Wikileaks And Anonymous

If the conversation were to continue maybe you could hammer that out but I think Catastrophe and Yokiko aren't posting anymore. Given some of the arguments from some of the (let's face it) bigots on this site I'm surprised that something as subtle as her stated assumptions would irk you so much xD

It's not the matter of being irked or not.
It's not really a discussion when you're just shutting someone down, that's what bothered me.

Not that i don't try to do it myself when speaking with Jet.
but nothing shuts his mush brain down.

Anonymous attacks Mastercard site.

Visa and Mastercard sites are both down right now. Anonymous claims responsibility for both.

Is it just me, or is this whole thing just stupid? I mean yeah, I'm completely against people being silenced, but attacking websites? Not that anonymous has ever needed a reason to do such a thing, but their reasoning is stupid.

Seems more like they're just trying to find a way to be vindicated for doing it.

They've not been known for smart reasoning in the first place, so yeah you're right it's stupid.

I think there are few pro-Anonymous posters here. The people who support these attacks are mostly in favor of what they see as free publicity for Wikileaks and Assange. Almost everyone in this thread has spoken out about how DDoSing isn't constructive. I'm just posting related news to people who may be interested.

Anonymous is just another fad like "straight-edge" IMO.
younger ones get into it for a bit, but most grow up.

If anonymous has to make a big deal about an attack or whatever they're doing it wrong to start with. The best attacks are those without source done completely under the table.

Back in the day of the Habbo raids and the Palin dox leak no-one knew it was /b/ right away. Then the entire Scientology ***started to spread and Anon was seen as a political group for the greater good.

I haven't been on /b/ for a few months, but last time I was, they really hated all the cancerous *** who did that.

Most of the DDOS attacks are being used by people with the LOIC and Longcat flooder, these are primarily tools used by /b/.

Yeah, at some point, we all trade our passions in for widescreen tvs, our beliefs for promations, and our backbones for paychecks.

They're fixing to take down Twitter, because Twitter suspended their account, just giving anyone who cares fair notice.

They've taken down Twitter before.

I'm sure they have, my intention was just to let anyone here who uses Twitter know and expect down time soon.

You would figure with all the war related leaks these companies would have distanced themselves from Wikileaks when they were actually leaking information that could have been used to help terrorists kill civilian collaborators. To my knowledge that never happened though and I think the media would have been all over that if it did. It is strange that the tipping point is a leak relating to American foreign policy in the sense that once the damage is done, it's done.

Granted only a small amount of the leak has been made public so far, do they (our government) really think this approach of trying to isolate Wikileaks is doing anything to prevent the release of more? If they wanted to stop Wikileaks before they got their hands on more leaks they should have done it earlier. Taking this approach only after the foreign policy leaks only draws more attention to what they do and their cause. Especially in a world so full of anti-American sentiment, whether or not it is well-founded by each individual. To clarify: by that I mean some people have really stupid platforms to say they hate America from, others have legitimate ones.

You can't really say the damage is done for those leaks. There may still be people reading the war leaks with malicious intent to kill someone. That is more of a foundation to say "I don't support Wikileaks" than saying diplomacy is going to fall apart. Because we all know it isn't, there may even be positive effects from some of the leaks. Like the leaks pertaining to Chinese support of North Korea. Diplomatic leaks can be seen in a positive light, some war leaks that list names of Aghans or Iraqis that worked with coalition forces cannot because the information is so widely available it is easy to realize that someone will use them for malicious purposes.

I'm not saying I am not for our government being proactive to defend its own interests. Perhaps they should have waited until the subject wasn't getting so much media attention to try to take out Wikileaks. They're fanning the flames.

here here brother lol.
sadly I haven't done all that yet.
maybe the backbone one to an extent.
but when you deal with so much passive aggression in the work place there's not much to do but be passive-aggressive right back.
and i hate that.

Wikileaks has a hundred times the clout and importance that Anonymous does. They've shaken governments and rattled nerves all the way around the world. Anonymous sits on a web forum and makes snarky comments all day.

Wikileaks doesn't need their "help." Attacking Mastercard and Amazon isn't going to make them change their minds. They had very little choice in the matter once governments began to apply legal pressure to lean on them.

If Anonymous wants to be relevant, they should be using their influence and power to pull off their own Wikileaks-style impact. Or going after the actual enemy parties (government agencies) that started this whole mess. But latching on to Wikileaks' cause after the fact, in an attempt to elevate their own relevance by taking potshots at 3rd parties, is pretty meaningless and juvenile, and keeps them down at cronie status at best.

I think Anonymous is too wide a term. They call themselves that, but they aren't truly Anonymous (organisation).

More like misfits from the various boards on 4chan who try to be politically relevant whilst failing. Most people who actually do the damage or release the information that is relevant are members who are truly anonymous and don't affiliate themselves with an image board.

Huh.. It appears, at least on the surface, that all this ***anon is doing, actually did something

Paypal releases Wikileaks funds...

The original PayPal blog entry regarding Wikileaks never stated any intent to not release the funds.

Oh it didn't? I was under the impression all the funds from all the sources stated (visa, mastercard, paypal etc) had ceased the funds, not just temporarily froze them.

As far as I know, Paypal only blocked the ability for people to contribute additional funds to the organization through them. They never intended to permanently freeze everything in the account. (Nor do they have the legal authority to do so, as it's not their money.)

They've said publicly that the only reason they did it was because of US government pressure. I don't hold them to blame for the debacle, and it's disappointing Anonymous has decided to attack them. It can't fix anything.

It's like a giant blunt stick wielded by four-year-olds. It's best when they stick to doing stuff for the lulz.

The Attack wasn't even done by Anonymous of *chan, nor arranged by the usual channels, chans are taking credit and joining in, but it wasn't started by them. An Anonymous group does not mean /b/.

Interesting. I didn't know that. When I heard "Anonymous" and saw the *chans taking credit, I assumed it was all them. Which is why I went "...seriously?"

It seems that the targets are pretty widespread. Sarah Palin's site is also under attack, and the ABC News site has also been compromised.

Yeah, it was just /b/ taking credit again. Most of it has been done by outside sources apparently, and apparently CBS did a news story on it and they have been under attack since.

I still do feel Anonymous doing these attacks potentially cheapens what could be one of the most important events of this century which annoys me a bit. But I suppose it's nice to get political pressure off Assange.

SP does essentially the same thing as Anonymous though. She makes remarks calling Wikileaks treasonous. Despite the media, left and right, taking note that some people from Wikileaks like Assange are not American. She gives Wikileaks more exposure in a way that most people know isn't true. They both give exposure to this issue, both in bad lights.

Either way, it's comical to me. I lol'd

I agree. I think it conflates the Wikileaks story with hacking in general, when they have very little in common.

It makes it easier to just ignore the significance of the leaks' contents by focusing on the backlash.