Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
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 452868
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:28
in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
Member since:2007-02-17
" Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. " Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.
Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.
Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.
Edited 2010-12-09 00:28 UTC
RE[5]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:43
in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
Member since:2006-09-18
"[q] Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. " Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.
Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.
Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice. [/q]
You are correct about treason, but espionage is different. Many countries have espionage laws and might be willing to extradite someone who violates them.
RE[5]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:45
in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
Member since:2009-02-19
Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.
Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.
Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.
Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.
Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.
My bold. God, I love OSNews amature-hour universe-the-way-I-wish-it-was comments. Tital 18, quoted elsewhere, specifically states that if you operate in support of another party who attains and distributes classified data without clearance, you can be prosecuted for the offense in full measure. Note that it does not require that the other party be charged with anything, convicted of anything, or even be a U.S. citizen.
Towards the end of http://www.osnews.com/permalink?452778 , specifically:
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
Edit: cleaned up the quote blocks a bit.
Edited 2010-12-09 00:47 UTC
RE[5]: Completely disagree
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:38
in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
Member since:2010-03-30
Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.
Wrong. You forgot to add something like "and he does not live there.", which, now that I'm writing this, appears insufficient to covers all cases of people being judged in the US: I saw a documentary yesterday about the Nairobi bombing in 1998 and they said one of the terrorist has been judged in the US. So no, being a US citizen is not a complete requirement.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
"In the first episode of Microsoft's new film series 'On the Whiteboard', Editor Pamela Woon chats with two-time Oscar winner Randy Thom about the (often underestimated) importance of sound in human-technology interactions. Thom, the lead sound designer at Skywalker Ranch who worked on films such as The Incredibles, Castaway and Forrest Gump, says that people rarely consider the significance of those signature sounds that come from their trusty devices, whether it be a cell phone, a computer or a tablet."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
"Microsoft has sensationally abandoned its controversial plans to restrict the sharing of XBox One games, and has also removed daily online authentication requirements for its forthcoming console", reports The Guardian. They had no choice. Still a good move.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
"A snippet of code in the Steam digital distribution platform has revealed that Valve may be planning to let users easily share their games with friends in the future. The Verge has verified the code's authenticity, which was originally spotted by a member of the NeoGAF gaming forum; the code references a 'shared game library' and a notification that would alert a user when their games are currently in use by a borrower." This would change the, uh, game.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Official Apple statement on PRISM and privacy: "Regardless of the circumstances, our Legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it." This is basically Apple re-publishing their earlier statement in a more official manner. You either believe it, or you don't.
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
The open source Contiki operating system and its commercial Thingsquare distribution are making strides towards the connected home. According to a Computerworld article, a new LED light bulb manufacturer is putting small computers into their light bulbs. Each computer runs the Contiki OS, which gives each bulb an IP address and allows them to be controlled with a smartphone application. To connect the bulbs to the application, the bulbs use both Wi-Fi and the much lower power IEEE 802.15.4 mesh technology.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
"Google asked the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Tuesday to ease long-standing gag orders over data requests it makes, arguing that the company has a constitutional right to speak about information it's forced to give the government. The legal filing, which cites the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, is the latest move by the California-based tech giant to protect its reputation in the aftermath of news reports about sweeping National Security Agency surveillance of Internet traffic." Draining the ditch after the cow has drowned in it.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
"I can't find one person who has been using the Nexus 7 for an extended period of time, and hasn't seen a massive downgrade in performance. Just what kind of downgrade are we talking here? I cannot pick up my Nexus 7 without experiencing problems like a lag of ten seconds, or more, just to rotate the display; touches refusing to acknowledged; stuttering notification panel actions; and unresponsive apps." Fully and utterly agreed. My Nexus 7 was blazing-fast and awesome for a few months, and at some point, it just started sucking. Just like that. I've tried loads of ROMs, and nothing helps.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
A new release of the hobby operating system MenuetOS! The release notes are a bit non-descript, but you'll have to take what you can get: "updates and improvements (picview, httpc, ehci, ...)".
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
"The Internet is one of the most transformative technologies of our lifetimes. But for 2 out of every 3 people on earth, a fast, affordable Internet connection is still out of reach. And this is far from being a solved problem. There are many terrestrial challenges to Internet connectivity - jungles, archipelagos, mountains. There are also major cost challenges. Right now, for example, in most of the countries in the southern hemisphere, the cost of an Internet connection is more than a month's income. Solving these problems isn't simply a question of time: it requires looking at the problem of access from new angles. So today we're unveiling our latest moonshot from Google[x]: balloon-powered Internet access." Insane.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
"MineAssemble is a tiny bootable Minecraft clone written partly in x86 assembly. I made it first and foremost because a university assignment required me to implement a game in assembly for a computer systems course. Because I had never implemented anything more complex than a 'Hello World' bootloader before, I decided I wanted to learn about writing my own kernel code at the same time. Note that the goal of this project was not to write highly efficient hand-optimized assembly code, but rather to have fun and write code that balances readability and speed. This is primarily accomplished by proper commenting and consistent code structuring." Just cool.More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2009-02-19
This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody. "
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences.
Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable.
Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear.