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 452781
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by FresheBakked on Wed 8th Dec 2010 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
FresheBakked
Member since:
2010-12-08

18 U.S.C. I.37 § 798

§ 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).

Do you want more, Thom?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by ARUmar on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:20 in reply to "RE[7]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
ARUmar Member since:
2009-10-08

first document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note , here on the net we deal in bits until they amend the law to relate to reality good luck trying to get your bits "returned"
second For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States
last i checked the net wasnt any of the above and as far as US law goes it isnt applicable to anyone who isnt a) a us citizen or resident b) a US based company/entity

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:54 in reply to "RE[8]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Both arguments are spurious. "The 'net" is not a location. It is composed of real, physical entities - corporations and individuals - who are in specific jurasdictions and whose actions are governed by local laws.

Second, your pithy argument that the leaked arguments are "just bits" doesn't hold legal weight. Pretty much all parties that I am aware of - certainly the Department of Defense - interpret digital documents as qualifying. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to convince a court of law that a digital document, since it's just bits, did not qualify under Title 18.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 06:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Thanks for bringing some facts to the table.
Wikileaks fans are so self-righteous as to not care about the law, they think that the law is beneath them, their cause so righteous.

Yet these same folks would raise hell if some Social Security Agent happened to accidentally release their Social Security Numbers to the world. I guess some government info wants to be free, but some does not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Say it isn't so, Thom
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 09:33 in reply to "RE[8]: Say it isn't so, Thom"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Thanks for bringing some facts to the table.
Wikileaks fans are so self-righteous as to not care about the law, they think that the law is beneath them, their cause so righteous.

Yet these same folks would raise hell if some Social Security Agent happened to accidentally release their Social Security Numbers to the world. I guess some government info wants to be free, but some does not.


Actually, it was the US state department that wanted to get credit card numbers and even DNA details of UN members.

Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats to spy and collect DNA, credit card, password data on UN leaders
http://sweetandsoursocialism.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-hil...

Wikileaks: State Dept. Ordered Staff to Illegally Obtain DNA from UN Diplomats

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/11/wikileaks-state-dept-ordere...

How would this be legal?

And, just to bring a little more balance to this story, here are some other interesting developments:

WikiLeaks founder praised by Pentagon Papers exposer

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9200459/WikiLeaks_founder_pr...

Caving to pressure from supporters, PayPal releases WikiLeaks’ funds
http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-from-supp...

Reply Parent Score: 3