4chan Hits PayPal, MasterCard, Others for WikiLeaks Snubs
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.
E-mail Print r 26   · Read More · 303 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ilp
Thread beginning with comment 452881
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


No, but, any U.S. organization that supports or works with Assange is potentially liable, see above. Materially, if Amazon had hosted WikiLeaks, or PayPal had continued to process payments to WikiLeaks, they could have been prosecuted under U.S. law.


Does this reasoning also apply to US press, such as the New York Times, who also published Wikileaks material?

If not, why not?

Read more on this theme here:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101...

All you need to know about Julian Assange’s value as a crusading journalist is that The New York Times and most of the world’s other leading newspapers have led daily with important news stories based on his WikiLeaks releases.


Also, if U.S. organizations are to be held accountable, since foreign nationals have been killed in the name of U.S. government lies, why should the U.S. governement also not be held accountable?

from the link above:
That is why U.S. governmental leaders will now employ the massive power of the state to discredit and destroy Assange, who dared let the public in on the depths of official deceit—a deceit that they hide behind in making their claims of protecting national security. Claims mocked by released cables that show that our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan are deeply corrupt and anti-democratic, and that al-Qaida continues to find its base of support not in those countries but rather in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, the very nations we arm and protect. The notion that the official tissue of lies enhances our security is rejected by the growing strength of radical Islam in the region, as evidenced by the success of Iran, the main beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq, as the leaked cables make clear.

The pretend patriots who use the national security argument to gut what remains of our most important security asset—our constitutional guarantees of a truly free press—are just what President George Washington feared when in his farewell address he warned “against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism. …”


Edited 2010-12-09 01:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 01:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Completely disagree"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Does this reasoning also apply to US press, such as the New York Times, who also published Wikileaks material?

If not, why not?

Read more on this theme here:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101.....


Ask the DoJ. It's remotely possible they could make a case, but it's not likely that they'd try. IANAL, but I doubt that just covering the story (or even commenting on some of the leaked information) would rise to the level of being party to the conspiracy.

Also, if U.S. organizations are to be held accountable, since foreign nationals have been killed in the name of U.S. government lies, why should the U.S. governement also not be held accountable?


An interesting question, if also a loaded question. As I recall, around the time of the last election, there where some voices calling for criminal investigations against Bush administration personnel for a variety of possible crimes rising out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I believe president Obama opted not to pursue such prosecutions, as a gesture of reconciliation to the far right. As to why international courts have not begun prosecutions... well, ask Geneva.

On a tangent, I'm a little bemused by how often you and I end up arguing, given that - and this might surprise you - our views in general tend to line up fairly closely.

Edited 2010-12-09 01:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 01:21 in reply to "RE[7]: Completely disagree"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I believe president Obama opted not to pursue such prosecutions, as a gesture of reconciliation to the far right.


That was nice of him</sarcasm>. Now, what about just recompense to the foreign nationals (and their families) who were killed as a direct result of U.S. lies such as WMD and the various shenannigans exposed via (not by) Wikileaks?

On a tangent, I'm a little bemused by how often you and I end up arguing, given that - and this might surprise you - our views in general tend to line up fairly closely.


I'm "difficult".

Edited 2010-12-09 01:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2