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 452748
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 18:49 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 Parent Score: 0

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 Parent Score: 1