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 452718
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Completely disagree
by runjorel on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:07 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:49 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by phoudoin on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:43 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:59 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:52 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:13 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:28 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 Parent Score: 2