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 452855
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Bounty
by cheemosabe on Wed 8th Dec 2010 23:40 UTC 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

RE[9]: Comment by Bounty
by cheemosabe on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:10 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Bounty"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

I will ask you one thing. How big a fraction do you think is the information that has been uncovered by the Freedom of Information Act compared to what Wikileaks has uncovered? Do you think it is effective at all?

The Freedom of Information Act is like the government saying "this is what we are willing to let you know". Wikileaks is like (some of) the people fighting for the information _they_ think they ought to know. I think each has a right to fight but the US Government is playing dirty.

Honestly, they could protect their information better. If civilians get their hands on this so easily what about a security agency?

Edited 2010-12-09 00:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1