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 452731
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 4

FresheBakked Member since:

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 Parent Score: 0

jabbotts Member since:

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 Parent Score: 3