Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101208/tc_mashable/hackers_take_down_visacom_in_the_name_of_wikileaks

A group of hackers connected to the online imageboard 4chan, often referred to as Anonymous, have set their sights on Visa.com in the war against those sites that have denied service to WikiLeaks shortly after the site started releasing secret embassy cables.


Previous targets of what has been dubbed "Operation Payback" include Swiss bank PostFinance (still down for the count), which has closed the account of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, PayPal (Anon took down the blog, but it's now operational) and Mastercard (now up and running).
Visa.com is now down for the count as well.



PandaLabs supplied us with the below summary of activity by Operation Payback:

• After pulling the plug on payments to WikiLeaks, Mastercard’s website was taken down and remains out of service
• Senator Joe Lieberman’s website was taken down for 12 minutes (the first .gov site to be attacked)
• Sarah Palin’s website was taken offline by a small group of Anonymous attackers
• The group sent spam faxes to Joe Lieberman’s office and to PostFinance
• PostFinance was attacked the hardest, leaving customers without the ability to conduct online banking
• They took down the website of the lawyer representing the 2 girls who were allegedly raped/assaulted by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
• The group took down Assange’s Swedish prosecutor’s website

They've been busy little beavers.

Datacell threatening to sue Visa and Mastercard

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20025038-83.html

A hosting company has said it will take immediate legal action against Visa and MasterCard over the credit card companies' refusal to process donations for whistle-blower site WikiLeaks.




DataCell, based in Iceland, facilitates donations to WikiLeaks. DataCell said it had been losing revenue since Visa and MasterCard decided to stop processing WikiLeaks' donations.

Meanwhile......

Philly company accepting donations for Wikileaks

http://www.centredaily.com/2010/12/08/2389087/philly-company-accepting-donations.html

PHILADELPHIA — A tech startup based in Philadelphia says it is taking donations for Wikileaks.


Xipwire (pronounced Zipwire) says on its website that anyone who wishes to support Wikileaks through a donation should be able to do so.

oh dear... they got the names, home address and phone numbers of the alleged rape victims.

wikileaks is now down, can't get on it at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

And me for someone who gives a crap.

No, I didn't. But go on feeling all kewl and smart and superior.

Both mastercard and visa sites are intermittent atm. Oddly enough I made a couple of purchases with a visa and mastercard this evening, both worked fine. Although ill probably wake up tomorrow to find the card details posted online :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say that I strongly agree with what Anonymous are doing and it's the first time I would be in support of them. It's strange that Paypal is still operating though, surely they would've been one of the sites targeted?

Strange that these so-called defenders of democracy should take it upon themselves to unilaterally disrupt the lives of millions of people around the world who might wish to use Mastercard, Vsa etc...

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why do you only use only 'positive outcome' situations in your damnation of Assange? It's the skulduggery of modern 'diplomacy' and corporate shenanigans that he seeks to expose, surely?
Wonder could he get his hands on what went on behind closed doors here over the last few months!

I think that Wikileaks had the potential to be a positive force, but those behind it have, IMO, shown themselves to be more concerned with "sticking it to the man" than any real attempts at standing up for the ordinary citizen, or reforming democracy. The notion that all negotiations have and diplomatic relations have to be carried out in public is as naive as it is dangerous.

Your point about the peace process is nonsensical btw. Hume, if nothing else was more determined than that.

Eh, no it's not. The secret talks held between the IRA, Sinn Fein, Hume, and others, were a direct precursor to more open, direct talks which lead to the GFA. The former could not have taken place in public.

http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-from-supporters-paypal-releases-wikileaks-funds/

PayPal has released funds remaining in an account associated with WikiLeaks according to a post on PayPal’s blog.

“While the account will remain restricted, PayPal will release all remaining funds in the account to the foundation that was raising funds for WikiLeaks.”


“We understand that PayPal’s decision has become part of a broader story involving political, legal and free speech debates surrounding WikiLeaks’ activities. None of these concerns factored into our decision. Our only consideration was whether or not the account associated with WikiLeaks violated our Acceptable Use Policy and regulations required of us as a global payment company. Our actions in this matter are consistent with any account found to be in violation of our policies”

The Irish Times report is very meek, biased and careful, not addressing any of the actual issues at hand and representing Wikileaks as just some kind of naughty nuisance to capitalist stability with a sexually dysfunctional leader.

CREDIT CARD company MasterCard fell victim to a cyber attack yesterday which appeared to have been orchestrated by supporters of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

Users of MasterCard’s website experienced disruption after the “denial of service” attack. It is believed to have been organised in response to the company’s refusal to handle donations to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has caused controversy after publishing a series of leaked documents which have embarrassed the US government. Its founder Julian Assange was arrested in London on Tuesday under a European arrest warrant. He is wanted by Swedish authorities over allegations of sexual offences.

MasterCard said last night it had detected a service disruption on its secure code payment system, and that despite efforts to remedy the situation customers may still be experiencing intermittent connectivity issues.

Paul Mutton, who runs internet services company NetCraft, said: “I’ve seen people indicating that the payments are starting to fail, so the attack does seem to be stopping people paying for stuff. However, that’s not going to compromise the security of people’s credit card details, it’s simply going to stop stuff being processed.”

MasterCard has yet to indicate when normal service will be resumed.

In order to fund its operations, WikiLeaks solicits donations from users through its website. On Monday, MasterCard announced that it would not handle these donations as the website was engaged in what it termed “illegal activity”. Visa, Amazon and online payments firm PayPal have also withdrawn services to the website.

Speaking yesterday, Osama Bedier of PayPal said: “On November 22nd, the state department and the US government wrote a letter saying that the WikiLeaks activities were deemed illegal in the United States, and as a result, our policy group had to take the decision to suspend the account.” He later clarified that he was referring to correspondence between the US state department and WikiLeaks, not between the former and PayPal.

On Monday, a Swiss bank that closed the account of Mr Assange suffered a cyber attack and the Swedish prosecution service was also attacked.

A denial-of-service attack occurs when many users issue multiple requests to a website with the intention of overloading its capacity.

It is thought a loose, ad hoc network of internet freedom of speech activists called “Anonymous” is behind the MasterCard attack, which they have termed “Operation Payback”. The Anonymous group is believed to have originated on internet message board 4Chan.

Einhard wrote: »

En, no it doesn't. It says that he's wanted by Swedish authorities in relation to allegations of sexual assault. Is that incorrect?

I didn't say that they were making things up so no it's not incorrect. I said that how they chose to represent the facts gives quite a clear clue to the stance they are taking on the matter.

Journalism isn't just about the facts you use, it's about how you represent those facts and the context in which you place them.

Cianos wrote: »

I didn't say that they were making things up so no it's not incorrect. I said that how they chose to represent the facts gives quite a clear clue to the stance they are taking on the matter.

Journalism isn't just about the facts you use, it's about how you represent those facts and the context in which you place them.

Ah right, so those who support Wikileaks are only for censorship and withholding information when it suits them? I geddit.

The Times article mentioned in passing that Assange is wanted by Swedish authorities. That is pertinent information, and as can be seen from this thread alone, is more likely to increase support for him than anything else. I find it strange that you would presumably argue for greater transparency and access to information, yet also seek to have the Times conceal the allegations.

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Yes we are stuck with a sham democracy because no matter who we vote into power the influence of vested interests and big business always seem to take priority over every other concern. I'm not naive enough to assume that the politics of previous generations wasn't rife with corruption but the extent to which the state has been co-opted and in some cases turned against its own citizens who disagree with the status quo is more apparent now then ever before.

Oh for God sake, that's more resonant of agit-prop than reasoned comment. You and I have a free vote. We can choose whomever we wish to lead us. We could all go out in January and elect Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd Barrett. But we don't. We reject their ideology because we don't believe in it, not because big business is rigging the vote or forcing our hand.

I accept that in all likelihood this has always been the case but it is only in recent times that we have been able to peel back the nonsense and rhetoric spouted by the governments and have documented evidence of their duplicity when dealing with the public.

You know why? Because it's only been in recent times that we've been allowed to ruly hold our elected representatives responsible for their actions. It's only in recent times that the power traditionally vested in the state has been ceded to the people. The reason we can look upon government duplicity is because we live in an open, democratic society. And as such, we can punish them for their duplicity and demand real change. That we rarely do so is not an indictment of the system, but rather the electorate.

If someone is beating you with a stick you will relish the respite afforded when they decide to use their fists instead. There are many regimes all over the world far worse then ours but that does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to try and improve our own form of governance. We have been complacent in the West with regards our liberties and have seen some of them being slowly eroded away by unwarranted government intervention. The democratic system should not be viewed as a static, impregnable institution, it either evolves over time or stagnates and dies.

Of course we have a responsibility to improve, not just governance, but the world around us. But acknowledging that our democracy is imperfect is a very far cry from suggesting, as you did, that it is an illusion of freedom.

However I do not agree with the path todays Western governments are on, taking freedom away from the individual and increasing it for themselves. We are at a state now where the US government is actively warning college students not to read any of the Wikileak news reports threatening them with loss of government job opportunities if they disobey. Is this the action of a healthy functional democracy that proclaims to protect and cherish the freedom of speech, do you think governments should have the right to effectively censor ideas and news stories that are in opposition or embarrassing to those in power?

I disagree with with that action you claim the US government are taking, but one swallow does not a summer make. In the past few decades democracy has flourished across Europe. How can you possibly state that Western governments are going backwards in their commitment to open, transparent government, when 2 decades ago most of Eastern Europe was governed by despotic oligarchies, and a decade before that, Portugal, Spain and Greece were ruled by military regimes?

Also, you deliberately choose to ignore the genuinely positive developments that have taken place over the past few decades. Freedom of Information Acts have been passed throughout Europe and the US, and whilst they might be limited in some respects, they are a damn sight better than what went before them. Surely this alone is a small victory for increased transparency?

In America, Barack Obama came from nowhere to defeat a scion of one of the most powerful families in US politics, and he did so in large part due to the power of new media. He would not have been able to achieve what he did even ten years before. Again, this cannot but be seen as a positive democratic development.

We are all benefiting since it highlights hidden relationships and cosy arrangements that exist around the world between those in power as well as those in big business. If it leads to some of these shady and in some cases highly illegal practices being stamped out then I'll take that as a win.

And if that were what Wikipedia were all about, then I'd be a happy camper. But they release everything, not just that which pertains to dodgy deals and illegal activities. Where, in the context of what Assange describes as his mission, would you put the release of what the US considers critical global infrastructure. What does the release of ME petitions to Washington urging military action against Iran achieve, except causing further instability in a volatile region, and painting the US in a good light?

With regards the impact on global security, I would be cautiously optimistic that in the future the worlds leaders will be a bit more reticent to go to war for spurious, selfish reasons if they know that the world at large is watching and their real motivations may be discovered and laid bare for all to see. As it stands now while many people always suspect the real reasons behind a governments course of action nothing usually comes of it without hard evidence, it is a completely different story when there is physical proof of their real motives and objectives and allows the people to either voice their support or displeasure for the action.

While that may be true to an extent, I think it's overestimating the level of concern that individual nations have for the approval of others. If, for example, the US decide they need to go to war, they'll do so. Iraq showed that. On the negative side though, the possibility that any negotiations might be leaked will definitely deter people in the future from compromising their positions in the interests of peace and a better future. Already there are indications that contacts between NATO, the Afghan government, and some Taliban commanders have been affected by the fall out from the various releases. As I mentioned already, the compromise necessary for the GFA would have been far more difficult had the been made in advance and in public. Sometimes secrecy and duplicity is essential; by failing to recognise that, Assange and Wikileaks potentially put an awful lot at risk.

With regards the possible damage done to international cooperation with the US I would suggest that governments only deal with them not out of any love for the Americans (Blairs pathetic fawning aside) but out of their necessity. They will continue to deal with them because it is in their own self interest to do so not out of any admiration or spirit de corp.

Yes, but what is in a nation's self -interest whe conducted in private, is not always in a government's self-interest when exposed to the public. A hypothetical example: there are many hardliners in Iran who advicate a much more aggressive approach to the West. If there is any chance of easing the current tensions, and perhaps even the re-establishment of normal relations between Tehran and the West, then the moderates in Iran (and Washington of course) will have to compromise, something which would be impossible were the process to be open and public. Look at what happened to Khatemi. He sought to reach out and sought better relations, and was marginalised by the hardliners for doing so.

That's what I fear in relation to Wikileaks. Anyone who might otherwise have taken a risk will now think long and hard about doing so. And that's a deeply unfortunate consequence of Assange's misguided crusade.