This Wikileaks thing

Mikesev

Mikesev

New member
Jun 2, 2009
583
2
0
Step away from the rights and wrongs of what Wikileaks are doing for a minute. The fact is that nobody has been convicted of any wrongdoing, and no court has heard evidence against or ordered any action to be taken against the organisation.

And yet still Paypal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, EveryDNS, a Swiss bank and several other companies have ceased any relationship with them. In the case of Amazon at least, this was at the request of Joe Lieberman.

On the whim of a politician, you can be made persona non grata.

Worrying times, regardless of how you stand on what they're doing/have done.
 


Just heard on the news the founder has documents called "insurance" or "Doomsday files". Which his followers say if he is harmed they will be released.
 
"House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King (R-N.Y.) wants Wikileaks listed as a 'terrorist' organization, which would prohibit U.S. banks from processing payments and make it a crime for anyone to provide "material support or resources" to the group."

Assuming the US Government knows what's in that insurance file, it must be something serious to provoke this kind of response. It can't just be the tittle-tattle we've heard so far.
 
This Assange bitch is putting all of us in troubles
Tomorrow we'll all be tracked online like affiliate links

204042007.png
 
They are private entities and can do what they want.

When one customer becomes a major liability to your many other customers, then you have to cut them loose.

Aside from the legal troubles that may arise from being a part of the whole thing, you have the backlash from your other customers.
 
Mikesev said:
It can't just be the tittle-tattle we've heard so far.
Click to expand...

It's just the politicians diverting our attention from the more important issues. Nothing has changed with Wikileaks since its inception, and they knew about it then.

There's a reason why they are making such a big fuss over it in the last month, and it isn't due to its content, even if they say it is. It's just an easy target to get the job done of a media blackout of other issues happening in our country that the politicians hope will blow over by the time this dies down.
 
HardSale said:
They are private entities and can do what they want.

When one customer becomes a major liability to your many other customers, then you have to cut them loose.

Aside from the legal troubles that may arise from being a part of the whole thing, you have the backlash from your other customers.
Click to expand...

As some guy said

"So, Visa & MasterCard happy to process payments for KKK (Hello - NSFW) but not Wikileaks?"
Click to expand...

Never mind a myriad of other sympathist, hate or quasi terrorist organizations.

It's not the business sense behind cutting loose a client liability that I disagree with, it's the subjectivity with which a 'liability' is determined by.
 
phillian said:
Even Time is in on the act.

Here, you can vote for him: Full List - Who Will Be TIME's 2010 Person of the Year? - TIME

But here, on the page that tallies votes, he's been removed: TIME 100 Competition - The 2010 TIME 100 Poll - TIME

I agree with you, OP. No matter where you stand on the issue having your DNS, hosting, payment processing systems, etc. taken down without some legal mandate is a worrying precedent.
Click to expand...

Wow. So they were ok with considering Bin Laden for person of the year after 9/11, but Assange isn't even on the list? Interesting.

edit: actually, he shows up #1 in the poll results http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036_2029037,00.html
 
It's not a precedent. When it is concerning national security in a BIG way, the rules change a bit. Especially for folks that are not American citizens doing business in THIS country. Check out what they did during WWI or WW2.

What folks need to remember, while it sounds great - everything should be out in the open - sing kumbyaya etc.... Real lifes are at stake.
 
Schlabbersack said:
It's not a precedent. When it is concerning national security in a BIG way, the rules change a bit. Especially for folks that are not American citizens doing business in THIS country. Check out what they did during WWI or WW2.

What folks need to remember, while it sounds great - everything should be out in the open - sing kumbyaya etc.... Real lifes are at stake.
Click to expand...

If laws have been broken then take them to court and prosecute them, let a jury decide guilt and a judge determine punishment.
 
Schlabbersack said:
Real lifes are at stake.
Click to expand...

I am in no way a supporter of anything that puts lives at jeopardy and disagree with Wikileaks' mission whole-heartedly.

That said, business is business and you and I and everyone else on this forum is in the business of making money through internet properties. This includes DNS services, hosting, payment fulfillment solutions, and myriad other business agreements.

When business agreements are canceled, reversed, or denied based on the subjectivity of a politicians' whining - not on a legal requirement to do so- that should pique your interest, as a businessman.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
Wow. So they were ok with considering Bin Laden for person of the year after 9/11, but Assange isn't even on the list? Interesting.

edit: actually, he shows up #1 in the poll results Poll Results - Who Will Be TIME's 2010 Person of the Year? - TIME
Click to expand...

The vote has closed and the 2010 person of the year is going to be the Iranian opposition leader. If Bin Laden (who was responsible for the murder of 2976 civilians) can be named person of the year, I have a very hard time understanding why Assange can't be.
 
phillian said:
The vote has closed and the 2010 person of the year is going to be the Iranian opposition leader.
Click to expand...

I voted just now and it was still open. Assange is ahead by 40k votes.

Here's Time's twitter feed as of 2 hours ago saying that Assange is still in the running, so I assume it's still open.

time-twitter-of-julian-assange-person-of-year-2010.png


phillian said:
If Bin Laden (who was responsible for the murder of 2976 civilians) can be named person of the year, I have a very hard time understanding why Assange can't be.
Click to expand...

The title of it is misleading, but it's meant to be the most influential person of the year. Bin Laden was very influential that year. Look at how his actions affected the world that year.
 
Releasing illegally obtained documents that are vital to national security and violate OPSEC trump everything.

Using your logic:

Someone has just killed over 1,000 people walking into the stadium of the San Francisco Giants . Perp is NOT in custody. You know he is about to show up at another sporting event to kill.

You have a bank account in which he has $10 million dollars.

You know he is using this money to buy more ammunition to kill those people.

Do you wait til you apprehend the perp to bring charges? Or do you freeze his bank account so he at least has a harder time buying more bullets?

Logic is exactly the same.
- - -

Believe it or not - this is NOT any different then what Assange has done.

This material was ILLEGALY obtained. Remember that.

Also, while his mission in the beginning sounded quite noble and the 'hacker' and 'rebel' in me wants to support him, he has one mission. Destroy the United States. That's why the folks that have worked WITH him have disassociated themselves from him.

Oh, just wondering... If he had hit the Russians for instance... He would have been dead months/years ago.... Yes, we ARE better and more noble then them.
 
Rexibit said:
I voted just now and it was still open. Assange is ahead by 40k votes.

Here's Time's twitter feed as of 2 hours ago saying that Assange is still in the running, so I assume it's still open.
Click to expand...

From: TIME 100 Competition - The 2010 TIME 100 Poll - TIME

Cast your votes for the leaders, artists, innovators and icons who you think are the most influential people in the world. Though official voting for inclusion on the TIME 100 list has now closed, with Mir-Hossein Mousavi having won the honor, users can continue to vote for their favorites until the list is revealed on Thursday, April 29th.
Click to expand...
​


I don't think there is any question who has made the most lasting impression this year. Wikileaks will fundamentally change intelligence communities interaction with one another, diplomatic policies, and probably even what gets written down.
 
Rexibit said:
It's just the politicians diverting our attention from the more important issues. Nothing has changed with Wikileaks since its inception, and they knew about it then.

There's a reason why they are making such a big fuss over it in the last month, and it isn't due to its content, even if they say it is. It's just an easy target to get the job done of a media blackout of other issues happening in our country that the politicians hope will blow over by the time this dies down.
Click to expand...

I think releasing certain information to the public is okay for example: power abuse by politician, exploitation of the poor by giant MNC, or the government plan to end education in America.

I think information like that would be necessary because we have no way of knowing what the government are doing. Check out this movie if u don't know what i mean

Wag the Dog

You may be possibly right.
 
Schlabbersack said:
Releasing illegally obtained documents that are vital to national security and violate OPSEC trump everything.

Using your logic:

Someone has just killed over 1,000 people walking into the stadium of the San Francisco Giants . Perp is NOT in custody. You know he is about to show up at another sporting event to kill.

You have a bank account in which he has $10 million dollars.

You know he is using this money to buy more ammunition to kill those people.

Do you wait til you apprehend the perp to bring charges? Or do you freeze his bank account so he at least has a harder time buying more bullets?

Logic is exactly the same.
- - -

Believe it or not - this is NOT any different then what Assange has done.

This material was ILLEGALY obtained. Remember that.

Also, while his mission in the beginning sounded quite noble and the 'hacker' and 'rebel' in me wants to support him, he has one mission. Destroy the United States. That's why the folks that have worked WITH him have disassociated themselves from him.

Oh, just wondering... If he had hit the Russians for instance... He would have been dead months/years ago.... Yes, we ARE better and more noble then them.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to get into politics or something?

He's not trying to take down the US, he has the most information from the US. Now, let's think a bit here... How did that happen? Let me think... Ehm... Right, something about a war.

How exactly did he obtain anything illegal if it got sent to him by the way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom