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 452839
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:24 UTC 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[4]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

" 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.
"

Umm, what? It's the United States government, they are supposed to represent us...they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us.

-brewmaster back on page 2


Of course the government is supposed to keep things from us, I don't understand how that's not obvious.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Bounty"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Oh, come on. You really want to argue that saying "It's the United States government, they are supposed to represent us...they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us." is the same as saying: "Every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website"?

Really?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

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


From that article:

"“I don’t want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act,” Mr. Holder said Monday at a news conference. “That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal.” "

Seems they are having a hard time deciding on which of several legal grounds to get him on.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Bounty
by ralph on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Bounty"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Seems they are having a hard time deciding on which of several legal grounds to get him on.


You're a funny guy, but if you'd actually read the article you'd know that Holder is specifically referencing not only looking at the Espionage Act, because the Espionage Act has never been successfully used against a media organization that released information. (Also take a look at that CSR report again.)

Anyway, what I would be really interested in is why you seem so keen on wikileaks to be prosecuted. What did they do to deserve your wrath? Making public the wrongdoings of yours and other governments? Isn't that a good thing?

Reply Parent Score: 2