Hackers Attack Payment Sites in Revenge for Wikileaks

Technology • Views: 21,695

The hackers’ group Anonymous has attacked the website of Mastercard, apparently in retaliation for their decision to stop processing donations for Wikileaks.

The group, which has been linked to the influential internet messageboard 4Chan, has been targeting commercial sites which have cut their ties with WikiLeaks. The Swiss bank PostFinance has already been targeted by Anonymous after it froze payments to WikiLeaks, and the group has vowed to target Paypal, which has also ceased processing payments to the site. Other possible targets are everydns.net, which suspended dealings on 3 December, Amazon, which removed WikiLeaks content from its EC2 cloud on 1 December, and Visa, which suspended its own dealings yesterday.

Jump to bottom

250 comments
1 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:16:36am

I’m getting pretty sick of 4chan and their mob mentality crap; wouldn’t mind them getting hit hard back.

2 imherefromtheinternet  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:16:48am

“Anonymous” is not a “hacker group”. It’s more like an ideology/lifestyle in the way people relate to the web.

Anonymous is just the roiling mass of haters, jokers, mischief-makers, and meme-creators that inhabit influential corners of the online world.

Some of them are hackers. On steroids. If you don’t immediately understand that reference, you don’t understand Anonymous.

3 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:17:29am

Bunch ‘a whiny breath-holding bitch-babies.
At least the papier-mache puppets were entertaining…

4 Kragar  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:17:29am

re: #1 MisterCookie

I’m getting pretty sick of 4chan and their mob mentality crap; wouldn’t mind them getting hit hard back.

Freedom of speach and information, right up to the point someone disagrees with them

5 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:19:29am

Everybody who snickered when this mob of anarchists went after $c1ent0l0gy, their targets can change on a dime.

They are the ultimate cyber bullies, they make the stalkers look like a bunch of 3-year-old girls.

6 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:20:11am

I pointed this out last thread - there’s a backlash starting and, as Anonymous says

“Anonymous is supporting WikiLeaks not because we agree or disagree with the data that is being sent out, but we disagree with any from of censorship on the internet,” he said.

“This is why we are acting against these companies as we believe that if we let WikiLeaks fall without a fight then governments will think they can just take down any sites they wish or disagree with.”

7 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:20:26am

re: #4 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

My dream is to have someone give me a spreadsheet with the /b/ tards names, addresses, social security numbers, and criminal history. Let’s see how much they like information being free when it’s their shit getting dumped all over the tubes.

8 BishopX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:21:10am

PayPal has admitted that they froze the wikileaks account after the state dept asked them to. I wouldn’t be surprised if MasterCard and Visa have been asked as well.

9 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:21:26am

re: #2 imherefromtheinternet

“Anonymous” is not a “hacker group”. It’s more like an ideology/lifestyle in the way people relate to the web.

Anonymous is just the roiling mass of haters, jokers, mischief-makers, and meme-creators that inhabit influential corners of the online world.

Some of them are hackers. On steroids. If you don’t immediately understand that reference, you don’t understand Anonymous.

////I hear they blow up vans….

10 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:21:52am

re: #6 harlequinade

I pointed this out last thread - there’s a backlash starting and, as Anonymous says

“Anonymous is supporting WikiLeaks not because we agree or disagree with the data that is being sent out, but we disagree with any from of censorship on the internet,” he said.

“This is why we are acting against these companies as we believe that if we let WikiLeaks fall without a fight then governments will think they can just take down any sites they wish or disagree with.”

Sounds a bit like they’re calling for state sanctioned anarchy. IOW, forcing Mastercard, Amazon and others to carry Assange’s and Wikileaks oh so subtle propaganda.

11 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:22:14am

re: #1 MisterCookie

I’m getting pretty sick of 4chan and their mob mentality crap; wouldn’t mind them getting hit hard back.


I’ll always at least look fondly upon the work they’ve done with Project Chanology, at least once it moved from illegal DOS attacks and onto legal peaceful protests….

12 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:23:10am

re: #10 Gus 802

Sounds a bit like they’re calling for state sanctioned anarchy. IOW, forcing Mastercard, Amazon and others to carry Assange’s and Wikileaks oh so subtle propaganda.

“Sounds a bit like they’re calling for state sanctioned anarchy.”

You’d expect anything else from Anonymous?

13 rwdflynavy  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:23:15am

re: #7 MisterCookie

My dream is to have someone give me a spreadsheet with the /b/ tards names, addresses, social security numbers, and criminal history. Let’s see how much they like information being free when it’s their shit getting dumped all over the tubes.

Didn’t you know? Secrets are bad!//

14 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:23:20am

re: #10 Gus 802

OK - what about these people then…


2.04pm:An IT firm that helps WikiLeaks collect payments is threatening to sue Visa and MasterCard, writes Josh Halliday.


The international credit card company, Visa, today ordered payments processor DataCell to suspend all of its transactions, just 23 hours after it cut off all donations being made to WikiLeaks.

DataCell, a small Icelandic company which facilitates transfers made by credit cards including Visa and Mastercard, says it will take up “immediate legal actions” to ensure that donations can once again be made to WikiLeaks.

Andreas Fink, the chief executive of DataCell, today warned that the powerful “duopoly” of Visa and Mastercard, which have both suspended payments to WikiLeaks in the past week, could spell “the end of the credit card business worldwide.”

“Visa is hurting Wikileaks and DataCell in high figures,” Fink said in a statement. “Putting all payments on hold for seven days or more is one thing but rejecting all further attempts to donate is making the donations impossible.

“This does clearly create massive financial losses to Wikileaks which seems to be the only purpose of this suspension. This is not about the brand of Visa, this is about politics and Visa should not be involved in this.”

Visa and Mastercard payments started being rejected on DataCell’s systems late on Wednesday evening. “We have received a suspension notice stating that Visa Europe has ordered our payment processor to suspend payments and undertake due diligence investigation in order to protect the Visa brand [and] ensure neither the payment processor nor Visa Europe is running legal risks by facilitating payments for the funding of the Wikileaks website,” Fink said.

He added: “We can not believe WikiLeaks would even create scratch at the brand name of Visa. The suspension of payments towards WikiLeaks is a violation of the agreements with their customers.

“Visa users have explicitly expressed their will to send their donations to WikiLeaks and Visa is not fulfilling this wish. It will probably hurt their brand much much more to block payments towards WikiLeaks than to have them occur.

“Visa customers are contacting us in masses to confirm that they really donate and they are not happy about Visa rejecting them. It is obvious that Visa is under political pressure to close us down.

“They have no problem transferring money for other businesses such as gambling sites, pornography services and the like so why a donation to a Website which is holding up for human rights should be morally any worse than that is outside of my understanding.”

Speaking to the Fresh Outlook Fink added: “It is simply ridiculous to even think Wikileaks has done anything criminal. If Wikileaks is criminal, then CNN, and BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, al-Jazeera and many others would have to be considered criminals too as they publish the same informations. Nobody even tries to touch them though. You can still buy a New York times subscription and pay with your credit card I guess.”


Same with them?

15 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:23:39am

re: #14 harlequinade

OK - what about these people then…

2.04pm:An IT firm that helps WikiLeaks collect payments is threatening to sue Visa and MasterCard, writes Josh Halliday.

The international credit card company, Visa, today ordered payments processor DataCell to suspend all of its transactions, just 23 hours after it cut off all donations being made to WikiLeaks.

DataCell, a small Icelandic company which facilitates transfers made by credit cards including Visa and Mastercard, says it will take up “immediate legal actions” to ensure that donations can once again be made to WikiLeaks.

Andreas Fink, the chief executive of DataCell, today warned that the powerful “duopoly” of Visa and Mastercard, which have both suspended payments to WikiLeaks in the past week, could spell “the end of the credit card business worldwide.”

“Visa is hurting Wikileaks and DataCell in high figures,” Fink said in a statement. “Putting all payments on hold for seven days or more is one thing but rejecting all further attempts to donate is making the donations impossible.

“This does clearly create massive financial losses to Wikileaks which seems to be the only purpose of this suspension. This is not about the brand of Visa, this is about politics and Visa should not be involved in this.”

Visa and Mastercard payments started being rejected on DataCell’s systems late on Wednesday evening. “We have received a suspension notice stating that Visa Europe has ordered our payment processor to suspend payments and undertake due diligence investigation in order to protect the Visa brand [and] ensure neither the payment processor nor Visa Europe is running legal risks by facilitating payments for the funding of the Wikileaks website,” Fink said.

He added: “We can not believe WikiLeaks would even create scratch at the brand name of Visa. The suspension of payments towards WikiLeaks is a violation of the agreements with their customers.

“Visa users have explicitly expressed their will to send their donations to WikiLeaks and Visa is not fulfilling this wish. It will probably hurt their brand much much more to block payments towards WikiLeaks than to have them occur.

“Visa customers are contacting us in masses to confirm that they really donate and they are not happy about Visa rejecting them. It is obvious that Visa is under political pressure to close us down.

“They have no problem transferring money for other businesses such as gambling sites, pornography services and the like so why a donation to a Website which is holding up for human rights should be morally any worse than that is outside of my understanding.”

Speaking to the Fresh Outlook Fink added: “It is simply ridiculous to even think Wikileaks has done anything criminal. If Wikileaks is criminal, then CNN, and BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, al-Jazeera and many others would have to be considered criminals too as they publish the same informations. Nobody even tries to touch them though. You can still buy a New York times subscription and pay with your credit card I guess.”

Same with them?

TLDNR

16 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:24:30am

re: #8 BishopX

PayPal has admitted that they froze the wikileaks account after the state dept asked them to. I wouldn’t be surprised if MasterCard and Visa have been asked as well.

Not quite correct — PayPal said the State Department contacted them and said Wikileaks was engaged in illegal activity. They did not say that State asked them to suspend the account.

The site’s vice-president of platform, Osama Bedier, told an internet conference the site had decided to freeze WikiLeaks’s account on 4 December after government representatives said it was engaged in illegal activity.

“State Dept told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward,” he told the LeWeb conference in Paris, adding: “We … comply with regulations around the world, making sure that we protect our brand.”

17 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:25:19am

Now that I think of it, anyone else find it stupid that their symbol is Guy Fawkes? You know, Guy Fawkes, the one who wanted to replace Britain’s government with a theocracy? Because when I think ‘freedom’ I think theocracy! //

18 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:25:30am

Bravo Mastercard!

19 Fenris  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:25:43am

Those pathetic yutzes who think the highest form of comedy is Rickrolling? That’s somehow both a shocker and not a shocker at the same time.

20 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:26:33am

re: #17 MisterCookie

Now that I think of it, anyone else find it stupid that their symbol is Guy Fawkes? You know, Guy Fawkes, the one who wanted to replace Britain’s government with a theocracy? Because when I think ‘freedom’ I think theocracy! //

The Guy Fawkes has now completely been replaced by its meaning from V for Vendetta rather than its original one.

Same way nobody looks at a swastika and thinks “Oh hey a Buddhist good luck charm!”

21 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:26:34am

re: #15 Gus 802

Bless.

Icelandic payment processor going to “take up “immediate legal actions” to ensure that donations can once again be made to WikiLeaks.”

Gives reasons.

22 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:27:17am

re: #17 MisterCookie

Now that I think of it, anyone else find it stupid that their symbol is Guy Fawkes? You know, Guy Fawkes, the one who wanted to replace Britain’s government with a theocracy? Because when I think ‘freedom’ I think theocracy! //

Their symbol is Guy Fawkes because they saw that stupid movie “V for Vendetta.” They have no clue that the historical Guy Fawkes was an Inquisitionist who wanted to add England to Jesuitland.

23 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:28:23am

re: #20 jamesfirecat

The Guy Fawkes has now completely been replaced by its meaning from V for Vendetta rather than its original one.

Same way nobody looks at a swastika and thinks “Oh hey a Buddhist good luck charm!”

Confirming 4chan as the illiterate children who happen to have access to a bunch of botnets.

24 Fenris  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:29:47am

re: #5 Alouette

Give em two minutes and they’ll get bored and go right back to browsing pictures of kittens or whatever’s in at the moment.

25 imherefromtheinternet  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:29:50am

re: #9 jamesfirecat

Yeah they do…

It’s just funny how easily the media falls into the trap of creating a defined (and therefore hateable) entity around what is essentially a totally unknown set of people with no real-world affiliation to each other.

Whenever something happens on the internet, you just blame “Anonymous.” Then you can use the same group name the next time, even though there may be none of the same people involved. It’s really sloppy thinking. It’s almost hilariously Orwellian, actually. Everyone ready for the two minutes hate of Anonymous?

26 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:30:32am

re: #25 imherefromtheinternet

Have you been stapling signs to my cats?

27 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:30:39am

re: #8 BishopX

PayPal has admitted that they froze the wikileaks account after the state dept asked them to. I wouldn’t be surprised if MasterCard and Visa have been asked as well.

That’s probably because the government is preparing a criminal case against Assange and wanted to let Paypal know so they don’t get caught up in the legal case.

28 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:30:55am

[quote]Everyone ready for the two minutes hate of Anonymous?[/quote]

Just as soon as I finish the 2-minutes hate of Mastercard and Paypal. Remember, it’s okay as long as you disagree with them

29 BishopX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:31:21am

re: #16 Charles


I think there is a pretty fine line between a government agency calling up a company and telling them that a client is doing something illegal, and a government agency calling up a company and asking them to sever contact with a client.

What else are they going to do once they’ve been informed that this was illegal?

30 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:31:28am

re: #21 harlequinade

Bless.

Icelandic payment processor going to “take up “immediate legal actions” to ensure that donations can once again be made to WikiLeaks.”

Gives reasons.

If there are legal ramifications it will go to court. Then it will be decided in a court of law as opposed to a court of public opinion. I can’t comment on this since I am not a legal expert. Unless Wikileaks signed a contract that essentially said, “we’re free to do whatever we wish”. More or less. Otherwise, as a private entity they have the right to refuse service in these matter unless it involves gender, race, or religious issues.

31 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:31:29am

re: #22 Alouette

Their symbol is Guy Fawkes because they saw that stupid movie “V for Vendetta.” They have no clue that the historical Guy Fawkes was an Inquisitionist who wanted to add England to Jesuitland.

Well, the movie was good. And I think Fawkes was a relevant choice in that V simply wanted to bring down the government of the day. He didn’t seem to have much of an opinion beyond “This sucks, so I’m gonna burn this sucker down”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t terribly interested in Fawkes beyond similar desires to simply blow up parliament. He left the actual rebuilding of society to its more nuanced members, like Eve.

32 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:32:07am

re: #23 MisterCookie

Confirming 4chan as the illiterate children who happen to have access to a bunch of botnets.

I guess you didn’t notice that James’ analogy undermines your argument, rather than confirming it.

33 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:32:17am

Besides, we already have Coldblood speaking out on 4chan’s behalf and claiming credit. Its not like they’re making any attempt to keep hidden who they are

34 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:32:26am

Wikileaks violated PayPal’s and probably MasterCard’s ToS.
Simple.

35 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:32:34am

re: #21 harlequinade
Maybe Wikileakers threatened to do what they do to the payment sites and Iceland got cold feet.

36 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:33:02am

re: #26 harlequinade

Have you been stapling signs to my cats?

No it was the man in the dark hat!

xkcd.com

37 imherefromtheinternet  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:33:42am
Have you been stapling signs to my cats?

re: #26 harlequinade

Indeed I have.

Until I ran out and had to use glue.

38 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:33:50am

re: #32 Sergey Romanov

I guess you didn’t notice that James’ analogy undermines your argument, rather than confirming it.

So a movie from a few years back is more meaningful than actual historical fact?

39 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:33:58am

re: #29 BishopX

I think there is a pretty fine line between a government agency calling up a company and telling them that a client is doing something illegal, and a government agency calling up a company and asking them to sever contact with a client.

What else are they going to do once they’ve been informed that this was illegal?

I don’t know what PayPal did, but if I were them I’d immediately contact my own lawyers and ask them to look at the situation and recommend a course of action. It’s naive to think the government just called and bullied PayPal into this. They’re a large corporation and they have procedures and rules that they follow, in all things.

40 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:34:26am

re: #34 Varek Raith

Wikileaks violated PayPal’s and probably MasterCard’s ToS.
Simple.

How so? I know that was the case with the Swiss Bank/Post Office, but what was Wikileaks screw up here?

41 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:34:58am

re: #30 Gus 802

To quote from the original wall of text

re: #14 harlequinade


“This does clearly create massive financial losses to Wikileaks which seems to be the only purpose of this suspension. This is not about the brand of Visa, this is about politics and Visa should not be involved in this.”

“We can not believe WikiLeaks would even create scratch at the brand name of Visa. The suspension of payments towards WikiLeaks is a violation of the agreements with their customers.

“Visa customers are contacting us in masses to confirm that they really donate and they are not happy about Visa rejecting them. It is obvious that Visa is under political pressure to close us down.

“They have no problem transferring money for other businesses such as gambling sites, pornography services and the like so why a donation to a Website which is holding up for human rights should be morally any worse than that is outside of my understanding.”

Speaking to the Fresh Outlook Fink added: “It is simply ridiculous to even think Wikileaks has done anything criminal. If Wikileaks is criminal, then CNN, and BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, al-Jazeera and many others would have to be considered criminals too as they publish the same informations. Nobody even tries to touch them though. You can still buy a New York times subscription and pay with your credit card I guess.”

42 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:35:12am

re: #34 Varek Raith

Wikileaks violated PayPal’s and probably MasterCard’s ToS.
Simple.

Hence a case for state controlled corporations.

“By order of the High Council of Moby States, Mastercard, is hereby ordered to continue providing service to Wikileaks at once!”

//

43 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:35:16am

re: #33 MisterCookie

Besides, we already have Coldblood speaking out on 4chan’s behalf and claiming credit. Its not like they’re making any attempt to keep hidden who they are

“Its not like they’re making any attempt to keep hidden who they are”

Um… isn’t that sort of kind of the point of being “Anonymous” in the first place?

We don’t know who makes up that particular group….

44 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:35:20am

re: #36 jamesfirecat

re: #37 imherefromtheinternet

:D

45 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:36:10am

re: #38 MisterCookie

So a movie from a few years back is more meaningful than actual historical fact?

What historical fact? That Hitler stole swastika from Hindus? //

Their symbol is a very specific mask based on the movie, not on history.

46 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:36:21am

re: #40 McSpiff

How so? I know that was the case with the Swiss Bank/Post Office, but what was Wikileaks screw up here?

Their statement:

“PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We’ve notified the account holder of this action.”

There’s not much wiggle room there. Wikileaks DOES encourage and facilitate the breaking of laws, and promotes the product of that illegal activity.

47 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:36:40am

re: #29 BishopX

I think there is a pretty fine line between a government agency calling up a company and telling them that a client is doing something illegal, and a government agency calling up a company and asking them to sever contact with a client.

What else are they going to do once they’ve been informed that this was illegal?

If the US government has shown to Paypal that wikileaks broke the law, I wish they’d show the rest of us as well. What WL did was immoral and distasteful, but I’ve seen no charges laid, or the US Gov’t come forward and cite the specific law broken. This very well may turn out to be a case of “there outta be a law..”

48 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:37:08am

re: #46 Charles

Their statement:

There’s not much wiggle room there. Wikileaks DOES encourage and facilitate the breaking of laws, and promotes the product of that illegal activity.

That I fully agree with.

49 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:37:25am

re: #41 harlequinade

To quote from the original wall of text

re: #14 harlequinade

OK Then it could be an antitrust case. Not that I would support them but that would be the route I can think of now.

50 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:37:40am

re: #45 Sergey Romanov

What historical fact? That Hitler stole swastika from Hindus? //

Their symbol is a very specific mask based on the movie, not on history.

And hence my argument they are illiterate: They’re using a fucking movie for a symbol.

51 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:38:38am

re: #50 MisterCookie

And hence my argument they are illiterate: They’re using a fucking movie for a symbol.

Movie and a graphic novel
Although that had a very different message as well.

///comic book nerd

52 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:38:58am

re: #48 McSpiff

But…isn’t that the point of Wikileaks? To be a place where whistle blowers can blow whistles?

53 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:38:59am

re: #50 MisterCookie

And hence my argument they are illiterate: They’re using a fucking movie for a symbol.

Your argument is non sequitur. :)

54 BishopX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:39:11am

re: #39 Charles

To me, the telling thing is that paypal immediately started talking about their “brand”. I think they made a cold-blooded decision that possibly running afoul of the US wasn’t worth whatever profits they were receiving from WL. I’m not saying that Hilary Clinton called the paypal CEO on a red telephone and told him to shut it down. You are right that they have procedures in place to deal with this sort of thing. but the fact that they’re only going after WL and not the other papers who have the cables makes it seem political.

55 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:40:22am

re: #52 harlequinade

But…isn’t that the point of Wikileaks? To be a place where whistle blowers can blow whistles?

Right, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to do business with them. Doesn’t mean they are breaking the law either.

56 BishopX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:40:54am

In other news both Visa and MasterCard are still accepting donations to the KKK.

57 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:40:59am

re: #38 MisterCookie

So a movie from a few years back is more meaningful than actual historical fact?

How long was the Swastika a Buddhist good luck charm for before the Nazi’s came around?

58 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:41:01am

Most Say WikiLeaks Release Harms Public Interest

Six-in-ten (60%) of those paying attention to the story say they believe the release of thousands of secret State Department communications harms the public interest. About half that number (31%) say the release serves the public interest, according to the latest News Interest Index survey conducted Dec. 2-5 among 1,003 adults.


It’s also disturbing to see support for Assange is higher among Dems.

59 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:41:06am

re: #54 BishopX

but the fact that they’re only going after WL and not the other papers who have the cables makes it seem political.

This is going to be the telling point - what about the newspapers, mirror sites etc.
Or the person who is now putting the cables out, seeing as Assange is in jail and they’re still going up.

Are they also beng charged?

60 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:41:40am

re: #52 harlequinade

But…isn’t that the point of Wikileaks? To be a place where whistle blowers can blow whistles?

I don’t see many whistles being blown.
Just massive document dumps with little regard to redacting names of informants and the like.

61 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:41:48am

re: #53 Sergey Romanov

Your argument is non sequitur. :)

If they were literate, they’d have a more sophisticated frame of reference.

62 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:42:27am

re: #59 harlequinade

Are they also beng charged?


Probably not. The legal case will be against WikiLeaks and Assange.

63 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:42:35am

re: #56 BishopX

In other news both Visa and MasterCard are still accepting donations to the KKK.

Yes but is the KKK engaged in a conspiracy to release top secret documents that pose a threat to national security?

64 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:42:56am

re: #58 Killgore Trout
Disturbing, maybe, but not surprising.
And no snark added there. It’s just a fact.

65 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:43:01am

The question I have is, should governments be able to close down, through whatever tactics they find, web sites, whether located in their own country or not?

I’m a bit ambivalent about the whole thing. I would love to see hate sites disappear, but I don’t like the thought of entities like a government censoring the free exchange of information. I can see where stopping a site would be useful, but I can also see instances, like in Iran, where free access to information from outside the country is essential when freedom is a goal.

66 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:43:45am

re: #54 BishopX

To me, the telling thing is that paypal immediately started talking about their “brand”. I think they made a cold-blooded decision that possibly running afoul of the US wasn’t worth whatever profits they were receiving from WL. I’m not saying that Hilary Clinton called the paypal CEO on a red telephone and told him to shut it down. You are right that they have procedures in place to deal with this sort of thing. but the fact that they’re only going after WL and not the other papers who have the cables makes it seem political.

PayPal has a fiduciary responsibility to act in ways that won’t hurt their brand, just as every large company does.

67 jaunte  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:43:47am

re: #58 Killgore Trout

About half that number (31%) say the release serves the public interest


I haven’t seen many specific arguments about why people support that opinion, just general statements supporting transparency in government.

68 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:43:50am

re: #55 McSpiff

No - but are they doing business with them/KKK or are they just pointing the money hose at them?

69 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:44:16am

re: #61 MisterCookie

If they were literate, they’d have a more sophisticated frame of reference.

Explaining a non sequitur with a non sequitur doesn’t really add anything. Having a trashy taste (which is basically what 4chan is partially about) does not imply lack of literacy.

70 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:44:21am

re: #61 MisterCookie

If they were literate, they’d have a more sophisticated frame of reference.

Maybe they’re just ironically and luzilly playing to the lowest common denominator.

Outside of the UK what do you think the rates are of people who know the story of Guy Fawks against those who know V for Vendetta?

71 garhighway  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:44:21am

re: #63 Gus 802

Yes but is the KKK engaged in a conspiracy to release top secret documents that pose a threat to national security?

No. They just lynch black people.

72 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:44:23am

re: #65 b_sharp

The question I have is, should governments be able to close down, through whatever tactics they find, web sites, whether located in their own country or not?

I’m a bit ambivalent about the whole thing. I would love to see hate sites disappear, but I don’t like the thought of entities like a government censoring the free exchange of information. I can see where stopping a site would be useful, but I can also see instances, like in Iran, where free access to information from outside the country is essential when freedom is a goal.

Its also very hard to define what exactly “in country” means.

73 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:44:42am

re: #58 Killgore Trout
One problem with the wikileaks thing is the scattershot nature of it. Buried within those cables is very likely to be information at random points that ruins lives, if not actually taking them.
It’s not unlike firing a gun into a crowd without aiming.

74 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:45:02am

re: #62 Killgore Trout

Probably not. The legal case will be against WikiLeaks and Assange.

Why?

What crime has Wikileaks committed that the others haven’t?

75 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:45:31am

re: #50 MisterCookie

And hence my argument they are illiterate: They’re using a fucking movie for a symbol.

Attack the argument instead of the man.

Ignoring how they’re going about it, is their intent to battle censoring of the web a valid goal?

76 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:45:39am

Unleash the Free Radicals!!11!

77 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:45:42am

re: #74 harlequinade

Why?

What crime has Wikileaks committed that the others haven’t?

Is what I’d like to know period.

78 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:46:07am

I wouldn’t want to be PFC Manning in the brig. They’d better get him into protective custody.

79 Mark Winter  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:46:14am

Did State Department warn against the New York Times as well?

80 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:46:30am

re: #67 jaunte

I haven’t seen many specific arguments about why people support that opinion, just general statements supporting transparency in government.

I gave up on trying to understand support for Assange. It’s pretty much based on delusions about transparency and free speech. A lot of people seem concerned about slippery slope arguments and authoritarian government fantasies.

81 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:46:31am

re: #76 Jeff In Ohio
You’re too late.//

82 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:46:50am

re: #80 Killgore Trout

I gave up on trying to understand support for Assange. It’s pretty much based on delusions about transparency and free speech. A lot of people seem concerned about slippery slope arguments and authoritarian government fantasies.

I gave up too.

83 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:47:14am

re: #75 b_sharp

Attack the argument instead of the man.

Ignoring how they’re going about it, is their intent to battle censoring of the web a valid goal?

The goal itself is valid; the means are not. Does paypal not have a right to manage their own transactions?

84 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:47:23am

re: #71 garhighway

No. They just lynch black people.

If that was continuing then yes that would be a valid reason to drop the KKK. However, there have been no cases of lynchings by the KKK for many decades now. Not all lynchings in America were carried out by the KKK either. If there is any information that would lead to a conspiracy to carry out lynchings then that would be true.

85 BishopX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:47:35am

re: #59 harlequinade

There is some pretty clear case law about charging newspapers for publishing classified documents. See New York Times v US. The million dollar question is whether Wikileaks counts as a newspaper.

86 JeffM70  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:47:42am

I have no problem with Wikileaks when the leaks pertain to revealing illegal government activity. But leaking secret cables that serve no purpose other than embarrassing the U.S. is unacceptable.

87 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:47:56am

re: #74 harlequinade

Why?

What crime has Wikileaks committed that the others haven’t?

Because the are the origin of the leaks and they are going to keep on doing it until somebody stops them.

88 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:48:15am

re: #58 Killgore Trout

Most Say WikiLeaks Release Harms Public Interest


It’s also disturbing to see support for Assange is higher among Dems.

What is their argument? Why do they support him?

89 harlequinade  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:48:35am

Got to eat.

She who must be obeyed has spoken.

90 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:48:54am

re: #61 MisterCookie

If they were literate, they’d have a more sophisticated frame of reference.

And?

91 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:49:05am

re: #82 Varek Raith
There’s a remnant that really misses being able to yell ’ Up the Establishment ’ and have anyone know what the hell they’re talking about….. this is their moment.

92 garhighway  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:49:10am

re: #84 Gus 802

However, there have been no cases of lynchings by the KKK for many decades now.

And you would know this how, exactly?

93 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:49:52am

re: #85 BishopX

There is some pretty clear case law about charging newspapers for publishing classified documents. See New York Times v US. The million dollar question is whether Wikileaks counts as a newspaper.

‘Press’, not newspaper. Much lower standard.

94 BishopX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:49:56am

re: #66 Charles

That’s more or less what I’m saying. Once paypal received a phone call from the state dept, their fiduciary duty was to cease contact with WL. That feels like government pressure to me.

95 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:50:03am

re: #79 Mark Winter
They’re afraid of the NYT./

96 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:50:19am

re: #92 garhighway

And you would know this how, exactly?

I’m going to pass on the KKK analogy. It’s not equivalent to the Assange/Wikileaks case.

97 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:50:41am

re: #87 Killgore Trout

Because the are the origin of the leaks and they are going to keep on doing it until somebody stops them.

Uhhh no, not at all. The origin of the leak is Pfc Manning.

98 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:50:42am

re: #87 Killgore Trout

Because the are the origin of the leaks and they are going to keep on doing it until somebody stops them.

I’d argue the “origin of the leaks” is the person who leaked the information in the first place.

Wikileaks was just “the fence”

Not that they didn’t do something wrong, but taking down Wikileaks is going to stop something like this from happening again just about as well as taking down Nabster stopped people from pirating music…

99 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:51:18am

re: #17 MisterCookie

Now that I think of it, anyone else find it stupid that their symbol is Guy Fawkes? You know, Guy Fawkes, the one who wanted to replace Britain’s government with a theocracy? Because when I think ‘freedom’ I think theocracy! //

It’s incredibly stupid. Also, “V for Vendetta” was an incredibly stupid movie.

100 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:51:38am

re: #92 garhighway
Seriously, you don’t think that the Justice Dep’t ( as they certainly should) has a record of that?
Then again, look at all the black churches Bill Clinton watched burn in AR that they missed…….//

101 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:52:15am

re: #99 SanFranciscoZionist

It’s incredibly stupid. Also, “V for Vendetta” was an incredibly stupid movie.

Would you say its so bad its lulz worthy? Like say Space Mutiny?

102 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:52:16am

re: #96 Gus 802

I’m going to pass on the KKK analogy. It’s not equivalent to the Assange/Wikileaks case.

How about North Korea then? djgnosis.wordpress.com

103 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:52:21am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

I’d argue the “origin of the leaks” is the person who leaked the information in the first place.

Wikileaks was just “the fence”

Not that they didn’t do something wrong, but taking down Wikileaks is going to stop something like this from happening again just about as well as taking down Nabster stopped people from pirating music…

The next leaker will just learn about Tor and I2P and will have a good chance at staying anonymous, at that.

104 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:52:23am

re: #97 McSpiff

Uhhh no, not at all. The origin of the leak is Pfc Manning.

Assange and Wikileaks remain as unindicted co-conspirators.

105 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:52:34am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

I’d argue the “origin of the leaks” is the person who leaked the information in the first place.

Wikileaks was just “the fence”

Not that they didn’t do something wrong, but taking down Wikileaks is going to stop something like this from happening again just about as well as taking down Nabster stopped people from pirating music…

I don’t see “it’s not going to stop them” as a valid argument for not trying to stop them.

106 iossarian  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:52:45am

re: #86 JeffM70

I have no problem with Wikileaks when the leaks pertain to revealing illegal government activity. But leaking secret cables that serve no purpose other than embarrassing the U.S. is unacceptable.

Actually, I think that the cables that reveal that rich Saudis like to enjoy booze, drugs and hookers at their private parties are highly interesting and valuable.

Partly because it reveals the hypocrisy of that particular regime, and partly because it is an illustration of the general point that restrictive theocratic laws tend not to apply to societal elites, which is extremely relevant to the US abortion debate.

107 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:52:58am

re: #104 Gus 802

Assange and Wikileaks remain as unindicted co-conspirators.

That is a very bold claim with very little to support it.

108 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:53:18am

re: #99 SanFranciscoZionist

It’s incredibly stupid. Also, “V for Vendetta” was an incredibly stupid movie.

No, they blew shit up. Girls…hurrummph…

109 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:53:36am

re: #105 wrenchwench

I don’t see “it’s not going to stop them” as a valid argument for not trying to stop them.

Punishing criminals for their crimes is not stopping crime!
Therefore, let’s just stop trying to punish them!!!
/

110 mikefromArlington  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:53:38am

So, I wonder who’s writing the movie right now.

This has action/thriller written all over it.

111 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:53:42am

re: #102 McSpiff

How about North Korea then? [Link: djgnosis.wordpress.com…]

Take it up with them not me. Otherwise here’s the link that’s provided at that site:

korea-dpr.com

404 Not found

112 Mark Winter  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:53:56am

I think the State Department has no business telling private companies what they feel is illegal.

If it is, get a court order. Should be easy.

113 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:54:16am

re: #108 Jeff In Ohio

No, they blew shit up. Girls…hurrummph…

This.
Come on!
Shit got blowed up!
FIRE BOOM!
Sheesh, chicks!
/

114 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:54:30am

re: #83 MisterCookie

The goal itself is valid; the means are not. Does paypal not have a right to manage their own transactions?

Certainly they do. But that wasn’t the argument you were making.

Their tactics are stupid because they are destructive in a context where destruction is unneeded, but their goal does need to be explored.

115 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:55:05am

re: #111 Gus 802

Take it up with them not me. Otherwise here’s the link that’s provided at that site:

[Link: www.korea-dpr.com…]

404 Not found

korea-dpr.com add items to your cart, and click checkout. Accepts paypal.

116 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:55:08am

re: #101 jamesfirecat

Would you say its so bad its lulz worthy? Like say Space Mutiny?

No, it’s just badly thought out, and melodramatic. The whole sequence where he makes the girl think she’s in prison and tortures her to make her a revolutionary was so sick I simply lost interest, and I didn’t have much to begin with. Bleah. Dictatorships bad. I get it. But if there isn’t a good story, don’t bother to make a movie about it.

117 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:55:12am

re: #107 McSpiff

That is a very bold claim with very little to support it.

Well, Attorney General Eric Holder seems to support it. Take it up with him.

118 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:55:25am

V for Vendetta is only stupid if you’re looking for something that’s deep, dude. It’s an average flick good for 1hr+ entertainment, and its anti-authoritarian message can hardly hurt.

119 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:55:50am

re: #112 Mark Winter

I think the State Department has no business telling private companies what they feel is illegal.

If it is, get a court order. Should be easy.

re: #46 Charles

“PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We’ve notified the account holder of this action.”

Does wikileaks fall into this category or not?

120 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:55:56am

re: #112 Mark Winter

I think the State Department has no business telling private companies what they feel is illegal.

If it is, get a court order. Should be easy.

Exactly. The executive can bring forward charges, but they certainly cannot rule on what is, or is not illegal. That still remains the judicial branch.

121 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:56:00am

re: #105 wrenchwench

I don’t see “it’s not going to stop them” as a valid argument for not trying to stop them.

I’m not either.

I’m just saying the majority of our effort should be on preventing future leaks rather than trying to track down those third parties that serve to distribute them…

122 rwdflynavy  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:56:12am

re: #106 iossarian

Actually, I think that the cables that reveal that rich Saudis like to enjoy booze, drugs and hookers at their private parties are highly interesting and valuable.

Partly because it reveals the hypocrisy of that particular regime, and partly because it is an illustration of the general point that restrictive theocratic laws tend not to apply to societal elites, which is extremely relevant to the US abortion debate.

Anyone who has ever been to Bahrain or the UAE knows that the Saudis chase tail/drink. It is pretty comical to watch.

123 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:56:15am

re: #115 McSpiff

[Link: www.korea-dpr.com…] add items to your cart, and click checkout. Accepts paypal.

That’s just a North Korea “fan site”. Here’s the owner:

Registrant:
korea-dpr.com #29996
Alejandro Cao de benos de Les Perez *********@hotmail.com)
Calle President Companys 4-8
Torredembarra -Tarragona
,43830

Torredembarra is in France.

124 JeffM70  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:56:18am

re: #106 iossarian

Actually, I think that the cables that reveal that rich Saudis like to enjoy booze, drugs and hookers at their private parties are highly interesting and valuable.

Partly because it reveals the hypocrisy of that particular regime, and partly because it is an illustration of the general point that restrictive theocratic laws tend not to apply to societal elites, which is extremely relevant to the US abortion debate.

Yes, but leaking secret cables should have a higher purpose than to expose hypocrisy. In my view the only reason to leak anything classified would be to expose illegal activity.

125 garhighway  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:56:31am

re: #100 tradewind

Seriously, you don’t think that the Justice Dep’t ( as they certainly should) has a record of that?
Then again, look at all the black churches Bill Clinton watched burn in AR that they missed…//

Justice would know what they have caught the KKK doing.

By definition, they would not know what they haven’t caught them at.

Absent some magical change in their worldview, I would think it reasonable to assume that the KKK still thinks that blacks voting and having civil rights are bad ideas, and to the extent that they now fail to act on those beliefs, it is because they fear getting caught in ways they did not used to.

But it seems surprising to me that anyone here would feel that they could authoritatively say what the KKK is doing or not doing these days. That would seem to me to be difficult knowledge to obtain. Do you disagree?

126 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:56:34am

re: #87 Killgore Trout

Because the are the origin of the leaks and they are going to keep on doing it until somebody stops them.

Or until somebody convinces them that some information should not end up in the public.

127 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:56:53am

re: #123 Gus 802

That’s just a North Korea “fan site”. Here’s the owner:

Registrant:
korea-dpr.com #29996
Alejandro Cao de benos de Les Perez ***@hotmail.com)
Calle President Companys 4-8
Torredembarra -Tarragona
,43830

Torredembarra is in France.

Not an official North Korean site by any means.

Next!

128 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:57:06am

re: #117 Gus 802

Well, Attorney General Eric Holder seems to support it. Take it up with him.

I’ve disagreed with Holder many times. As KSM has yet to have a civilian trial, it seems I’m also correct more often.

129 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:57:07am

re: #118 Sergey Romanov

V for Vendetta is only stupid if you’re looking for something that’s deep, dude. It’s an average flick good for 1hr+ entertainment, and its anti-authoritarian message can hardly hurt.

And shit got blown up.

130 garhighway  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:57:13am

re: #110 mikefromArlington

So, I wonder who’s writing the movie right now.

This has action/thriller written all over it.

There’s a Phillip Seymour Hoffman role in there somewhere.

131 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:57:40am

re: #129 Jeff In Ohio

And shit got blown up.

OK, the blowing shit up was fun, but it took so long and was so stupid before it got to that.

132 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:57:42am

re: #127 Gus 802

Not an official North Korean site by any means.

Next!

My mistake, I thought they were selling official merchandise from DPRK.

133 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:57:50am

re: #121 jamesfirecat

I’m not either.

I’m just saying the majority of our effort should be on preventing future leaks rather than trying to track down those third parties that serve to distribute them…

We have a big f’n government and can do both. I think that’s what bothers the anarchists who support Wikileaks.

134 iossarian  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:58:08am

re: #121 jamesfirecat

I’m not either.

I’m just saying the majority of our effort should be on preventing future leaks rather than trying to track down those third parties that serve to distribute them…

Or maybe we should stop trying to pass off the shit that we do as being morally pure and holy, so that when middle-ranking state employees who have bought into that claptrap actually come across the truth, they are not so disgusted that their first thought is to ship the whole lot to a whistle-blowing site.

135 researchok  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:58:43am

re: #132 McSpiff

My mistake, I thought they were selling official merchandise from DPRK.

Dirt is official merchandise from DPRK?
/

136 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:59:00am

re: #110 mikefromArlington
Isn’t it just right up Oliver Stone’s alley?

137 iossarian  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:59:00am

re: #124 JeffM70

Yes, but leaking secret cables should have a higher purpose than to expose hypocrisy. In my view the only reason to leak anything classified would be to expose illegal activity.

The activity is illegal in Saudi Arabia.

138 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:59:24am

re: #132 McSpiff

My mistake, I thought they were selling official merchandise from DPRK.

Here’s their “about us”:

About this shop

This e-shop is managed by the Korean Friendship Association.

Our organization was founded in the year 2000 and has thousands of members in 120 countries.

Its purpose is to facilitate different cultural products from the DPR of Korea to the rest of the world, by doing so, we hope to contribute for a better understanding, support and friendly relations with the country.

The quality of each product is checked on an individual basis and surely that the culture and arts of North Korea will be an outstanding addition to your collection.

Thank You for your visit.

139 Mark Winter  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:59:55am

“encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity”

With that clause you can terminate any contract if you want to.

WHAT illegal activity?
Illegal WHERE?
Illegal established by WHOM?

140 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:00:14am

re: #119 Varek Raith
You could certainly infer that wikileaks ’ encouraged ’ Manning to engage in illegal activity.

141 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:01:22am

re: #112 Mark Winter

I think the State Department has no business telling private companies what they feel is illegal.

If it is, get a court order. Should be easy.

And I see nothing wrong with this. The State Department is at the heart of this matter — it’s THEIR cables that were leaked. They’re not making a “ruling” on the legality of what Wikileaks did - as far as I can tell, the only thing State did was to contact PayPal and point out that Wikileaks was in clear violation of PayPal’s own TOS.

The State Department has a very real, legitimate concern when their classified information is leaked, and it’s naive (again) to expect them not to react.

142 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:01:34am

re: #130 garhighway

there’s a Phillip Seymour Hoffman role in there somewhere.

How great was he in Charlie Wilson’s War?

143 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:01:39am

re: #138 Gus 802

From wikipedia:

The Korean Friendship Association (Spanish: Asociación Coreana de Amistad), headed by Spanish citizen Alejandro Cao de Benos de Les y Pérez, is an organization working with the Committee for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), as well as an organ of promotion/public relations for the Juche movement. The Committee for Cultural Relations is the official government cultural liaison agency for North Korea and purports to fulfill a similar role to that of the British Council or the Alliance française. The KFA was established in Spain in November 2000. In 2004, KFA members organized in North Korea an International March for Korea’s Peace and Reunification supporting the reunification of the two Koreas, as well as the policy of the North Korean government.

So it may not be an official organ, but its certainly receiving support from the DPRK.

144 garhighway  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:01:58am

re: #142 tradewind

How great was he in Charlie Wilson’s War?

10 out of 10.

145 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:02:07am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

I’d argue the “origin of the leaks” is the person who leaked the information in the first place.

Wikileaks was just “the fence”

Not that they didn’t do something wrong, but taking down Wikileaks is going to stop something like this from happening again just about as well as taking down Nabster stopped people from pirating music…

In meat-space, the ‘fence’ is also breaking the law by making profit on stolen goods, so your analogy isn’t accurate. In this case, the original thief broke the laws of the US as a US citizen. Does the US have jurisdiction over WL?

146 JeffM70  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:02:08am

re: #137 iossarian

The activity is illegal in Saudi Arabia.

I’m talking strictly about leaking classified documents to expose illegal activity by our government. Breaking U.S. law to expose illegal activity by a foreign government doesn’t cut it.

147 Varek Raith  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:02:09am

re: #139 Mark Winter

“encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity”

With that clause you can terminate any contract if you want to.

WHAT illegal activity?
Illegal WHERE?
Illegal established by WHOM?

Manning illegally sent stolen classified materials to wikileaks.
Wikileaks published it, knowing full well it was obtained illegally.
Using wikileaks logic, nothing should ever be classified. Ever.

148 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:02:18am

re: #143 McSpiff

Should be a quote, not bold, sorry.

149 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:03:01am

re: #147 Varek Raith

Manning illegally sent stolen classified materials to wikileaks.
Wikileaks published it, knowing full well it was obtained illegally.
Using wikileaks logic, nothing should ever be classified. Ever.

None of which indicates that wikileaks broke any law, as established by NYT vs. US.

150 imherefromtheinternet  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:03:04am

re: #125 garhighway

The KKK is no longer a coherent group of any kind. It is splintered into hundreds of local groups that may or may not be affiliated. It has been splintering and declining since the zenith of its power in the 1920s.

151 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:03:22am

re: #139 Mark Winter

“encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity”

With that clause you can terminate any contract if you want to.

WHAT illegal activity?
Illegal WHERE?
Illegal established by WHOM?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 793
§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

152 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:04:04am

re: #128 McSpiff
AG Holder is a disaster.
IMO, one of Obama’s biggest mistakes.

153 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:04:21am

re: #145 b_sharp

In meat-space, the ‘fence’ is also breaking the law by making profit on stolen goods, so your analogy isn’t accurate. In this case, the original thief broke the laws of the US as a US citizen. Does the US have jurisdiction over WL?

Nope, which is why the US is more or less hosed in terms of being able to solve this easily. The only recourse is A) stop doing illegal shit that can be leaked and B) update security procedures so a mere PFC can’t completely upend international relations

154 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:04:35am

re: #151 Gus 802

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 793
§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

…willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it…

155 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:04:44am

re: #151 Gus 802

Plus in Manning’s case, the various defense regulations…I think those carry force of law? Im sure Paypal could argue they do in relation to their ToS.

156 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:04:49am

re: #150 imherefromtheinternet
May the splintering continue until sawdust.

157 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:05:52am

re: #139 Mark Winter

“encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity”

With that clause you can terminate any contract if you want to.

Well, of course. Why do you think companies like PayPal have terms of service?

158 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:06:09am

re: #155 McSpiff

Plus in Manning’s case, the various defense regulations…I think those carry force of law? Im sure Paypal could argue they do in relation to their ToS.

Maybe. Manning of course is in far bigger trouble. If Assange ever gets prosecuted in the USA remains to be seen.

159 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:06:38am

re: #152 tradewind

AG Holder is a disaster.
IMO, one of Obama’s biggest mistakes.

Agreed. His habit of speaking out before you know…filing papers… is getting a little much. The fact that he’s made such a statement about wikileaks makes me confident they’ll never successfully be prosecuted in the US.

160 Kragar  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:07:44am

re: #149 McSpiff

None of which indicates that wikileaks broke any law, as established by NYT vs. US.

Wrong. That case left open pressing espionage charges against NYT. It was the government injuction that the supreme court ruled on.

161 BishopX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:07:59am

re: #82 Varek Raith

My support for them goes something like this:
- In the past they have provided a useful service by combating corruption and unwarranted secrecy.

-They have been burned (rightly) for altering material they have received in the past.

-In order order to combat the perception they have a bias they need to release pretty much all of what they receive.

So when someone hands them 250,000 state dept cables, some of which do reveal information which is useful( e.g info on the Saudi stance towards Iran, US pressure on Germany over renditions). Wikileaks has three options they can sit on the whole trove, and by doing so compromise their ability to serve as a leak site. They can edit the data, which they got burned for in the past. Or they can release all of it.

They went with option #3 in the least destructive means possible.

They contacted the Us government, informing them of what they had and offering to work with them to protect people.

They gave several noted newspapers advance access to the cables and asked their opinions on what should and should not be released.

As far as I’m concerned they did good due diligence on these cables. Much better than the Iraq/Afghanistan stuff they published.

Am I happy that they published this stuff? Not especially, but I’m willing to tolerate it provided that they don’t act like complete assholes because they do good work often enough to be useful.

And with that I’m off to run errands.

162 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:08:05am

re: #158 Gus 802

Maybe. Manning of course is in far bigger trouble. If Assange ever gets prosecuted in the USA remains to be seen.

If he’s convicted of leaking, he’s in very serious trouble and will probably spend a long time in prison.

I’m a little amused at all the outrage that companies and governments are pushing back at Assange. Did you folks think they were going to give him awards and medals?

163 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:08:11am

re: #160 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Everyone seems to miss that about the case.

164 garhighway  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:09:01am

re: #150 imherefromtheinternet

The KKK is no longer a coherent group of any kind. It is splintered into hundreds of local groups that may or may not be affiliated. It has been splintering and declining since the zenith of its power in the 1920s.

That’s good. Then I suppose, for purposes of the analogy, we ought consider the sum total of the splinter groups as the successors to the former unified KKK (which to my reading was a functioning group well into the 60’s although I could be wrong about that).

Either way, it would seem to be quite difficult to speak authoritatively about their current activities, don’t you think?

165 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:09:06am

re: #140 tradewind

You could certainly infer that wikileaks ’ encouraged ’ Manning to engage in illegal activity.

No you couldn’t.

That’s like saying that knowing that there are fences out there encourages you to steal things.

Did wikileaks contact Manning before her stole the data?

166 Kragar  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:09:18am

re: #162 Charles

If he’s convicted of leaking, he’s in very serious trouble and will probably spend a long time in prison.

I’m a little amused at all the outrage that companies and governments are pushing back at Assange. Did you folks think they were going to give him awards and medals?

Manning is going to be in jail for a very, very long time.

167 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:09:21am

re: #158 Gus 802
I can’t imagine that we’ll ever see Assange’s ass in America for trial. Fine with me….. let him freeze in Sweden.

168 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:09:38am

re: #109 Varek Raith

Punishing criminals for their crimes is not stopping crime!
Therefore, let’s just stop trying to punish them!!!
/

It isn’t an argument, but I think you missed James’ point - it will be necessary to deal with the problem in ways other than by shutting the site down because it is a problem that will come up repeatedly simply through the nature of the web.

169 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:10:50am

re: #160 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wrong. That case left open pressing espionage charges against NYT. It was the government injuction that the supreme court ruled on.

Oh you could easily bring Aassange up on espionage charges. But I think that’s harder to prosecute. Otherwise why haven’t various media outlets already been charged?

Either they get him on some weird ‘possession of classified documents’ charge, or he’ll never see the inside of a US prison IMO.

170 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:10:54am

re: #165 jamesfirecat

No you couldn’t.

That’s like saying that knowing that there are fences out there encourages you to steal things.

It does. That’s one reason why fencing stolen goods is illegal.

171 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:11:00am

re: #145 b_sharp

In meat-space, the ‘fence’ is also breaking the law by making profit on stolen goods, so your analogy isn’t accurate. In this case, the original thief broke the laws of the US as a US citizen. Does the US have jurisdiction over WL?

I noted in my post that wikileaks had done something wrong.

Just don’t say it was the “original source of the leak” the same way you don’t charge the fence with B&E for handling hot goods… there are other crimes wikileaks /the fence can be accused of that they have actually committed, but so far consensus is that its not like wikileaks hacked the US servers right?

172 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:11:59am

re: #170 Charles

It does. That’s one reason why fencing stolen goods is illegal.

Fair point.

But my last one is really crucial if you asked me, did Wikileaks contact Maning beforehand?

173 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:13:00am

re: #164 garhighway
Don’t know about the KKK, but I do know that Justice has had undercover agents infiltrating white supremacist groups for some time. Dangerous but important work, and I imagine they have a pretty good idea of activities within those groups.

174 Mark Winter  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:13:08am

re: #141 Charles

And I see nothing wrong with this. The State Department is at the heart of this matter — it’s THEIR cables that were leaked. They’re not making a “ruling” on the legality of what Wikileaks did - as far as I can tell, the only thing State did was to contact PayPal and point out that Wikileaks was in clear violation of PayPal’s own TOS.

The State Department has a very real, legitimate concern when their classified information is leaked, and it’s naive (again) to expect them not to react.

Maybe I should clarify. The State Department - as a victim - certainly has any right to tell PayPal that in their view WL is engaged in illegal activities.

The problem is: If I am the victim of illegal activities of a PayPal member and I complain to PayPal, they will tell me: OK we will investigate this. They will not shut down the account of that member FREEZING money in his account immediately.

Now if PayPal has a clause “at our sole discretion” they can do whatever they want. But I wouldn’t do business with such a company.

If they don’t have such a clause I’d expect - for once - that they would like to contact the other side and get their view.

Because after all we’re talking about contracts. And without the clause “at our sole discretion” they are violating their contract.

The right thing to do would be to ask for a court ruling. It can’t be that hard to establish whether the activity is illegal or not.

If a court can’t decide that within hours, how can PayPal?

175 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:13:29am

re: #172 jamesfirecat

Manning has said something that indicates that he did— about how to find Assange, he replied that Assange finds you.

176 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:13:57am

re: #2 imherefromtheinternet

“Anonymous” is not a “hacker group”. It’s more like an ideology/lifestyle in the way people relate to the web.

Anonymous is just the roiling mass of haters, jokers, mischief-makers, and meme-creators that inhabit influential corners of the online world.

Some of them are hackers. On steroids. If you don’t immediately understand that reference, you don’t understand Anonymous.

Well, you know, sometimes you call them a ‘hacker’s group’ because they’re a group, and they’re engaging in DDOS attacks.

It’s a little more concise than:

The roiling mass of haters, jokers, mischief-makers, and meme-creators that inhabit influential corners of the online world has attacked the website of Mastercard…

177 Kragar  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:14:06am

re: #169 McSpiff

Oh you could easily bring Aassange up on espionage charges. But I think that’s harder to prosecute. Otherwise why haven’t various media outlets already been charged?

Either they get him on some weird ‘possession of classified documents’ charge, or he’ll never see the inside of a US prison IMO.

Part of it is because the information is being so widely distributed. Wikileaks is the chief souce, so investigators are probably focusing on them first. Once the main leak is stopped, then you can go back and cover the other players.

178 JeffM70  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:14:15am

I wonder. Would be still be having this conversation if the leaks were limited to revealing illegal activity?

179 researchok  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:14:44am

The New Republic: Why Julian Assange Is No Daniel Ellsberg

Meanwhile, the twinning of Julian Assange with Daniel Ellsberg as a sort of tag-team of noble leaking, an aristocracy of transparency, strikes me as glib and unconvincing, even if the two men have at times presented themselves as brothers under the skin. When Ellsberg published—made public—the Pentagon Papers nearly 40 years ago, he released a historical book—a more or less coherent, linear, systematic study of decision-making during the Vietnam war, commissioned by Robert S. McNamara when he was secretary of defense, and a systematic revelation of a pattern of government lies and distortions repeatedly issued to the American people. There was little or no news for the Vietnamese in its revelations of what the war was doing to that land. The secrets had been kept not from the adversary but from this hamstrung democracy itself. And the Pentagon Papers did not propound that the state was illegitimate or that it ought to be rendered more stupid, impulsive, cognitively impaired, or ideologically blinkered.

Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers was a great democratic act that helped clarify for the American public how its leaders had misled it for years, to the immense detriment of the nation’s honor. By contrast, Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate. Assange slashes and burns with impunity. He is a minister of chaos fighting for a world of total transparency. We have enough problems without that.

180 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:14:54am

re: #178 JeffM70

I wonder. Would be still be having this conversation if the leaks were limited to revealing illegal activity?

Probably not.

181 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:15:54am

re: #165 jamesfirecat
Whether or not W/L contacted Manning ( doubtful) or an evidently p—ssed off Manning contacted them….. there was demonstrable contact between them and you can bet W/L knew of his activity and did nothing to discourage it.

182 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:16:05am

People who confuse adolescents acting out with those who wish to bring about freedom should consider themselves adolescents too.

An adolescent sees no gray in life - there are the virtuous and the corrupt. Wikileaks and 4chan are simply adolescent hangouts.

And “shutting them down” is a bit of a fantasy - not something that can be done.

The Internet sits on top of ethernet which is a collision based protocol. It isn’t like a microphone gets passed around and your ethernet port only speaks when it has the microphone. When your machine has access to a network that is on the Internet, you can speak all you want until that network gets shut by the router that serves it or your mac address gets isolated on that network. If it does, you move to another network. Or another server. No single microphone means no authority determining who can say what when. IBM tried to salvage “Token Ring” with the idea that such censorship was possible, but lost the argument about 25 years ago.

Point to all of this is simple - you have a global electronic community which means adolescents now have access to the entire planetary information infrastructure and now always will. So the impulse to “prank” (which drives 4chan) will be acted on and always will be. New reality.

Will the adolescents learn? Well thousands died as a result of Assange meddling in African elections. That didn’t bother him - he shrugs it off. So the simple answer is “no”.

183 SpaceJesus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:16:06am

We are anonymous. We live in our parents’ basements. We are legion. We will minorly inconvenience you. Expect us.

184 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:16:09am

re: #177 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Part of it is because the information is being so widely distributed. Wikileaks is the chief souce, so investigators are probably focusing on them first. Once the main leak is stopped, then you can go back and cover the other players.

‘Other players’ being virtually every media outlet on the planet. I just can’t see a court making a distinction between 2nd hand information and 3rd hand. Plus there’s the fact Assange isn’t currently in the US, isn’t a US citizen, and the actual source of the leak is already in prison makes me highly skeptical that he’ll ever be in US jurisdiction.

185 Mark Winter  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:16:35am

re: #157 Charles

Well, of course. Why do you think companies like PayPal have terms of service?

I’m not a member of PayPal. Do they have the clause “at our sole discretion” when it comes to “illegal activities”

186 imherefromtheinternet  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:17:13am

re: #164 garhighway

Maybe not too hard. Lots of the groups have crappy little websites.

Either way, there really is no way for an organization like Paypal to take action against them - they are a distributed network of small groups of people. Just wouldn’t work.

187 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:18:07am

re: #169 McSpiff
There’s a clue in the name: The Espionage Act of 1917.
It’s unwieldy and hard to apply.

188 garhighway  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:18:49am

re: #173 tradewind

Don’t know about the KKK, but I do know that Justice has had undercover agents infiltrating white supremacist groups for some time. Dangerous but important work, and I imagine they have a pretty good idea of activities within those groups.

I am sure they do, but if “I’mhere..” is right and such groups are now highly splintered, then all Justice could ever know is what the subsets they’ve penetrated are up to.

Which is just another reason to be puzzled at how anyone here could feel confident making authoritative statements about the KKK’s current activities.

189 JeffM70  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:19:07am

re: #181 tradewind

Whether or not W/L contacted Manning ( doubtful) or an evidently p—ssed off Manning contacted them… there was demonstrable contact between them and you can bet W/L knew of his activity and did nothing to discourage it.

If Manning contacted Wikileaks on his own, that would seem to rule out espionage on Wikileaks’ part.

190 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:19:16am

re: #185 Mark Winter

I’m not a member of PayPal. Do they have the clause “at our sole discretion” when it comes to “illegal activities”

From paypal:

PayPal, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to terminate this Agreement, access to its website, or access to the PayPal Services for any reason and at any time upon notice to you and payment to you of any unrestricted funds held in custody for you.

taken from cms.paypal.com

191 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:19:23am
People who confuse adolescents acting out with those who wish to bring about freedom should consider themselves adolescents too.

An adolescent sees no gray in life - there are the virtuous and the corrupt. Wikileaks and 4chan are simply adolescent hangouts.

And “shutting them down” is a bit of a fantasy - not something that can be done.

The Internet sits on top of ethernet which is a collision based protocol. It isn’t like a microphone gets passed around and your ethernet port only speaks when it has the microphone. When your machine has access to a network that is on the Internet, you can speak all you want until that network gets shut by the router that serves it or your mac address gets isolated on that network. If it does, you move to another network. Or another server. No single microphone means no authority determining who can say what when. IBM tried to salvage “Token Ring” with the idea that such censorship was possible, but lost the argument about 25 years ago.

Point to all of this is simple - you have a global electronic community which means adolescents now have access to the entire planetary information infrastructure and now always will. So the impulse to “prank” (which drives 4chan) will be acted on and always will be. New reality.

Will the adolescents learn? Well thousands died as a result of Assange meddling in African elections. That didn’t bother him - he shrugs it off. So the simple answer is “no”.

Uh, what?
Not that I don’t agree, but your Ethernet analogy is completely wrong. The internet doesn’t run on top of it anymore than it runs on top of a Frame relay link. The only thing that defines the internet as the internet is the usage of IP

192 Four More Tears  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:19:32am

re: #183 SpaceJesus

We are anonymous. We live in our parents’ basements. We are legion. We will minorly inconvenience you. Expect us.

I’m actually kinda impressed that the 4chaners were able to tear themselves away from Cataclysm long enough to pull this off.

193 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:19:38am

BBL

194 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:20:34am

re: #185 Mark Winter

I’m not a member of PayPal. Do they have the clause “at our sole discretion” when it comes to “illegal activities”

V. Rights, Obligations and Disclaimers of PayPal

4. Termination. PayPal, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to terminate this Agreement, access to its website, or access to the Service for any reason and at any time upon notice to you and payment to you of any unrestricted funds held in custody for you.

paypal.com

195 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:20:55am

re: #175 Obdicut

Manning has said something that indicates that he did— about how to find Assange, he replied that Assange finds you.

Okay there we go, now you’ve started to sell me on a case that Assange was involved in the crime before the fact, can we back this up with more data?

196 Mark Winter  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:21:00am

re: #190 McSpiff

Thank you.
OK. So they can do what they want.
But I wouldn’t do business with them.
That’s not a contract I would sign.

197 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:21:35am

re: #196 Mark Winter

Thank you.
OK. So they can do what they want.
But I wouldn’t do business with them.
That’s not a contract I would sign.

Agreed. I do business with banks for a reason.

198 garhighway  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:21:51am

re: #196 Mark Winter

Thank you.
OK. So they can do what they want.
But I wouldn’t do business with them.
That’s not a contract I would sign.

I’d be surprised if their competitors don’t have similar language.

199 Kragar  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:22:00am

re: #189 JeffM70

If Manning contacted Wikileaks on his own, that would seem to rule out espionage on Wikileaks’ part.

Wrong. By accepting the information and not turning in Manning when he approached them, they became complicit.

200 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:22:08am

It is also adolescent to expect the people who provide you free servers, low cost bandwidth, and a bunch of other subsidized services to not act in their interests when your tantrum is getting out of hand.

201 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:22:15am

re: #195 jamesfirecat
I would imagine that a JAG has already told Manning to STFU, so probably not.//

202 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:24:07am

re: #199 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wrong. By accepting the information and not turning in Manning when he approached them, they became complicit.

That’s like saying I’m complacent for breaking Saudi law every time I drink. Other than the fact that they stupidly hosted the documents on US servers…

203 JeffM70  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:25:42am

re: #199 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wrong. By accepting the information and not turning in Manning when he approached them, they became complicit.

Having just looked at the Espionage Act of 1917, it has a broad definition of what constitutes espionage, much broader than I realized.

204 Mark Winter  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:26:49am

re: #199 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wrong. By accepting the information and not turning in Manning when he approached them, they became complicit.

Excuse me but this is nonsense. Any journalist worth his salt is working with confidential info.

205 imherefromtheinternet  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:30:27am

re: #176 Charles

sometimes you call them a ‘hacker’s group’ because they’re a group, and they’re engaging in DDOS attacks.

You have a good point.

But I would still say it is totally disputable that they are a “group” in any meaningful sense. There is no acknowledged leadership, most likely many of the “group members” do not know each other (either online or in real life), and the only way to connect their activities together is the fact that the alleged members frequent one of the world’s most popular websites. It’s pretty tenuous stuff. I realize journalistic shorthand is helpful, but I can’t help but think that the purpose served by the term is to create a coherent scary/annoying/unlikeable entity out of an essentially unconnected set of individuals & actions.

That it is effective is amply reflected in some of the comments here.

206 laZardo  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:30:43am

INTERNET HAET MACHEEEN~

/3:30 AM, waiting for a flight to Cebu on airport wireless. CUE THE FEDS!

207 prairiefire  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:32:48am

“West Side Story” is on Turner Classic Movies.

208 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:33:54am

re: #107 McSpiff

That is a very bold claim with very little to support it.

Justice mulls WikiLeaks prosecution

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department is considering possible avenues to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange beyond the 1917 Espionage Act, officials said.

Possible offenses under consideration include conspiracy or trafficking in stolen property, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said this week prosecution was problematic under the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law under which makes unauthorized possession and dissemination of national defense-related information illegal. However, Holder signaled his office was looking at other statutes.

“I don’t want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act,” Holder said Monday. “That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal.”

Continues.

210 laZardo  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:35:46am

re: #176 Charles

Well, you know, sometimes you call them a ‘hacker’s group’ because they’re a group, and they’re engaging in DDOS attacks.

It’s a little more concise than:

They take their name from the default username for people posting on imageboards like 4chan or Futaba, where entering a ‘username’ to attach to each picture is optional. Apart from the obvious rules of ‘no child porn’ and ‘keep the boards vaguely on topic,’ there aren’t any rules. Racial slurs and anti-Semitism abound, though the anonymity means it’s probably the people those respective slurs are addressed to actually typing them just for the “lulz.”

Most of them are really part of the aforementioned roiling mass, basically general nerds and their harem of camwhores. Quite a few of them get emboldened by this and take it TO THA NEXT LEVEL though.

211 rwdflynavy  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:36:05am

re: #202 McSpiff

That’s like saying I’m complacent for breaking Saudi law every time I drink. Other than the fact that they stupidly hosted the documents on US servers…

You probably are complacent. Complicit, not so much!//

212 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:40:06am

re: #202 McSpiff

That’s like saying I’m complacent for breaking Saudi law every time I drink. Other than the fact that they stupidly hosted the documents on US servers…

Manning had a working relationship with Assange:

(2:04:29 PM) Manning: im a source, not quite a volunteer
(2:05:38 PM) Manning: i mean, im a high profile source… and i’ve developed a relationship with assange… but i dont know much more than what he tells me, which is very little
(2:05:58 PM) Manning: it took me four months to confirm that the person i was communicating was in fact assange
(2:10:01 PM) Lamo: how’d you do that?
(2:12:45 PM) Manning: I gathered more info when i questioned him whenever he was being tailed in Sweden by State Department officials… i was trying to figure out who was following him… and why… and he was telling me stories of other times he’s been followed… and they matched up with the ones he’s said publicly
(2:14:28 PM) Lamo: did that bear out? the surveillance?
(2:14:46 PM) Manning: based on the description he gave me, I assessed it was the Northern Europe Diplomatic Security Team… trying to figure out how he got the Reykjavik cable…
(2:15:57 PM) Manning: they also caught wind that he had a video… of the Gharani airstrike in afghanistan, which he has, but hasn’t decrypted yet… the production team was actually working on the Baghdad strike though, which was never really encrypted
(2:16:22 PM) Manning: he’s got the whole 15-6 for that incident… so it wont just be video with no context
(2:16:55 PM) Manning: but its not nearly as damning… it was an awful incident, but nothing like the baghdad one
(2:17:59 PM) Manning: the investigating officers left the material unprotected, sitting in a directory on a centcom.smil.mil
(2:18:03 PM) Manning: server
(2:18:56 PM) Manning: but they did zip up the files, aes-256, with an excellent password… so afaik it hasn’t been broken yet
(2:19:12 PM) Manning: 14+ chars…
(2:19:37 PM) Manning: i can’t believe what im telling you =L

It was a lot more than “stupidly” hosing classified information.

213 JeffM70  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:40:25am

If only the DOJ would act with such vigor when the executive branch breaks the law. Maybe Assange should try the, “I asked my lawyer and he said it was legal” defense.

214 prairiefire  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:42:21am

re: #213 JeffM70

If only the DOJ would act with such vigor when the executive branch breaks the law. Maybe Assange should try the, “I asked my lawyer and he said it was legal” defense.

Ha! Post of the day.

215 JeffFX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:42:32am

re: #179 researchok

The New Republic: Why Julian Assange Is No Daniel Ellsberg

It appears that Dan Ellsberg disagrees.
ellsberg.net

216 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:44:13am

re: #1 MisterCookie

I’m getting pretty sick of 4chan and their mob mentality crap; wouldn’t mind them getting hit hard back.

There’s really no such thing as a “them” to hit, really. Anon isn’t something you can attack.

217 Randall Gross  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:47:37am

Sure it’s all fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out…

If they really interfere with transactions for a long period of time (more than a momentary AHA! We made them reboot and distribute servers) during Christmas shopping season then there probably will be hell to pay and real people will be found and go to jail in 2011.

It will be all like that Ned Beatty scene in Network…

“You have meddled with the primal forces of nature!”

218 researchok  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:49:34am

re: #215 JeffFX

It appears that Dan Ellsberg disagrees.
[Link: www.ellsberg.net…]

Another opinion.

It might have something to do with the fact that Ellsberg remains a controversial figure.

In my opinion, TNR was rather generous to him.

219 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:50:08am

re: #212 Gus 802

Manning had a working relationship with Assange:

It was a lot more than “stupidly” hosing classified information.

Hosing? I meant hosting.

220 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:50:22am

re: #215 JeffFX

It appears that Dan Ellsberg disagrees.
[Link: www.ellsberg.net…]

Well f*** that’s a bit hard to argue against isn’t it?

221 kirkspencer  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:51:16am

re: #218 researchok

Another opinion.

It might have something to do with the fact that Ellsberg remains a controversial figure.

In my opinion, TNR was rather generous to him.

Wait. You post an opinion and it’s defensible, and another opinion is posted and it’s not?

No. If opinions are worth consideration they’re worth consideration.

222 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:52:00am

re: #212 Gus 802

And I’m sure we’ve got similar communication with various other spy handlers around the globe. It would certainly be unique if we attempted to extradite Assange and not various Russians we certainly know about.

223 jamesfirecat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:52:02am

re: #218 researchok

Another opinion.

It might have something to do with the fact that Ellsberg remains a controversial figure.

In my opinion, TNR was rather generous to him.

Umm… if you ask me this is like when Adam Lambert told Channel Awesome that their parody of his music video was funny…

If guy X sees Wikileaks as the next guy X… he has a right to control and shape his legacy (for good or evil) far more than we do…

So he’s not just another opinion if you ask me…

224 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:52:17am

re: #208 Gus 802

Justice mulls WikiLeaks prosecution
“I don’t want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act,” Holder said Monday. “That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal.”

Holder is basically admitting that the federal code is so vast that there has to be something in there that covers an act like this but he isn’t sure exactly which one. They’ll find something to charge Assange with even if they have to stretch the law a bit to fit.

225 researchok  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:52:59am

re: #221 kirkspencer

Wait. You post an opinion and it’s defensible, and another opinion is posted and it’s not?

No. If opinions are worth consideration they’re worth consideration.

My response was a clarification.

I have no issue with Ellsberg’s remarks.

I do believe TNR has a far better argument.

226 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:53:09am

re: #218 researchok

Another opinion.

It might have something to do with the fact that Ellsberg remains a controversial figure.

In my opinion, TNR was rather generous to him.

You mean this Daniel Ellsberg?

Dr Daniel Ellsberg, statement on Mordechai Vanunu and Israeli nuclear terrorism, 2005: ” The fact that Israel has a large and growing nuclear arsenal – larger than Britain’s – has been recognized by the rest of the world ever since Mordechai Vanunu revealed it conclusively 19 years ago. For demolishing his country’s policy of concealment, denial, and “ambiguity” of its status as a nuclear weapons state, Vanunu served 18 years in prison, including an unprecedented period of 11 and a half years of solitary confinement in a six-by-nine-foot cell… This very month, both Israel and the U.S. are making open threats of armed attacks as early as this summer on Iran’s nuclear weapons potential. For Israel to confirm openly Vanunu’s revelations at this particular time – dramatically abandoning forty years of obfuscation – would attract unfavorable attention to the fact that such threats or attacks against Iran are aimed not at achieving a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East but at prolonging, indefinitely, Israel’s monopoly of nuclear weapons in the region. That is an unstated aim for both the U.S. and Israel, but a less than compelling justification for war. This may be a reason – but not a legitimate one – for returning Mordechai Vanunu to silence in solitary. What the world needs of this prophet of the nuclear era is not his silence but his freedom to speak and travel, to inspire others to follow his example of truth-telling in their own countries, above all here in the United States.”

Oh yeah.

227 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:54:15am

re: #224 RogueOne

Holder is basically admitting that the federal code is so vast that there has to be something in there that covers an act like this but he isn’t sure exactly which one. They’ll find something to charge Assange with even if they have to stretch the law a bit to fit.

That’s rather presumptuous.

228 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:54:27am

Why not attempt to charge Mikhail Fradkov, head of the Russian SVR?

229 Alexzander  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:54:34am

re: #162 Charles


I’m a little amused at all the outrage that companies and governments are pushing back at Assange. Did you folks think they were going to give him awards and medals?

Perhaps a medal at the next (US State Department hosted) World Press Freedom Day, an organization that is “concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information.”

230 researchok  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:54:57am

re: #223 jamesfirecat

Umm… if you ask me this is like when Adam Lambert told Channel Awesome that their parody of his music video was funny…

If guy X sees Wikileaks as the next guy X… he has a right to control and shape his legacy (for good or evil) far more than we do…

So he’s not just another opinion if you ask me…

I see the ‘Monday Morning Quaterback’ as presenting another argument, no more, no less.

As it stands, I do believe the TNR piece makes a more forceful case.

231 kirkspencer  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:56:23am

re: #179 researchok

See in rebuttal re: #161 BishopX

Condemned for editing to show only the bad, they chose to dump all as the best of three options.

For what it’s worth I know a lot of people who think the Pentagon Paper case was wrongly decided by the US Supreme Court. In that light this is a second bite at the same apple. To reinforce that opinion, I reference the fact that Senator Lieberman has stated the NYT is as guilty as Wikileaks for doing this and should either retract or be prosecuted. (see this link for reference.)

232 researchok  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:57:04am

re: #226 Gus 802

You mean this Daniel Ellsberg?

Oh yeah.

The one and only.

Ellsberg would have been wiser, in my opinion, to get out of the limelight right after the Pentagon Papers.

233 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:01:31pm

re: #227 Gus 802

That’s rather presumptuous.

Not in the least. It happens so often it’s all but SOP.

234 laZardo  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:02:51pm

4 AM, gonna head to the gate and wait for boarding. Cheers.

235 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:06:44pm

re: #232 researchok

The one and only.

Ellsberg would have been wiser, in my opinion, to get out of the limelight right after the Pentagon Papers.

Well, at least he precipitated the withdrawal of American troops in Vietnam thus ending Kennedy’s and Johnson’s war.

//

236 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:07:26pm

I have no idea why anyone thinks Manning was the first guy to do this. If it was as easy as it sounds, im sure these documents and many others were already stolen and sold to the Russians, or the Chinese or the…

237 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:09:51pm

Alleged leaker Bradley Manning: hero to Berkeley?
Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2010

An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who’s suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed.

Manning, 22, currently in the brig in Quantico, Va., faces 52 years in prison if convicted. Manning has not commented on his guilt or innocence.

Continues.

238 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:11:02pm

re: #237 Gus 802

Alleged leaker Bradley Manning: hero to Berkeley?
Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Sigh, Oh Berkley… this is why the stereotypes will never end.

239 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:11:10pm

re: #237 Gus 802

Manning violated a couple of oaths along with the law. He should be tried and shot.

240 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:12:42pm
243 JeffFX  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:22:15pm

re: #242 Gus 802

But not everyone in Berkeley shares his sentiment. Commissioner Thyme Siegel voted against the measure at a Peace and Justice Commission meeting. He said it is too early to asses the full impact of the documents.

Manning may have stolen the documents because he was concerned about atrocities committed by the US, but it’s very hard to justify the massive document theft and releases.

244 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:26:22pm

re: #243 JeffFX

Manning may have stolen the documents because he was concerned about atrocities committed by the US, but it’s very hard to justify the massive document theft and releases.

I’m wondering if this isn’t coming from Berkeley City Council and Berkeley’s Peace & Justice Commission instead. Meola is also not listed under the city council roster. Either way it’s a bad move on their part but that never stopped them before.

245 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:28:45pm

re: #244 Gus 802


There’s a reason why San Franciscans call Berkeley “Bezerkeley”.

246 Gus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:35:14pm

BBL

247 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:40:18pm

re: #191 MisterCookie

Frame Relay is not what is feeding bits to the end machines. It is still good old ethernet that dominates LAN architecture. What happens on corporate net backbones or beyond the pop at the telcos is basically irrelevant to the matter of “why don’t they shut wikileaks down”. There was a conscious decision to discard hierarchical networks 25 years ago. That now means that you can’t simply shut off a device from the internet like, say, a telco can shut a cell phone out of its cell network.

That very fact is an obstacle to the deployment of some counter espionage technology aimed at steganography - you can’t just target one data stream.

What happens on the backbone doesn’t change that. Were the entire route switched then you’d have a different set a capabilities for keeping devices off and tracking the bad players.

248 MisterCookie  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:46:18pm

re: #247 karmic_inquisitor

Frame Relay is not what is feeding bits to the end machines. It is still good old ethernet that dominates LAN architecture. What happens on corporate net backbones or beyond the pop at the telcos is basically irrelevant to the matter of “why don’t they shut wikileaks down”. There was a conscious decision to discard hierarchical networks 25 years ago. That now means that you can’t simply shut off a device from the internet like, say, a telco can shut a cell phone out of its cell network.

You do realize those Ethernet LANs need the backbone to communicate with each other, right?

249 steve  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:10:04pm

ah what the heck. Just some boys wanting to have fun. (sarc)

250 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:55:36pm

channers!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 30 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 85 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1