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.
Thread beginning with comment 452681
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Hmmm
by LighthouseJ on Wed 8th Dec 2010 14:22 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Hmmm
by M.Onty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 20:24 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 Parent Score: 1