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 452948
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Hmmm
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 10:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

I still haven't seen how these cables revealed a crime. Still haven't seen how it benefits anyone. Someone, give me a concrete example.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-may-be-r...

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.

► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-mani...
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

Edited 2010-12-09 11:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmmm
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 16:05 in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Thanks again for the info. The media have been babbling about the thing without providing examples of where and how the US actions described in the leak are crimes. Except for stealing DNA information (which I am still wondering how it cool ever be of any usefulness to that gov't, but hey, I don't have their devious mind), the rest of it is not a crime by the US gov. Like
"King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran." or "Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available."... hardly a crime, not even by the least lenient standards.

People at Wikileaks are not the saints some have been portraying them as. I wasn't against their actions but that diplomatic thing was too much of a weight on one side of the balance (from my point of view)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Hmmm
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 21:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Thanks again for the info. The media have been babbling about the thing without providing examples of where and how the US actions described in the leak are crimes. Except for stealing DNA information (which I am still wondering how it cool ever be of any usefulness to that gov't, but hey, I don't have their devious mind), the rest of it is not a crime by the US gov. Like "King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran." or "Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available."... hardly a crime, not even by the least lenient standards. People at Wikileaks are not the saints some have been portraying them as. I wasn't against their actions but that diplomatic thing was too much of a weight on one side of the balance (from my point of view)


IMO the damaging one for the US is the last one.
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-mani...

This is basically US lies for utterly greedy, selfish purposes. The US shouldn't be playing with the ecological health of the planet all for the sake of the richest 2% of Americans to become even more insanely rich.

However, back to your point, ... if the information revealed via Wikileaks is not an issue, why the furore over it?

It is, after all, the US which is making the claim that Wikileaks is out to damage the US alone. (Clearly this is not so ... Wikileaks seeks to expose corruption and illegal behaviour whoever is perpetrating it.) The US is trying to find a way to bring some trumped-up charge against Assange, and extradite him to the US. The US is the party out to execute whistleblowers and suppress freedom of the press.

So, either the leaks are damaging to the US, and biased against the US, or they are not. Which is it?

Edited 2010-12-09 22:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2