Court Told Wikileaks Backlash Cost PayPal £3.5 Million

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

flarty:
Fair play to them for having the gonads to stand up to corporate behemoth, that decided to use its power to oppose an organization that was attempting to serve the public's interest.

Uh, you're talking about knowingly publishing the personal details of people who are on Taliban execution lists. Hundreds of them have had to fled their country due to Assange's recklessness and cold cruelty.

And who's being served by airing the US diplomat mail? That's still unclear. All it did was cause a diplomatic riot, and nothing new was shown otherwise.

Anyone who's still with that bastard Assange by now, hasn't been paying attention for the past few years.

Trippy Turtle:
First, you can't honestly believe he is a rapist if you know anything about the case.

He bleedin' confessed to the rapes in the media. He doesn't even bother to deny it took place. Assange himself confirmed it, but claims it's some kind of conspiracy by snake-headed Zionist aliens. Fact however is he did everything in his power to escape justice, and lead his cronies to a cowardly attack on the victims.

That's the typical behaviour of a rapist, not of an innocent man. And anyone who buys that "it's a conspiracy!!" rubbish is letting himself be blinded.

If only it was a conspiracy. At least then he could've been disappeared or something, which isn't good, but at least a lot better than a cruel rapist and the one responsible for the misfortune and possible deaths of hundreds staying in luxury hotels and being worshipped by naive kids.

Those Afghan interpreters are fucking heroes, far more than any western troops doing their best, and Assange just handed the Taliban ready to use execution lists of them and their family. There's nothing they can possibly do to him which would be justice in exchange for that.

Trippy Turtle:
Second very little of what I saw or heard of from Wikileaks was compromising to US security.

Like the ready-to-use execution lists for the Taliban that Assange uploaded, which have lead to hundreds of people losing everything they have, and could have already lead to people being murdered? Risking other peoples lives has always been a crime.

Outside of that, he's directly responsible for the riot that publishing the US diplomatic mail caused. There's just no arguing he harmed US interests without any visible benefit to it at all. Assange is just some guy who has no concience at all, and hates the US with a blind passion.

$5.5 mil? Way to go, Anonym- I mean, I am shocked, just shocked, at the level of harm these wanton criminals were able to perpetuate on this *snicker* fine, upstanding company.

I am a supporter of Wikileaks but I am also supporter of letting a company decide who it wants to support. It is irrelevant whether I agree with them or not. I am not going to go bash in your car windows because I disagree with a decision you made. If I did, I should be prosecuted for it, no matter how justified I may believe myself to be. Disagreeing with an action unless it happens to someone you dislike is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

VanTesla:

Rooster Cogburn:
Stopped how? You are talking about both speech and hacking, so I'm not sure which you are saying "must be stopped".

My apolgies for the lack of clarity. I mean both extremes of hacking and speech must be stopped and how to do that is the tricky part for where do you draw the line? I ask myself the question and saying Gov't should be the sole decider would be foolish indeed, but there needs to be some sort of balance on Gov't protection and peoples right to decide if the Gov't needs to tone it down or amp something up. It should be by the people, but the time to get through that process is quite troublesome... Like I said it should be decided by a mix of both the people and Gov't, but figuring the most balanced and efficient way is tough. Sorry that my answer really is not much of a answer for I have no true clear answer when you have so much to balance and check.

Extremes of fucking speech must be stopped?

image

I guess all those Anon babies never heard of a company being allowed to refuse service to whoever they want. Maybe they'll start protesting stores for refusing to sell alcohol or cigarettes to people not of the proper age. I think the protesters would have to grow up and have an interest in that stuff first though.

Ashannon Blackthorn:
Snip

1: Julian Assange has 'not' shot a baby in the face. Just wanted to get that out there.
2: The United States doesnt have to kill him, they just had to take him off the newsmedia by forcing off donations and putting pressure on foreign goverments. They did, his in jail. No important newsmedia is writing about him. They've won.

Kheapathic:
I guess all those Anon babies never heard of a company being allowed to refuse service to whoever they want. Maybe they'll start protesting stores for refusing to sell alcohol or cigarettes to people not of the proper age. I think the protesters would have to grow up and have an interest in that stuff first though.

I think the problem was in freezing an account hosting multiple millions of publicly donated money. I think that counts as stealing but since its from a public enemy it doesn't. Somehow.

I'm all for allowing them to deny service. But to freeze his accounts under the guise of suspicions of 'terrorism' (I'm not kidding) . . . I dunno. Its just sorta iffy. Rubs me the wrong way that they can just suddenly freeze in the account of someone they don't agree with and nobody will stop them or even slap them over the wrist. Or rather, those that do gets punished with a 3.5Million euro bill.

VanTesla:

I am not exactly defending the actions that our military takes, but it's the Gov't that is the overall problem and not the military. I know many soldiers of high and lower ranks that don't agree with many things that are done, but they have no power in those decisions and if you speak out to much you will be in deep shit. Also America is not the only one with it's hands dirty... Every single Country has skeletons in the closet and do horrid things. There is no true peaceful Country and only Countries that may be better at hiding their dirty secrets...

I completely agree with you, but soldiers need to take responsibility. Their wouldn't be wars without soldiers willing to fight.

Baresark:

I apologize, I didn't mean it to sound like it did. I re-read it and then intended to change it. At first I thought you were saying there was nothing done that affected Wikileaks and Julian Assange. I didn't realize you were explaining the article. You were quite right about the article, of course. I also agree that Wikileaks did a good job. I hate that whole national security excuse that people use. As an American, I was very grateful for Wikileaks doing what they did, and it just shows how out of control the US Government has gotten. Then you get jackholes like the guy you were responding too. I also love the attacking part at the end, calling him a "rapist asshole". I'm sure that guy actually isn't all that familiar with how the so called rape charge came about either. He is just cool with the government parroting national security and safety of the people, despite what the diplomatic messages he exposed were all about.

While i do agree with you for the most part, it remains to be seen if he is a rapist or not. But i feel that the accusations should not affect wiki-leaks. Wiki-leaks is run by more than just Julian Assaange, and i don't like the fact that he was so willing to be publicly outspoken. Wiki-leaks is not KFC we did not need the colonels face on it.

Blablahb:

flarty:
Fair play to them for having the gonads to stand up to corporate behemoth, that decided to use its power to oppose an organization that was attempting to serve the public's interest.

Uh, you're talking about knowingly publishing the personal details of people who are on Taliban execution lists. Hundreds of them have had to fled their country due to Assange's recklessness and cold cruelty.

And who's being served by airing the US diplomat mail? That's still unclear. All it did was cause a diplomatic riot, and nothing new was shown otherwise.

Anyone who's still with that bastard Assange by now, hasn't been paying attention for the past few years.

Take a deep breath, read my post again. Whats the key word you missed? "ATTEMPTING". Also questioning authority is always a good thing. Whilst wiki-leaks might have endangered lives, maybe you would like to take a look at the casualty list of the war on terror just to put things in perspective a bit.

flarty:

Take a deep breath, read my post again. Whats the key word you missed? "ATTEMPTING". Also questioning authority is always a good thing. Whilst wiki-leaks might have endangered lives, maybe you would like to take a look at the casualty list of the war on terror just to put things in perspective a bit.

You know that kind of thinking makes me really nervous... so it's ok that Assange endangered lives for his own goals? But that's ok when you see the all the other bad things?

I know the war on terror is doing some horrific things. That doesn't make it ok for Assange to endanger the lives of hundreds of innocent people trying ot make a living. So yes, sometimes questioning authority is a terrible thing.

Saying that it's always a good thing is too black or white. Leaves no room for discretion of quite honestly common sense. Assange could have choose to not release those particular documents. He did anyways. If any of those civilians were executed by the Taliban becuase of those documents, the blood is on Assanges hands as well as the Taliban and the people running the war on terror.

Nikolaz72:

Ashannon Blackthorn:
Snip

1: Julian Assange has 'not' shot a baby in the face. Just wanted to get that out there.
2: The United States doesnt have to kill him, they just had to take him off the newsmedia by forcing off donations and putting pressure on foreign goverments. They did, his in jail. No important newsmedia is writing about him. They've won.

1) Ever heard of sarcasm? I'm actually well aware Assange never shot anyone. Jeez literal much?
2) Being in jail wouldnl't stop Assange or wiki-leaks. My point was directly that the US wouldn;t excute him which is the major reason he refuses to go to Sweden. (He's claims he'll get extradited to the US and faces the death penalty if he ends up there) Also...no news media writing about him? He gets an awful lot of airplay still. Minute the guy opens a fucking window the BBC is covering it.

Rooster Cogburn:
Mr. Assange is wanted for questioning by Swedish authorities. He has not been convicted of the crime of rape. He has not even been charged with the crime of rape. It would be irresponsible for anyone to assume either his guilt or his innocence at this time. The matter should be investigated by the proper authorities, who are currently engaged in gumming up the works and being inexplicably and suspiciously uncooperative.

Plus, the man is a hero.

Is he fuck as like. If he was innocent, he wouldn't be hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy (Ever heard the phrase "Innocent men don't run?"). And if he was a hero, he'd face the punishment he deserves for committing crimes.

Evil Smurf:
Don't be flaming friends. Assange is an idol of mine, be revealed the war crimes of governments and he plans to run for a seat in the Australian Senate. I'll vote for him.

Good luck with that. You want a senator who'll likely never visit the State they represent? Or Parliament House?

Xan Krieger:
Paypal deserved to be hit, they did something dickish so they suffered the consequences. They had no reason to cut off wikileaks.

Very good reasons, and every right to sever any links with Wikileaks.

Akratus:

VanTesla:

Rooster Cogburn:
Stopped how? You are talking about both speech and hacking, so I'm not sure which you are saying "must be stopped".

My apolgies for the lack of clarity. I mean both extremes of hacking and speech must be stopped and how to do that is the tricky part for where do you draw the line? I ask myself the question and saying Gov't should be the sole decider would be foolish indeed, but there needs to be some sort of balance on Gov't protection and peoples right to decide if the Gov't needs to tone it down or amp something up. It should be by the people, but the time to get through that process is quite troublesome... Like I said it should be decided by a mix of both the people and Gov't, but figuring the most balanced and efficient way is tough. Sorry that my answer really is not much of a answer for I have no true clear answer when you have so much to balance and check.

Extremes of fucking speech must be stopped?

image

Look at history and see that hate speech and propaganda by using speech is the main reason for violence... So yes there needs to be a stop of people saying we should rise and kill one another for bs purposes...

I have an issue with the way they value "damages" though.
Sure, the staff-hours that was spent, and the downtime due to denial of service, those are damages.

Investment in software and hardware?
Are you serious?

If your bank sends you a letter that says "oh hey, we just spent a bunch of money to make sure your money doesn't go missing!" it's not "damage," it's just what they should have had in the first place.

lacktheknack:
I wonder how they ever though this would turn out well.

I'm glad to see that vandalistic hacking is getting the hammer dropped on people.

Yes, because preventing someone from doing something in an entirely peaceful manner is vandalism. We should totally throw all those dirty fucking scum protestors who sit in doorways and obstruct people during protests in jail for vandalism as well! Rabble rabble rabble. If I stage a sit-in at a chain of banks, and me and the others involved happen to do it on a day where a wealthy customer was planning to deposit enough money that the bank lost out on millions in potential interest, I still couldn't be changed with anything other than the same minor bullshit offenses the police use against peaceful protestors in every circumstance; putting "cyber" in front of every other word and pointing to a big scary number over and over like this cretinous fucking moron prosecutor doesn't magically transmute the defendant's actions into something more serious either.

Get a grip.

Further, I think it's fucking hilarious that PayPal are trying to claim that this guy should be held responsible for forcing them to pay for a security upgrade which they, as a multinational corporation handling millions of dollars a day in other people's money, should have already fucking had.

Magichead:

lacktheknack:
I wonder how they ever though this would turn out well.

I'm glad to see that vandalistic hacking is getting the hammer dropped on people.

Yes, because preventing someone from doing something in an entirely peaceful manner is vandalism. We should totally throw all those dirty fucking scum protestors who sit in doorways and obstruct people during protests in jail for vandalism as well! Rabble rabble rabble. If I stage a sit-in at a chain of banks, and me and the others involved happen to do it on a day where a wealthy customer was planning to deposit enough money that the bank lost out on millions in potential interest, I still couldn't be changed with anything other than the same minor bullshit offenses the police use against peaceful protestors in every circumstance; putting "cyber" in front of every other word and pointing to a big scary number over and over like this cretinous fucking moron prosecutor doesn't magically transmute the defendant's actions into something more serious either.

Get a grip.

Further, I think it's fucking hilarious that PayPal are trying to claim that this guy should be held responsible for forcing them to pay for a security upgrade which they, as a multinational corporation handling millions of dollars a day in other people's money, should have already fucking had.

"Christopher Weatherhead, the defendant, is a cyber-attacker," said prosecutor Sandip Patel, "and ... he and others like him waged a sophisticated and orchestrated campaign of online attacks that paralysed a series of targeted computer systems belonging to companies, to which they took issue with for whatever reason, that caused unprecedented harm."

Vandalism. You should read the whole article next time.

flarty:
Fair play to them for having the gonads to stand up to corporate behemoth, that decided to use its power to oppose an organization that was attempting to serve the public's interest. You may not agree with the means in which they done it, but at least they wasn't being apathetic like a lot of us are.

What corporate Behemoth??? Paypal? :D Sorry, I don't think that DoSing Paypal is "standing up to corporate behemoth" it is more like spray-painting a subway train at night. This has got nothing to do with being brave, this is stupid and childish vandalism.

And Wikileaks does not serve my interest, It had its purpose some time ago, but they overdid it and overstayed their welcome in my book. Assange is completely crazy and lives ins some strange parallel universe, where he thinks that he does a public service. In reality, the last things he did could just as well have started a world war.
Wikileaks has gone completely out of control. It started out as something important, but now it is just some mentally challenged people abusing knowledge, and I am not the only one saying that. A lot of the staff has left Wikileaks after Assange started going insane to work on projects that offer that kind of service but in a sensible way and without trying desperately to start a war.

flarty:
Take a deep breath, read my post again. Whats the key word you missed? "ATTEMPTING". Also questioning authority is always a good thing. Whilst wiki-leaks might have endangered lives, maybe you would like to take a look at the casualty list of the war on terror just to put things in perspective a bit.

There is no perspective to put it into: Assange endangered the lives of innocent people. That's all there is to it.

As a result the bastard deserves everything that comes his way. I've worked with those interpreters who Assange tried to get killed, and they're heroes. They don't go home to a wealthy country afterwards, they don't get the body armour, they're not casualties to be avoided at all costs. But they make the peacekeeping effort possible. If it wasn't for an Afghan, and those interpreters, I'd be dead now. A farmer stopped us from driving over an IED, and without an interpreter we never would've known what he meant and went on to our deaths.

When a pathetic powersick individual like Assange then tries to get those people killed, just because he hates Americans, that makes him lower than low in my book. That he's a rapist just serves to enhance that already bad image.

Also Wikileaks doesn't serve any sort of public interest. Its sole intent is to discredit and harm the US, and hatred against the US is not some sort of universal good public interest. Wikileaks is just a bunch of people with a fierce hatred against Americans, doing things which are illegal and harmfull, in order to satisfy their hatred.

This is why Wikileaks is falling apart. Even Assange's cronies started to realise he's a sick individual.

Okulossos:

flarty:
Fair play to them for having the gonads to stand up to corporate behemoth, that decided to use its power to oppose an organization that was attempting to serve the public's interest. You may not agree with the means in which they done it, but at least they wasn't being apathetic like a lot of us are.

What corporate Behemoth??? Paypal? :D Sorry, I don't think that DoSing Paypal is "standing up to corporate behemoth" it is more like spray-painting a subway train at night. This has got nothing to do with being brave, this is stupid and childish vandalism.

And Wikileaks does not serve my interest, It had its purpose some time ago, but they overdid it and overstayed their welcome in my book. Assange is completely crazy and lives ins some strange parallel universe, where he thinks that he does a public service. In reality, the last things he did could just as well have started a world war.
Wikileaks has gone completely out of control. It started out as something important, but now it is just some mentally challenged people abusing knowledge, and I am not the only one saying that. A lot of the staff has left Wikileaks after Assange started going insane to work on projects that offer that kind of service but in a sensible way and without trying desperately to start a war.

Really, i was under the impression that anonymous had attacked Visa and MasterCard website as well as countless government websites around the world and defaced a newscorp website. Also where did i say it was brave? I said i respected them for taking action for their beliefs in a world full of apathy. If you think it was stupid and childish what would of you done instead?

As for the rest of your post, maybe you should refrain from posting until you have read the thread as you would of seen my opinion on of Assange is not all dis-similar to yours

Blablahb:

flarty:
Take a deep breath, read my post again. Whats the key word you missed? "ATTEMPTING". Also questioning authority is always a good thing. Whilst wiki-leaks might have endangered lives, maybe you would like to take a look at the casualty list of the war on terror just to put things in perspective a bit.

There is no perspective to put it into: Assange endangered the lives of innocent people. That's all there is to it.

As a result the bastard deserves everything that comes his way. I've worked with those interpreters who Assange tried to get killed, and they're heroes. They don't go home to a wealthy country afterwards, they don't get the body armour, they're not casualties to be avoided at all costs. But they make the peacekeeping effort possible. If it wasn't for an Afghan, and those interpreters, I'd be dead now. A farmer stopped us from driving over an IED, and without an interpreter we never would've known what he meant and went on to our deaths.

When a pathetic powersick individual like Assange then tries to get those people killed, just because he hates Americans, that makes him lower than low in my book. That he's a rapist just serves to enhance that already bad image.

Also Wikileaks doesn't serve any sort of public interest. Its sole intent is to discredit and harm the US, and hatred against the US is not some sort of universal good public interest. Wikileaks is just a bunch of people with a fierce hatred against Americans, doing things which are illegal and harmfull, in order to satisfy their hatred.

This is why Wikileaks is falling apart. Even Assange's cronies started to realise he's a sick individual.

Sorry none of that means nothing to me, as you shouldn't of been there in the first place. The fact that Bush refused the offer from the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden should suggest there was already something more sinister afoot. If the offer had been accepted, there would be no war on terror and these lives would not of been endangered. But you follow blindly. And if you read the thread you would be aware that my feelings about Assange are not dissimilar to yours, but carry on jumping the gun with only half the picture.
As for Wiki-leaks only purpose is for discrediting the US, I take it you have never visited the website. The fact that the biggest story's seem to concern the US the majority of the time should tell you something though.

not this shit again -.-

Blablahb:
There is no perspective to put it into: Assange endangered the lives of innocent people.

no, he hasn't. the danger to interpreters and informants has been theorized, but turned out to be hugely blown out of proportion. as the pentagon itself said in october 2010 that wikileaks: "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."

Blablahb:

When a pathetic powersick individual like Assange then tries to get those people killed, just because he hates Americans, that makes him lower than low in my book. That he's a rapist just serves to enhance that already bad image. Also Wikileaks doesn't serve any sort of public interest. Its sole intent is to discredit and harm the US, and hatred against the US is not some sort of universal good public interest. Wikileaks is just a bunch of people with a fierce hatred against Americans, doing things which are illegal and harmfull, in order to satisfy their hatred.

as flarty said, you appearently havn't even ever been to that website. to assume that it is purely operating because of a hatred towards america is not just paranoid, but also pretty egomanical, both in a pretty weird jingoistic way.
they have plenty of reports on things that have nothing to do with america. america just does disproportinal ammounts of evil shit and is thus prominently featured pretty regularely. also, nothing wikileaks did was illegal. exept under u.s. law maybe, but that does not apply to non-americans, no matter how much the u.s. whine about that fact.

lastly, the repeated claim that he would have confessed to rape/sexual assault:
no, he hasn't. that's just an outright lie. he admitted to having intercourse with the women in question. he says it was fully consentual, they they it wasn't.

america did bad stuff, they got called out on it, and now they are butthurt. that's all there is to it, really.

flarty:
Really, i was under the impression that anonymous had attacked Visa and MasterCard website as well as countless government websites around the world and defaced a newscorp website. Also where did i say it was brave? I said i respected them for taking action for their beliefs in a world full of apathy. If you think it was stupid and childish what would of you done instead?

First of all, Anonymous can only attempt DDoS, those people are not hackers, they're script kiddies, so there is no "defacing" or anything like that (even though the news keeps messing this one up).
then, attacking Visa or Mastercard is also not "attacking a behemoth", since the cards are always bound to bank and that bank in question can also be the one where your money is sitting, so be careful what you wish for.
It was childish, because they way it was done hurt the wrong people, the "beliefs" behind the actions where so... oh dear god, I can't tell you how tired I am of those "oh the big bad company, if a company has that much money, it must be bad" -phrases. Especially if they come from people who support one of the two companies for which those words are actually fitting: Apple and Sony.
What i would habe done? well, exactly what I did or am doing:


    - I am boycotting Sony and Apple
    - I am talking to people about what those companies do/did and why I boycott them
    - I am going to give a party if one of those companies goes down (even though I will be sad for the unemployed)

But I am not:

    - hurting the customers of those companies
    - hurting the employees of those companies
    - hurting those people who sell stuff from those companies

... because they are not the enemy.

And this where where I am better than any kiddie-hacker who tries to make a point by hurting one of those parties. Vandalism is nothing anyone should be respected for and it is how things will ever change. Also the world is not full of apathy, it is just full of people who either don't know, or follow the wrong believe. This can be fixed by talking to people.
On nearly every conference where it is fitting I pull out the "why Apple and Sony should burn in Hell" - slides. And I keep experiencing the same reaction whenever I tell them how Sony reacted to placing malware on their customers Computers by saying "most people don't even know what a rootkit is, why should they care?" or when I talk about how Steve jobs said that a suicide-rate of below 10% was acceptable...
People don't know that, but they need to know in order to react accordingly. If you just take down their websites, then you are the bad person and those companies are the poor victims and that is the message people will remember. This is not helping, it is making things worse.

Kathinka:
no, he hasn't. the danger to interpreters and informants has been theorized, but turned out to be hugely blown out of proportion

Has it? Assange published ready-to-use execution lists. I don't see how such a dickmove can possibly be blown out of proportion. He sat in his luxury office, saw a list with names and adresses, knowing those people are high on Taliban priority lists of people to kill, and Assange made a decision that his bigoted hatred against Americans weighs heavier than the lives of the families of the people mentioned.

That's the same as murder.

Also, not only can you not prove it's been blown out of proportion, but the claim is demonstrably false as such interpreters are fleeing their country:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/afghan-interpreters-set-granted-nz-asylum-5162508
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article3523452.ece
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Vindicated-delight-Afghan-interpreter-wins-fight/story-17175840-detail/story.html

Kathinka:
s flarty said, you appearently havn't even ever been to that website. to assume that it is purely operating because of a hatred towards america is not just paranoid, but also pretty egomanical, both in a pretty weird jingoistic way.

Perhaps you shouldn't use long words you don't understand the meaning of. Jingoism is extreme nationalism and being pro-war, something that doesn't really exist any longer these days. Jingoism would be exclaiming how the Netherlands needs to go and conquer the whole world since we're so good and stuff. Using it in this context just makes no sense, and is simply an attempt to insult me. Egomania, adjective egomaniacal means an extreme pre-occupation with oneself, which is just a purposely inflammatory statement that makes no sense.

Assange has a previous criminal record which shows his hatred of Americans. For instance sabotaging NASA computers, purely for the sake of inflicting harm on something American.

Kathinka:
they have plenty of reports on things that have nothing to do with america.

Then why have they never ever published them? I'll tell you why: Because Assange only cares about harming the US. Your claim that the US is the boogeyman is also demonstrably false. For instance the Russian police raided a group called Memorial who try to collect memories from Soviet oppression. The new Putin regime doesn't want those black pages published. Among other signs of clear repression.

Kathinka:
lastly, the repeated claim that he would have confessed to rape/sexual assault:
no, he hasn't. that's just an outright lie. he admitted to having intercourse with the women in question.

Why would you accuse me of lying, and in the same sentence admit that he confessed to it just like I said? It strikes me as highly contradictory.

Why would anyone want to defend a sex offender in the first place?

Blablahb:

Kathinka:
no, he hasn't. the danger to interpreters and informants has been theorized, but turned out to be hugely blown out of proportion

Has it? Assange published ready-to-use execution lists. I don't see how such a dickmove can possibly be blown out of proportion. He sat in his luxury office, saw a list with names and adresses, knowing those people are high on Taliban priority lists of people to kill, and Assange made a decision that his bigoted hatred against Americans weighs heavier than the lives of the families of the people mentioned.

That's the same as murder.

Also, not only can you not prove it's been blown out of proportion, but the claim is demonstrably false as such interpreters are fleeing their country:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/afghan-interpreters-set-granted-nz-asylum-5162508
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article3523452.ece
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Vindicated-delight-Afghan-interpreter-wins-fight/story-17175840-detail/story.html

Kathinka:
s flarty said, you appearently havn't even ever been to that website. to assume that it is purely operating because of a hatred towards america is not just paranoid, but also pretty egomanical, both in a pretty weird jingoistic way.

Perhaps you shouldn't use long words you don't understand the meaning of. Jingoism is extreme nationalism and being pro-war, something that doesn't really exist any longer these days. Jingoism would be exclaiming how the Netherlands needs to go and conquer the whole world since we're so good and stuff. Using it in this context just makes no sense, and is simply an attempt to insult me. Egomania, adjective egomaniacal means an extreme pre-occupation with oneself, which is just a purposely inflammatory statement that makes no sense.

Assange has a previous criminal record which shows his hatred of Americans. For instance sabotaging NASA computers, purely for the sake of inflicting harm on something American.

Kathinka:
they have plenty of reports on things that have nothing to do with america.

Then why have they never ever published them? I'll tell you why: Because Assange only cares about harming the US. Your claim that the US is the boogeyman is also demonstrably false. For instance the Russian police raided a group called Memorial who try to collect memories from Soviet oppression. The new Putin regime doesn't want those black pages published. Among other signs of clear repression.

Kathinka:
lastly, the repeated claim that he would have confessed to rape/sexual assault:
no, he hasn't. that's just an outright lie. he admitted to having intercourse with the women in question.

Why would you accuse me of lying, and in the same sentence admit that he confessed to it just like I said? It strikes me as highly contradictory.

Why would anyone want to defend a sex offender in the first place?

you emitted the interesting part of the endanger-the-interpreters paragraph: the PENTAGON itself said that there has been NO measures neccessary to relocate or protect anyone. if even they admit it, what else is there.

reports not concerning america: they HAVE been published. there is stuff about the brittish national party, things about ivory coast, lots about money laundry in switzerland and luxenbourg. all neatly there. it's just that america covers up most crimes and thus gets lots of the spotlight. but that's hardly the fault of wikileaks.

rape/confession: confessing to having consentual intercourse with someone is not the same as confessing to rape. sexual intercourse is not a crime, as you might or might not know.

Okulossos:
Snip

I only read the first couple of lines of your post and decided it wasn't worth the time or effort to respond to anything else, as you have demonstrated that you cant be bothered to research anything you are willing to voice your opinion on.

Some reading material to get you up to speed on anonymous

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/03/anonymous-hack-met-fbi-call
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM <------- seriously watch this one just for the lolz
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/07/18/anonymous-hackers-hack-the-sun-newspaper-to-declare-murdoch-dead-claim-stolen-emails/
http://thehackernews.com/2012/10/anonymous-deface-uk-police-forum-and.html#_ <------ most recent i can find

But yeah there's more stuff out there, some of it very impressive and just.

Anyway I'm sure the rest of your post is very interesting, but I've got better things to do than read someones post who refuses to research anything before giving their opinion.

flarty:
snip yourself :P

Yea... that was all Anonymous... :D lol, you really believe that, don't you?
You do know that the media does not even know what hacking truly is, don't you?

You should read my posting instead, it would help you a lot more than those articles ;)

Okulossos:

flarty:
snip yourself :P

Yea... that was all Anonymous... :D lol, you really believe that, don't you?
You do know that the media does not even know what hacking truly is, don't you?

You should read my posting instead, it would help you a lot more than those articles ;)

Your willingness to dismiss these articles, and the fact that you can not even be bothered to even just read anything relating to them from a quick google is displayed in your post. Anyone can claim to be anonymous, they are not some organized group and they have no central leadership. They're a collection of activists and hackers who all adhere to the same idea.

I shouldn't read your post as you still cant even be bothered to read an article on anonymous before spouting your BS, so what are you going to teach me if you cant even be bothered to learn yourself?

flarty:
Your willingness to dismiss these articles, and the fact that you can not even be bothered to even just read anything relating to them from a quick google is displayed in your post. Anyone can claim to be anonymous, they are not some organized group and they have no central leadership. They're a collection of activists and hackers who all adhere to the same idea.

Exactly, they are not some organized group... but they are also not a collection of activists and they also do not share the same idea. they are a loose collection of a bunch of people from 4chan. Some hackers hide in that crowd, but if you follow them on twitter you know who they really are... If they twitter. the true blackhats are criminals hiding from sight. They use whatever cover they can find. But no one considers them to be part of "anonymous" even-though that mass has no boundaries.

I shouldn't read your post as you still cant even be bothered to read an article on anonymous before spouting your BS, so what are you going to teach me if you cant even be bothered to learn yourself?

Well, you don't read my postings as you claimed above, so don't complain if you won't learn anything from them... you need to read them to find out ;).

Okulossos:

flarty:
Your willingness to dismiss these articles, and the fact that you can not even be bothered to even just read anything relating to them from a quick google is displayed in your post. Anyone can claim to be anonymous, they are not some organized group and they have no central leadership. They're a collection of activists and hackers who all adhere to the same idea.

Exactly, they are not some organized group... but they are also not a collection of activists and they also do not share the same idea. they are a loose collection of a bunch of people from 4chan. Some hackers hide in that crowd, but if you follow them on twitter you know who they really are... If they twitter. the true blackhats are criminals hiding from sight. They use whatever cover they can find. But no one considers them to be part of "anonymous" even-though that mass has no boundaries.

So apart from committing the obvious crimes like the one being discussed in this thread. What other crimes are you accusing them of? Because there's no evidence that anyone within anonymous has committed any other crimes because they are "anonymous". So now you are resorting to is spouting unfounded BS and not even presenting any evidence to back it up, which i can not find either.

Okulossos:

I shouldn't read your post as you still cant even be bothered to read an article on anonymous before spouting your BS, so what are you going to teach me if you cant even be bothered to learn yourself?

Well, you don't read my postings as you claimed above, so don't complain if you won't learn anything from them... you need to read them to find out ;).

Erm wut? This makes no sense. I'm not complaining about not learning anything. I'm complaining that you have nothing to teach, as you keep on demonstrating in each post. Also it wasn't a "claim" it was a statement of fact.

Take it easy bro, I doubt I'll bother replying too you again, your about as open minded as a religious fundamentalist, and my time is spent better conversing with people who actually know what they are talking about.

Kathinka:
you emitted the interesting part of the endanger-the-interpreters paragraph: the PENTAGON itself said that there has been NO measures neccessary to relocate or protect anyone. if even they admit it, what else is there.

I gave you links to examples of people needed to flee their country for their safety. To deny that very thing has happened after quoting that post is very, very... wikileaks of you.

You lost this point. Assange ruthlessly published execution lists, and is therefore a major league asshole. You can't contest the fact that he published it, so you can't win this.

Kathinka:
reports not concerning america: they HAVE been published. there is stuff about the brittish national party, things about ivory coast, lots about money laundry in switzerland and luxenbourg. all neatly there.

Oh, so they published something about pedestrian crime in two countries everybody already knew were the bankers of the underworld and the tax evaders? That's called an excuse. Do something unimportant in a different direction so you can pretend to not be a one-issue thing.

But it is. Wikileaks is only about hatred against Americans. They don't care at all about transparancy. Heck, we don't even know who funds wikileaks, or Assange himself, or who helped him flee from the law.

Kathinka:
rape/confession: confessing to having consentual intercourse with someone is not the same as confessing to rape.

It is in this case, since the charges stem from misleading his victims into having unsafe sex, and not from physically forcing a victim to have sex. Plus Assange's response is typical: a savage personal attack on his victims. That's what most sex offenders do: try to shut up their victims and kill the case against them through that way. Innocent people are keen for the trial to start, and to see the lack of evidence against them.

Why would you insist in defending a rapist? What's next? 'Marc Dutroux is a hero of transparancy and justice'?

Blablahb:
snip

none of the articles you linked were in any way connected to wikileaks. these interpreters in question had to flee for various other reasons. if anyone would have to flee because of the leaks, the pentagon of all places would surely not claim otherwise.
fun fact: wikileaks offered to work with the pentagon in order to go through the documents and ensure that no one can come to harm. the pentagon, however, didn't take them up on their offer.

there is numerous other things on wikileaks, of varying importance and location. america just got caught doing the most of the evil shit. that they are featured most prominently on that site doesn't meant that they did not commit those crimes, so simply crying "but..but..they are so obviously hating americans!" is so pure ad hominem.

i know about the charges. but he never confessed to them, no matter what you claim. he admitted into having consentual and lawful sex with them. that is all.
no matter how loud you or any other butthurt americans cry, he is innocent until a court of law has said otherwise. if he done it, he should be punished. but even then, it changes nothing about the wikileaks revelation of american misdeeds.

I am thankful to wiki-leaks, I had a good laugh over the apache video.

OT: Eh good, they need to start paying for some of the idiotic things they do.

VanTesla:

I am not exactly defending the actions that our military takes, but it's the Gov't that is the overall problem and not the military. I know many soldiers of high and lower ranks that don't agree with many things that are done, but they have no power in those decisions and if you speak out to much you will be in deep shit. Also America is not the only one with it's hands dirty... Every single Country has skeletons in the closet and do horrid things. There is no true peaceful Country and only Countries that may be better at hiding their dirty secrets...

The soldiers who claim to not agree can just quit. Unless they do that I would say they are morally on the hook for whatever shit happens. If you willingly stay in a place, knowing that laws and rights may be broken, then you are an immoral person.

Claiming they have no power is a weak bullshit excuse. If they are men enough to sign up to kill random strangers they should be men enough to either leave or, if they are in a bad spot, say no to orders that are immoral and then take the punishment. I can't have any sympathy for people willing to kill but not be man enough to do that.

So if the court is saying that the 3.5 million damage was not enough and we should fine paypay it would be fine. any other way i think the court is crazy.

All legal systems are corrupt? Uh...that is a MASSIVE generalization that you didn't exactly give evidence to support. And yes I will judge them, anon is a bunch of brats who think that they're above the law.

if you think that US goverment cant pull paypals strings you have no knowledge to talk about anything relating politics. the whole point of anon was that LAWS WERE NOT FOLLOWED.
the whole thing that this article things anon has a leader makes me believe somone up there doesnt know whats going on to begin with.

P.S. you guys are aware that in Germany court has decided that DDos is a "fair form of protest on internet". OFC they were pressured to change thier minds because you know you cant do much when you go third of world guns to your head.

Things in the documents can give enemy factions of USA and Allie forces the ability to cause more harm to our soldiers or people that cooperate with them in said Country and hinder operations that would maybe speed up ending conflicts.

Yes, making public information that should have been public by default may compromise security of soldiers that are in conflict that they shouldn't be into in the first place. oh the horror.

Also that it causes more violent hate that is not needed right now...

its needed now more than ever. in fact we need a second french revolution.

People in Annon that do certain things like hack gov't or Corporations just give them the excuse to pass laws to further restrict internet rights for the sake of security... I believe in free speech, but there is a line where free speech and actions can do tremendous harm to people and must be stopped.

governments can only push so far until people throw them over the fence. well of course unless its american government where propaganda makes people believe america is still great.

I like the part where you promote civil discussion by starting off by insulting me. second I am familiar with the case and the evidence I have seen points to him being guilty.

if you managed to misread the case into thinking he is guilty then you deserve to be insulted. you fool.

you see that 100% government transparency is both unrealistic and harmful? what exactly do you expect the government to do?

whats harmful is 0% government transparency. we cant have enough of transparency everywhere.

Using theft to acquire classified information isn't freedom of speech, its espionage.

classifying information that should be public is much worse.

So Paypal doesn't want to support a website that regularly violates national security, and anon throws a tantrum and makes them lose 3.5 mil, for not encouraging a website that breaks the law and endangering their company's interest by not supporting something they don't even believe in? How is this guy supposed to be in the right again?

paypal supports websites that donate to KKK, neonazis, anarchists and many other things that are far worse, but US pulled the strings and made them freeze wikileaks donations, because maybe for once paypal donations would be used for something good right? hipocracy much? Or are you saying that paypal must believe in what it supports, so then it believes in KKK, nazism abnd dont get me started on fundraisers....
Paypal was completely wrong. its job is to support monetary services, not take sides. appropriate response would be to made enough damage to apypal that it woudl think twice before playing god next time.

All legal systems are corrupt? Uh...that is a MASSIVE generalization that you didn't exactly give evidence to support. And yes I will judge them, anon is a bunch of brats who think that they're above the law.

if the laws and will of people clash, it is the laws that are wrong.

And who's being served by airing the US diplomat mail? That's still unclear. All it did was cause a diplomatic riot, and nothing new was shown otherwise.

safe mind. dimplomats mail should be public by default.

Outside of that, he's directly responsible for the riot that publishing the US diplomatic mail caused. There's just no arguing he harmed US interests without any visible benefit to it at all.

and the whole worse should be US slaves because?

You know that kind of thinking makes me really nervous... so it's ok that Assange endangered lives for his own goals? But that's ok when you see the all the other bad things?

so its ok that people destroy lives for thier own interest and when someone possibly endangers lives because they are trying to expose the ones doing all the killing then you throw a tantrum. if anything it is the government that acts like children here.

Saying that it's always a good thing is too black or white. Leaves no room for discretion of quite honestly common sense. Assange could have choose to not release those particular documents. He did anyways. If any of those civilians were executed by the Taliban becuase of those documents, the blood is on Assanges hands as well as the Taliban and the people running the war on terror.

so, say, i tell you where a gay person lives and you go shoot it. its my fault that you were dumb enough to shoot him (thats theoretical situation not implying you hate gays or anything). kind of backwards thinking there.

Look at history and see that hate speech and propaganda by using speech is the main reason for violence... So yes there needs to be a stop of people saying we should rise and kill one another for bs purposes...

and if that were true we would still live in the stone age. try again.

Vandalism. You should read the whole article next time.

now go back and re-read the post your quoting.

There is no perspective to put it into: Assange endangered the lives of innocent people. That's all there is to it.

looking at it this way, we should ban cars, because they also endangered lives of innocent people. PERSPECTIVE IS EVERYTHING.
and well thne you go on rambling how they saved your life, so i guess you shouldn't even discuss this because obviously your opinion is very subjective.

It was childish, because they way it was done hurt the wrong people,

Paypal claim 3.5m damage. so it hurt the right people for at least 3.5m.

- I am boycotting Sony and Apple

yes, this is definitely working for you seeing how apple and Sony was one of the biggest profiteers this year (in thier group).

- I am talking to people about what those companies do/did and why I boycott them

this is a bit better, but boycotts never really work cause people boycotting a product still use said product most of the time.

- I am going to give a party if one of those companies goes down (even though I will be sad for the unemployed)

helps the goal in no way whatsoever.

... because they are not the enemy.

they should be.

And this where where I am better than any kiddie-hacker who tries to make a point by hurting one of those parties.

all you are is lazy guy who pretends that hes doing anything while actually doing nothing.

Vandalism is nothing anyone should be respected for and it is how things will ever change. Also the world is not full of apathy, it is just full of people who either don't know, or follow the wrong believe. This can be fixed by talking to people.

vandalism was a crucial part of any important revolution. that is to say use of word vandalism may be different from what you assume. if you think talking to people helps, then anon should be your god, because what they did is made the world listen to what they got to say, whether they like it or not.

Jingoism is extreme nationalism and being pro-war, something that doesn't really exist any longer these days.

excelt that this is what america is doing exactly.

Then why have they never ever published them?

they did, but you didnt bother to look. you only care when US cries how their evil plans been discovered.

Why would you accuse me of lying, and in the same sentence admit that he confessed to it just like I said? It strikes me as highly contradictory.

Why would anyone want to defend a sex offender in the first place?

so to you having a consentual intercourse with woman makes you a rapist. good lord, all those married people are rapists now.

teh_gunslinger:

VanTesla:

I am not exactly defending the actions that our military takes, but it's the Gov't that is the overall problem and not the military. I know many soldiers of high and lower ranks that don't agree with many things that are done, but they have no power in those decisions and if you speak out to much you will be in deep shit. Also America is not the only one with it's hands dirty... Every single Country has skeletons in the closet and do horrid things. There is no true peaceful Country and only Countries that may be better at hiding their dirty secrets...

The soldiers who claim to not agree can just quit. Unless they do that I would say they are morally on the hook for whatever shit happens. If you willingly stay in a place, knowing that laws and rights may be broken, then you are an immoral person.

Claiming they have no power is a weak bullshit excuse. If they are men enough to sign up to kill random strangers they should be men enough to either leave or, if they are in a bad spot, say no to orders that are immoral and then take the punishment. I can't have any sympathy for people willing to kill but not be man enough to do that.

Ok then if you say so... Listen the USA military is not like it was way back where you could say screw your orders to a superior it's wrong and not get instantly court martial, dishonorable discharged, or worse depending on the case and severity. Also one can not just quit once in the military it is not that simple and if you think you can say I have had enough and head right out the door, then you are sadly mistaken on how things work... To say man up to a soldier and take the punishment is just amusing since they go through shit you and I can't imagine so I would not speak about manning up unless you are say a soldier or have been in war...

VanTesla:

teh_gunslinger:

VanTesla:

I am not exactly defending the actions that our military takes, but it's the Gov't that is the overall problem and not the military. I know many soldiers of high and lower ranks that don't agree with many things that are done, but they have no power in those decisions and if you speak out to much you will be in deep shit. Also America is not the only one with it's hands dirty... Every single Country has skeletons in the closet and do horrid things. There is no true peaceful Country and only Countries that may be better at hiding their dirty secrets...

The soldiers who claim to not agree can just quit. Unless they do that I would say they are morally on the hook for whatever shit happens. If you willingly stay in a place, knowing that laws and rights may be broken, then you are an immoral person.

Claiming they have no power is a weak bullshit excuse. If they are men enough to sign up to kill random strangers they should be men enough to either leave or, if they are in a bad spot, say no to orders that are immoral and then take the punishment. I can't have any sympathy for people willing to kill but not be man enough to do that.

Ok then if you say so... Listen the USA military is not like it was way back where you could say screw your orders to a superior it's wrong and not get instantly court martial, dishonorable discharged, or worse depending on the case and severity. Also one can not just quit once in the military it is not that simple and if you think you can say I have had enough and head right out the door, then you are sadly mistaken on how things work... To say man up to a soldier and take the punishment is just amusing since they go through shit you and I can't imagine so I would not speak about manning up unless you are say a soldier or have been in war...

A lucky stroke I used to be a soldier then. Granted I left as soon as I could due to not being interested in killing people when the war in Afghanistan broke out, but still. I have a very good idea of what they go through.

I don't particularly care about that though. Moral absolution is not forthcoming from me if they didn't refuse immoral orders. Simple as that. Following orders is never, ever and excuse. Better to man up and face the music for refusing.

Um, hi. Cöuld we pleäse håve öur suspect sö we can try him ånd decide whether he's innöcent ör nöt, like cöurts usuälly dö? Is thät töö much tå äsk?

I do love how apparently it's the sex crime legislation that's the problem here. Knobbing people who are asleep are alright if you're the good guy, right? And honestly, considering how unusual it is to see anyone actually convicted of rape reguardless of evidence, he'll probably be either aquitted or face one year or so at the very most.

Now, there is the whole business of him being turned over to the American government, and to be perfectly honest, that isn't that farfetched of a suspicion. The government have gladly turned people over to states, including the United, even if it was very reasonable to assume that they would face torture or worse. However, that isn't a very popular move anymore, for obvious reasons, and if Assange would somehow end up in the hands of the American world police, there would be a shitstorm. It'd be near political suicide. I know I would chuck my fair share of cobblestone if that happened, and I'm not even very fond of Assange.

With that said, I do like Wikileaks, and what they've done, a whole bunch. I think that showing America and the world what the army's really up to when no one is looking is a good, if a bit depressing, thing. If it's dangerous for that sort of information to be disclosed since it can create more anger and hatred, then maybe the better solution would be to not gun down civilians in the first place, eh?

UberNoodle:
LoL, that is a strange statement. It certainly did affect wikileaks because the US government used their power to inhibit people donating to the defense of Julian Assange. I would say that them caving to the US Government like they did very badly affected both Wikileaks and Julian Assange. But some of us are more justice minded than others I guess.

OT: It's amazing what anonymity does to peoples courage. They just weren't anonymous enough. The idiotic thing is when someone takes credit for this kind of thing. If they actually did it anonymously, we most likely wouldn't be seeing this article.

No, that's not what happened.

First, go here: http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/paypal-wikileaks/

This link includes text from the letter the Government sent to WikiLeaks.

The important thing to note is that no such letter was ever sent to PayPal, nor was any pressure from the Government put on them to cut off WikiLeak's account.

It simply never happened.

PayPal realized that being associated with/enabling funds to be sent to someone who is being investigated for potentially stealing and distributing classified documents that could possibly put people's lives in danger was PROBABLY not good for Public Relations, so they cut off the WikiLeaks account to separate themselves from the matter.

All of the neck bearded arm chair warriors failed to actually read the FACTS regarding PayPal's decision and decided to just attack PayPal for quite selfish and stupid reasons.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here