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: is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
E-mail Print r 26   · Read More · 303 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 452652
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by TommyCarlier on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:43 UTC
Member since:

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 in reply to "Fair?"
ciplogic Member since:

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 Parent Score: 12

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

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 Parent Score: 4

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

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 Parent Score: 4

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

"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 Parent Score: 3