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 452833
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Bounty"
ralph
Member since:
2005-07-10

If you think every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website,

Who says that? What does this have to do with the story at hand?


Currently we do not have such a law.

Who claimed we did?

What we do have is the Freedom of Information Act.

And what you have is the First Amendment and rulings like the ruling by the Supreme Court that found the publishing of the secret Pentagon Papers legal. And a First Amendment and case law that lead the Congressional Research Service conclude regarding wikileaks:

"This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply, but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it."

Edited 2010-12-08 21:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 21:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"If you think every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website,

Who says that? What does this have to do with the story at hand?


Currently we do not have such a law.

Who claimed we did?

What we do have is the Freedom of Information Act.

And what you have is the First Amendment and rulings like the ruling by the Supreme Court that found the publishing of the secret Pentagon Papers legal. And a First Amendment and case law that lead the Congressional Research Service conclude regarding wikileaks:

"This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply, but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it."
"

Wikileaks is kinda new. First time for everything.
Also, most of the discussion here seems to be based on the idea that people think we should have 100% transparancy. I don't know how you missed that.

Edited 2010-12-08 22:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bounty"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Wikileaks is kinda new. First time for everything.

Not really, just because they are publishing on the internet doesn't really make them new. Anyway, the US seems to have quite a hard time finding any legal grounds to go after them: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html

Also, most of the discussion here seems to be based on the idea that people think we should have 100% transparancy. I don't know how you missed that.

Really? Has anyone actually stated this? I think I simply missed it, because I haven't read anyone stating it and I think that simply inferring stuff like that leads to attacking strawmen more often than not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Bounty
by MollyC on Thu 9th Dec 2010 06:58 in reply to "RE: Comment by Bounty"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Assange, yesterday, published the location of the world's only pharmaceutical plant that manufactures vaccines for particular diseases. Because of Assange's irresponsible act, that plant is now a high priority target for terrorists, and all because Assange didn't have the first clue as to what info he really had, nor the ramifications of releasing that info to the world (or, simply didn't care, which is just as bad, if not worse).

Edited 2010-12-09 06:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Bounty
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 13:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bounty"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Have you realized that none of those who wrote countless comments about how WL is the next God sent thing replied to the info you gave?
Astounding they are so blind.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Bounty
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Dec 2010 13:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bounty"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Assange, yesterday, published the location of the world's only pharmaceutical plant that manufactures vaccines for particular diseases. Because of Assange's irresponsible act, that plant is now a high priority target for terrorists, and all because Assange didn't have the first clue as to what info he really had, nor the ramifications of releasing that info to the world (or, simply didn't care, which is just as bad, if not worse).


How cute that you believe that information wasn't known before that.

Reply Parent Score: 1