[Nuclear1]

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-1587-hackers-strike-back-at-bank.html

Just hours after a Swiss bank froze access today to a legal defense fund established for WikiLeaks provocateur Julian Assange, a group of hackers have shut down the bank's Web site in an escalating "infowar."

A group calling itself Operation Payback took responsibility for the Internet attack on the Swiss bank, PostFinance, via its Twitter account. "We will fire at anyone that tries to censor WikiLeaks," the group said in its announcement.

PostFinance had said it blocked access to the account, which contains about $41,000, and stopped accepting donations because Assange lied about his residency when he opened the account. Bank officials said Assange couldn't provide proof of Swiss residency, making the account invalid. His supporters, though, countered that the bank only took its action because of pressure from the U.S. government and other nations angry at Assange and WikiLeaks.

So...Anonymous is supporting Wikileaks now. 

[MR_T3D]

really?
Actually, I think this would be their noble crusade, in their mind.
I'm starting to think the end of the ''free' internet' will be coming to an end this decade.

[Klaustrophobia]

god forbid CLASSIFIED material is censored, or that an illegal bank account is frozen.
wankers like this who feel it's their duty to attack anyone they don't like can be shut down along with wikileaks for all i care.  the first i ever heard of "anonymous" i thought they were kinda amusing, but that was when they were hacking websites of the RIAA and stuff.  i draw the line at throwing support behind treason. (that might be a little dramatic, but whatever)

[Herra Tohtori]

I have nothing against Wikileaks publishing compromising or embarrassing information about the dirty dealings going on in and between governments. This type of information shouldn't be "classified" in the first place. The only reason why "classified" political information exists in the first place is the self-interest-based philosophy of national states, and open environment of information would make it significantly harder for politicians to influence things so that their country would seem to do better than others.


The problem I have with indiscriminate publication of information is that some of it may actually be information pertinent to ongoing criminal investigation, law enforcement operations or lawful military operations, which may actually cause real harm to these processes.

I have no doubt that the amount of this harmful information is a small minority of the leaks published in WikiLeaks, but there probably are some, and the problem is that while the general public and WikiLeaks have absolutely no way of telling what information is harmful from this perspective, governments can simply label all of it harmful, and then I have no way of knowing if they're just trying to avoid being put into compromising or embarrassing position.

After all, preventing "embarrassing" leaks is technically easy. Don't do the embarrassing/compromising things in the first place, and come clean with information about compromising stuff rather than try to cover it up.

Good example would be the incident in Iraq where a helicopter gunship engaged a group of people identified as hostiles - in hindsight the identification as hostiles was more positive bias than any actual shown aggression by said people, but things like that sometimes happen.

Shoving it under the carpet doesn't make the fact it happened go away though, and when things like that are then leaked into public, it certainly does become more harmful than publishing the information in the first place would have done.

Which is better - a statement saying that a helicopter crew and mission control mistakenly identified a group of civilians as hostiles and apologizing for the tragic error, or the fact coming into daylight after the armed forces tried to keep it quiet?

For this reason, I am divided about WikiLeaks. On other hand, I see it as something that could potentially force politicians to be more open about their dealings, lest their dirty laundry comes into public knowledge in an uncontrollable fashion; on the other hand I recognize the potential risk that some of the information might cause for certain groups of people.

It isn't by any means a black or white issue where you should declare that you're either for WikiLeaks or against it.

Personally I don't condone the attacks against WikiLeaks or any other pages hosted in the internets, nor do I approve of the counter-attacks supposedly engineered by Anon.

[Flaser]

I too am of two minds about Wikileaks, but having taken a closer stuff they released this time, it's obvious that almost none of it was critical - just gossip. Nothing of true concern as far as national security goes.

However what's appalling is the environment and mentality exposed - that the political elite believes itself beyond public scrutiny and reproach.

...and the accusations and actions brought against Assange are not only ridiculous but worrying. I mean legally the man has done nothing he could be prosecuted for. He got his hands on data and disseminated it. It wasn't data of his own government and he didn't acquire it himself, he just accepted it from another source.

Rape? That's a bad joke. The guy has been willing to testify and face his accusers all this time... but even Sweden couldn't make up their mind whether the accusation could stand in court, and there's ample evidence that one of the "victims" is just trying to get revenge for Assange not being "faithful" and co-opted the other "victim" into her scheme. (The other accuser withdraw her statement after finding out she was being used in such a manner).

What really irks me though, is how the whole corporate media machine makes people swallow this stuff lock, stock and barrel without a shred of concise reporting.

Yeah, Assange could be a major dick - an egomaniac. It still doesn't warrant the over-reach and trumped up witch hunt that's being waged against him.

[Dilmah G]

wankers like this who feel it's their duty to attack anyone they don't like can be shut down along with wikileaks for all i care.

My thoughts as well.

Operation Payback? Wow, what a bunch of cocks. If you want to do something just in the world, start by going outside and saving an old grannie in a back alley from being stabbed, or start caring when you pass people on the street. Hell, start with standing up for small children on the train.

Actually, I think this would be their noble crusade, in their mind.

Mmm, it's quite tragic, in my opinion.

For this reason, I am divided about WikiLeaks. On other hand, I see it as something that could potentially force politicians to be more open about their dealings, lest their dirty laundry comes into public knowledge in an uncontrollable fashion; on the other hand I recognize the potential risk that some of the information might cause for certain groups of people.

Yeah, I'm with you here. I don't think now was such a good time to release that information though, and act as a catalyst for a bad situation getting worse.

[Herra Tohtori]

wankers like this who feel it's their duty to attack anyone they don't like can be shut down along with wikileaks for all i care.

I'm having trouble parsing this statement in a logically consistent manner, so I'm going to have to ask for a clarification.

Do you approve of people who feel it's their duty to attack WikiLeaks because they don't like it?


You should also note that WikiLeaks technically hasn't committed treason (since as far as I know, it is not a citizen of any known state). People submitting information there may have, but is that WikiLeaks' fault, the informants' fault, or those who did the stuff that the informant felt needed to become public?

Also, is it worse to become traitor to one's supposed allegiance, or one's ideals?

[Dilmah G]

Well I doubt many individuals would 'consider it their duty', to attack Wikileaks because they don't like it. I'm sure most who would attack WL because they don't like it just do it.

EDIT:

You should also note that WikiLeaks technically hasn't committed treason (since as far as I know, it is not a citizen of any known state). People submitting information there may have, but is that WikiLeaks' fault, the informants' fault, or those who did the stuff that the informant felt needed to become public?

This is a good point, and one I'll admit to overlooking.

[karajorma]

god forbid CLASSIFIED material is censored, or that an illegal bank account is frozen.

Banks from the same country that don't give a flying **** about residency when it's some tin pot dictator storing money in their vaults.

Yet when some guy who posts papers on the internet has an account, suddenly it's something that needs to be shut down.

[Flipside]

Well, looks like he's handed himself in, so it will be interesting to see how things progress.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

Somehow, I don't think they'll get away with any kind of kangaroo court on this occasion, so this may be amusing.

[Herra Tohtori]

Based on the stuff mentioned about said court case, I also think conviction (or hell, even prosecution) is unlikely, but we'll see how it goes.

Regardless, I have no doubt that a Mercader has been sent after him already - if not by some high-up government official somewhere pissed at him for being the front to WikiLeaks, then the Shadow Breaker will make an example of him for devaluation of the information... He'll probably need protection duty for the remainder of his days, whether he's sent to prison or not.

[General Battuta]

I don't know. In many ways this guy is an icon of everything cyberpunk - the use of information technology to promote anarchic freedom and transparency no matter the cost.

It's just not clear whether he's actually a street sam or an attention whore. And it's ambiguous whether the information he released was in any way worth the possible costs. So hard to know.

[Bobboau]

So...Anonymous is supporting Wikileaks now. 

Anon has always supported WikiLeaks, even chanology.

[Flaser]

I don't know. In many ways this guy is an icon of everything cyberpunk - the use of information technology to promote anarchic freedom and transparency no matter the cost.

It's just not clear whether he's actually a street sam or an attention whore. And it's ambiguous whether the information he released was in any way worth the possible costs. So hard to know.

This article is relevant:
https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/#

Assange sees big governments as possible hotbeds for conspiracy. He uses the word not as something aimed at a big master plan (with an evil genius at the helm), but any coalition of individuals who share a common ideology or goal and rely on secrecy since their goal would the object of hostility.

In a lot of ways this describes big capital to a T, since more transfer of wealth - which is the only way to further make the super rich richer - is something that the general populace would be adamantly against, if the raw facts were laid before them.

By controlling the media, big capital can mask its own lobbying and control public opinion so its goals are masked in terms favored by the public even if the reality and the projected image of reality in the media don't match, just overlap enough to be plausible.

Assange says, that if communication protocols are tightened, this is works against the conspirators as it prevents them from forming new policies and reacting to the world, and their grip would inevitably slip.

[Flipside]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

The smell of fish has already begun to rise. Bail refused for an extradition order for someone who voluntarily handed themselves in? Most odd, it seems to me.

[Grizzly]

I feel weird about wikileaks... Why can't diplomats have some privacy?

[achtung]

I feel weird about wikileaks... Why can't diplomats have some privacy?

Because they're representing the public on the world stage, and the public has a right to know how they're representing us.

I just want to see what kind of information Wikileaks has on the banks.

[Thaeris]

After enough of these arguments and discussions, I've come to realize that I'm of the exact same opinion as Herra. It is possible that Wikileaks puts individuals at risk, and that in itself is an understatement. But simultaneously, catering to the whims of those who help promote the risk placed upon those individuals is something which leaves a vile taste in my mouth. I have heard arguments before from those who ask why citizens do not trust their governments, or rather why they should trust their governments. In response, I must ask, what warrants me to trust completely in my government?

So, while at one hand, Wikileaks represents a dangerous entity which might endanger those who should not be placed at that level of risk, it also represents a medium by which the populace can actually see what their leaders are doing rather than being told by their leaders what they are doing. And with the latter being a variable which can range from accurate to completely falsified, I find a reason to advocate organizations such as Wikileaks. A government accountable for its actions is one which must abstain from corruption; an unchecked power has evil hidden within its walls.

And about the diplomacy/international relations documents? Are you surprised? Espionage and petty musings or data about the opposing power is nothing new - it's akin to an election, where red herrings and arbitrary claims are the name of the game to dismerit your opponet. These matters only get out of hand when it gives someone the rational to raise a weapon against you. And due to the nature of people (and thermodynamics), you cannot gain without loss. Thus, information like that does carry a weight. And, should you endorse its release, you can be held partailly responsible for the suffering it can bring. However and for what it's worth, if we can bring these foolish and often seemingly spiteful sentiments to light, there is the chance that we might let all of our walls down, and the supposed adversary might do the same. We have the chance of being rational human beings with other human beings. And that is worth something.

[General Battuta]

I am in agreement with the content of the post above this one.

[Unknown Target]

If you elected an official (say, the President), based on the assumption that he or she is capable of doing their job, and one of the requisites of that job is that they'll appoint a proper person to handle diplomatic affairs, then shouldn't you assume that they will be doing something with the best interests of their country at heart? Why do you need to know what they're doing? If you trust the person you elected to lead properly, then you should trust that the people he appointed will lead properly.

If you don't trust the person you elected, then why did you elect him?