Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Einhard · 09-12-2010 03:02AM

Thrill wrote: »

MasterCard Deemed Unsafe? 'Anonymous' WikiLeaks Supporters Claim Privacy Breach

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/mastercard-deemed-unsafe-_n_794164.html

Ah, so now we have the noble crusaders for freedom and transparency publishing the credit card details of ordinary people. Who said they were acting in the interest of the little man again?

LOL, and you have to love the simple-mided hubris of someone who would condescendingly relate to the "people of the industrial world" whilst making use of the products of the industrial world to do so!

Thrill · 09-12-2010 03:27AM

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101208006660/en/MasterCard-Statement

MasterCard Statement

MasterCard has made significant progress in restoring full-service to its corporate website. Our core processing capabilities have not been compromised and cardholder account data has not been placed at risk. While we have seen limited interruption in some web-based services, cardholders can continue to use their cards for secure transactions globally.

http://twitter.com/MasterCardNews/status/12680664780374016

http://twitter.com/MasterCardNews

Rumors of security breach false. Numbers published fake. Customer information secure.

Apparently it was just a scare tactic by the hackers.

citizen_p · 09-12-2010 03:28AM

Einhard wrote: »

Ah, so now we have the noble crusaders for freedom and transparency publishing the credit card details of ordinary people. Who said they were acting in the interest of the little man again?

LOL, and you have to love the simple-mided hubris of someone who would condescendingly relate to the "people of the industrial world" whilst making use of the products of the industrial world to do so!

this was on 4 chan a few hours ago....wish i saved the pic i saw....
basic plan....
1.spread the message on facebook etc... as a chain message
2.also to the media
3.claim to the media that mastercard are trying to cover it up

they might of got the info....them crafty hackers but this was on 4 chan an hour ago so i doubt it

citizen_p · 09-12-2010 03:31AM

next target is foxnews apparently

The damage to Paypal is done, everyone switch to foxnews.com IP: 64.212.198.139.

I have a cousin who writes for them and is about to publish a blog post that specifically references /b/ as the culprits behind today's actions.

This would bring so much negative attention as well as a potential government shut down. Don't believe me, try going to anonops.net or any of their associated social media outlets.

Lets do what we can /b/rothers!!!!!

64.212.198.139

also...damm 4chan is a very very weird place

Thrill · 09-12-2010 03:39AM

Jester may be attacking anonops.net.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-wikileaks-web-attacks-20101209,0,5711995.story

Speaking by phone Wednesday, Housh said one of the Anonymous chat rooms, anonops.net, was under "massive" attack. "It's probably this guy, the Jester," he said.

The Jester, who calls himself a "hacktivist for good," took credit via a Twitter post for disabling WikiLeaks.org last week.

Sticky_Fingers · 09-12-2010 04:14AM

Einhard wrote: »

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.

Are you saying the backing and financial support of big business and other vested interest groups afforded to their preferred candidates has little impact on the outcome of an election, now who's being naive.

Einhard wrote: »

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.

Thank you for supporting the very point I was making. We are currently living in a world where systems have been developed to see through all the spin and BS put out there by our leaders. This however has not been the work or a gift from our benevolent rulers but from technological advances and innovation that has allowed the sharing and access of information between people. Seeing how these systems have removed some if not all of their ability to censor or massage the truth to their own liking governments are scrambling to cut off and control this information source because it is bringing to light some unsavory aspects of their modus operandi that they do not want the general population to know about.

Einhard wrote: »

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?

Please compare like with like, the military dictatorships and soviet puppet states you cite as examples were not democratic systems and should not be held up as examples as how far we've come. Just because they have improved does not mean the democratic governments that existed for decades before are improving as well.

Einhard wrote: »

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?

Would that be the same freedom of information act that was curtailed in this very country only a few years ago? How about the complete lack of accountability and transparency shown with the NAMA fiasco and the bank bailouts? How about the refusal of Lenihan to disclose what he and Cowen knew before the blanket bank guarantee was announced back in 2008? Its great living in a open, free country isn't it where the government acts in the best interests of the people and not their golf buddies and are willing to listen to the public and resign from office when it is clear that is what the vast majority of the electorate want.

Happy days and hallelujah, I love this transparent, accountable democracy of ours.

Einhard wrote: »

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.

Obama is precisely whats wrong with our Western democracy, he is a huge disappointment and thats from someone who never bought into all that he's the messiah nonsense (though he's still better then Bush). Here was a man elected on the promise of change, on a fresh start and a chance to clean up the mess made by Bush and his cadre. IMO he has turned out to be nothing more than another hack who extended the Patriot Act without any reforms, presided over the spying on UN officials and is now presiding over a government that is applying political pressure to get Wikileaks shut down because it is causing an embarrassment.
Change indeed...

Einhard wrote: »

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?

Are you actually complaining that the cables show that instead of being a belligerent the US is working to ease tensions with Iran? I was very interested in that cable since it showed who exactly was pushing for war and why. Think of it this way, if Iran was in fact attacked we now know that instead of jumping up and down and blaming US involvement we can now see that its the other Gulf states that want the action so we can rightfully lay the blame on them where it belongs. Unfortunately this is canceled out by the US involvement in Yemen so there you go.

Manic Moran · 09-12-2010 07:45AM

Think of it this way, if Iran was in fact attacked we now know that instead of jumping up and down and blaming US involvement we can now see that its the other Gulf states that want the action so we can rightfully lay the blame on them where it belongs.

Wait.

Are you saying that if the US Air Force bombs Iran, then should blame King Abdullah instead of the US Administration?

I hear the low-loaders heading to the munitions bunkers as I type... Nothing for the US to lose!

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

One's personal determination may be somewhat irrelevant if other people get their say. Yitzhk Rabin was assasinated after he signed the Oslo accords by someone who didn't much like them. If the pre-cursor negotiations of the pre-Oslo years had been made public, Mr Rabin may well have been killed beforehand, and no accords would have been signed. Rabin is dead now, but his signature on the results of the secret nationations is still valid.

The same could be said for Anwar Sadat, killed after the details of the David Accords were released, which was fortuntely after he signed them.

NTM

FlutterinBantam · 09-12-2010 09:42AM

Memnoch wrote: »

Serves them right, it's about time someone fought back and stood up for the little guy.

What do you mean 'the little guy'?

Bunch of people in squats trying to 'change the world' and never did a productive day's work in most of their lives.

Meanwhile people trying to continue with their transactions are disrupted.

Far too many of these so called 'little guys' about the place.

09-12-2010 10:01AM

So this Jester guy is attacking Anonymous?

Run_to_da_hills · 09-12-2010 11:10AM

Our days of Internet Freedom of speech are numbered. :mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaJvoXlcCT0&feature=player_embedded#!

Smyth · 09-12-2010 12:18PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Our days of Internet Freedom of speech are numbered. :mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaJvoXlcCT0&feature=player_embedded#!

Jesus.

Memnoch · 09-12-2010 12:19PM

Einhard wrote: »

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'm not sure. I agree with you that declarations of modern democracy being entirely an illusion are probably hyperbole. On the other hand, I also think that our democracies are not as solid or fair as most of us would like to believe. Can there really be choice without accurate and up to date information? Would David Cameron have become the PM of the UK without the full blown support of the Murdoch Media machine? I don't believe so. What about the influence Fox News has on the US elections? And don't they also have a similar version in Australia? So you have one major company, possibly owned by a single family, having incredible sway over the democratic process in some of the biggest western democracies. A situation I would be deeply uncomfortable with EVEN IF they were honourable and well intentioned, which by the behaviour of Sky, Fox et all, it is obvious, they are not.

40% of the US electorate would vote for Sarah Palin? Is it because they are simply making a choice or is it because they are constantly being fed lies and propaganda till the point where the edges of truth and fiction blur together?

In medicine, we have something called informed consent. A patient signing a piece of paper saying they understand the risks of a procedure and agree to it is worthless unless the risks have genuinely been explained by the physician. If the physician is dishonest or mistaken, the patient's choice exists in name only.

I think it is naieve to say that modern elections are not greatly influenced by private media interests (and the alliances they might forge with others.) and those who have money to burn. The Roman's notoriously purchased elections and while it is not as blatant or casual these days, we are not as far removed from that system as we would like to tell ourselves.

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.

I agree. Things are BETTER than they were, but they are not AS GOOD as you claim. People (in western states) are IN theory, more accountable today than they were a few decades ago. While mass murdering criminals like Bush and Blair might have been able to continue to rule with impunity, they are now forced from office and seen by many for the truth of their actions. That's still a far cry from true accountability. Western leaders are still far too untouchable as far as any idea of real justice is concerned and the largest reason for this is the control of information and total lack of oversight of their actions.

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?

Why target Wikileaks? By all accounts MAJOR and respected world newspapers have been equal participants in the PUBLISHING of this information, so focussing all the ire on Wikileaks seems disingenuous.

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.

The argument about potentially sensitive negotiations is a valid and strong one to make. I admit that there may very well be instances where it is better that things are done behind closed doors in order to achieve peaceful resolution for those that need to take contradictory public stances. The problem is that I simply have VERY LITTLE trust in world leaders to be judicious in their use of this secrecy. Or far that matter to hold themselves to account where wrong doing has occurred or mistakes might be made. How many wars have been launched? How many dictators installed and supported. How many previously benign governments overthrown?

That is what swings the balance for me. If we are to ever fashion true democracy then leaders must be accountable, which right now they most certainly aren't except in the most superficial sense and without information and transparency, this is impossible.

And since they cannot be trusted to give this information the only way to force things into the open is by undermining the control of information exerted by them whereever and whenever possible.

gonedrinking · 09-12-2010 12:25PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Our days of Internet Freedom of speech are numbered. :mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaJvoXlcCT0&feature=player_embedded#!

Why is Obama so opposed to freedom of speech? He is such a hypocrite, I've really come to hate everything about that man.

Memnoch · 09-12-2010 12:28PM

gonedrinking wrote: »

Why is Obama so opposed to freedom of speech? He is such a hypocrite, I've really come to hate everything about that man.

It's a nasty situations. As "bad" as Obama might seem to be, the alternative is a million times worse. If we had Vice President Palin in office right now, you don't want to imagine what the results might be.

gonedrinking · 09-12-2010 12:33PM

Memnoch wrote: »

It's a nasty situations. As "bad" as Obama might seem to be, the alternative is a million times worse. If we had Vice President Palin in office right now, you don't want to imagine what the results might be.

yeah and unfortunately thats the way America is going, Palin will almost certainly be president at some stage, a scary thought

Run_to_da_hills · 09-12-2010 01:26PM

gonedrinking wrote: »

Why is Obama so opposed to freedom of speech? He is such a hypocrite, I've really come to hate everything about that man.

You are not suppose to hate this man because he's blick.

Smyth wrote: »

Jesus.

Its true.

The whole thing was a scam and stinks from Day one.

Carefully orchestrated, this current "hacking crisis" will be the 9/11 of the internet.

9/11 was carefully orchestrated to introduce the Patriot act, HR418 (National ID Bill) and international security measures, (Chipped ID cards). Could you imagine if they tried to introduce all this before 9/11?, there would have been riots on the streets.

Any day now Government and financial corporate sites around the world will crash like dominoes thus ushering in new international emergency censorship powers. We can now expect strict licensing laws for setting up any website. Chinese style censorship along with compulsory administration passwords just to access the internet. All our online correspondence will become very transparent.

Its all coming out of the woodwork.

gizmo · 09-12-2010 02:07PM

gonedrinking wrote: »

Why is Obama so opposed to freedom of speech? He is such a hypocrite, I've really come to hate everything about that man.

Jesus christ, the right to publish private government communications between its diplomats does not come under the banner of free speech. :rolleyes:

And RTDH, take the conspiracy theory drivel to the appropriate forum, the insane Orwellian-future which you so often proclaim is coming isn't anywhere on the horizon so save the scare tactics please.

Mark200 · 09-12-2010 02:10PM

gonedrinking wrote: »

Why is Obama so opposed to freedom of speech? He is such a hypocrite, I've really come to hate everything about that man.

Please explain how he's "so opposed to freedom of speech".

The internet isn't a warrant for people to do whatever they want. Laws that govern normal life should also govern the internet. Publishing secret Government documents does not come under freedom of speech. Just like if I illegally obtained information about your personal life and decided to publish it everywhere.

Keep in mind that the premise of that whole video you were replying to is based on the opinion of one guest.

gonedrinking wrote: »

yeah and unfortunately thats the way America is going, Palin will almost certainly be president at some stage, a scary thought

No, she won't.

Run_to_da_hills · 09-12-2010 02:20PM

I guess next they will be blaming Facebook, UTube and all these other international social networking sites for recruiting all these "hackers". :rolleyes:

snubbleste · 09-12-2010 05:27PM

Hackers say they are targeting amazon.com for a DoS attack
Russia suggests Assange be awarded the Nobel peace prize

Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him," the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies..the source went on: "Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate."

FlutterinBantam · 09-12-2010 05:39PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You are not suppose to hate this man because he's blick.

Its true.

The whole thing was a scam and stinks from Day one.

Carefully orchestrated, this current "hacking crisis" will be the 9/11 of the internet.

9/11 was carefully orchestrated to introduce the Patriot act, HR418 (National ID Bill) and international security measures, (Chipped ID cards). Could you imagine if they tried to introduce all this before 9/11?, there would have been riots on the streets.

Any day now Government and financial corporate sites around the world will crash like dominoes thus ushering in new international emergency censorship powers. We can now expect strict licensing laws for setting up any website. Chinese style censorship along with compulsory administration passwords just to access the internet. All our online correspondence will become very transparent.

Its all coming out of the woodwork.

Sweet jesus!!!!:rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills · 09-12-2010 06:30PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Sweet jesus!!!!:rolleyes:

You of all people should know about US emergency powers.

Elevator · 09-12-2010 07:04PM

fcuk the crazy assed yanks!!

flippin loons have the whole world turned upside down and the sooner the big crumble comes with China and they take america down with them the better.

Reading the cables is like an episode of the wire with the subplots.

people really need to open their eyes to the truth!! it's slapping us all in the face and still no rising against the man!

I say "enough of all the bull**** America, call off your deals, call off our wars, give every man woman and child on the planet a million dollars each and still save money!!

FlutterinBantam · 09-12-2010 08:00PM

Elevator wrote: »

fcuk the crazy assed yanks!!

flippin loons have the whole world turned upside down and the sooner the big crumble comes with China and they take america down with them the better.

Reading the cables is like an episode of the wire with the subplots.

people really need to open their eyes to the truth!! it's slapping us all in the face and still no rising against the man!

I say "enough of all the bull**** America, call off your deals, call off our wars, give every man woman and child on the planet a million dollars each and still save money!!

Yeah , the lads in the squats with the fawn duffle coats and the hoodies would love that, for sure.

Do nothing, leech on the state, and the taxpayer and demand money not to harm society.

Nice career path:rolleyes:

Nodin · 09-12-2010 08:18PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Yeah , the lads in the squats with the fawn duffle coats and the hoodies would love that, for sure.

Do nothing, leech on the state, and the taxpayer and demand money not to harm society.

Nice career path:rolleyes:

One day - and I, indeed the Universe, may not live long enough to see it - you'll make a worthwhile contribution to a thread.

Manic Moran · 09-12-2010 08:48PM

Couple of interesting asides from the initial detention hearing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8187575/Julian-Assange-WikiLeaks-chief-held-in-British-prison-on-rape-charge.html

A district judge remanded the 39-year-old into custody at Wandsworth men’s prison, saying there was a risk he would abscond after the court heard that no record of his entry to Britain had been found - suggesting he travelled under a false passport

Whilst the UK is not part of the Schengen agreement, and thus would have had to have his passport checked when arriving from any EU nation on the continent, it does beg the question of if he came in through Ireland, and if so, does the Garda Immigration Bureau share that information with the Brits? I presume they would. (If not, has he opened the door to letting the CPS have a go at him for illegal immigration?)

Then again, assuming that the Swiss statement of his having provided a false address to the Swiss bank is correct, it may well be within character.

There is a certain level of irony in this.

When he appeared in court Mr Assange initially refused to offer an address beyond an Australian post office box number, prompting Judge Riddle to warn him that there would be serious consequences of his behaviour.

After a brief conversation with his lawyer Mr Assange gave a Melbourne address in writing, saying that he wanted it to remain private, but the judge then directed a court clerk to read it out.

NTM

Overheal · 09-12-2010 08:50PM

gizmo wrote: »

Jesus christ, the right to publish private government communications between its diplomats does not come under the banner of free speech. :rolleyes:

It comes under the Freedom of the Press though. The only problem is Asange's carte blanche approach to the releases. When he published "Collateral Murder" There was at least a sensibility behind it, albeit a bias in the presented context. But now he's just gone and released diplomatic cables at large for - what, exactly. I don't get what benefit there is in publishing comments about foreign diplomat 72 and how someone regarded them as "Stubborn, etc". Not exactly groundbreaking. Nor do I see the point of calling attention to where Undersea Network Fiber is, unless the purpose of the exercise is to encourage individuals to go out to these locations and sabotage the wiring. I'd have a little more respect for Wikileaks if it remained as selective as it had in it's first release and stuck to a Point, and not just "Look I have a chunk of classified military gibberish! Everyone come see! Just because."

FlutterinBantam · 09-12-2010 08:56PM

Nodin wrote: »

One day - and I, indeed the Universe, may not live long enough to see it - you'll make a worthwhile contribution to a thread.

Just telling the truth, buddy, not your viewpoint I know, but left wing apologists and fellow travellers have to be constantly advised that the world doesn't support itself.

People have to work, take risks, set up businesses and provide employment, develope resources and skills, and market their product.

Sure, in your world we could all sit in flats and depend on the state and go from cradle to grave without ever an innovative thought.

Sure we could demand the ideal scenario is where everyone is equal regardless of effort and ambition and the waster and indolent could sit back and bask in the effort of the industrious.

But that is not the way it works as you know and I know;)

Nodin · 09-12-2010 09:00PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Just telling the truth, buddy, not your viewpoint I know, but left wing apologists and fellow travellers have to be constantly advised that the world doesn't support itself.

People have to work, take risks, set up businesses and provide employment, develope resources and skills, and market their product.

Sure, in your world we could all sit in flats and depend on the state and go from cradle to grave without ever an innovative thought.

Sure we could demand the ideal scenario is where everyone is equal regardless of effort and ambition and the waster and indolent could sit back and bask in the effort of the industrious.

But that is not the way it works as you know and I know;)

You can't even change the record when you're given grief over it....its like one of these things....
http://www.jabberwacky.com/

FlutterinBantam · 09-12-2010 09:05PM

Truth doesn't change

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments