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 452853
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

"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?
"

I think making public the wrongdoings is awsome. I think publishing the names of tribal leaders who've accepted aid from the US in the Afghan war leak was seriously evil. When you aid the Taliban, the kiddie gloves should come off.

I think Wikileaks is in no position to honestly represent my interests. If they want to leak responsibly, they need to do it the way the major newspapers generally do it, or to some judges/attorneys/congressmen. By actually redacting things, and publishing only need to know info.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Bounty
by cheemosabe on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:40 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Bounty"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

By actually redacting things, and publishing only need to know info.


You may be right, but who decides what is "need to know info", and where is the line between redacting and censorship?

I do believe there are exceptions to the rule "be honest all the time", but is a mentality such as "people shouldn't know because they are not qualified to understand" a good one? How can there be any democracy (we're talking about the thinnest kind here, i.e. representative democracy) work if the people don't even know what the government is doing? How can you hold the government accountable for anything if you don't know anything about it?

Total exposure to the truth may be an extreme but in my opinion it's far better then what there is now. Secrecy is a (sometimes useful) tool that should only be given to those who understand what they forfeit by using it.

As for security concerns, the Iraq leaks, for example, come after the end of the war (let's face it, it's over). As well as the afghan ones.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:02 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Bounty"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

" By actually redacting things, and publishing only need to know info.


You may be right, but who decides what is "need to know info", and where is the line between redacting and censorship?

I do believe there are exceptions to the rule "be honest all the time", but is a mentality such as "people shouldn't know because they are not qualified to understand" a good one? How can there be any democracy (we're talking about the thinnest kind here, i.e. representative democracy) work if the people don't even know what the government is doing? How can you hold the government accountable for anything if you don't know anything about it?

Total exposure to the truth may be an extreme but in my opinion it's far better then what there is now. Secrecy is a (sometimes useful) tool that should only be given to those who understand what they forfeit by using it.

As for security concerns, the Iraq leaks, for example, come after the end of the war (let's face it, it's over). As well as the afghan ones.
"

We have Freedom of Information Act to address what I think are your major concearns. As for security, I think outing our Afghan Tribal allies is a great way to get what support we have there murdered or stifled. It will help the Taliban and Al Queda. It seems like an act of someone involved in the war, not just watching. This is why you get reactions like "hang em." Why didn't they take out every single village and tribal leaders name? It took me just seconds of looking over it to find names. He might as well have been sitting on a hill radioing in targets.

Reply Parent Score: 2