backtop


Print 161 comment(s) - last by Skywalker123.. on Dec 10 at 6:46 PM


Wikileaks supporters were successful in temporarily damaging some of the world's largest financial institutions with web attacks, after they blocked donations to Wikileaks.  (Source: Myce)

While site founder Julian Assange and his small team of full-time volunteers have not been directly linked to the attacks, many of them, including Assange, have long histories in the world of cybercrime.  (Source: Boing Boing)
Site's allies down MasterCard, Swiss bank's sites, say it's payback for them blocking donations to the site

Add computer fraud to the list of crimes that Wikileaks' supporters are being investigated for. 

The move marks the site's supporters further distancing themselves from legality, as its followers have claimed responsibility for and appeared to be directing a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that targeted multiple financial institutions over the past few days.

The attacks come as the site's funding is being bled dry.  Last week Paypal announced that it was suspending the site's primary donations account, saying Wikileaks violated its terms of service by supporting criminal activity.  That left only a Swiss Bank account, a Swiss credit card processor, and an Australian post office box. 

Earlier this week the Swiss bank account PostFinance announced it also had suspended Wikileaks.  While the news followed Wikileaks publishing a list of top locations worldwide for terrorists to harm U.S. national security, the bank says its decision was made primarily because Wikileaks' founder lied in the paperwork he submitted to the bank.  In the paperwork Julian Assange claimed to be a Swiss resident, when in fact until his recent arrest, he resided in Iceland.

On Monday Mastercard announced that it would be blocking any donations to the site, due to it supporting illegal activity.  On Tuesday Visa announced a similar decision.  With the world's two largest credit card companies blocking donations, that leaves that lonely P.O. box in Australia as the sole means of donations.

Enraged, the site's allies embarked on a campaign of cybercrime.  Using a twitter account @anon_operation and posting in online forums, the allies organized attacks on Paypal, Mastercard, and PostFinance.

The attacks succeeded in making PostFinance unaccessible earlier this week and taking down MasterCard's homepage briefly earlier today.  The rogue twitter comments, "We are glad to tell you that [Mastercard.com] is down and it's confirmed. Operation: Payback (is a bitch!)"

Wikileaks has not officially endorsed the attacks on its web page on Twitter, nor did it condemn them.  The identity of the owner of the pro-Wikileaks Twitter account is unknown.  The attacks do seem to organized by posters on the popular imageboard site 4chan.

James Issokson, spokesperson for MasterCard stated, "The issue appears to be the result of a concentrated effort to flood our corporate website with traffic and slow access.  We are working to restore normal service levels."

He confirmed that while the attacks took down the company's home page, his customers' credit cards were still going strong, with virtually no service interruption. 

Likewise, despite an "attempted DDoS [denial-of-service] attack" over several days, PayPal spokeswoman Charlotte Hill concludes that the efforts to harm the site were largely unsuccessful.  States Ms. Hill, "These attacks have at times slowed the website itself down, but have not significantly impacted payments."

International authorities are investigating the recent round of attacks and possible relations to Wikileaks volunteers.

While the attacks have angered many in the financial community, Wikileaks has at least one remaining ardent supporter.  Swiss credit card firm DataCell claims that MasterCard and Visa's decision to suspend Wikileaks donations is illegal.  The company says it plans to take legal action against the credit card firms, stating, "The suspension of payments towards WikiLeaks is a violation of the agreements with their customers.  This does clearly create massive financial losses to WikiLeaks which seems to be the only purpose of this suspension."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

biased?
By FoundationII on 12/8/2010 3:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
I can't help but feel that this latest string of stories on wikileaks are incredibly biased.
The opponents of wikileaks did the same a few days ago and took the site down. If a DDOS attack by 4chan is cybercrime by wikileaks, the previous one was cybercrime by the US government.
Obviously neither side can be held responsible for the actions of a couple of supporters.




RE: biased?
By surt on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: biased?
By 3minence on 12/8/2010 3:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, you're starting to sound like Fox news. Anything they don't like is terrorism, and anything they do like is patriotic.

I don't agree with much of what wikileaks released recently (diplomatic cables), but I absolutely agree with making public acts by governments and companies that are illegal or immoral. Unfortunately I do not trust many of the people in my government (politicians mainly). I believe many of them to be self serving bastards who say one thing publicly and do another privately. A free press is critical for revealing those individuals and maintaining a responsible government. Wikileaks has gone too far, but I would rather have that then the alternative.

The fact the US may charge Assange and try to get him sent here is scary. Protesting the Chinese government is illegal in China. If I go outside with a sign that says 'China Sucks!', can China file charges and have me shipped there to stand trial? That's in effect what the US is thinking doing.


RE: biased?
By ecktt on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: biased?
By Solandri on 12/9/2010 12:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jason, you're starting to sound like Fox news.

It's funny, back when Michael Asher was around, Jason was accused of being a left-wing shill.

quote:
The fact the US may charge Assange and try to get him sent here is scary. Protesting the Chinese government is illegal in China. If I go outside with a sign that says 'China Sucks!', can China file charges and have me shipped there to stand trial? That's in effect what the US is thinking doing.

If you go to, say, Vietnam and hold a sign saying "China Sucks!", and China asks Vietnam to arrest and extradite you, they very well might do it. It's called having friendly relations. For better or for worse, that's the way these international things work. If one country likes another (or is offered sufficient incentive), they may very well do what the other country asks for. It might not be fair, but basically it boils down to what's more important to the country - their relationship with the other country, or some individual and their principles.

If you scrape away the thin veneer of "liberty", "justice", and "rights" with which most countries adorn themselves, you'll find that they're all pretty selfish and will almost always choose their own self interests over that of an individual's.


RE: biased?
By mfergus on 12/9/2010 12:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
Jason is far more left winged than right winged if you follow him. Not that theres anything wrong with that.


RE: biased?
By DigitalFreak on 12/8/2010 3:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
It's nothing new for Mick. His hatred for Julian Assange and Wikileaks is well known around here. You're never going to get anything close to unbiased blogging from him.


RE: biased?
By surt on 12/8/2010 5:26:41 PM , Rating: 1
My goal isn't to get unbiased blogging from him, but to get DailyTech to dump him. Otherwise, I'm dumping DailyTech.


RE: biased?
By torpor on 12/8/2010 6:36:09 PM , Rating: 4
In another view, Jason had this story covered well before anyone in the major media outlets even seemed to have it on their radar.

Dailytech was practically the first to break this story, and quite frankly, has taken a much more even-handed apporach than many. The headline might be a bit bombastic, but "terrorism" isn't really out of line for the DDoS attacks waged against MC and banks, and the story is pretty even.

As for dumping DailyTech, I'm sure no one will miss you; and any one troll's adviews are worth pennies, at best.

But go on feeling you've Stuck A Blow For Freedom. Then go upstairs and get one of those cookies your mommy just finished baking.


RE: biased?
By DigitalFreak on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: biased?
By DigitalFreak on 12/8/2010 8:51:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My goal isn't to get unbiased blogging from him, but to get DailyTech to dump him. Otherwise, I'm dumping DailyTech.


Glad you used the term blogging, 'cause he sure isn't a journalist.

DailyTech has become a joke. Nothing more than global warming nutjobs and a guy with a hardon for Wikileaks now. I'd love to see Anandtech dump them so they just disappear.


lolz
By xrodney on 12/8/2010 3:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is getting funny, how the hell can bank institution block someones account without court order.
There is so far no proof that wikileaks did anything illegal so there is no solid ground they can stand for freezing their money.
And about DDOS attack, there is again no proof that wikileaks owners did it and they are not responsible for what they supporters do.
And if someone forget they also were under attack last few days.




RE: lolz
By surt on 12/8/2010 3:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how the hell can bank institution block someones account without court order


I'm pretty sure it's just menu option in their admin software.

(You might more practically ask: why isn't it illegal for them to do so?)

This is the risk you take when you trust your money to a bank. They can take your money any time they'd like.


RE: lolz
By xrodney on 12/8/2010 3:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
It is illegal and its called FRAUD.

Only legal thing they can do is to cancel your account, but then they must give you your money (ie. sent to your other bank account that you provide).


RE: lolz
By nafhan on 12/8/2010 5:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's where Wikileaks has a problem. If a bank commits fraud, how do you fight it? Traditionally, you'd use the legal system of the country in which the bank is based. Having done their best to upset the gov. and legal systems of countries around the globe, that might be hard for them to do ,successfully, and the banks seem to think so, too.
In other words, WL has put itself in a difficult spot as far as legally procuring money goes. Without some completely anonymous, international monetary system (a la Neal Stephenson), that will likely continue to be the case.


RE: lolz
By Fritzr on 12/9/2010 7:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
Nope it's called enforcing the Depositor's Agreement you signed before they permitted you to open your account. If you have a bank account, I would advise you to read the fine print of that agreement. The banks pretty much reserve the right to freeze accounts while they "review" to see if you violated the agreement & they can freeze accounts if they "believe" that legal action may be taken in the future.

From what was said in the article, the Swiss bank closed the account. This normally means an administrative fee is deducted from the balance on deposit and a check for the remainder is then mailed to the former account holder. Or, if legal action is anticipated, the check may be held until the courts have rendered a decision.

The details are in the fine print and in the various laws and regulations that are made part of the agreement by reference. If you don't like this behavior, then you are permitted to move your account to a different bank.

Of course some of the restrictions are to conform to the laws of the country where the bank is chartered, but most are the result of the bank's lawyers dreaming up ways to enhance revenue.


RE: lolz
By Aikouka on 12/8/2010 3:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
Why would a bank need a court order to freeze/suspend an account when the bank is the one that decided to do so? I think you may be referring to when a government agency wishes to do so (as they would need authority to command the bank). I would think that as long as the bank is operating within its terms and agreements that you signed in agreement to when you opened the account, it is doing nothing wrong.

At least that's my take on the situation....


RE: lolz
By foolsgambit11 on 12/8/2010 4:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
They can suspend your account, but they can't keep any money you have in it without a court order (or they shouldn't be able to, at least). But I bet Wikileaks would be able to transfer their money to another bank if they requested it - unless the bank is covering for some secret warrant that was issued, which I doubt.


RE: lolz
By Dug on 12/8/2010 9:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
They are blocking the account, because of illegal activity. The banks have proven he has lied on applications, so it is in their right. Even if he has lied on one application, it can be in the banks right to freeze the account because of fraud in another account. This is well known and shouldn't be a surprise.
If I lie about where I live to get a bank account opened here, then when I go to another location and they find that out, I can get suspended. This prevents money laundering.


I do like something Wikileaks has done
By DoeBoy on 12/8/2010 3:35:17 PM , Rating: 5
I had no idea how many civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan until the release of documents by Wikileaks. That much civilian death is un-acceptable and only creates more terrorists. When was the last time the United States was in a war of necessity? Last I remember it was WWII. Lets not forget the military industrial machine of the US needs wars to keep the funds up. If I were in any other country outside of the US I would look at the US as a bunch of bully's with our military bases spread across the world and constantly not letting things play out the way they should. You can't make people want a democracy they have to fight for it themselves which is one of the reasons this nation was founded. To think that we the United States of America somehow know whats best for everybody else is seriously flawed. Most of these problems we have we brought on ourselves because of our bad decisions and little thought/contemplation about consequences.




By DigitalFreak on 12/8/2010 3:41:13 PM , Rating: 4
I'd rate you up if I hadn't already posted.


RE: I do like something Wikileaks has done
By michal1980 on 12/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: I do like something Wikileaks has done
By charrytg on 12/8/2010 5:18:18 PM , Rating: 3
Either that or the people who rate you down dislike how you butcher the English language in the same sentence that where you call someone else an idiot.


By karielash on 12/9/2010 4:15:10 AM , Rating: 2

I'd rate you up..... but alas I had stirred this pot repeatedly.


RE: I do like something Wikileaks has done
By cmdrdredd on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 3:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, we only care about American deaths, who cares how many civilian women and children we napalm or blow to bits? After all they're heathens!


Vote with your feet
By BZDTemp on 12/8/2010 7:18:28 PM , Rating: 1
I closed my Paypal account and made sure they know why.




RE: Vote with your feet
By cmdrdredd on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vote with your feet
By karielash on 12/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vote with your feet
By Phenick on 12/9/2010 1:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. You must have pressed the "Baa Lock" key cause all I am seeing is sheepish.


RE: Vote with your feet
By DigitalFreak on 12/9/2010 8:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: Vote with your feet
By Dug on 12/8/2010 9:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
Really? You can't be that naive, can you?


RE: Vote with your feet
By karielash on 12/9/2010 1:04:41 AM , Rating: 1

Really? You cannot be that gullible can you?


RE: Vote with your feet
By BZDTemp on 12/9/2010 9:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
:-) I'm not naive and of course I know that my closing of my account changes anything. The same thing can be said for one person voting at a national election but still we all know it matters (or hope it does).

When I post about closing my Paypal account it is of course to promote the thought. If enough people does take action due to Paypal buckling to political pressure then they will know not only to listen to people like Joe Lieberman.


RE: Vote with your feet
By Robear on 12/8/2010 11:50:36 PM , Rating: 3
I closed my account, too. Vote with your dollars, as they say. It seems to be the only way to vote anymore.

Funny how PayPal states that their actions were based on political pressure, then retract said statement 6 hours later.


RE: Vote with your feet
By Fritzr on 12/9/2010 7:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
<tinfoil hat>
They probably issued the retraction due to political pressure
</tinfoil hat>


Guess we know what color hat they wear...
By morphologia on 12/8/2010 2:55:54 PM , Rating: 5
And how exactly does this contribute to the greater good? It's bad enough when they get all sanctimonious, here and on other similar sites, talking about how the US is the Evil Empire and deserves to be strung up (despite the fact that the US is NOT the only nation affected), but now they respond to opposition with cyber-terrorism?? All that they'll really accomplish is the drastic reduction of Wikileaks' credibility as an altruistic renegade news source, instead helping to paint them as the chosen cause celebre of malicious cyber-meddlers.




By stilltrying on 12/9/2010 12:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Greater good", I guess we know this ones politics so long as he/she is part of the greater good.


By zzeoss on 12/9/2010 2:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
I mostly agree, just somem observations:

quote:
All that they'll really accomplish is the drastic reduction of Wikileaks' credibility


Wikileaks are not affiliated with the attacks, just as Jammie Thomas was not affiliated witht he attacks against RIAA and MPAA.
It's just the way Jason puts things in the same sentence that gives the impression that it's all the same thing (altho what he says is correct, he just doesn't outline things strongly enough)

quote:
but now they respond to opposition with cyber-terrorism??


They always responded to oppresion with cyber-something (don't know if i'd call DDoS terrorism).

If what the other commenters is correct (that a business/bank can choose to not provide a service to someone), then ok, their right, but i don't agree. It offers safe means to marginalize someone.

So someone else doesn't agree and decides to DDoS them. Looks like a different story to me.


Hmmm
By huffboy on 12/8/2010 5:41:34 PM , Rating: 1
If wikileaks leaking data is legal (even if it damages other people) then the terrorists just crashed 2 airplanes into the WTC and killed thousands (perhaps to test structural integrity) should be all good too.




RE: Hmmm
By bernardl on 12/8/2010 7:55:47 PM , Rating: 3
Hum... if such leaks had prevented the war in Irak anywhwere between 100.000 and 500.000 innocent civilians lifes in Irak might have been saved.

I support the leaks and I don't understand the least why so many US citizens, always ready to scream when too much gov is around, don't.

Cheers,
Bernard


RE: Hmmm
By cmdrdredd on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmm
By Paj on 12/9/2010 11:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
lol, wut?

You hate on your government when they try and do something morally justifiable (universal healthcare, alternative energy development, cleaner transport) and then defend them when theyve done something morally wrong (covered up atrocities in iraq and afghanistan, lied about arab collusion regarding iran, tried to collect sensitive information about UN delegates, etc, etc)

Why do you think the government is in damage control mode?


RE: Hmmm
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 3:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
"Because unlike jackass countries like Germany and the UK we CAN have it both ways. Sensitive information that the public doesn't need to see while still having a small government that is built FOR the people and not for special groups"

Are you really that naive?


Call a spade a spade
By Daverino on 12/8/2010 4:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
I had this inkling a while back but now it's more or less confirmed. This has less to do with freedom of information and more about supporting anarchy. There is one thing about revealing governmental deception that is fundamentally harmful, such as what the NY Times released in the Pentagon Papers. Then there's releasing confidential and classified documents that serve no purpose but to undermine the functioning of a government or institution. Imagine how horrified most people would be to find out their medical records were released to the public at large? True, it was confidential information and now it is public. But it served no greater purpose in its release outside of doing one person harm. If anything has been shown by the recent Wikileaks releases, it's that it is more about harming and undermining the diplomatic workings of the United States and other members of the free world and far far less than exposing deception and corruption.

If the NY Times got a list of everyone's credit card numbers or the complete medical records of everyone in NYC, would they be protected by the First Amendment if they published them on the front page? Hardly. The protections afforded to the NY Times in the Pentagon Papers cases were given because the Papers specifically showed that the government was deceiving the people it led. The Wikileaks material does not meet that criteria.

And so my conclusion that this has nothing to do with exposing corruption but doing harm to those in power for the sake of doing harm and for the reason that there are people in power. That's anarchism. Sticking it to the man for the sake of sticking it to the man. They also want to take down banks (power), credit card companies (power) and popular web sites (power) that don't agree with them.

If I wanted to roll back to the stone ages, I'd be supportive of anarchists.




RE: Call a spade a spade
By Nik00117 on 12/8/2010 8:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100% I got no problems with whistle blowing. If the Gov is doing something wrong I want to know about it. But I want to see classified documents that serve purpose other then undermining us...Wikileaks has gone from whistle blowing to full blown assault and we'll see the world assaulting back.

Wikileaks had some info (or has) on Russian Gov and what they are up to. The Russians told Wikileaks "Publish it, see what happens"

The U.S Should take the same approach. If anything I would say go after not only the head (which we already got but the arms, and feet as well!)


RE: Call a spade a spade
By Dug on 12/8/2010 9:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
I like that quote "Publish it, see what happens"


WikiLeaks Can't Possibly Be Stopped
By Qi on 12/8/2010 4:31:28 PM , Rating: 4
It's hopelessly naive to think WikiLeaks, or similar organisations, can be stopped. Take the United States, where several million people have access to classified information. With so many people having access, sooner or later someone will leak. Furthermore, since we're living in the Information Age, once the information is out, it's impossible to contain. In fact, trying to contain the information is counterproductive. The entire archive - albeit in encrypted form - is already on The Pirate Bay, with millions of people having access to it. And the DDoS attack on the WikiLeaks website was a total failure as well; as of today, the site has over 1250 mirrors and perhaps a dozen official domain names (.org, .at, .ch, .de, .fi, .is, etc).

As for companies like Amazon, Visa, MasterCard and PayPal not wanting to deal with WikiLeaks, that's not going to hurt them one bit. There are thousands of internet service providers around the planet and they found a new one already in the Swedish PRQ. Similarly, there are thousands of financial service providers around the world. And even if you strip them of all their cash - not going to happen - it's likely that staunch freedom of speech supporters will pay for their expenses anyway. People in London, like Ken Loach, Jemima Khan and John Pilger were already willing to pay the bail out for Julian Assange.

Like it or not, but these guys can't be stopped. It's all damage control, damage control, damage control and hoping there is not going to be any (more) evidence of illegal activity by the United States government in the documents.




By Aloonatic on 12/9/2010 6:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
I quite agree with most of what you've said. So maybe it's more about stopping information getting out that stopping people from getting it to the media?

The US does have a lot of room for improvement. If you talk to anyone who has dealt with the US government or military, they will tell you that they are actually pretty lax when it comes to keeping anything other than the most sensitive of information secret. I suppose it's one of the down sides of being such a big nation, and having so many fingers in so many pies that it makes it very difficult to keep things "need to know" and all that, but it seems that there are some fairly simple (but no doubt hard to implement over bureaucracy as large as the US government and all it's branches internally, and across the globe) issues around limiting exposure to information that they can work on to (at least) reduce the risk of and/or volume of information that will almost inevitably leak out, sooner or later.

Part of what makes this sort of campaign works is that there is so much information (regardless of how genuinely informative or revealing/sensational) that they can keep on dripping it into the news streams, so as to keep people's attention on it for a long period of time, which is hard to do these days as people and the media have such short attention spans. It's somewhat reminiscent of how the British MPs expenses story was handled. If they had released a small amount of information that contained all the juicy details all at once, it would not have had a fraction of the impact that the story did in the end. Mostly because they had a large volume of information that was just about interesting enough to make the news, which they could use to keep the story going for a long period of time.

If governments can reduce the amount of that sort of information getting out, then even if there are some big stories that get out, the way the news is handled and press release trained "journalists" (who wait for stories to land in their laps), I don;t think that they would have as much of an impact.


What a great idea!
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2010 3:02:45 PM , Rating: 4
Attack the people who can help you get paid. That always works well.

Good luck with your malicious efforts, guys. Unfortunately for you all, assaults like these can land you in jail.

I guess they'll need to setup a donation fund to pay the legal fees. Oh no, wait a minute on that. Whoops.




RE: What a great idea!
By SunAngel on 12/8/2010 3:25:34 PM , Rating: 1
Yet, when discussing the theft of intellectual property (i.e. DVD copying) no one seems to give a hoots' ass about that and the laws of nations that go to great lengths to protect the livelihood of its citizens.

I've tried a million times to understand the audience here, but with so much maneuvering by anti-DCMA enthusiasts to avoid the heart of the matter and so much following by weak-minded post adolescents the spiral of lawlessness continues except for the occasional bandwagon run when something hits to close to home to take an opposite stance and risk well-being.


Won't achieve anything?
By rpsgc on 12/9/2010 5:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.neowin.net/news/paypal-releases-wikilea...

Won't achieve anything eh? They got Paypal with their tail between their legs.




RE: Won't achieve anything?
By Aloonatic on 12/9/2010 6:34:52 AM , Rating: 3
I also heard on the radio (BBC) that PayPal had admitted to having received a letter from the US government prior to suddenly realising that wiki-leaks were potentially very naughty boys and girls, so should have their account suspended.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The first real politically motivate DDOS attack with a level of public support.

Also, there was a guy on the radio over here saying that he had a blog that had a link to a program that anyone can download so that they can take part in this attack. The reason for the attack has also become a little more vague, with participants talking about governments infringing on the "free" internet, and that this is a protest against that too, not just in support of wiki-leaks.

Anyway, a more conventional protest march or traditional campaign has a physical and mental limit to how long they can be sustained. However, a web based attack that can be joined by anyone with a computer and an internet connection could last indefinitely. How long can PayPal etc put up with this? How will they respond to a similar situation in the future, or guard against this sort of attack?


Swiss
By Desslok on 12/8/2010 2:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
I am not surprised in the least a Swiss company is "standing" up for these guys. They see a payout or they have been offered money to do this. Nice to see the Swiss banks/financial institutions haven't changed any since they were the preferred bank for the Nazi party.




RE: Swiss
By morphologia on 12/8/2010 3:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
"Ethics? What's that got to do with it? We're a financial firm."

--Any given financial institution


Terrorism? Lay off the drugs
By rpsgc on 12/8/2010 5:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Terrorist Plot"

What? Since when is a DDOS attack "terrorism" ? Oh, it's Jason Mick :rolleyes:

How Jason Mick is still here is beyond me. He's a disgrace to journalists everywhere. His extremely biased, scaremonger and deceitful articles have no place in a site like DailyTech.




RE: Terrorism? Lay off the drugs
By spread on 12/8/2010 8:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Terrorist Plot" What? Since when is a DDOS attack "terrorism" ? Oh, it's Jason Mick


Jason is one of the most valuable people at Dailytech. His fight against the truth keeps everyone safe (or something like that). He knows what is best for us, he tells us that.

Let's all support Jason in his fight against truth and freedom!


I'm close to being done
By Phenick on 12/8/2010 6:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
I rarely post on here but I have been an avid daily reader since 2004 and, Jason, a "mick"-article to me has traditionally meant something different but every day it get's closer to being anti-wikileaks propaganda. Every day I am closer to being one less visitor to this entire site. I am glad you report on these things but PLEASE stop spinning your opinion into the articles. I can't take it.




RE: I'm close to being done
By DigitalFreak on 12/9/2010 8:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
Guess you missed his anti-Wikileaks tirade a few months ago.


Options
By Robear on 12/8/2010 11:58:21 PM , Rating: 4
What options do we have?

I'm an American citizen. I live in the states. All fired up over this, I sat down and seriously considered, "Ok talk is cheap. Enough whining. What can I do? Whether I support the actions or am against, how do I let my government know?"

I can't. I don't. I believe this is why we're seeing such a huge protest via illegal means: most of us have no legal recourse. We wish to be heard but have no voice.

(And for the record, this would be the equivalent of an "Cyber-riot" as opposed to a terrorist attack)

Sparing the flames, what options do I have? Call my congressman? Wait until I can participate in a poll? Picket? Tweet and hope my congressman watches the trends (and cares)? I pose this as a serious question, because I cannot see what actions I have that would make a difference, even with an idealist hope.




By overlandpark4me on 12/8/2010 8:21:16 PM , Rating: 3
That's the best these script kiddies can do, lol. when that loser is in jail, he could have them work on a "denial of entry" script. He'll need it.




General
By RugMuch on 12/8/2010 2:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is turning into a life for a eye.. on both sides.




Being a nitpicker...
By Natfly on 12/8/2010 3:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the paperwork Julian Assange claimed to be a Swiss citizen, when in fact he is an Australian citizen


...but the reason given by the bank is that Assange claimed to be a "resident" of Switzerland, not a citizen.

http://www.postfinance.ch/en/about/media/press/pre...




wrong information in article
By Murloc on 12/8/2010 4:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
PostFinance is NOT a bank.
It does stuff that banks do too, but it's not legally a bank.




It's all good
By Beenthere on 12/8/2010 11:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
This will ultimately lead to more hackers in prison, so it's a good thing. Assange will have cellmates. Works for me.




What a joke
By stilltrying on 12/8/2010 11:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorists calling terrorists, terrorists!!Great Scott. The word terror, terrorists and terrifying are being used an awful lot these days, I am so sick of this word. What a word to try and strike terror in everybody. Two sides battling over the word terrorists and who gets to own it. I wish they would pull this word out of the dictionary and anyone who gets caught saying it gets shipped to the middle of the Sahara.

Financial terorists (banks) calling spying terrorists (wikileaks/4chan) terrorists and vice versa. Im getting confused from all the TERROR!!! What a Hollywood show.




Government is the terrorist
By Shadowmaster625 on 12/9/2010 8:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
When Hank Paulson goes to congress and says give me $700 billion or there will be tanks in the streets, that is financial terrorism. Like I said many times, lawlessness in government begets more lawlessness. At any rate there is no direct link between wikileaks and the actions of hackers. It has been known for a long time that many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands were already planning some kind of action against the banks in Europe on or around Dec 7th.




By Deathtwinkie on 12/9/2010 3:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it that Wikileaks doesn't come out with anything about aliens, UFO's, shadow governments, Area51, alien bases, underground bases of ours? Atleast I never read anything about them releasing info of this nature.




By masamasa on 12/8/2010 5:03:55 PM , Rating: 1
The attacks succeeded in making PostFinance unaccessible earlier this week and taking down MasterCard's homepage briefly earlier today. The rogue twitter comments, "We are glad to tell you that [Mastercard.com] is down and it's confirmed. Operation: Payback (is a bitch!)"

Clearly, a very 'mature' bunch of senseless idiots.




That seems fair!
By shikigamild on 12/9/2010 2:59:10 AM , Rating: 1
I mean, continuous DOS Attacks to Wikileaks servers, taking down the DNS services and putting political pressure to deny services to Wikileaks it's an OK.

But if a bunch of 4chan-tards do a DOS attack to a financial institution that refused offering services to Wikileaks... THAT JUST PROVE THAT WIKILEAKS ARE FUCKING TERRORISTS!!!




By spread on 12/8/2010 8:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't understand why so many of you girls have your panties in such a wad over Jason's reporting. I looks like it is a very simple stating of the facts of the situation without any spin applied whatsoever. Bravo Jason, keep up the good work! PS I just added some more funds to my paypal account and charged some stuff on Mastercard and Visa.


I agree. Let's support Jason and the financial institutions! They know what is best for us. Right now, I am writing a check for $100 to Visa and Mastercard. I believe in their fight against truth and freedom, and I will support them!

Let's all help the banks! They know what is best for us.


By cmdrdredd on 12/8/2010 8:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe in their fight against truth and freedom, and I will support them! Let's all help the banks! They know what is best for us.


There is certain things people don't need to know. Your social security number for example, how about your bank account numbers and PIN number for the ATM? Care to let that all out? Yeah freedom of information and all so post it up for us. No? I didn't think so...

You fucking idiot


By spread on 12/8/2010 9:24:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There is certain things people don't need to know. Your social security number for example, how about your bank account numbers and PIN number for the ATM? Care to let that all out? Yeah freedom of information and all so post it up for us. No? I didn't think so... You fucking idiot


Hey, be nice. I'm just trying to help.

I agree with you. State secrets like killing civilians, fraud, those are exactly the same as personal bank account numbers or they key to your house.

The government should be able to keep these secrets away from us, for our own good! I don't want to know how many innocent people have been killed by the American government. I could be one of those people!

We must all help the government in the fight against the truth, then we will all be safe and alive unless the government says so. They know what is best.


By Dug on 12/8/2010 9:58:40 PM , Rating: 1
You really need a lot of history lessons. You have no idea.

On another note, Jason is doing a good job.


By spread on 12/8/2010 10:20:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You really need a lot of history lessons. You have no idea.


Of course I do. Thank you! It's rare to get such advice without any evidence or examples to back it up.

You must be very credible to not need facts!


By Dug on 12/8/2010 10:50:26 PM , Rating: 1
You have no idea, because of your words, so it is obvious. People that know all the facts, not just what wikileaks thinks is important, know that he is just producing propaganda for more coverage. Unfortunately you and most people don't know circumstances or the full reason behind any of the released documents.

For history, you might want to read up on WWII and see why secrets can be a benefit to your well being. Or the Cuban missile crises, in which information was withheld from the press. Secrets were necessary to prevent one of the greatest threats to your cozy existence.

You obviously have never served in the military to defend our country. If you had you wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.


By Dug on 12/8/2010 10:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Is the U.S. perfect? No. Is there corruption? Yes.
But if someone posts stolen documents to benefit himself (why does he ask for so many donations?), and threaten the country I live in, then there is no mercy on his well being. Because he has threatened mine.


By spread on 12/8/2010 11:26:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
threaten the country I live in, then there is no mercy on his well being. Because he has threatened mine.


Exactly! It's the messenger's fault. The US is completely innocent in this case. They just do what every country does! Who can blame them?

It's this guy's fault. If he didn't fight to reveal the truth, then maybe everyone would like the United States!


By Solandri on 12/9/2010 12:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
The "shooting the messenger" analogy is flawed in this case because the harm is arising from what the messenger is doing.

Normally, a "shooting the messenger" analogy describes a situation in which an incident occurs, and the messenger simply reports the occurrence. Your wife is murdered and the messenger reports it to you. Killing the messenger won't change the situation, won't bring your wife back to life, so there is no point to shooting the messenger. It's a purely emotional and irrational response to the news the messenger carries.

This case is quite the opposite. Manning copied a bunch of documents to his hard drive and sent them to Wikileaks. As long as those documents stayed on his hard drive and Wikileaks didn't do anything with them, no harm was done. It's the act of Wikileaks making the documents public which is causing the harm. So yes, in this case, it really is the messenger's fault. And the rational response is to target Wikileaks.

(Note that this is completely different from the argument about whether Wikileaks should be allowed to publish said documents. I believe they should. I think they should be doing it a lot more responsibly than they currently are, but fundamentally I believe once the secret is out, the recipient only has a moral obligation to keep it secret, not a legal one. Likewise, I also believe the U.S. government and MC/Paypal are also well within their rights to try to stop Wikileaks in any legal manner.)


By Fritzr on 12/9/2010 7:05:54 AM , Rating: 1
A bank robber hands a note to the teller.

A) customer tells security guard about this and gets arrested.
B) security guard notices the transaction and arrests the robber for delivering a message.

Case A is shooting the messenger
Case B is shooting the guilty party

Julian Assange is case B.


By DigitalFreak on 12/9/2010 8:35:36 AM , Rating: 2
Replying to your own post is a sign of mental retardation.


By spread on 12/8/2010 11:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have no idea, because of your words, so it is obvious. People that know all the facts, not just what wikileaks thinks is important, know that he is just producing propaganda for more coverage. Unfortunately you and most people don't know circumstances or the full reason behind any of the released documents.


You're right! Stolen documents with evidence are propaganda! Because propaganda always has facts and evidence behind it. That's what makes it propaganda! Thanks for helping me figure it out.

quote:

You obviously have never served in the military to defend our country. If you had you wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.


You're right. I should probably serve in Iraq. Those pesky insurgents are defending their country. How dare they! America is always right! I should go there and defend America's oil! And kill those pesky civilians that get in the way. Hey, mistakes happen, right? No one has to know about it.

Such honor and bravery. This is exactly like World War II.

I'll come home a hero!


By Dug on 12/9/2010 12:51:44 AM , Rating: 1
Again you show your ignorance. You have no facts, because you don't have all the information. You are making assumptions based on fragments.
And if you don't respect the military, then please leave this country. You mock the the very people that give you the freedom to do what you do.


By spread on 12/9/2010 1:26:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Again you show your ignorance. You have no facts, because you don't have all the information. You are making assumptions based on fragments. And if you don't respect the military, then please leave this country. You mock the the very people that give you the freedom to do what you do.


Because I care more about freedom that means I should leave the country! Maybe I should be supporting the occupation of two foreign countries like you guys. I guess I care too much about justice, so I should leave the country!

I'm not a patriot because I care about civilians. I should be a REAL patriot like you guys and support the corporations pushing for the wars!


By spread on 12/9/2010 1:40:14 AM , Rating: 3
Hey guys, you know those awesome full body scanners in the fight against terrorism? You know who's lobbying the government and filling his pockets with cash?

Michael Chertoff, former department of homeland security head! He's so smart! I like him. Thanks to him, I get a free grope at the airport now, and I can even be sexually assaulted! This will make for some stories later. I'm so glad he's lobbying to destroy that pesky fourth amendment in the name of security. I feel very safe now that I can be sexually assaulted at the airport! I don't need privacy because I have nothing to hide.

The government needs privacy, but I don't. I trust the government completely.

I'm hoping that in the future, I can get a colonoscopy at the airport because terrorists might be hiding bombs in their ass. Silly terrorists!

Here's some evil facts, don't read them:
http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays...


By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 2:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
You can stop waving the flag now.


By Fritzr on 12/9/2010 7:11:38 AM , Rating: 2
Information used as propaganda can be either true or false. What makes it propaganda is the intent to convince the target audience that whatever point you are trying to make is true. The goal does not even need to be related to the message, as long as the intended effect occurs.


By Paj on 12/9/2010 8:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
So in that case, its be the press that are guilty of propaganda - they are the ones choosing which cables to publish stories about. Not wikileaks.


By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 2:45:00 AM , Rating: 3
One of the secrets of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that the U.S. agreed to remove nukes aimed at Russia that were located in Turkey. How was that necessary? It was concealed to cover up the fact that contrary to American propaganda that we won, actually Russia got what they wanted all along, the missiles removal.


By stilltrying on 12/8/2010 11:53:58 PM , Rating: 1
LOL, you think there is going to be any SS for you when you get older, oh boy how naive.


By spread on 12/9/2010 1:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
Of course there is going to be social security! The government said so. The government never lies. They know what is best for us.

Let's all trust the government completely and always!


Beat down
By Ammohunt on 12/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Beat down
By surt on 12/8/2010 3:19:22 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah! Statists too!


RE: Beat down
By zippyzoo on 12/8/2010 3:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
Try not to agree with ammohunt, he's about informed as Ken Ham.


RE: Beat down
By Ammohunt on 12/8/2010 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 1
Then you woke up in a puddle...Was that an insult? try harder!

*Tip: no one knows who Ken Ham is including myself(had to google him and still not sure how the reference to him makes any sense at all).


RE: Beat down
By Iaiken on 12/8/2010 3:27:15 PM , Rating: 5
They can move to places where anarchy is already the norm:

Come visit sunny Sierra Leone!

Do what you want, when you want to whoever you want. Don't forget to bring your Kalashnikov, you're going to need it!

True freedom is only a plane ride away.*

* No flights available from any credible carriers, smugglers may sell for less.


RE: Beat down
By spread on 12/8/2010 8:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anarchists need to get the beat down everytime they show their face in public.


I agree! We should all be supporting our dear friends in the United States Government. They know what is best for everyone.

The truth puts people's lives at risk!


RE: Beat down
By Ammohunt on 12/9/2010 2:52:30 PM , Rating: 1
There is this obscure concept based on folkways and mores called "The Rule of Law" you should study it so should Assange.


RE: Beat down
By spread on 12/9/2010 10:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is this obscure concept based on folkways and mores called "The Rule of Law" you should study it so should Assange.


You're right! Assange has broken American laws and he should be put in jail! Australia is the 53rd state, right? Wait, just checked the map. Yes it is. Put the bastard in jail! War criminal! He killed soldiers!

Anyways, let's not apply the laws to the people in power. We should trust them completely and leave them alone! Look how awesome everything turned out! They know what is best for us!

I'm sure they will make the best decisions they can, just like before! I can't wait!


RE: Beat down
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 2:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeh, lets kill em all and let Jesus sort them out!


Seems clear cut to me.
By rwpritchett on 12/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By xrodney on 12/8/2010 3:27:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Supporting illegal activities is against the terms of service for MC and Visa. Therefore, MC and Visa are within their rights to suspend donations.


Its up to court to decide if someones action is illegal its not and never will be financial institution decision.

quote:
Possessing and distributing stolen property is illegal

Are you kidding me ? Since when is information itself someones property ? Did you ever think for even second what journalists do ?


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By nafhan on 12/8/2010 3:41:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Its up to court to decide if someones action is illegal
As private companies, Visa and MC can pretty much cancel any account they want as long as they feel like there's reasonable justification to do so (i.e. ToS violation). So, it'd really be up to WL to prove that they weren't doing something illegal if they want to get their accounts reinstated, and I don't see that happening.
quote:
Since when is information itself someones property
Check out the definition of intellectual property. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all the laws regarding IP or that they even apply in this case, but information can definitely belong to someone, legally.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Gul Westfale on 12/8/2010 3:55:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
They may be protected against the US Espionage Act of 1917 as news organizations are allowed to publish confidential military and national security information if they did not directly solicit it. After the Pentagon Papers were leaked in, the US Supreme Court ruled that “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Legal_statu...


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By nafhan on 12/8/2010 5:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
The legal status of Wikileaks in regards to the closing of the accounts hardly matters - unless Wikileaks plans to legally pursue MC, Visa, etc. for shutting them down. I don't see that happening, and, likely, neither do the financial institutions in question.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Hieyeck on 12/9/2010 8:41:25 AM , Rating: 5
Do you read or think?

quote:
While the attacks have angered many in the financial community, Wikileaks has at least one remaining ardent supporter. Swiss credit card firm DataCell claims that MasterCard and Visa's decision to suspend Wikileaks donations is illegal. The company says it plans to take legal action against the credit card firms, stating, "The suspension of payments towards WikiLeaks is a violation of the agreements with their customers. This does clearly create massive financial losses to WikiLeaks which seems to be the only purpose of this suspension."


Last paragraph. Just sayin'

The legal status of WL completely matters if Mastercard and Visa say it is WL's legal status that's the issue with their TOS.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Topweasel on 12/9/2010 10:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
You say that like it matters. As a company Visa and Mastercard is allowed to terminate people at will in the United States as long as it isn't for the usual reasons religion, sex, sexual orientations, disabilities and so on. If it was a none US business then in theory is applies even less and for all we know the in the country that these terminations apply they did break the law.

All the "Law" is for is in terms of setting a guideline of what the government can or can't get involved in. They legally can't arrest someone for that particular reason.

As for whether that Law makes up for the other dozen perceived laws in terms of those companies ToC, it really doesn't have an affect. As long as your not discriminating against protected groups of people a company is just like a person and doesn't have to deal with people they don't like.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Hieyeck on 12/9/2010 12:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
United States? Where'd that come from? Read and achieve:
quote:
*snip* Swiss credit card firm *snip*

Last I checked:
Switzerland is in Europe.
Julian Assange is Australian-born.
The charges (whether they're legit or not is another matter) are from Sweeden.
WL servers are in various countries.

I'm not an expert in credit card law, but I would presume that Visa and MC have/had contracts with WL. Contracts work both ways. If the companies say Condition A.1.a.(i) in their TOS was violated and killed service, but in fact that condition was NOT violated, that would constitute a breach of contract and that's what DataCell is claiming.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By nafhan on 12/9/2010 10:38:56 AM , Rating: 1
I always appreciate a post that starts with a good insult...

Anyway, Visa and MC think they can get away this, period. The actual legal status of Wikileaks is at best a secondary consideration and merely a pretense for blocking the account. That was my point. Seriously, there's a fairly good chance that the good people at Visa thought about what they were doing before canceling WL's account.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Hieyeck on 12/9/2010 1:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
That was an honest question. 'cause it seems you don't even read your own posts.

quote:
The legal status of Wikileaks in regards to the closing of the accounts hardly matters - unless Wikileaks plans to legally pursue MC, Visa, etc. for shutting them down.
The condition of your negation was met. Therefore, your 'hardly matters' would be negated to 'not hardly matters' or in colloquial phrasing: 'matters quite a bit' or some other synonymous phrase.

But now you're saying that even though the exclusion in your statement was met, it's still doesn't matter. You insulted yourself by contradicting your own arguments.

Just sayin'


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By nafhan on 12/9/2010 2:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I wasn't contradicting my original statement. I was making a separate statement that both acknowledged that there was a problem with my original statement and clarified what I felt was the important part of it: that for the financial institutions in question the legality of what they did probably isn't their number one concern.
However, if your main concern is correcting logic/grammar/spelling errors rather than discussing the topic, you've come to the right place: the internet! Seriously, no hard feelings, if I say something dumb. Point it out!


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By drycrust3 on 12/9/2010 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The actual legal status of Wikileaks is at best a secondary consideration and merely a pretense for blocking the account.

The legal status of Wikileaks is very important, in fact that is what this is all about. They are only continuing to operate because they are legal in at least one country in the world. Do they comply with tax laws in Sweden? I have no idea, but I would be very surprised if they didn't.
But fundamental to all this is the right of one company to terminate a contract with another company if one of those companies believes its employees are breaking the law by doing business with the other. Should they or should they not terminate their contract?
Should Ford or GM have to continue accepting and fitting brake systems that don't work from a supplier? Of course not! They would terminate the contract!
Visa, Mastercard, et al, have to operate within the laws of every country they operate in. That isn't a pretense, it is a fact! For example, would the US, Sweden, UK, Switzerland, or any other country tolerate them not paying their taxes? No? Of course not! And what could happen to those companies if they didn't pay their taxes? Their employees or contractors could be thrown into jail and the company fined heavily and then be closed down.
quote:
Seriously, there's a fairly good chance that the good people at Visa thought about what they were doing before canceling WL's account.

If, by passing money to Wikileaks they breach the laws of even one country in the world they have an office in, e.g. Thailand or Iceland, and that country could fine them heavily, close them down, and throw employees into jail, then they would be irresponsible employers if they didn't at least consider terminating their dealings with Wikileaks.
Would you want to be thrown into jail because the company you work for broke the law and you had no idea it was? No! So why should employees of Visa, Mastercard, et al, all around the world, be any different? Why should they have to go to work knowing they could be thrown into jail because their company is breaking the law? They should not have to!


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By jhb116 on 12/8/2010 10:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure how this is related to post you replied to however I'm not sure your argument would hold up in a court of law. Given all of the information that WL has focused on - it is clear that they are engaged in espionage/information war against the US and its allies - they are clearly not a news organization.

Pulling back to this particular thread's discussion - US companies cutting support to WL is more a matter of self interest (maybe with a dash of patriotism) than legality. Almost every business in the US (I believe this is true throughout most of the world) has the right, within reason (ie anti discrimination laws) to turn away potential customers if they think it is their best interest. WL seems to have a vested interest in seeing the US destroyed. If the US "dies" they will at least suffer greatly so it is in their best interest support the US in this war....


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By kingius on 12/9/2010 7:35:47 AM , Rating: 3
Wikileaks could only 'destroy' the U.S. if the U.S. is a lie; I was under the impression that it is not and therefore cannot be destroyed by the release of the truth. Are you suggesting that all the U.S. is... is a lie?


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By gescom on 12/9/2010 2:03:59 PM , Rating: 1
Nope. The USA is the most beautiful thing that ever happened to us all. We Love You even more now, when everybody outside The USA more often call you a "Third world Country".


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By zixin on 12/9/2010 2:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
You can be destroyed by too much truth. If you think your boss is a bastard, you talk about it with your co-workers, your friends, and your family. You don't tell it to your bosss's face unless you want to get fired. What Wikileaks is doing is stealing tapes of your conversation and leaking it to your boss.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 2:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
Wikileaks has stolen nothing


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By spread on 12/9/2010 10:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given all of the information that WL has focused on - it is clear that they are engaged in espionage/information war against the US and its allies - they are clearly not a news organization.


Yeah they are! They should be kidnapped and held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo indefinitely. Those nasty foreign people. What is Australia anyways, sounds anti-american! They hate us for our freedoms!

quote:
WL seems to have a vested interest in seeing the US destroyed.


Wikileaks is a danger you're right! The truth destroys, let's abolish the truth.

Let's all trust the government, not the truth. It gets in the way! It's bad for everyone!


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By SimpleLance on 12/8/2010 3:45:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Are you kidding me ? Since when is information itself someones property ? Did you ever think for even second what journalists do ?


Would it be legal to steal your credit card number and publish it? Would it be legal to steal the design plans of Intel chips and publish it?

There is such a thing as "private" information. If you obtain it without the owners permission, that would be theft.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By MozeeToby on 12/8/2010 4:33:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Would it be legal to steal the design plans of Intel chips and publish it?
Better analogy. You're a journalist and an Intel engineer came to you with Intel's chip design, including flaws that could be used to damage a user's computer and will certainly harm Intel's reputation. Would it be legal to publish that document? Yes, yes, yes. A million times yes! It is perfectly legal for a journalist to publish information that is leaked to them, regardless if the information was taken legally or not.

Otherwise every time a journalist reported on a whistle blower, they would be running the risk of getting convicted for it. It's "freedom of the press", not "freedom of the press so long as the majority agrees after the fact that the press is acting responsibly."


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By morphologia on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Gul Westfale on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By MozeeToby on 12/8/2010 5:11:50 PM , Rating: 4
Did we miss the part of the leaks that discusses the US state department leaning on the German government to prevent the arrest and trial of CIA agents for international kidnapping? How about the cables that referenced lobbying the Russian government to protect Visa and MasterCard's purely corporate interests in Russia? How about the ones that completely changed the public picture of the Iranian nuclear weapons situation?

Certainly not every single cable was worth releasing, luckily we have a nice, recent supreme court case to help sort out if what Wikileaks is doing is illegal: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/New... The highlights of the majority decision include:
quote:
He [Justice Hugo Black] was against any interference with freedom of expression and largely found the content and source of the documents to be immaterial.
quote:
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote separately to explain that the publication of the documents did not qualify as one of the three exceptions to the freedom of expression
quote:
The President of United States possesses great constitutional independence that is virtually unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branch. "In absence of governmental checks and balances", per Justice Stewart, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [these two areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."
quote:
Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the term "national security" was too broad to legitimize prior restraint
As to crashing a bank's website and threatening to ruin a bank, there is zero, absolutely no evidence that Wikileaks in general or Assange in particular has anything to do with it. All appearances indicate that it is simply the idiots at 4chan doing what they do best and pouring high octane fuel on the already blazing fire.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 2:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
Stop making sense! It riles the flag wavers,Neo-Nazi wannabe's and "My country right or wrong crowd.

In August 1988 Newsweek quoted Vice President George H. W. Bush as saying "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By BZDTemp on 12/8/2010 7:25:55 PM , Rating: 3
You need to stop using the word terror about things which have nothing to do with terror.

quote:
Threatening publicly to ruin a bank...terrorism.
If by this you mean Wikileaks letting know they got things coming which is about a big US bank. Seriously if a bank has something to fear then it's because they did something very wrong and then it needs to come out.

What Wikileaks is doing will ensure politicians and the like are gonna think twice before doing more shitty things. If anything that is helping the democratic processes in the US and elsewhere and boy does the US need this.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By foolsgambit11 on 12/8/2010 8:18:12 PM , Rating: 5
Wikileaks didn't crash financial institutions' servers. Some crazy kids (assumed based on the 4chan link) who like that Wikileaks bucks the system did. That would be like blaming the Republican Party for abortion clinic bombings. Crazy supporters aren't their fault.

I'm not a fan of the unsafe sites list, either. But we don't call it terrorism when Fox News does an expose on how easy it is to cross the US-Mexico border illegally - (cue scary music) - even carrying a dirty bomb! Or when CNN runs a story that only 1/1000th (or whatever it was) of our incoming cargo gets scanned for radioactive material. All of this reporting essentially highlights our vulnerabilities. The unsafe sites list doesn't sit well with me, but I can't seem to find a logical method of calling it wrong while calling these other acts of journalism right.

And lastly, you assume it is all 'to get attention'. You ascribe motives to the people behind Wikileaks based on nothing but how much Assange is in the news - and apparently based not one bit on what he says when he's on. I'm not saying you have to take him at his word, but a quick look at his bio will show that he was always politically active, and the publicity is a relatively new thing - which leads me to believe there's at least some principle behind his actions, whether you or I totally agree with it or not.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By spread on 12/8/2010 8:22:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, crashing a financial institution's servers because they do something you disagree with...terrorism. Threatening publicly to ruin a bank...terrorism. Putting people in danger and ruining diplomatic relations to get attention...terrorism.


You sure know alot about terrorism. This is all very suspicious. I've reported you to the Department of Homeland Security for re-education.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Mudhen6 on 12/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Mudhen6 on 12/9/2010 8:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're right! Private information is important to keep private. Even if it's evidence for a crime. We should keep state crimes a secret. It's for national security, for our own good!


Sorry, I meant to reply to this post.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Acanthus on 12/9/2010 3:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that it's Anonymous doing this and not Wikileaks i hope.

It isn't clear from the article, but visit 4ch, SA, etc...


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Aloonatic on 12/9/2010 4:21:24 AM , Rating: 3
It depends what you mean by terrorism.

If I was responsible for your homes security and hadn't bothered to do as good a job of it, and carried out other actions that might make someone likely to want to harm yor property. Would you think that someone leaking that I knew about these weaknesses but had bone nothing/little about securing them, yet put you at more risk by my other actions, a terrorist?

TO be honest, I think that either terrorists are really out there and know this sort of things anyway, or they are not really out there, in any great organisation, and this information will be wasted on them.

Either way, it might do something to make the US make these sites more secure, as they probably should do, as their other activities are putting these sites in the terrorists line of sight.

The elephant in the room is the simple fact that if the US left Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc alone and pulled out, they could leave the front doors of most of those sites unlocked, as no one would want to attack them.

Maybe wiki-leaks are doing these sites a favour, as America will have to do something about their security now?


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Fritzr on 12/9/2010 6:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I might call the person who published the info irresponsible. I might look into the possibility that his actions could be legally classified as "endangering" but terrorism, no.

In your example he is taking action that regardless of his reasons would cause me as your employer to ask what can be done to secure the weaknesses revealed & *discuss* any revealed failures to perform as expected.

In the case of WikiLeaks. So far the official position is that an unknown individual, who is likely to be the same individual they are already questioning, broke the law by transmitting classified information to people who were not authorized to read it.

Assange is not a US citizen and so far no one has indicated that he agreed to keep any classified info out of the hands of unauthorized people.

From the statements by various politicians, it would seem that it is not illegal for someone who "finds" classified information to publish it as long as that person has not entered into an agreement to keep the information confidential. They might get him on receiving stolen documents though ... that one hasn't been ruled out yet that I know of.

The US government has things they can do to make citizens "volunteer" to return such things without publishing, but Assange is not a US citizen. Australia first made an announcement that they might prosecute, but that appears to have been an empty threat.

It would seem that the US needs a better way to control classified documents that have escaped. Next time it might really be a serious leak that would seriously damage US interests.

As for the list of 'targets'. Many of them are outside the control of the US. The list of targets was not meant to detail the places US should put security, it was a list of places that if attacked would force the US to take steps to reduce the effects of the damage.

For terrorists the list is nice. Check the list over for an easy target. Attack the target and then tell the host government that they attacked in order to harm US interests. The 'damage' to US may not be real, but the political effect is.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Aloonatic on 12/9/2010 7:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, a check list is nice, but I don't think all that necessary. To a military, enemy state then this information might be a lot more usefully, but at the top of any terrorists hit list will always be soft and squishy "citizens".

If a terrorist group is organized well enough to be able to attack one of the sites listed, the odds are that they know enough already anyway too.

Terrorists are essentially spoiled for choice of targets already, so that they now have tenty hundred more, to add to their list of millions (every US citizen, and government building) is somewhat moot, IMHO. Lets not forget that terrorists target the general populace if they follow the handbook properly, as taking out a military installation isn't as easy or effective as blowing up a shopping centre/mall. When they start attacking government installations that have military or purely governmental links, don't they stop being terrorists as these are more, genuine, acts of war? Attacking the states apparatus and ability to defend itself, rather than the general populace.

On a more general point, it seems that governments (not just the US) might well find that they are perceived to have "cried terrorist" once too often, and as such reduce the importance and impact that their labelling of almost everyone and everything that they don't like as a terrorist/terrorist act.

As for the other point you make. I assume that the US has something similar to the official secrets act, which exists in the UK? It might well not be Julian who is in real trouble, but the people who where the trusted employees who snuck the stories out to him and his group in the first place.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Fritzr on 12/9/2010 8:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
If the intent is to damage actual infrastructure then it should be classified as guerrilla warfare.

If the intent is to generate news coverage or extort a desired behavior, then it should be classified as terrorism.

Violent activism is simply terrorism that the speaker approves of or wishes to spin as unimportant.

Domestic terrorism in the US falls in this category. We have violent extremists, violence erupting at protests and other events that are classed as terrorism when they occur overseas, but since US does not have any terrorism, they are reported as hate crimes, violent protests, deranged killers and other labels that are intended to defuse the intended message.

It is quite possible for guerrillas to stage a successful attack with a military objective in a manner calculated to generate major headlines. Blowing the Alaska pipeline would be an attack of this sort.

In this case it would be guerrillas executing a terrorist attack. The Taliban regularly execute attacks of this sort. If the mission succeeds, they have a military victory to show, while the very execution of the mission generates worldwide headlines, which if properly spun work as pro-Taliban propaganda.

Note: they are worried about domestic effect, so getting Joe Sixpack in Kansas to support the war while scaring Ahmed the camel herder in Pakistan into supporting the Taliban, is a propaganda success for the Taliban.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Aloonatic on 12/9/2010 9:28:27 AM , Rating: 3
And we wander into word play...

What is "shock and awe"? Terrorism with a bigger marketing budget? :o) It;s for their own good that they are scared into doing what we want, so doesn't count as terrorism, if the "terror" is being used for good? :o)


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Solandri on 12/9/2010 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorism by definition is creating fear among the public so they enact social or political change. It's best done by high-profile operations which use little resources. If it doesn't make the news, it's pretty much a failure since anyone not involved with the incident won't know about it.

Shock and Awe was the opposite. The application of so much military force in a short period of time so as to leave the enemy incapable of developing a coherent response. With S&A, the destruction wreaked by the military strike itself was the cause of the disruption. With terrorism, the disproportionate fear caused the strike is the cause of the disruption.

Where the two are the same is that they are both the most effective means to force an unwilling party to change. If you can afford an all-out military strike (and know you'll win), that's the best way to do it. If you can't afford an all-out military strike (either you're poor and ill-equipped, or you lack sufficient combatants), then channeling your energies into a small number of high-profile terrorist attacks is the best way to do it.

Morally they are on entirely different levels - if you have the support of a large number of people, you will usually have sufficient resources to mount an all-out military strike. When you resort to terrorist attacks, that generally means your organization is small and what you're doing isn't representative of what the people want. Early in the American Revolution, there was not much support in the colonies for independence from Britain, so rebels resorted to terrorist-style hit-and-run tactics. Later, there was enough support to create a full-fledged army, and the Americans fought Britain head-on in more typical army vs army battles.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 3:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Maybe wiki-leaks are doing these sites a favour, as America will have to do something about their security now?"
Yes, I'm sure a lot of new laws will be passed further restricting our freedom. Maybe making it a capital crime for someone to publish government info without permission.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Mr772 on 12/9/2010 9:06:18 AM , Rating: 5
Someone is a sucker falling into the blanket "terrorism" label on anything they don't like. Don't be a mindless sucker. This is in no way terrorism. This terrorism label reminds me of the old "Communist" label of our pathetic government.

And more importantly get your story straight wikileaks didn't crash any financial sites - you sound like you work for the bush administration making up your own facts along the way.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 2:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wiki crashed no one's servers, ruining a bank by telling the truth about it? Putting people in danger and ruining diplomatic relations? You are obviously talking about the U.S. and you're right on this one.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By tmouse on 12/9/2010 9:27:09 AM , Rating: 1
Actually extortion would always be considered a crime. Wikileaks clearly crossed that line when the threat of releasing keys to encrypted diplomatic messages if their staff was arrested was made. Clearly they were not acting as journalists then since either there is a story or there is not in those cables. It also shows a total disregard for any principles of journalism in regards to harm that could be caused and if there is ancillary harm that arises from a news story the organization is not protected by the first amendment unless they can prove they acted in a principled manner and gave consideration to possible fallout and the event was not obvious. A journalist does not have card blanch to release anything that is offered to them under freedom of the press, they still have liability, they just get more head room than others. It is very unclear if they in any way shape or form encouraged Manning to supply any additional information (ie: was he the initiator in ALL initial contacts about new information, it seems he released information over a period of time and this was not a onetime event). A news organization MUST be a passive recipient; ANY solicitation of criminal activity will not be protected by the first amendment. The examples being used are poor at best but to use them I would say publishing the chip flaws would be protected since the engineer could have this information and is in effect the source, whether he has blueprints or not. Now if he goes to them with the story and they ask him to illegally get the blue prints or get other blueprints to release because they do not like the company then they are most certainly not protected. In the Manning case the first contact and any tales he could provide would be protected, documents he supplied at that time may be but if he says he could steal more and you say great then you crossed the line. Everything you release also must be of sufficient merit of wrongdoing also, the story of wrongdoing is protected; the actual release of specifics is far more of a grey area. The first amendment is not nor should it ever be an all-inclusive pass to do whatever it takes to make a story.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By spread on 12/8/2010 9:27:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There is such a thing as "private" information. If you obtain it without the owners permission, that would be theft.


You're right! Private information is important to keep private. Even if it's evidence for a crime. We should keep state crimes a secret. It's for national security, for our own good!


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Samus on 12/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By karielash on 12/9/2010 3:48:38 AM , Rating: 2

Unfortunately, as you demonstrate, stupidity is not illegal.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By NA1NSXR on 12/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By rcc on 12/9/2010 12:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite, but it's certainly in the running.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By foolsgambit11 on 12/8/2010 3:45:57 PM , Rating: 4
I agree that the DDoS attacks (including the one against Wikileaks from the other day) are juvenile and counterproductive to the cause they try to support. And I agree that Visa and MC have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that PFC Manning's alleged actions are criminal conduct, and that Wikileaks' actions could be called 'supporting' those actions.

I don't agree with calling the information 'stolen property', since the US wasn't deprived of its use, and is still in possession of the information (assuming it is truly classified US information, which, officially, hasn't been confirmed or denied by the government). But that's just nitpicking.

What really irks me is that these companies don't just come out and say that they don't approve of Wikileaks, and that is why they are blocking them. After all, when the Washington Post or the New York Times publishes the diplomatic cables, they are technically as complicit as Wikileaks in Manning's illegal activities. These credit card companies have valid business reasons to deny service to Wikileaks, but they are hiding behind a contract clause that is too broad to apply only to Wikileaks. Although I guess they are doing that for business reasons, too.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By foolsgambit11 on 12/8/2010 3:55:23 PM , Rating: 1
As a follow up, to be clear, I don't have a problem with the general principle of a Wikileaks-type site, and don't have a problem with the information they've leaked, save possibly for the most recent vulnerable sites leak, though I am relying only on media characterizations of that leak, since I haven't seen the info myself. Wow, long sentence. And to be clear, it's not laziness that prevents me from checking out the info; the government says I can't, because the information (if it is classified US information) is still classified, and accessing it would be a security violation. It's a little ironic that the only people who aren't allowed to see this (possibly) classified information are people who actually have the clearance to see it.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Fritzr on 12/9/2010 6:55:10 AM , Rating: 2
Classified information is anything the government restricts access to. If these cables were labeled "confidential, State Department access only" then they were classified. Even documents marked as freely distributable have a security classification, though by it's very nature there is no penalty for releasing documents classified as unrestricted.

The term classified simply means that the document, item or information has been assigned a security classification. These range from unrestricted to Top Secret, accessible only to designated individuals on up through additional security levels that classify the nature of the restriction as classified information in it's own right. In those cases if the existence of the item is acknowledged, the restriction will probably be noted simply as "you aren't allowed to know about that--so sorry".

Places like *Area 51* fall in that category. That facility does not exist and if you attempt to visit, armed guards will direct you on the proper road to take in order to avoid being shot.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By rcc on 12/9/2010 1:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
So you are ok with posting your credit card, driver's license #, etc. etc. here? After all, it's just information, and you'd still have it, and you wouldn't be deprived of it's use.

All's good in the neighborhood, eh?


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By MozeeToby on 12/8/2010 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 4
I hope they also close the accounts for the AP, Reuters, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News when they publish leaked material. Or have we forgotten that news organizations have frequently published leaked material in the past and not seen retribution for it?


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By tmouse on 12/9/2010 10:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
There is a major difference. Wikileaks exists solely for this purpose. Now IF the information is ALWAYS given to them; then and only then it MAY be protected in so much as a possible story that comes from the information. Just collecting information and rereleasing the raw source is not journalism. The vast majority of the military information Manning released was not harmful some was and only a bit of that may suggest unlawful activity, same with the diplomatic cables. IF a news agency tells a source to get the documents then they cross a line and are encouraging criminal activity which they will be held libel for, or do you really feel a reporter should be able to hire thugs to break in and get information or blackmail people to get stories, even if those stores are about illegal activity? There has to be limits, we do not want the government doing these things but it is equally wrong for the press. It is also not clear to me wikileaks is the press nor is everyone who posts a blog. They rarely published stories; they seem to be more of a clearing house to dump illegally obtained documents. You can release a story without releasing the source information the vast majority of real news organizations do. The purpose of a free press is to keep the government honest with its citizens not to be a source to release all information to everyone. We do not have a right to all information; the courts have constantly upheld that, that’s why information collected under the freedom of information act can have redacted parts. That’s why you or any press person could be arrested or even killed for breaking into top secret military bases. It is absolutely accepted by anyone with any legal knowledge that there HAS to be some information the public does not have a right to know, that’s why we hire people to be justice agents, diplomats and governmental officials. The purpose of a free press is to keep their power in check and should be protected BUT that is not the same thing as constantly releasing all information.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By masamasa on 12/8/2010 5:01:45 PM , Rating: 4
"The DDoS attacks not only seem like a juvenile response, but they aren't helping Wikileaks in the slightest."

Completely agree.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Solandri on 12/8/2010 11:55:30 PM , Rating: 4
I kinda wish the people DDoSing Wikileaks and the people DDoSing MC and Paypal would just get to the chase and starting DDoSing each other. Then the rest of us could just move on with our lives.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Aloonatic on 12/8/2010 9:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
I like how any sort of response to government actions is either dismissed as juvenile or terrorism. One extreme or the other.

(In case of anyone watching) I think You are double plus right.

Why should I care as this guy is extradited on some ridiculous charge that has gone to court already and been dismissed by a judge due to a complete lack of evidence?

Sometimes I think that you guys really need to get a grip, and look at the bigger picture.

Was tossing crates of tea into a Boston harbour just juvenile? Was standing in front of tank during a student protest just juvenile, or just flat out stupid maybe? Was a woman throwing herself in front of a horse at The Grand National just a juvenile stunt too? Most acts of defiance against governments in variably are "juvenile" if You choose to look at them that way. Just as most acts of "war" against nations much larger invariably are acts that can be easily labelled as terrorist attacks too. Simply because of the sheer differential in power and might that each side has.

I'm not really sure what sort of action you think (in your infinite DTer/know it all wisdom) that these people should be taking.

As for what is illegal, and giving money to people to organisations that carry out illegal acts... Then I assume that no credit card company supports payments to just about any government, as they have all carried out illegal acts willy, and indeed nilly, for years if not forever.

I can't say that I am a great supported in what wiki-leaks and their supporters have and are doing either by the way. It just saddens me that many of us are so enthralled by their states that we all just want to fall in line and not cause a fuss any more. Content to be good little boys and girls and call these people names etc to show that we are no trouble ourselves, and that we see these people as more of in interference in our lives as we've settled for our lot. Now that we have been sold on whichever variation of democracy, liberty and freedom that your government peddles.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By kfonda on 12/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Aloonatic on 12/9/2010 3:38:09 AM , Rating: 4
Am not sure if you are joking, or just amazingly naive?

Much of what the information that wiki leaks is, erm, leaking, is about America's international relations/activities. For the record, I'm not really bothered about America's activities around the world so much as I am generally pro American/capitalism/democracy. However, if you are not in agreement with much of America's foreign policy, where does one vote to change the US government, as a non-US citizen?

Not that I agree with them, but the DDOS attacks are likely being carried out because some people fell that the timing of these companies actions are making it appear that they are dropping wiki-leaks for political reasons, rather than them suddenly realising that their ToS have been breached or whatever. As such, they are probably now seen as simply acting as puppets that are being controlled by the US government, and therefore and extension of the government. Legitimising them (in the attacker's eyes) as fair game now, as well as a relatively easy target to protest against/attack.

It's great that you want your government to do what you want in your best interest, but here's a clue (seeing as you seem to have completely run out of them) the people of the world who's lives are often affected greatly by your governments actions (being carried out in your best interests) often have interests that collide with your nation's, and as such lose out, so might want to protest about that somehow?

Again, I'm not condoning, just trying to look at the bigger picture, and trying to let you know how someone from out-side the US sees this.

Also, I think that what has been released (so far) actually shows that the US is really not doing all that bad a job of carrying out it's international relations. A lot of the embarrassing stuff seems to have more to do with US diplomats simply giving an honest opinions on people (and it's hardly their fault if they happen to honestly say that so and so is a bit of a muppet, when they are, but people don't say it out of politeness) and what is going on, as well as us being able to find out what other nations are saying to the US.

I don't know why people expect the US to behave altruistically towards the whole globe, and not look out for it's citizens best interests first and foremost. Maybe because that is the way that teh US has tried to appear to the world, since it really came into it's own post war, and "saved" the world from communism, and still carries on the good fight for democracy (and only democracy?) in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

I don't claim to know why Julian Assange and his crew are doing what they are doing, and I'm not saying that it's right or wrong either, just that it's sad that people don't stop and think about it, and just jump quickly to make comments attacking them and call them juvenile terrorist or whatever because of the actions that are being taken, when really, they have a very limited number of options when it comes to going up against the most powerful military, political and economic nation on the planet.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By karielash on 12/9/2010 12:05:37 AM , Rating: 2

Lack of security policy, horrible security implementation. There is only ONE organization responsible for this problem. The US Government. Poor financing and neglect, you reap what you sow.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By danobrega on 12/9/2010 7:10:02 AM , Rating: 3
You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. You can't just go damaging people or organizations just because you don't like what they say, or because you think they committed something illegal.

Now, I'm pretty sure that what Master Card and Visa have done is illegal. I hope they get sued.


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Edmond Dantes on 12/9/2010 6:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
Invading sovereign nations under false pretexts is illegal...


RE: Seems clear cut to me.
By Skywalker123 on 12/10/2010 6:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Thats the law for everyone else, America and Israel are laws unto themselves.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki