful article: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/

Citizens of a functioning democracy must be able to know what the state is saying and doing in our name, to engage in what Pierre Rosanvallon calls “counter-democracy”*, the democracy of citizens distrusting rather than legitimizing the actions of the state. Wikileaks plainly improves those abilities.

On the other hand, human systems can’t stand pure transparency. For negotiation to work, people’s stated positions have to change, but change is seen, almost universally, as weakness. People trying to come to consensus must be able to privately voice opinions they would publicly abjure, and may later abandon. Wikileaks plainly damages those abilities. (If Aaron Bady’s analysis is correct, it is the damage and not the oversight that Wikileaks is designed to create.*)

And so we have a tension between two requirements for democratic statecraft, one that can’t be resolved, but can be brought to an acceptable equilibrium. Indeed, like the virtues of equality vs. liberty, or popular will vs. fundamental rights, it has to be brought into such an equilibrium for democratic statecraft not to be wrecked either by too much secrecy or too much transparency.

As Tom Slee puts it, “Your answer to ‘what data should the government make public?’ depends not so much on what you think about data, but what you think about the government.”* My personal view is that there is too much secrecy in the current system, and that a corrective towards transparency is a good idea. I don’t, however, believe in total transparency, and even more importantly, I don’t think that independent actors who are subject to no checks or balances is a good idea in the long haul.

If the long haul were all there was, Wikileaks would be an obviously bad thing. The practical history of politics, however, suggests that the periodic appearance of such unconstrained actors in the short haul is essential to increased democratization, not just of politics but of thought.

We celebrate the printers of 16th century Amsterdam for making it impossible for the Catholic Church to constrain the output of the printing press to Church-approved books*, a challenge that helped usher in, among other things, the decentralization of scientific inquiry and the spread of politically seditious writings advocating democracy.

This intellectual and political victory didn’t, however, mean that the printing press was then free of all constraints. Over time, a set of legal limitations around printing rose up, including restrictions on libel, the publication of trade secrets, and sedition. I don’t agree with all of these laws, but they were at least produced by some legal process.

Unlike the United States’ current pursuit of Wikileaks.*

I am conflicted about the right balance between the visibility required for counter-democracy and the need for private speech among international actors. Here’s what I’m not conflicted about: When authorities can’t get what they want by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is that they can’t get what they want.

The Unites States is — or should be — subject to the rule of law, which makes the extra-judicial pursuit of Wikileaks especially nauseating. (Calls for Julian’s assassination are even more nauseating.) It may be that what Julian has done is a crime. (I know him casually, but not well enough to vouch for his motivations, nor am I a lawyer.) In that case, the right answer is to bring the case to a trial.

In the US, however, the government has a “heavy burden”, in the words of the Supreme Court, for engaging in prior restraint of even secret documents, an established principle since New York Times Co. vs. The United States*, when the Times published the Pentagon Papers. If we want a different answer for Wikileaks, we need a different legal framework first.

Though I don’t like Senator Joseph Lieberman’s proposed SHIELD law (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination*), I do like the fact that it is a law, and not an extra-legal avenue (of which Senator Lieberman is also guilty.*) I also like the fact that the SHIELD Law makes it clear what’s at stake: the law proposes new restraints on publishers, and would apply to the New York Times and The Guardian as it well as to Wikileaks. (As Matthew Ingram points out, “Like it or not, Wikileaks is a media entity.”*) SHIELD amounts to an attempt to reverse parts of New York Times Co. vs. The United States.

I don’t think such a law should pass. I think the current laws, which criminalize the leaking of secrets but not the publishing of leaks, strike the right balance. However, as a citizen of a democracy, I’m willing to be voted down, and I’m willing to see other democratically proposed restrictions on Wikileaks put in place. It may even be that whatever checks and balances do get put in place by the democratic process make anything like Wikileaks impossible to sustain in the future.

The key, though, is that democracies have a process for creating such restrictions, and as a citizen it sickens me to see the US trying to take shortcuts. The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us “You went after Wikileaks’ domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don’t like the site. If that’s the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.”

Over the long haul, we will need new checks and balances for newly increased transparency — Wikileaks shouldn’t be able to operate as a law unto itself anymore than the US should be able to. In the short haul, though, Wikileaks is our Amsterdam. Whatever restrictions we eventually end up enacting, we need to keep Wikileaks alive today, while we work through the process democracies always go through to react to change. If it’s OK for a democracy to just decide to run someone off the internet for doing something they wouldn’t prosecute a newspaper for doing, the idea of an internet that further democratizes the public sphere will have taken a mortal blow.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Completely disagree
by runjorel on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:47 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
runjorel Member since:
2009-02-09

I'll say it again

While I understand and appreciate Wikileaks trying to make the U.S. more transparent and therefore more accountable...
To be clear: I DO NOT AGREE WITH GOVERNMENT SECRETS. I agree with the opinion that many others shared that there should be political transparency. I just don't agree with how the information was obtained. It's illegal and whether you like it or not, private, material.

I wish the actions of the U.S. gov't were revealed in some other legal manor. I know it sounds stupid, silly, and idealistic but that's how I feel. For example, if the U.N. actually worked, I wish it would be the U.N. legally trying to uphold transparency, etc. I fear Wikileaks vigilantism. It always starts off innocently but then can grow into a bad thing. I hope not.

Thom, I understand that Gov't != Individual. I am not trying to argue that. What I am trying to say is, What did you expect the U.S. to do to Wikileaks when all this info was released? They're not going to just sit there, they are going to attack Wikileaks. Wikileaks 'attacked' first. Whether you think the U.S. is a victim or a bully, it doesn't matter. The U.S. is going to attack back...just as ANY ONE PERSON would act if their info was 'leaked' out. I believe other countries would react the same way. Main Point: I don't understand why people are so shocked at the U.S.'s approach to the release of all this information.

Secondly, I must apologize. Please excuse me, but with my short time on Wikileaks, I did not see any other information about any other country. I have not been able to access Wikileaks since the beginning of this media blitz. So I was basing my opinion of Wikileaks with what I saw there months ago. I cannot say that I browsed the entire site and consumed all of the information. I've only seen things there relating to the U.S. . If it's true that Wikileaks is after the entire international community, then please excuse my comment on this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Completely disagree
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Completely disagree"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Wikileaks 'attacked' first.


This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Completely disagree
by runjorel on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely disagree"
runjorel Member since:
2009-02-09

So, if someone stole some software for example, and then gave it to me. It's legal for me then to host that software for all the world to use/download, etc?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Releasing leaked documents is a free speech issue and thus protected in many countries. For example, look up the US supreme court decision on the Pentagon papers.

Why do you think that hosting stolen software is and should be comparable? Or were you just looking for a stupid analogy and shied away from a car-analogy?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
FresheBakked Member since:
2010-12-08

Receiving Classified "Secret" documents when you are not cleared to be in posession of those documents is a crime - what part of that slipped through your mind, Ralphie?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Is it? Again, could you point to the relevant laws and the relevant case law and reconcile your opinion with for example the supreme court ruling on the Pentagon Papers?

Could you also explain why a criminal enterprise like the New York Times, that frequently publishes secret information, has not been shut down yet?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Releasing leaked documents is a free speech issue and thus protected in many countries. For example, look up the US supreme court decision on the Pentagon papers.

Why do you think that hosting stolen software is and should be comparable? Or were you just looking for a stupid analogy and shied away from a car-analogy?


Indeed, look up the Pentagon papers. I'll even give you a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

and a quote:

"Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. "

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

And your point is?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Completely disagree"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

And your point is?


That the case law specifically dealing with the Pentagon papers actually supports my view, as quoted. I even made it bold for you!?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

You miss an important point in your analogy:
... stole some "100% public funded" software...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

You miss an important point in your analogy:
... stole some "100% public funded" software...


Why do you assume "the public" would want that software published freely to everyone?

Lets say the government of Nauru published some software we'll call it World of Warcraft. Would a majority of it's people want to charge for it, or open it's source?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

True.
In democracy, in the end, it's always up to the people.

But how could he do such choice if the existence itself of this software is hidden by his own government, which people pay too to works for them (theorically)?!

What happend when - always justified for your own *security* - your choice, your weight in the nation decision process, is stolen by your government (and the next, the next after him, etc) ?

Talk about stolen stuffs...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Completely disagree"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

True.
In democracy, in the end, it's always up to the people.

But how could he do such choice if the existence itself of this software is hidden by his own government, which people pay too to works for them (theorically)?!

What happend when - always justified for your own *security* - your choice, your weight in the nation decision process, is stolen by your government (and the next, the next after him, etc) ?

Talk about stolen stuffs...


The "software" isn't hidden, I know we have classified documents. I also know not all of the "board members" are loyal, so do most other "board members." Which is why we don't let everyone even on "the board" know everything w/o some process. Like the freedom of information act, which isn't going to hand over all of our secrets carte blanche to everyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely disagree"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

" Wikileaks 'attacked' first.


This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
"

Well I see Wikileaks as a pimp. Pimping is illegal in most countries.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

o_O

It's more akin to a hooker walking up to you, and offering a free bj, then telling everyone they gave you a free bj, then getting arrested.

It's not illegal to get a free bj.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely disagree"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

" Wikileaks 'attacked' first.


This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
"

This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences.

Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable.

Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. "

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"[q] Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. "

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice. [/q]

You are correct about treason, but espionage is different. Many countries have espionage laws and might be willing to extradite someone who violates them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.


My bold. God, I love OSNews amature-hour universe-the-way-I-wish-it-was comments. Tital 18, quoted elsewhere, specifically states that if you operate in support of another party who attains and distributes classified data without clearance, you can be prosecuted for the offense in full measure. Note that it does not require that the other party be charged with anything, convicted of anything, or even be a U.S. citizen.

Towards the end of http://www.osnews.com/permalink?452778 , specifically:
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


Edit: cleaned up the quote blocks a bit.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

God, I love OSNews amature-hour universe-the-way-I-wish-it-was comments. Tital 18, quoted elsewhere, specifically states that if you operate in support of another party who attains and distributes classified data without clearance, you can be prosecuted for the offense in full measure. Note that it does not require that the other party be charged with anything, convicted of anything, or even be a U.S. citizen.


No, but, any U.S. organization that supports or works with Assange is potentially liable, see above. Materially, if Amazon had hosted WikiLeaks, or PayPal had continued to process payments to WikiLeaks, they could have been prosecuted under U.S. law.


Does this reasoning also apply to US press, such as the New York Times, who also published Wikileaks material?

If not, why not?

Read more on this theme here:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101...

All you need to know about Julian Assange’s value as a crusading journalist is that The New York Times and most of the world’s other leading newspapers have led daily with important news stories based on his WikiLeaks releases.


Also, if U.S. organizations are to be held accountable, since foreign nationals have been killed in the name of U.S. government lies, why should the U.S. governement also not be held accountable?

from the link above:
That is why U.S. governmental leaders will now employ the massive power of the state to discredit and destroy Assange, who dared let the public in on the depths of official deceit—a deceit that they hide behind in making their claims of protecting national security. Claims mocked by released cables that show that our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan are deeply corrupt and anti-democratic, and that al-Qaida continues to find its base of support not in those countries but rather in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, the very nations we arm and protect. The notion that the official tissue of lies enhances our security is rejected by the growing strength of radical Islam in the region, as evidenced by the success of Iran, the main beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq, as the leaked cables make clear.

The pretend patriots who use the national security argument to gut what remains of our most important security asset—our constitutional guarantees of a truly free press—are just what President George Washington feared when in his farewell address he warned “against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism. …”


Edited 2010-12-09 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Completely disagree"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Does this reasoning also apply to US press, such as the New York Times, who also published Wikileaks material?

If not, why not?

Read more on this theme here:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101.....


Ask the DoJ. It's remotely possible they could make a case, but it's not likely that they'd try. IANAL, but I doubt that just covering the story (or even commenting on some of the leaked information) would rise to the level of being party to the conspiracy.

Also, if U.S. organizations are to be held accountable, since foreign nationals have been killed in the name of U.S. government lies, why should the U.S. governement also not be held accountable?


An interesting question, if also a loaded question. As I recall, around the time of the last election, there where some voices calling for criminal investigations against Bush administration personnel for a variety of possible crimes rising out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I believe president Obama opted not to pursue such prosecutions, as a gesture of reconciliation to the far right. As to why international courts have not begun prosecutions... well, ask Geneva.

On a tangent, I'm a little bemused by how often you and I end up arguing, given that - and this might surprise you - our views in general tend to line up fairly closely.

Edited 2010-12-09 01:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Wrong. You forgot to add something like "and he does not live there.", which, now that I'm writing this, appears insufficient to covers all cases of people being judged in the US: I saw a documentary yesterday about the Nairobi bombing in 1998 and they said one of the terrorist has been judged in the US. So no, being a US citizen is not a complete requirement.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Wrong. You forgot to add something like "and he does not live there.", which, now that I'm writing this, appears insufficient to covers all cases of people being judged in the US: I saw a documentary yesterday about the Nairobi bombing in 1998 and they said one of the terrorist has been judged in the US. So no, being a US citizen is not a complete requirement.
"

It would be a requirement if the US was just, rather than corrupt.

Opinion from an American whistleblower:
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release

Ellsberg: “EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

by Michael Ellsberg on December 8, 2010

[Below is a news release put out by the Institute for Public Accuracy, co-signed by Daniel Ellsberg]

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures

WASHINGTON – December 7 – The following statement was released today, signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson; all are associated with Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.


For the record, Assange is a highly respected mathematician who also did doctoral work in physics at Melbourne University, where he formed the volunteer civil rights group that was the precursor to WikiLeaks.


Comment from British justice:
Assange may be released
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-may-be-r...
A British judge says the WikiLeaks founder may be released from jail next week unless Swedish prosecutors produce evidence in London to back up their allegations.

Senior district judge Howard Riddle said Swedish authorities would need to show some convincing evidence if they wanted to oppose bail for the 39-year-old Australian when he appears in court next Tuesday to oppose extradition to Sweden.

...

Gemma Lindfield, the lawyer representing Swedish authorities at the initial extradition hearing in the City of Westminster Magistrates Court, said she believed the strength of the evidence over the sex charges was not relevant to the process of extraditing him under a European Arrest Warrant.

Judge Riddle disagreed, saying the four charges, including rape, were "extremely serious allegations (and) if they are false, he suffers a great injustice if he is remanded in custody".

The judge said he would "suggest" to Ms Lindfield that "if she is going to oppose bail in future", she would need to be armed with some substantial material to back up the allegations.


Edited 2010-12-09 12:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by TheGZeus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

A bombing is a wholly different crime and type of crime.
I'm not saying either side of this argument is correct; I'm just saying this particular point is moot.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Completely disagree
by sorpigal on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:51 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Why was this modded down? You can hardly claim anyone speaking on this subject isn't a little flaimbaity, just by its nature, but that's no excuse to mod down topical, articulate statements of opinion.

Down mod != disagreement. It's what you do to bad actors who are putting up stuff that you think others should not read.

With that said I'd like to now respond to one of the poster's points:

If someone took all of your personal information and started putting EVERYTHING... every comment you made about someone, every action action you've committed etc., chances are you'd be very upset and fighting to get all of your personal information off.

Welcome to the future. Facebook is already doing this to the extent possible. It is more true than ever that if you don't want something to be a matter of public record, keep it to yourself. Is this right? Perhaps not. Should it be legal? There are many reasons to say "No!" But, there will always be people who care little for what is technically fair and legal and who have the capacity to look up dirt on you. If there's anything to find about you that's negative someone will find it and will react to you based on it. Governments should be less exempt than most, not more.

Welcome to the tip of the iceberg.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Completely disagree"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Why was this modded down? You can hardly claim anyone speaking on this subject isn't a little flaimbaity, just by its nature, but that's no excuse to mod down topical, articulate statements of opinion.

Down mod != disagreement. It's what you do to bad actors who are putting up stuff that you think others should not read.


As has been often said of late, welcome to OSNews.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Completely disagree
by sorpigal on Fri 10th Dec 2010 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely disagree"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I've been on osnews for five years. It wasn't always this bad. It shouldn't be this way. I think it's necessary to speak up now and then to remind incensed readers that modding should be dispassionate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Fri 10th Dec 2010 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I substantially agree with you. I haven't been on OSNews for five years: I've been here for between two and three (I was a reader before I was a forum member), and even in that short time, I've noticed a significant change in tone. And I've commented on it.

Sadly, I think the people who have a problem with that change in tone are vastly outnumbered by the people who either don't care about it, or actively prefer it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Completely disagree
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:32 UTC in reply to "Completely disagree"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Attacking the site holding your information hostage is your only option.

As you said yourself, two wrongs don't make a right!

One can't fight what he consider illegal actions by using illegal means to stop them. Not without revealing his hypocricity and unilateral morality "values".

But that what's currently happening, right now: bank account are closed *and* seized without any due process, sites are closed or censored under pressure, and so on. It's not rule of law, just power.

The masks are falling, causing far more damage than what this finally disappointing cablegate will ever have done alone...

And the irony is that they do it because they don't want people to see how they look behind their masks!

Finally, if Wikileaks was making information transparent from all over the world, then I *may* feel a little bit more compassion towards them.

They are. They have leaked several other secret informations concerning other countries. Like, for instance, a list of blacklisted sites under an Australian bill against pedopornography (from memory), in which several were clearly blacklisted by mistake, or illegaly. But without the leak, main stream will have never know about overblocked sites, or the censoreship power such bill can be.

But the fact that all they do is attack the U.S.

That's not a fact, just your opinion, mostly because you didn't follow WikiLeaks history since long enough...

Reply Score: 3

McCarthyism
by Sabon on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:15 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm surprised and disappointed that McCarthyism hasn't been brought up yet.

I've seen different things in the press along the lines of, "You are either with the US Govt or with WikiLeaks."

True - two wrongs don't make a right. But let's start with the first wrong. The US Govt doing illegal things that they don't want anyone to know about.

True not everything that is being leaked is illegal. OK then, how about immoral.

I'm not talking about what it takes to fight against Osoma bin Ladin and right wing muslim nut cases. They are no better than right wing "christians". I put "christians" in quotes because I truly don't believe they are doing this anymore for Christ than Osama is doing this for Alah. Both of doing this to try to gain control over other peoples' lives.

Sounds like McCarthyism to me.

Reply Score: 3

Puny attacks
by twitterfire on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:48 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

The attacks seems to be very weak and unprofessional. The organizers are relying on some people voluntarily running a .net program on their PCs. Not really a mass attack, no distributed dos, no large botnets consisting in at least tens of thousands of computers. It's like trying to demolish a 50 floor building with a hammer or like trying to cut a forest using a swiss knife.

They took down easy a small bank network and a small swedish site but trying to dos amazon's and paypal's asses down, that's entirely another story. I don't know if it's doable, but to have a decent chance of success you need to use very large botnets, hundreds of thousands of zombies.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Puny attacks
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:49 UTC in reply to "Puny attacks"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They brought down MasterCard.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Puny attacks
by fretinator on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Puny attacks"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

They brought down MasterCard.

Priceless

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Puny attacks
by Adurbe on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Puny attacks"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

+1

Reply Score: 2

RE: Puny attacks
by aledujke on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:29 UTC in reply to "Puny attacks"
aledujke Member since:
2010-01-02

No the attacks are effective... and organized. You just log in with loic and the irc topic or one of the ops take controll of loic on your pc.

And ".net program" works on linux over wine with .net libraries (you can install them with winetricks) very well
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3899/selection003o.png

also pandalabs has good coverage ddos:
http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/

Reply Score: 1

RE: Puny attacks
by sorpigal on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:56 UTC in reply to "Puny attacks"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

You get all kinds of ineffectual people when things like this go on, but for every thousand of those who who wouldn't know a ping of death from a phishing scam there are one or two who own a piece of a botnet. And, for some of these people, the internet is srsbzns, and wikileaks is part of the internet.

Don't be fooled in to thinking that the people who post cats on 4chan are the same ones making these headlines. Think of 4chan as more of a cheering squad: You can't be blamed for supporting the DDoSers if no one knows your name.

Reply Score: 2

Postfinance is not a bank
by bouhko on Wed 8th Dec 2010 15:49 UTC
bouhko
Member since:
2010-06-24

Just to clarify some points about the swiss "bank" that closed Assange's account.
First, this "bank" - Postfinance - is not an actual bank. They don't have a bank license[1], so they don't really have the same rules regarding bank secrecy and stuff.

Now, they closed his account because - unlike real swiss banks - PostFinance REQUIRES its clients to have an address in Switzerland. And Assange gave a false address. They probably just checked it because he suddenly became famous though.
But still, he gave false information. He should have opened an account at UBS or Credit Suisse who are swiss banks that really don't care who has an account (we - unfortunately - have a lot of accounts belonging to dictators and other criminals here in Switzerland).
Not to say that Assange is a criminal, but they don't ask for an address when you open an account there.

I support wikileaks, but I get really pissed of at mainstream media that just report loads of incomplete/false informations.

[1] http://www.post.ch/en/post-startseite/post-konzern/post-publikation...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Postfinance is not a bank
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:30 UTC in reply to "Postfinance is not a bank"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Afaik he didn't give a false address, but the address of one of his lawyers, as he is or was at the time trying to become a resident in Switzerland.

Reply Score: 1

Public Disavow Notice.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:12 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Do not agree with the story, nor do I condone the DDOS. Thom's been sucked up by the conspiracy bug.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Public Disavow Notice.
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:30 UTC in reply to "Public Disavow Notice. "
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

And what conspiracy would that be? Did I miss something?

Reply Score: 2

Too far, or not enough?
by theosib on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:23 UTC
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

I've gone back and forth on whether or not I thought Wikileaks has been going too far with some of their leaks. Most of what they've published is stuff governments shouldn't hide or should be ashamed of doing, and it's time for us to take the excess power away from the "government" and give it back to the people, in other words forcing governments to once again represent the interests of the people. There have been a few things that gave me pause, however. For instance, leaking private communication from diplomats that could actually put their lives in danger. Taking action that you know will put people's lives in danger is bad. And perhaps some of those individuals who have been put in danger should be able to take a few whacks at Assange with a stick.

That being said, the government reactions to wikileaks has shown me just how important it is to keep up the fight for freedom. What happened to free speech? Our governments are supposed to work in favor of securing our rights in this area! Now, if you have a security clearance, and therefore have given the government a guarantee that you will not leak information, then breaking that is treason. Even then, there are some things that are so bad that it's morally obligatory to commit treason for the good of everyone else. However, if you're a private citizen, and you broke no laws obtaining classified information, then it's purely a matter of free speech for you to provide that information to others. Wikileaks walks a fine line, I think, but lies and calls for assassination are NOT the appropriate response. Governments should take this as a signal to (a) behave better, (b) have fewer secrets, and (c) tighten security. It's their own fault that the information is both available and damning.

Reply Score: 4

Glad it happened
by fengshaun on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:08 UTC
fengshaun
Member since:
2010-01-18

I'm very glad that this attack happened. It was time someone stood up for what's right!

Reply Score: 1

Say it isn't so, Thom
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:23 UTC
FresheBakked
Member since:
2010-12-08

Wow - Let's see if I get this right:

WikiLeaks illegally obtains documents from people who have "Secret" clearance to copy those documents and commit Espionage against their own country, and therefore is guilty of being in posession of stolen property and possible collusion with said perpetrator of Espionage?

Screw you, and screw your screwed-up logic, Thom. You would not be supporting DDoS activities if it were against this site, so why float the banner of having a double-standard?

If this is your line of thinking, then by that same logic you should be able to welcome someone attacking this site in the same manner that the snot-dripping punks at 4Chan for things posted in the similar vein as your post: the door swings both ways. If you agree with committing an illegal act, and vocally support it here, you ARE as guilty as those that perpetrated the illegal act.

Maybe it's time for someone to train LOIC on 4Chan?

Way to go, Einstein!

--Freshe Bakked

Reply Score: 0

RE: Say it isn't so, Thom
by sorpigal on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:01 UTC in reply to "Say it isn't so, Thom"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

If you agree with committing an illegal act, and vocally support it here, you ARE as guilty as those that perpetrated the illegal act.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, partner. Are you opposed to the basic principles of a free society? You just stood up for thought crimes, there, and for prosecution for political views. I think you'll find very few on your side.

Here's an experiment: "I think Timothy McVeigh was right and someone needs to pick up where he left off!" - Should I now be arrested for terrorism and mass murder? If your answer is "Yes" you may feel free to get out.

Maybe it's time for someone to train LOIC on 4Chan?

This happens all the time for no reason at all, and less often for some reason. They're used to constant attacks.

Edited 2010-12-08 18:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Say it isn't so, Thom
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:02 UTC in reply to "Say it isn't so, Thom"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Let's see if I get this right:

Yes, let's see.

WikiLeaks illegally obtains documents

Could you please cite the relevant national and international laws that make it illegal for a new organization to be in possession of these documents?

Could you also please reconcile your assertion with the relevant case law, for example the supreme court decision about the Pentagon Papers?

from people who have "Secret" clearance to copy those documents and commit Espionage against their own country,

That's what whistleblowers do, isn't it? So are you arguing that whistleblowers in general should be regarded as bad?

Also, just a reminder, but afaik you are innocent until proven guilty, and nobody has been found guilty in this case yet.

Finally, even if someone will be found guilty, that doesn't mean wikileaks is guilty of anything. Look at the Pentagon Papers case again.

and therefore is guilty of being in posession of stolen property and possible collusion with said perpetrator of Espionage?

This is really getting silly, but again, take a look at the law before you make these assertions.

About the perpetrator, nobody has been found guilty of anything so far, no matter how hard you try to ignore this fact.

Or do you really want to argue that this is simply a case of property laws and property laws should trump free speech?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Say it isn't so, Thom"
FresheBakked Member since:
2010-12-08

The US Government - and all Governments, if you like - have the inate right to protect against the public disclosure of sensitive or "Secret" information. The UK has a "Official Secrets Act", as well as many other countries around the world. The US does *not* at this time have such an Act or codified law on the books at this time, due to leftist / liberal members of the US Congress who have repeatedly killed such bills, but this does not mean that the theft and acquisition of items classified as "Secret" is legal...or RIGHT.

Now, let's turn the tables: show me anywhere in US Law that says that it is perfectly legal to steal sensitive or "Secret" information or documentation, or to be in legal posession of sensitive or "Secret" information when you have no such clearance.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Now, let's turn the tables: show me anywhere in US Law that says that it is perfectly legal to steal sensitive or "Secret" information or documentation, or to be in legal posession of sensitive or "Secret" information when you have no such clearance.


Erm, that's massively idiotic. You cannot find a law that WikiLeaks has broken, so you ask us to find a law that which makes WikiLeaks' work legal?

Unlawyered.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
FresheBakked Member since:
2010-12-08

Thom - Being illegally in posession of "Secret" and classified material *IS* prosecutable:

http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/translatersent051908....

That's just for starters.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thom - Being illegally in posession of "Secret" and classified material *IS* prosecutable:

http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/translatersent051908....

That's just for starters.


Another legal fail. You clearly didn't read the document you just linked to.

The person in the link was found guilty of illegally obtaining documents.

"In August 2003, the defendant used a false identity to apply for and gain a position as an Arabic translator for the L-3 Titan Corp., which provides translation services in Iraq for U.S. military personnel. He then used the same false identity fraudulently to obtain “Secret” and then “Top Secret” security clearances. Subsequently, during assignments in Iraq, the defendant took classified documents from the U.S. Army without authorization."


This is not what WikiLeaks is doing. The person in your link is akin to Manning - not to WikiLeaks.

Lawyered.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
FresheBakked Member since:
2010-12-08

18 U.S.C. I.37 § 793

§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

Your "Lawyered" comment is bullcrap - whom ever is your lawyer must really be a good one if he can't simplify the Espionage Act for you.

You Fail.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
FresheBakked Member since:
2010-12-08

18 U.S.C. I.37 § 798

§ 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).

Do you want more, Thom?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

And the Congressional Research Service is also bullcrap?

"This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply, but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it."
http://opencrs.com/document/R41404/

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

First, Julian Assange is not a US citizen, nor is WikiLeaks a US organisation. Hence, your precious espionage act can go to hell. In other words, you still haven't shown a single US law violated by Assange or WikiLeaks. I've broken US law more times than I can count - I break it almost every day - but since I'm not a US citizen (thank god), I actually didn't break it at all.

Second, I assume this means you believe The New York Times should be prosecuted as well?

Good luck with that.

Reply Score: 1

"thought terrorism was hard to fight"
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:27 UTC
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

Do you really want to give the US gov a challenge like that? They've been wet dreaming about any event they can twist to lay more legislation on network traffic.

Reply Score: 2

Our only hope...
by Almafeta on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:29 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

... is that Wikileaks reveals the identities of the so-called 'anonymous'.

Reply Score: 2

Congrats. A great article.
by proclus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:57 UTC
proclus
Member since:
2010-12-06

GNU-Darwin recommends not to use PayPal until they restore Wikileaks payments.

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Reply Score: 1

Guilty of treason
by Noremacam on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:07 UTC
Noremacam
Member since:
2006-03-08

Julian Assange should get on his knees and thank God he's in the UK. If one person dies from the compromised security of any leaked document he is guilty of treason and the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment.

These people who scream about freedom of information are immature morons who don't understand what information can cost. With information in the wrong hands people can lose lives. I have friends who have spent time on the front lines.

People who say its okay to give compromising information and endanger them I have serious problems with.

The fact that osnews supports this action begs me to abandon this site, which I expected to be agnostic to this type of nonsense.

Edited 2010-12-08 18:08 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Guilty of treason
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:31 UTC in reply to "Guilty of treason"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

J If one person dies from the compromised security of any leaked document he is guilty of treason and the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment.


Jesus, repeat after me: Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.

Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.

Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.

Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.

Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.



People who say its okay to give compromising information and endanger them I have serious problems with.

Who says this? Wikileaks, who have repeatedly asked the Pentagon to help them redact the documents before they are released so that nobody is harmed?

Wikileaks, who redact the documents they release working together with irresponsible organizations like the Guardian, Spiegel, El Pais and Le Monde in redacting the documents?

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Guilty of treason
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Guilty of treason"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Nice talking point (I don't know if it's true or not), but Assange is a citizen of Australia last I heard, and he's released diplomatic cables between the US and Australia, so he's committed treason against Australia, no? Or yes?

Also, Australia, New Zealand, and the US are members of ANZUS (an alliance like NATO). By undercutting the security of the US, Assange undercuts the security of ANZUS, which would be treason against Australia too. Not that Australia will charge him with treason, but might see reason to do so, depending on what he leaks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Guilty of treason
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Guilty of treason"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Nice talking point (I don't know if it's true or not), but Assange is a citizen of Australia last I heard, and he's released diplomatic cables between the US and Australia, so he's committed treason against Australia, no? Or yes?

Also, Australia, New Zealand, and the US are members of ANZUS (an alliance like NATO). By undercutting the security of the US, Assange undercuts the security of ANZUS, which would be treason against Australia too. Not that Australia will charge him with treason, but might see reason to do so, depending on what he leaks.


Australia says U.S, not WikiLeaks founder, responsible for leaks
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3E6N80BW20101208?sp=true
The Australian government on Wednesday blamed the United States, not the WikiLeaks founder, for the unauthorised release of about 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables and said those who originally leaked the documents were legally liable.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Guilty of treason
by _txf_ on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:43 UTC in reply to "Guilty of treason"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

AAAAAARGH. I stopped reading your comment the moment you said treason. He is not a US citizen so he cannot be charged with treason. The fact that you're saying that:

A) means you don't know what treason is.
B) You're just repeating worthless rhetoric spewed by others.

Yes.. you're more than welcome to go away and join other sheep who cannot formulate an original thought by themselves.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Guilty of treason
by Noremacam on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Guilty of treason"
Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

Ok first of all my original post implied being thankful he wasn't a citizen of the US. An honest read of my original post would have recognized that. Again otherwise he could be liable for the death penalty(as I believe he should be).

Secondly, why are you calling me a sheep? The information is secret for a reason. Stealing confidential documents that aren't his that are used for national security is a-ok? and only sheeple worry about it? What planet are you from? Someone is going to post illegal documents that will someday compromise security and have someone killed. If you can sleep at night with that, then I don't trust you either.

And again, this kind of vigilantism really shouldn't be part of osnews.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Guilty of treason
by _txf_ on Thu 9th Dec 2010 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Guilty of treason"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Had he been a US citizen it still probably would not be treason.

I called you a sheep because you're spouting that treason nonsense.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Guilty of treason
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:26 UTC in reply to "Guilty of treason"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Julian Assange should get on his knees and thank God he's in the UK. If one person dies from the compromised security of any leaked document he is guilty of treason and the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment. These people who scream about freedom of information are immature morons who don't understand what information can cost. With information in the wrong hands people can lose lives. I have friends who have spent time on the front lines. People who say its okay to give compromising information and endanger them I have serious problems with. The fact that osnews supports this action begs me to abandon this site, which I expected to be agnostic to this type of nonsense.


I think you need to read the definition of treason.

Definitions of treason on the Web: a crime that undermines the offender's government

Another definition: In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. ...

Julian Assange is not a US citizen. Julian Assange therefore cannot commit treason against the US.

To further understand how wrong you are, you need to understand a little about Julian Assange's actual nationality.

Read up on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign

This military disaster is often considered to mark the birth of national consciousness in Australia. The campaign was ordered by the British and completely bungled by them, and it cost the lives of thousands.

Now try to understand this:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messe...
IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.


The disastrous Gallipoli campaign was terminated due to information about it being reported in the press, despite the attempts of the British government to suppress the information. This is the very event that many people refer to as the birth of the consciousness of the Australian nation. It is hugely powerful, a rough equivalent would perhaps be the American war of independence.

Before Gallipoli the citizens of Australia were confident of the superiority of the British Empire and were proud and eager to offer their service. Gallipoli shook that confidence, and the next three years on the Western Front would damage it further. The ANZACs are revered as heroes, and the popular phrase 'digger' used to describe soldiers at Gallipoli has come to describe all members of the Australian armed forces, particularly members of the Army. Popular Australian history asserts that while the Federation of Australia was born in 1901, the country's true psychological independence was only achieved at Gallipoli.


Furthermore, it is all about saving the lives of thousands of Australians (had the campaign continued as the British government wanted) all through the act of disobedience to the government and the publication of information about what they were doing.

Another couple of quotes from the same article are relevant here:
Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.


Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.


Edited 2010-12-08 22:38 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Guilty of treason
by Noremacam on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Guilty of treason"
Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

Are you actually reading what I wrote? I wrote that he was in the UK. I never ever ever said he was a us citizen. Why can't you make that an honest assumption based on what I wrote? You even quoted it.

Secondly I wrote if someone dies as a result of it. An honest reading of what I wrote would've acknowledged it.

You disagreeing with wars is all fine and good; I'm not pro war myself. But I have friends who have been on the front lines. Exposing documents that can compromise their security really is distasteful to me. And visa and the rest of those companies are taking the moral high ground.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Guilty of treason
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Guilty of treason"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Exposing documents that can compromise their security really is distasteful to me.

I think their security by putting them on the front lines without need is more distasteful, personally.

That can't even happen in this case.
I didn't see a single document that reported a location in the US or military target on the front lines in the contested documents.
It's all commercial interests and companies _outside_ the USA.

All this really exposed is that the US isn't able to even care for itself, let alone defend itself.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Guilty of treason
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Guilty of treason"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Are you actually reading what I wrote? I wrote that he was in the UK. I never ever ever said he was a us citizen. Why can't you make that an honest assumption based on what I wrote? You even quoted it. Secondly I wrote if someone dies as a result of it. An honest reading of what I wrote would've acknowledged it. You disagreeing with wars is all fine and good; I'm not pro war myself. But I have friends who have been on the front lines. Exposing documents that can compromise their security really is distasteful to me. And visa and the rest of those companies are taking the moral high ground.


Here is the exact quote of what you wrote:
Julian Assange should get on his knees and thank God he's in the UK. If one person dies from the compromised security of any leaked document he is guilty of treason and the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment.


The fact that the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment for treason is irrelevant ... Julian Assange cannot commit treason against the US.

You also utterly ignore the fact that no-one on front lines (or anywhere else) has been harmed by the information published by Wikileaks, according to US officialdom itself.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messe...
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

Reply Score: 3

OS NEWS
by th3rmite on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:12 UTC
th3rmite
Member since:
2006-01-08

Thom, what's the deal? I've been reading this site for a LONG time, since before Eugenia came aboard. While this site used to be an awesome source of news about alternative operating systems, I find it more and more just about Thom's opinion. Can we get back to good old fashioned OS News? If you really want to espouse your opinions try posting them on http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/ where the last post is dated in February.

Reply Score: 1

sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

Wake up, people. There is no group called "Anonymous" and there never was. This is just what the old-world media used as an identifier when they failed to understand what they were reporting on. I'm quite annoyed to see a supposedly savvy person such as Thom perpetuate this error.

There is no Anonymous organization. It has no agenda. There are no leaders. It's not like a cell or a cult or an agency. When you speak of anonymous as a noun you are referring to ONE person, not a group. When "Anonymous" does something it isn't a group, it is a single person. When multiple single people do something similar it isn't "Anonymous the organization" doing something it is just a bunch of unnamed people.

When an un-named tipster calls the police and tells them where a crime will be committed, it isn't the action of an organized crime-reporting group called Anonymous. If a hundred un-named tipsters prank-called the police with fake reports of where crimes would be committed, it isn't the action of an organized prank-calling group called Anonymous. In both cases the callers are anonymous.

Do I make myself clear?

Reply Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

What and Who is “Anonymous”?
http://www.thelasthope.org/media/audio/64kbps/What_and_Who_is_Anony...

Yes an unidentified entity is an "anonymous" entity. "Anonymous" is also the self chosen name for decentralized group of self-identifying individuals. It started as individuals critical of the a particular religion and has expanded.

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Hah, no and no.

There is no "Anonymous" organization. There is no "Anonymous" organization. I say it twice in hopes that if nothing else you will remember this point. There are groups of people who are anonymous who talk about what "anonymous" wants and does, but these people are either (a) wannabe fakes, or (b) referring to anonymous in the singular as described in my original post. Anyone who is not an un-named person and is declaring that there is some "Anonymous" group is wrong, having no factual basis for the claim.

It did not start as individuals critical of scientology. Individuals, who were not named and tried to remain un-named, who were critical of scientology did a number of things, such as DDoS attacks, to express that. There was no group at that time, nor before that time.

However, people who are un-named and therefore anonymous did many things before the scientology stuff. It is the scientology incidents which drew enough mainstream attention that clueless reporters started referring to "Anonymous" as a group, as some kind of organization. Prior to the scientology stuff there was also no group and also still DDoSing and other activities took place. After the scientology stuff these things continue, but there remains no "Anonymous" organization.

I am not saying none of these un-named individuals talk to each other or coordinate in an 'organized' fashion. They certainly do. Suppose that one day ou and I have lunch one day and both agree that buying Google is a good idea, then the next day we both buy Google. Would it be fair to say that the You-And-Me organization is now buying Google? No. We did not formulate a plan, we did not sign up with anything, we may not even know the other person is doing anything, we are not responsible for the other's actions, neither one of us can speak for the other about what the other is doing.

Despite what you may have heard there is no Anonymous organization.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Centralized control and command structure using top down management? No.. obviously not such an organization.

A decentralized masterless mob of people who all self-identify as "Anonymous" the group not "anonymous" the english word? Yes.. there seems to be such an organization.

I don't see a central office command as a requirnment for a collection of people to associate with one another. It's surely not a well organized group but it is clearly a group.

Reply Score: 3

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I did not specify that central command and control was necessary for a so-called "Anonymous" group to exist, and I did not argue that a lack of such control means that no group exists.

I am saying that no group exists. People are not identifying themselves as "Members of the group Anonymous" - instead people are naming themselves "anonymous". There is no grouping going on.

A collection of people working on similar goals at the same time does not make an organization. An organization requires more than that.

If you and I and all other people talking about Wikileaks began calling ourselves David that does not mean that the David organization is talking about Wikileaks.

Edited 2010-12-10 13:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

More than one person claim to be Shriners. They don't specify, "I'm a memober of the Shriners group".

If more than one person associates themselves with others; you have a group of people. The name they choose to represent that group is not the qualification for it's existance.

Anonymous
The Anonmymous
Anonymous, local 54, member 82

You really think the name of a group matters that much in qualifying if it's a group of people or not?

Lots of distributed individuals are identifying themselves as "Anonymous"; does that not make it a group of people identifying the group as "Anonymous"?

I mean sure, if it was all a fraud by big business to invent a new boogieman then wow, it's a heck of a social engineering feat. But unless there is evidence showing that multiple people are not actually calling themselves by the common group title "Anonymous", existing evidence supports the group's existence.

And really, this is an honest request for relevant supporting information.. perhaps the true history of the Anonymous PR campaign by big business showing how they've manufactured the perceived history.. say.. given by the MP3 link I provided earlier from HOPE 2008. I mean, if I'm one of the masses that have fallen for the fraud; enlighten me with the factual time-line so I can see where the deceptions are.

Reply Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I've been to the East.

Reply Score: 2

Protest
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:49 UTC
TheGZeus
Member since:
2010-05-19

and civil disobedience.

Highly recommended activities.

No justice, no peace.

Edited 2010-12-08 18:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Protest
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:54 UTC in reply to "Protest"
RE[2]: Protest
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Protest"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Civil Disobedience" today is the whiners way.


Thanks to "civil disobedience" you have a free-er world today than you had just 40 years ago.

Rosa Parks, for instance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Protest
by Adurbe on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Protest"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Civil disobedience is an important component of democracy. People have the right here to express their views in a Civil manner (ie not in a way that breaks the law)
The fact that you place all civil disobedience into a a single catchall is a shame.

I would recommend you read up on the topic a little more.
While you are, also look into the concept of the 'silent majority' as a cross reference.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Protest
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Protest"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Actually, civil disobedience requires breaking the law.

You're talking of 'peaceful protest'.

Totally different things.

http://www.dictionary.com

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Protest
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Protest"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Actually, civil disobedience requires breaking the law.

You're talking of 'peaceful protest'.

Totally different things.

http://www.dictionary.com


Have your read their definition?

"the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes. Compare noncooperation ( def. 2 ) , passive resistance."

Since when is boycotting or picketing automatically breaking the law? Dictionary fail.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Protest
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Protest"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Did you read your own post?
"the refusal to obey certain laws"

That was pretty awesome.

Edited 2010-12-08 22:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Protest
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Protest"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

It has been argued that the term "civil disobedience" has always suffered from ambiguity and in modern times, become utterly debased. Marshall Cohen notes, "It has been used to describe everything from bringing a test-case in the federal courts to taking aim at a federal official. Indeed, for Vice President Agnew it has become a code-word describing the activities of muggers, arsonists, draft evaders, campaign hecklers, campus militants, anti-war demonstrators, juvenile delinquents and political assassins."[14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobediance

I don't think it's definition is as clear cut as you make it sound.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Protest
by TheGZeus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Protest"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Yeah, I should have stated that I was trying to stick to the original usage, as recommended by Ghandi and Dr. King.

That said, I do advocate slightly more extreme-yet-still-non-violent-methods.

How far? I need to think about that further, but I think these attacks are justified.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Protest
by Adurbe on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Protest"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I'll be honest, my understanding of the term is it doesnt have to be illegal in the nature of the action taken. (Read a few definitions (google) and the term is remarkably vague. )

Seems I have to take my own advice and read up on it more! ;)

Reply Score: 2

Juvenile
by Hae-Yu on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:05 UTC
Hae-Yu
Member since:
2006-01-12

Thom, I normally agree with you, but in this regard, your response is simply uninformed.

These are private entities acting in that capacity. If they dislike and disapprove of the way that a customer is (mis)using their services, they have the right to cut them off. OTOH, they have NO obligation to provide services to any- and everyone.

Dissenting groups have the right to boycott these commercial entities. WL has the right to challenge these decisions in court. DDoSing them is petulant and childish. This is not "vs the internet" but versus juveniles playing with things they have no understanding of.

WL never faced consequences for leaks of any other kind - US DoD, corporate misbehavior, etc. Only when it irresponsibly published diplomatic material wholesale. Because WL disregarded the diplomatic processes of one nation, it will do the same with others, and therefore undermines international relations. It's hard enough without juvenile (infantile) idiots interfering with the processes of grownups.

Iran is a pariah state not because of its ongoing support for terrorists, but because it failed in its duty to protect the embassy of a foreign nation 32 years ago from rampaging students.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Juvenile
by emilsedgh on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:54 UTC in reply to "Juvenile"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

Iran is a pariah state because its the force behind a huge amount of trouble in the world atm.

An Iranian.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Juvenile
by blitze on Thu 9th Dec 2010 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Juvenile"
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

"Iran is a pariah state because its the force behind a huge amount of trouble in the world atm.

An Iranian."

Sound more like a Zionist shill than an Iranian.

Sure the Iranians want a little more influence in their immediate sphere but they have been very co-operative with the west and US with Afghanistan, Inspections of Nuclear Facilities, Iraq etc. Also like Russia and China, they are not happy about a hypocrite empire setting up military bases on every border and carrying out targeted assassinations on their citizens.

You might want to read up on some of the material leaked about Iran and Iranian Military history. Now when was the UN/IAE last allowed to inspect US or Israeli Nuclear facilities/sites?

Back under your rock.

As for Democratic Governments having secrets - I always though leading by example was a better way to instill change rather than by the stick but then I also grew up and realised that Western Democracy seems to have a nasty Fascist Taint about it.

An Australian.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Juvenile
by emilsedgh on Thu 9th Dec 2010 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Juvenile"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

Its not only about nuclear facilities. Iran is responsible for many issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Palestine, Lebonan and Israel.

And, please, dont let our goverment get any nuclear bomb. Because they kill us, their on people as easily as a ant under their legs. How do you think they will behave when they have nukes?

ALL of our neighbours are frightened and scared. Thats not because our goverment 'wants more influence'. Thats because they are mad men.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Juvenile
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 13:14 UTC in reply to "Juvenile"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

WL never faced consequences for leaks of any other kind - US DoD, corporate misbehavior, etc. Only when it irresponsibly published diplomatic material wholesale.

I've been saying exactly that on each and every article Thom has written in the past days. Quite oddly, nobody ever replied to that.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:34 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

If you think every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website, find a representative and ask them to craft some law. Then ya'll can vote on it. Currently we do not have such a law.

What we do have is the Freedom of Information Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_Sta...)

Which provides a process for accessing government controlled documents and also exceptions.


ps. Regarding the first paragraph above, I think posting your exact military positions and locations to a public website would be a bad idea. Posting every interaction your military has is a bad idea. I would not vote for any act that allowed that. I'm probably in the majority, which is why there is no such law. This is the law of my countrymen. If you don't like it, you may be happier somewhere else. If you don't live here, I don't know why you think you have a right to my info?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Bounty"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

If you think every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website,

Who says that? What does this have to do with the story at hand?


Currently we do not have such a law.

Who claimed we did?

What we do have is the Freedom of Information Act.

And what you have is the First Amendment and rulings like the ruling by the Supreme Court that found the publishing of the secret Pentagon Papers legal. And a First Amendment and case law that lead the Congressional Research Service conclude regarding wikileaks:

"This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply, but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it."

Edited 2010-12-08 21:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"If you think every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website,

Who says that? What does this have to do with the story at hand?


Currently we do not have such a law.

Who claimed we did?

What we do have is the Freedom of Information Act.

And what you have is the First Amendment and rulings like the ruling by the Supreme Court that found the publishing of the secret Pentagon Papers legal. And a First Amendment and case law that lead the Congressional Research Service conclude regarding wikileaks:

"This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply, but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it."
"

Wikileaks is kinda new. First time for everything.
Also, most of the discussion here seems to be based on the idea that people think we should have 100% transparancy. I don't know how you missed that.

Edited 2010-12-08 22:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bounty"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Wikileaks is kinda new. First time for everything.

Not really, just because they are publishing on the internet doesn't really make them new. Anyway, the US seems to have quite a hard time finding any legal grounds to go after them: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html

Also, most of the discussion here seems to be based on the idea that people think we should have 100% transparancy. I don't know how you missed that.

Really? Has anyone actually stated this? I think I simply missed it, because I haven't read anyone stating it and I think that simply inferring stuff like that leads to attacking strawmen more often than not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

" Wikileaks is kinda new. First time for everything.

Not really, just because they are publishing on the internet doesn't really make them new. Anyway, the US seems to have quite a hard time finding any legal grounds to go after them: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html

Also, most of the discussion here seems to be based on the idea that people think we should have 100% transparancy. I don't know how you missed that.

Really? Has anyone actually stated this? I think I simply missed it, because I haven't read anyone stating it and I think that simply inferring stuff like that leads to attacking strawmen more often than not.
"

Umm, what? It's the United States government, they are supposed to represent us...they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us.

-brewmaster back on page 2


Of course the government is supposed to keep things from us, I don't understand how that's not obvious.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Bounty"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Oh, come on. You really want to argue that saying "It's the United States government, they are supposed to represent us...they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us." is the same as saying: "Every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website"?

Really?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Oh, come on. You really want to argue that saying "It's the United States government, they are supposed to represent us...they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us." is the same as saying: "Every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website"?

Really?



Do you believe they could keep things from us and be 100% transparent at the same time?

Really?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Anyway, the US seems to have quite a hard time finding any legal grounds to go after them: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html


From that article:

"“I don’t want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act,” Mr. Holder said Monday at a news conference. “That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal.” "

Seems they are having a hard time deciding on which of several legal grounds to get him on.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Bounty"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Seems they are having a hard time deciding on which of several legal grounds to get him on.


You're a funny guy, but if you'd actually read the article you'd know that Holder is specifically referencing not only looking at the Espionage Act, because the Espionage Act has never been successfully used against a media organization that released information. (Also take a look at that CSR report again.)

Anyway, what I would be really interested in is why you seem so keen on wikileaks to be prosecuted. What did they do to deserve your wrath? Making public the wrongdoings of yours and other governments? Isn't that a good thing?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Bounty
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Bounty"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

People tend to get really defensive when they're ashamed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"Seems they are having a hard time deciding on which of several legal grounds to get him on.


You're a funny guy, but if you'd actually read the article you'd know that Holder is specifically referencing not only looking at the Espionage Act, because the Espionage Act has never been successfully used against a media organization that released information. (Also take a look at that CSR report again.)

Anyway, what I would be really interested in is why you seem so keen on wikileaks to be prosecuted. What did they do to deserve your wrath? Making public the wrongdoings of yours and other governments? Isn't that a good thing?
"

I think making public the wrongdoings is awsome. I think publishing the names of tribal leaders who've accepted aid from the US in the Afghan war leak was seriously evil. When you aid the Taliban, the kiddie gloves should come off.

I think Wikileaks is in no position to honestly represent my interests. If they want to leak responsibly, they need to do it the way the major newspapers generally do it, or to some judges/attorneys/congressmen. By actually redacting things, and publishing only need to know info.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Bounty
by cheemosabe on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Bounty"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

By actually redacting things, and publishing only need to know info.


You may be right, but who decides what is "need to know info", and where is the line between redacting and censorship?

I do believe there are exceptions to the rule "be honest all the time", but is a mentality such as "people shouldn't know because they are not qualified to understand" a good one? How can there be any democracy (we're talking about the thinnest kind here, i.e. representative democracy) work if the people don't even know what the government is doing? How can you hold the government accountable for anything if you don't know anything about it?

Total exposure to the truth may be an extreme but in my opinion it's far better then what there is now. Secrecy is a (sometimes useful) tool that should only be given to those who understand what they forfeit by using it.

As for security concerns, the Iraq leaks, for example, come after the end of the war (let's face it, it's over). As well as the afghan ones.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Bounty
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Bounty"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Assange, yesterday, published the location of the world's only pharmaceutical plant that manufactures vaccines for particular diseases. Because of Assange's irresponsible act, that plant is now a high priority target for terrorists, and all because Assange didn't have the first clue as to what info he really had, nor the ramifications of releasing that info to the world (or, simply didn't care, which is just as bad, if not worse).

Edited 2010-12-09 06:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Bounty
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bounty"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Have you realized that none of those who wrote countless comments about how WL is the next God sent thing replied to the info you gave?
Astounding they are so blind.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Bounty
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Dec 2010 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bounty"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Assange, yesterday, published the location of the world's only pharmaceutical plant that manufactures vaccines for particular diseases. Because of Assange's irresponsible act, that plant is now a high priority target for terrorists, and all because Assange didn't have the first clue as to what info he really had, nor the ramifications of releasing that info to the world (or, simply didn't care, which is just as bad, if not worse).


How cute that you believe that information wasn't known before that.

Reply Score: 1

Our clients lost money during a hard time
by Adurbe on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:37 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

For all the moralising going on, this hit ordinary people who have Nothing to do with it. In many ways the attack was indiscriminate in its effect. For this reason I cant condone it.

We have clients in an industry that is already suffering Very heavily during the downturn. A number have already gone under or are close to. This attack today caused them to lose thousands of pounds in lost revenue. Money they can ill afford to lose.

Has this helped prove a point to the US gov? I dont think so.
Has it hurt ordinary, uninvolved, people? Yes.



p.s. I do not work for a bank/credit card/financial company

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

That's kind of the point -- if it didn't effect people what good would it be?

Change requires getting the normal people riled up so they are at least aware of something that frankly -- 99% of Joe Sixpack and Susie Sunshine types would otherwise neither care about or even realize is going on... and if that means holding companies for ransom to get them to back the hell down, well -- at least it's better than taking up arms and doing it 18th century style. (Though increasingly I'm sure the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves)

As the old George Carlin joke goes, "you don't stop drugs by going after potheads, you do it by arresting the BANKERS who launder the drug money. You put a few rich white bankers in prison and you won't even be able to buy drugs in schools and playgrounds!"

Which is why VISA is exactly the type of institution to have a giant bullseye painted on it when push comes to shove...

Of course given that credit is as Peter Schiff said when taking President dumbass to task for calling it "The lifeblood of the economy" -- It's not the lifeblood, it's the CANCER... So excuse me if I don't exactly shed a tear for an institution as responsible for the collapsing economy as every other form of moneylending.

Ah, Anonymous -- None of us can be as ruthlessly destructive as all of us. Were that we were this effective when it came to stamping out religious hoodoo like Scientology.

Besides, given the flashtard train-wreck their website is when it's working, combined with them redirecting Opera users to the mobile site thanks to a faulty browser sniffer, combined with absurdly undersized and illegible fixed metric fonts and a "WCAG, What's that" attitude, so far as the Internet is concerned IMHO Visa is just getting what's coming to them.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:45 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

clearly banks and finance are the source of all that is evil. Bring back the barter system!

I wonder if you would grandstand in quite the same way if it was Your company that went under during this 'attack' and Your job that was lost.

Its frankly shocking the mentality you hold that innocent bystanders are an 'acceptable loss' to make your political point.

Reply Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

One would have to be working for an evil corporation to have lost their job.

Worker Beware.

Reply Score: 2

Go 4chan!
by pooo on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:59 UTC
pooo
Member since:
2006-04-22

All the arguments have been made so I'll just cheerlead based on my personal take:

GO 4CHAN!

Paypal is still standing but you can do it! Bring em down!

Reply Score: 2

I think you have the attacker wrong
by RUbernerd on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:17 UTC
RUbernerd
Member since:
2010-12-08

irc://irc.anonops.com/OperationPayback
I think that they are the people in the red handed about bringing down VISA and Mastercard.

Reply Score: 1

Unintended consequences
by mkone on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:38 UTC
mkone
Member since:
2006-03-14

The next thing is that the government will mandate that ISPs implement methods to protect against DDoS attacks or begin to require that all internet services be traceable to origin. The result of this petulant act might be that privacy on the internet is judged to be less important than protecting availability of the internet and the anonymous internet ends as we know it. And it's not that hard. All they do is to compel 'important' firms to move to some registered internet and remove the protections that we currently have on the unregistered wild-wild-west internet. This may just give them justification to do that.

Reply Score: 2

Check Marketplace for some coverage
by boldingd on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:52 UTC
boldingd
Member since:
2009-02-19

Marketplace (from APM) just reported on this. Amusingly, they referred to "the hacker organization Anonymous," making the same mistake that so many other, lesser news outlets have made. Most of the rest of the piece is fairly good tho, if somewhat cabbagized, and is probably worth checking out.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/12/08/pm-hackti...

Reply Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

More "further reading" from NPR: this issue was covered extensively on Talk of the Nation today.

http://www.npr.org/programs/talk-of-the-nation/

Reply Score: 2

Paypal are creeps
by Innominandum on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:12 UTC
Innominandum
Member since:
2005-11-18

I don't know if it's be mentioned in the pages upon pages of comments already:

For the record, Paypal are notorious for suspending accounts; generally people with controversial religious, political or social views.

Nobody says you have to agree with "controversial" personalities or organizations, but suspending a Paypal account and freezing (stealing) funds is too much.

I feel vindicated by the Paypal attack. In fact I hope it's permanent. Payback's a bitch.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Paypal are creeps
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 01:00 UTC in reply to "Paypal are creeps"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

PayPal also won't process transactions that deal with, er, prurient material.

*couch*notthatI'dknow*cough*

Reply Score: 2

RE: Paypal are creeps
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 05:49 UTC in reply to "Paypal are creeps"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Paypal.com is up and running as I write this.
Paypal has policies on whom they will do business with. Paypal is a US company; in the US, you are allowed to refuse to do business with anyone you want to, as long as those reasons have nothing to do with discrimination against a "protected class" (for example, you can't refuse to do business with someone because of their race, ethnicity, gender, etc). "Leakers" is not a protected class. Paypal is under no obligation to do business with Assange or his operation. Those attacking the Paypal site are criminals.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Paypal are creeps
by Sauron on Thu 9th Dec 2010 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Paypal are creeps"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

How about discrimination against Foreigners’? Assange is Australian therefore of a different "race" to the US. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Paypal are creeps
by MollyC on Sat 11th Dec 2010 05:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Paypal are creeps"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

You might be just joking, but I'll answer the question anyway.

I don't know if "foreigners" is a protected class in the US. But even if it were, it's not the case that one is required to do business with all members of protected classes, it's that one cannot refuse to do business with someone just because they are a member of a protected class. One can still refuse to do business with that person for other reasons.

For example, PayPal couldn't refuse to do business with someone on the basis of that person's being Latino (for example), but could refuse to do business with that person for suspected criminality, or violation of PayPal's terms of service, etc.

PayPal is within their rights not to do business with Assange as long as the reason for such refusal is not related to Assange's membership in a protected class.

Note that I don't speak of PayPal's freezing of Wikileak's PayPal account. Apparently PayPal has released those funds to Wikileaks, but now that tha's done, PayPal doesn't have to conduct further transactions involving Assange or Wikileaks.

Reply Score: 2

My irony meter broke
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:17 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Full scale deflection, bent the needle.

What caused this to happen?

Apparently, the US government has taken a short break from attacking Wikileaks (but not other MSM outlets who also published cables) for just long enough to announce ‘World Press Freedom Day’.

http://wonkette.com/431902/u-s-state-department-hilariously-announc...

As I said, when I encountered this news, my irony meter broke. Completely busted. Blew a fuse.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

inappropriate
by weorthe on Thu 9th Dec 2010 03:44 UTC
weorthe
Member since:
2005-07-06

I find it greatly concerning and very objectionable that Thom Holwerda has advocated actions that are illegal in most countries, including the US and the EU. I am referring to this line: "I fully support these DDoS attacks."

Is it the policy of OSNews to encourage illegal activities like these?

In regards to DDos attacks: the Internet relies on cooperation among a great number of very diverse people. It cannot survive if too many people abuse it for political or other ends. What if the victims of these current attacks respond by attacking their attackers, and those who support them such as OSNews?

While Mr. Holwerda is obviously entitled to his opinions and is certainly not required to agree with mine, I believe that advocating acts that are both illegal and seemingly diametrically opposed to the spirit of OSNews is inappropriate.

Edited 2010-12-09 03:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: inappropriate
by TheGZeus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 03:45 UTC in reply to "inappropriate"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Again, civil disobedience.
No justice, no peace.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: inappropriate
by weorthe on Thu 9th Dec 2010 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE: inappropriate"
weorthe Member since:
2005-07-06

But a DDos attack is not civil disobedience. It is more like rioters tearing up their own neighborhood.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: inappropriate
by TheGZeus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: inappropriate"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

o_O

How many people have even been to Visa's website? I can't even think of a reason to go there...

If Visa employees DDoS attacked Visa that would make sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: inappropriate
by Carewolf on Thu 9th Dec 2010 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: inappropriate"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

If you somehow can tear up a neighbourhood without causing damage. Then yes, they are the same..

But the fact is: They are not

Edited 2010-12-09 14:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: inappropriate
by weorthe on Thu 9th Dec 2010 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: inappropriate"
weorthe Member since:
2005-07-06

You "tear up" the Internet by destroying its interconnectivity.

Reply Score: 2

RE: inappropriate
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:09 UTC in reply to "inappropriate"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I find it greatly concerning and very objectionable that Thom Holwerda has advocated actions that are illegal in most countries, including the US and the EU. I am referring to this line: "I fully support these DDoS attacks." Is it the policy of OSNews to encourage illegal activities like these? In regards to DDos attacks: the Internet relies on cooperation among a great number of very diverse people. It cannot survive if too many people abuse it for political or other ends. What if the victims of these current attacks respond by attacking their attackers, and those who support them such as OSNews? While Mr. Holwerda is obviously entitled to his opinions and is certainly not required to agree with mine, I believe that advocating acts that are both illegal and seemingly diametrically opposed to the spirit of OSNews is inappropriate.


The Wikileaks website, which launched no DDoS attack of its own, has come under heavy DDoS attack.

Whom do you imagine launched that DDoS attack against Wikileaks? Who would be interested in doing this? Who would sponsor such an act?

Was this initial DDoS attack on Wikileaks legal in your view? If it was, why?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: inappropriate
by weorthe on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE: inappropriate"
weorthe Member since:
2005-07-06


The Wikileaks website, which launched no DDoS attack of its own, has come under heavy DDoS attack.

Whom do you imagine launched that DDoS attack against Wikileaks? Who would be interested in doing this? Who would sponsor such an act?

Was this initial DDoS attack on Wikileaks legal in your view? If it was, why?


It could have been the US government trying to delay the release of information from the leaked cables. Or anyone else wanting to do that. It was certainly wrong. I can't say if it was illegal or not, since it may have been done by the very entities that define "illegal."

Let us hope that these strategies do not escalate into a world wide web war that destroys the usefulness of the medium.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: inappropriate
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: inappropriate"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I can't say if it was illegal or not, since it may have been done by the very entities that define "illegal."


Who are the entities who could define the legaility of such an act (DDoS of a website operating under foreign sovreignity)? What process gives those entities the authority/mandate to do so?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: inappropriate
by weorthe on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: inappropriate"
weorthe Member since:
2005-07-06


Who are the entities who could define the legaility of such an act (DDoS of a website operating under foreign sovreignity)? What process gives those entities the authority/mandate to do so?


It is possible to make a law against misuse of a network regardless of whether or not the other end of it is across a border. Otherwise, depending on jurisdictions, there could be a tort.

But my point was that DDoss are bad for the Internet, regardless of the intentions of those who cause them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: inappropriate
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: inappropriate"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It could have been the US government trying to delay the release of information from the leaked cables.


Would this happen to be the selfsame government who is sponsoring this event:

http://wonkette.com/431902/u-s-state-department-hilariously-announc...

Perhaps I could steal the text from one of the nomination letters they have apparently been sent:

Greetings,

I would like to nominate Julian Assange for the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize for 2011. I believe that the levels of derision, assault, and character assassination (let us hope that the assassination stays merely within the realm of his character) represent a focused and concerted effort on behalf of a state entity to deny and obstruct the free flow of information. The tactics being employed to silence Mr. Assange and his WikiLeaks organization, including the removal of his websites hosting, DNS entry, and donation methods, amongst others, are truly reprehensible and antithetical to the notions of Freedom of the Press. The fear accompanying the abuse aimed at Mr. Assange will undoubtedly have a chilling effect upon journalists willingness and ability to pursue the goals of information freedom and transparency. It is vital that we do not grant any single monolithic state entity the ability to pursue these tactics nor tacit acceptance of this method of information disruption.

Mr. Assange, I believe, represents the same spirit of freedom and transparency which the winner of the 1997 Press Freedom Prize, Gao Yu, represented. Mr. Assange, luckily, lives in a different world; the presence of the internet allows Mr. Assange to avoid immediate detention based upon political dissent. Were we still living in the pre-internet days of 1997, I would genuinely fear for the safety and security of his person. In spite of this advancement, the pressures coming to bear upon Mr. Assange are monumental and are indicative of the level of progress still needed to be made in pursuit of a Free, Global Press.

With this information in mind, I sincerely hope that you consider Mr. Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization for the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize for 2011. The Freedom of Information and of the Press is at stake; in our increasingly interdependent world we simply cannot tolerate state entities which seek to stifle, oppress and ultimately silence Journalistic dissent.

Reply Score: 2

RE: inappropriate
by atriq on Thu 9th Dec 2010 05:11 UTC in reply to "inappropriate"
atriq Member since:
2007-10-18

Yeah, except those companies effectively control whether or not wikileaks gets ahold of the funds that are donated to them. And by choosing to refuse transfering those donations, that is a blatent attack on the organization.

The DDoSing is hardly going to ruin any of these companies. But it is a reminder to them that caving to political pressure is still choosing a side.

Reply Score: 2

RE: inappropriate
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 05:44 UTC in reply to "inappropriate"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Sadly, this site has become less and less about computer hardware/software technology, and more and more about politics. I think this site has lost its way.

Reply Score: 2

Disappointed
by jededel on Thu 9th Dec 2010 05:20 UTC
jededel
Member since:
2010-12-06

Really Thom, no harm. People who use and rely on the companies that are under attack will probably disagree with you.

Probably won't be hanging around here anymore....

Reply Score: 2

RE: Disappointed
by dizzey on Thu 9th Dec 2010 06:28 UTC in reply to "Disappointed"
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

"Really Thom, no harm. People who use and rely on the companies"

I do

"that are under attack will probably disagree with you."

I dont

"Probably won't be hanging around here anymore...."

I will

There is a reson to the ass in assume

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Disappointed
by TheGZeus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Disappointed"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Assume.
Ass.
U.
Me.

Yeah.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Disappointed
by jededel on Thu 9th Dec 2010 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Disappointed"
jededel Member since:
2010-12-06

I forgot, it's all about you...

Reply Score: 1

Cyberterrorism by the "good guys".
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 05:41 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Sorry, Assange fans, you have no moral high ground when you start taking down sites.

We've already seen Assange try to blackmail his way out of the charges in Sweden ("If I get arrested, I'll release my 'insurance' file.") Now we see wikileaks fans taking down sites for having the temerity to not do business with Assange.

And Thom, your comment about Paypal getting pressured by the US govt, so what? That same govt pressured Twitter to delay their "Down for maintenance" period during the Iran post-election protests so people could continue to communicate the events on Twitter. In PayPal's case, the "pressure" you refer to was simply a letter saying that the US State Dept considered Assange's activities to be illegal. Paypal doesn't "admit" to being coerced, like your "summary" implies.

Update: The sites in question (Visa, Mastercard, PayPal) are up and running now.

Edited 2010-12-09 05:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

They went too far
by NoChan on Thu 9th Dec 2010 07:59 UTC
NoChan
Member since:
2010-12-09

Well, that tears it. 4chan's gone from a nuisance to being nothing more or less than information terrorists. It's high time somebody put them down.

And before you 4chan kiddie haxxors brag that no one will be able to find you with all your little haxxor tricks, wise up. The only reason no one has found you before has more to do with the fact that no one has cared enough to look for your worthless carcass in the first place. But taking down several credit card sites in the name of some moronic digital jihad? Guess what? NOW they're going to care.

Oh, and by the way, Julian Assange is an anarchist pansy with an overinflated ego, but if that's your hero, hey, I guess it suits you.

Reply Score: 2

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

See the UPDATE to this story, here: http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/paypal-wikileaks/

The original story was that the US State Dept wrote a letter to PayPal saying that the State Dept deemed Wikileaks to be engaging in illegal activity, and therefore PayPal suspended Wikileaks' PayPal account.

But no, it turns out that the State Dept wrote a letter to Wikileaks, saying that they deemed that Wikileaks was engaged in illegalities, and based on that letter from the State Dept to Wikileaks (not from the State Dept to PayPal), PayPal decided to suspend Wikileaks' PayPal account. The US State Dept made no contact with PayPal.

I await Thom's update to his summary of events according to PayPal's clarification.

Edited 2010-12-09 08:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

b00gie Member since:
2006-06-09

yes but they didn't tell us who notified paypal and i really doubt it was the recipient

also it's pretty funny cause i thought that USA actually had laws and judges who were the only responsible to determine if something is illegal, i guess i was wrong.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

it's pretty funny cause i thought that USA actually had laws and judges who were the only responsible to determine if something is illegal, i guess i was wrong.


What happens though if it is the USA itself which is doing the illegal things?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html

Reply Score: 2

Quite simple
by Norsk on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:27 UTC
Norsk
Member since:
2007-12-07

Just throwing a simple 'What If' out there:

What if the information contained in the leaked documents was all positive, and shed just a positive light on the people\governments\actions referred within it ?

Would the actions of the US government be the same ?. And if not, what does that tell us ?.

Illegal or not. Shooting the messenger, doesn't solve the most important part's of this whole case.

1. The inadequate security of classified documents.
2. The way in which elected diplomats and government official's do their job behind closed door's, isn't acceptable by the people who elected them.

Those two points should be officially questioned and resolved before anything else.

Reply Score: 4

Regarding Paypal
by LB06 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 17:27 UTC
LB06
Member since:
2005-07-06

What does it mean that the account is 'restricted'? Does it mean that we still can't transfer new funds to that account?

Reply Score: 2

everyDNS != EasyDNS
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 9th Dec 2010 19:58 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

It looks like a new comedy of errors has spun out of this whole situation. Here's something that arrived in my EMail this morning from EasyDNS - a Canadian registrar that many people apparently can't distinguish from everyDNS (the people who shut down the main wikileaks domain):


Wikileaks "takedown" fiasco underscores pathetic state of internet "journalism"

[...]
I'm not sure who the Pulitzer candidate was who started it, but somebody wrote that Wikileaks had been taken down by us, easyDNS. By the time I woke up this morning I was inundated with emails and comments.

The incorrect info rippled through twitter like a zombie horde. Not only did people mindlessly hit the "retweet" button and perpetuate bad information: some took the time and care to email us, or search for our blog (why couldn't they do a whois lookup while they were at it?) and post comments about our "cowardice".

So here's the honor role of half-wits who should know better who should immediately cease trying to pass themselves off as any kind of legitimate "news source", or at the very least: Correct your story and issue an apology to us.


http://blog.easydns.org/2010/12/03/wikileaks-takedown-fiasco-unders...

And the really absurd part of it? Not only were they NOT the registrar who pulled the plug on WikiLeaks, EasyDNS is actually a backup DNS provider for the wikileaks.ch domain.

http://blog.easydns.org/2010/12/06/the-implications-of-wikileaks-dn...

Reply Score: 4

EFF weighs in
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 22:54 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Join EFF in Standing up Against Internet Censorship

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/join-eff-in-standing-up-agains...

Say NO to online censorship!

https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship

Edited 2010-12-09 22:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

death to eBay and Paypal
by unclefester on Fri 10th Dec 2010 04:16 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Ebay and it's subsidiary Paypal is one of the most reprehensible corporations around - fee gouging, canceling sellers accounts without reason and allowing billions of dollars of counterfeit products to be sold each year to unsuspecting buyers. I really wish that they would go broke.

Reply Score: 3

RE: death to eBay and Paypal
by TheGZeus on Fri 10th Dec 2010 06:22 UTC in reply to "death to eBay and Paypal"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Well, if trolls can make them risk the wrath of the US govt, perhaps trolls can make them change policies.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by yoshi314@gmail.com
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Fri 10th Dec 2010 08:02 UTC
yoshi314@gmail.com
Member since:
2009-12-14

"There's little else we can do, and these attacks are entirely harmless; no people are being harmed in the process - they're just inconvenienced. "

Uh huh. Just as harmless as public transportation going on a strike on the day you want to use it to get to the job interview, which might be a big deal for you.

Some people rely on paypal or visa services. If their actual service servers would go down, and block your paypal money transfers, and temporarily invalidate your visa card, you wouldn't think it was entirely harmless.

i'm not against the action. It's just that the "entirely harmless" part felt like something the author didn't quite think through.

Reply Score: 1

Responsible journalism
by ilbts58 on Sat 11th Dec 2010 16:36 UTC
ilbts58
Member since:
2010-04-24

As a military veteran I am all for free speech, free expression, etc. With that in mind there comes such a thing as responsible journalism and the posting of information. WikiLeaks failed to exercise responsibility in its latest postings on the Internet.
There are some things that should not be known through out the world. It's just the way that it is. I think law enforcement should aggressively go on the offense against WikiLeaks and 4Chan for what they have done. They have possibly put the United States and its people in danger as well as caused damage to diplomacy. I am quite sure that the King of Saudi Arabia and others did not ask for their comments to be viewed by Al Quida and other dissidents so that the possibility of terrorism on their people would happen.
Again there is such a thing as responsible journalism. If you post something that could be construed as not accurate or causes possible danger than you should be expecting ramifications of your actions.
Also I would not take too much stock in information posted by a website that is ran by an accused sex offender who will not face his charges yet alleges they are untrue. If they are not the truth then why is he afraid to go to Sweden and prove his innocence? I will tell you why-he is a coward, plain and simple.
The time has come to enforce responsible journalism and punish those that fail to exercise it. Free speech and expression means that you are free to say or write what you want so long as they are into the bounds of safety, security, and responsibilities. We all have those responsibilities.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Responsible journalism
by lemur2 on Sun 12th Dec 2010 05:52 UTC in reply to "Responsible journalism"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As a military veteran I am all for free speech, free expression, etc. With that in mind there comes such a thing as responsible journalism and the posting of information. WikiLeaks failed to exercise responsibility in its latest postings on the Internet.
There are some things that should not be known through out the world. It's just the way that it is. I think law enforcement should aggressively go on the offense against WikiLeaks and 4Chan for what they have done. They have possibly put the United States and its people in danger as well as caused damage to diplomacy. I am quite sure that the King of Saudi Arabia and others did not ask for their comments to be viewed by Al Quida and other dissidents so that the possibility of terrorism on their people would happen.
Again there is such a thing as responsible journalism. If you post something that could be construed as not accurate or causes possible danger than you should be expecting ramifications of your actions.
Also I would not take too much stock in information posted by a website that is ran by an accused sex offender who will not face his charges yet alleges they are untrue. If they are not the truth then why is he afraid to go to Sweden and prove his innocence? I will tell you why-he is a coward, plain and simple.
The time has come to enforce responsible journalism and punish those that fail to exercise it. Free speech and expression means that you are free to say or write what you want so long as they are into the bounds of safety, security, and responsibilities. We all have those responsibilities.


Check your facts.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/10/wikile...

WikiLeaks has done very little other than publish the specific cables that have been first released by newspapers around the world, including with the redactions applied by those papers.


That WikiLeaks has (with a handful of exceptions) published ONLY what other newspapers first published is a VERIFIABLE FACT. AP reported it, and all you have to do is look on its website to see that virtually all the cables published were ones first published by the five partner newspapers.


Wikileaks is just as responsible as its five partner mainstream media outlets are. This is verifiable fact.

Backup here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0Vruimmvy8loGkls...

Yor claim:
WikiLeaks failed to exercise responsibility in its latest postings on the Internet.


If that is ture, then it is also true of the five partners of Wikileaks, who helped Wikileaks redact the cables before posting them. The New York Times and Washington Post are two media oulets amongst those five.

I know it is hard to check facts when outlets like Time are contradicting verifibale fact in their attempts to smear Wikileaks, but it isn't impossible.

SOME sources, such as Associated Press, are apparently still willing to report the truth.

There are some things that should not be known through out the world. It's just the way that it is.


There are some wrongdoings by the government that they do not want people to know about, so they simply "classify" it (aka bury it). The only way such wrongdoings can the be rectified is via whistleblowers. It's just the way it is.

According to Ron Paul, lying is not patriotic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPB9yy7IJ4&feature=sub

Edited 2010-12-12 06:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Responsible journalism
by HunterA3 on Sun 12th Dec 2010 15:04 UTC in reply to "Responsible journalism"
HunterA3 Member since:
2005-10-19

You had me up until the last paragraph. I'm a former military man as well, so I agree with being responsible, but there is such thing as the polar opposite. Too much policing leads to censorship and obfuscation of the truth. Sometimes stepping outside of the realm of safety and security exposes the public to something that they would not normally stand up for. If we never ventured outside our comfort zone then we might as well never leave home and never see the world outside either.

Reply Score: 1

Cowards
by HunterA3 on Sun 12th Dec 2010 14:55 UTC
HunterA3
Member since:
2005-10-19

Both sides are being cowardly. The governments hide behind the companies to do their dirty work and 4chan hides behind millions of zombie windows machines running in grandma's living room to do theirs. The only people making a stand up fight are wikileaks and the men and women who they are exposing, with the leaked documents, that are fighting to stay alive in a wartime environment. This is a classic example of no clear moral high ground. There is no black and white. Just shades of grey.

Reply Score: 1