Court Told Wikileaks Backlash Cost PayPal £3.5 Million

[major_chaos]

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.

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. third what exactly did you gain from the leaks? what did it change? I honestly never read the damn things because I simply didn't need to know, although from what I have heard some of the documents were things like internal security reports, stuff that has no reason to be public and could in fact be harmful. You accuse me of parroting what the government wants, but at what point in your "can't trust the man, man" system do you see that 100% government transparency is both unrealistic and harmful? what exactly do you expect the government to do?

The New York Times leaks information at a higher level of classification than Wikileaks ever did. Does your condemnation of Mr. Assange extend to them as well?

I wasn't aware of the NYT leaking anything at that high level but if they do then the answer to your question is yes.

Do you believe the public would have been better served if they never found about, say, President Bush's illegal wire-tapping program?

Yes.

The argument certainly has been made that exposing those crimes strengthened America's enemies by revealing state secrets and weakening the government's ability to act in furtherance of national security.

Exactly.

Besides, what your government does, it does in your name. Even if it doesn't affect your daily life (and I think that is likely untrue) you should care.

Why?

There aren't supposed to be consequences. It's called freedom of speech.

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

inexplicably and suspiciously uncooperative.

Funny I have used almost those exact words to describe Assange

Plus, the man is a hero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
He is nothing of the sort. and his "treatment by the media" is fairly standard I have seen him suffer any more then any other accused criminal to enter the public eye.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

Had a decent-sized post prepared until The Escapist nommed it into oblivion...

But in short:

-Pursuing other means of funding for whatever "freedom-fighting" related business you have = good and proper

-Throwing a computer temper tantrum = childish, wrong, and completely unnecessary

 

[Xan Krieger]

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

 

[vxicepickxv]

So our hacker here has to pay money that I KNOW he will never have to a company because they were too damn cheap to get the required hardware in the first place.

THAT is some grade A bullshit.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I wasn't aware of the NYT leaking anything at that high level but if they do then the answer to your question is yes.

Yes.

Exactly.

Well at least we understand each other lol.

Besides, what your government does, it does in your name. Even if it doesn't affect your daily life (and I think that is likely untrue) you should care.

Why?

No reason.

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

Mr. Assange did not do that as far as we know. It seems he was probably given the information by alleged leaker Bradley Manning. If you are looking for criminal liability, that is where you must look. Even then, the crime wouldn't be "espionage". That is a totally different charge, though leaking classified information is certainly a serious crime. As far as the involvement of Wikileaks, that is standard by-the-book journalism. If they hacked a computer or stole a file to obtain the information, that is a different story.

inexplicably and suspiciously uncooperative.

Funny I have used almost those exact words to describe Assange

You were wrong. Although the rape allegations may excite his temper on Larry King, he has been extremely cooperative with the authorities. It is the Swedish government that is unreasonably prolonging the issue by refusing to agree to obvious concessions for his travel to Sweden. Were he to do so, he could be subject to endless detention by a judge at the request of the prosecutor, and would likely have no outside contact during that time. He could be disappeared to the United States and he would have no voice to protest. Alternatively, the Swedish government could simply question him in the United Kingdom, but bizarrely and suspiciously they have refused that also. The government of Ecuador recognized the precariousness of his plight when it granted Mr. Assange political asylum. This game of holding the gun of extradition to Mr. Assange's head and then calling foul when he does not show up to answer questions, and then using that to embarrass him and his work, is as cowardly as it is transparent.

And it doesn't do anything to answer the allegations or seek justice for Mr. Assange's accusers.

Plus, the man is a hero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Ha Ha. Tortured meme is tortured.

He is nothing of the sort. and his "treatment by the media" is fairly standard I have seen him suffer any more then any other accused criminal to enter the public eye.

He put himself at personal risk for the public benefit. His treatment by the media has been nothing short of scandalous since before the rape allegations arose. It's quite bizarre to see a journalist so reviled by journalists for practicing journalism.

 

[Entropywarrior]

attempting to serve the public's interest.

Oh yes my interests have been served like crazy, before some self proclaimed "freedom fighter" was leaking classified and potentially national security threatening documents that have no effect on my day to day life I used to piss myself in bed at night from the uncertainty but now I know there is a man who will "serve my interests" by compromising US security and throwing a temper tantrum when there is consequences. thanks Julian Assange, you heroic rapist asshole. /endrant

OT: Good, Annon has done good things every once in a great while, but this was not one of them. And unlike some cyber-crime cases the punishment fits the crime here.

The government should serve the people, not hide things from them. I guess a police state would be cool with you, so long as you didnt have to 'piss yourself in bed at night from the uncertainty'? Ignorance really is bliss eh?

 

[VanTesla]

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.

 

[Baresark]

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.

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. third what exactly did you gain from the leaks? what did it change? I honestly never read the damn things because I simply didn't need to know, although from what I have heard some of the documents were things like internal security reports, stuff that has no reason to be public and could in fact be harmful. You accuse me of parroting what the government wants, but at what point in your "can't trust the man, man" system do you see that 100% government transparency is both unrealistic and harmful? what exactly do you expect the government to do?

I said the way I said simply based on your rant in which there was no hint of civil discussion. Whenever war crimes are committed it should be shown to the public. They leaked that super sweet video of our military wiping out reporters. The common man is not free of his crimes, soldiers are common men, and military is common leadership who permit travesties like that without any punishment. The public would not have known about that. And the diplomatic cables revealed a great many things about the US diplomatic process that included spying on other diplomats and Israel sending Hillary Clinton communications urging her to implore the US Government to start a direct war with Iran. The most damning parts being that other cables were sent back where she was considering that particular course (very undiplomatic). And no matter what anyone may think, more war is bad for everyone.

And that whole part where you call him a rapist makes you sound like you were not up for a civil discussion. I don't know where you are from, but here in America what he did was not rape. Here in America, rape is when you force yourself sexually on another person against their will. It's a highly invasive act for both the physical body and mind. In both his cases, sex was consensual until after he had failed to use a condom (after the fact). But charges were dismissed and then later reopened by another investigator. The police agencies involved were not even sure it was rape and they use language like "sexually molested the girl by failing to use a condom". They have a very different idea of what rape is than myself, leading me to believe that it's actually defined by social norms (which it is). The second plaintiff was trying to compel Assange to take an STD test, and the first actually slept with him again the very next day (oh how the rape must have destroyed her mind). My point in all of this was simple: Your use of emotional hot buttons and cues in your "civil discussion" made it everything but civil. Just like the media outlets did when the US Government was after him. The attempt to demonize the man is necessary for all people who oppose what he did because what he did was not substantially wrong. It totes the line quite a bit still so they buy into these fabrications even though there was no evidence of any such crime, and especially not by American standards. That is why the term "rape" was all over every story with him in it, as if that has anything at all to do with Wikileaks and the leaked diplomatic cables. The average person had to dig quite a bit to find out more about his rape charges (which he was never actually charged with and the police only wanted him for questioning in relation to the allegations(suspect is not the same as being charged with a crime)).

To address your question of transparency: It's a mixed bag and needs to be taken on an issue by issue basis. Transparency literally has the opposite effect as intended a good portion of the time. We can see this in transparency of CEO salaries. Psychological and Socio-Economic studies also reveal that transparency mostly only looks good on paper and is not an end all concept as a lot of people treat it as. As far as the military murder of the reporters, well all Americans get damned by those actions, so it's important the people show the appropriate disgust for such acts (American fail on that one). The Diplomatic Cables are not cut and dry though (as I would never say they are). I feel that the larger and more important issue is what I mentioned above, but a great many details that clearly should not have made the light of day came out (supposedly names and other information of American agents in the middle east). I don't feel that the Governments attempt at further war mongering benefits any of us, just as pre-emptive war has not given us any benefit yet. Least of all what it supposedly seeks to do, which is give us national security.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

While I don't approve of this kind of cyber vandalism, PayPal needs to suffer consequences for their business practices.

And how will they pay for their practices? It's not like any fair trade group could punish them even if they wanted to. The government and corrupt legal system would stop them. This is the only choice. Going through legal channels wouldn't work because the legal system itself is corrupt. This was the only way, if you can think of a better idea that would work then be my guest. Otherwise, you can't really condone them for doing what a non-corrupt government would've done.

 

[major_chaos]

Snip

While I don't agree with you for the most part and you do have some good points, and I admit I was far to hostile in my first post. (the moral of this story is take a deep breath and don't post while angry about other things)
However this

I said the way I said simply based on your rant in which there was no hint of civil discussion.

Wound't it be better to be the better man and act mature to show me what I was doing wrong rather then using insults and "lowering to my level" so to speak?

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Wikileaks is good. Assange has done some great things but the amount of blind loyalty that man gets when he does some questionable things himself is truly astounding. I'm 110% sure he could shoot a baby in the face on live TV and he'd still have legions of supporters who'd defend him.

Why are people so unwilling to think that while Assange has done amazing things, he may have also done some bad things? A lot of people who worked with him say he was a paranoid control freak of the worse degree. Believe the charges against him or not, he ran from them and when he ran out of options he ran to the embassy of a country for asylum. (oddly enough a country where freedom of the press and government corruption is extremely problematic currently)

Not to mention some of his releases are questionable at best and dangerous at worse. I'm not talking about blowing the lid off American miltary atrocities. That's good. But releasing documents that potentially reveal the identification of poeple working for the US government in war areas like Afghanistan? You think the Taliban would think twice about executing native Afghanis who work for NATO? He's been mostly careful, but sometimes he's failed ot protect stuff like that and a few times he's threaten to simply release a whole shit ton of documents without any editing.

Assange seems to have a martyr and or messiah complex. He feels that because he's doing something good he cannot be questioned and anyone questioning him in any way must be on the side of the people who are trying ti bring him down or whatnot. That's dangerous. Anyone should be able ot handle criticisms of thier actions and to recognize that not all criticisms instantly invalid because they are directed at you.

Also as a side note... do people actual believe the US government would try to execute him? The international outrage would be astronomical and it would almost entirely come from the UK (who said he wouldn;t be) Europe (same reason) and Australia (as he's an Aussie)All American allies. And right now America needs those allies as much as they want to do everything themselves. No US president would be willing ot risk the massive international fall out that would accompany executing Assange.

TLR Assange does good things but does bad things and shouldn't be immune to criticism just because his Julian Assange.

 

[Baresark]

Snip

While I don't agree with you for the most part and you do have some good points, and I admit I was far to hostile in my first post. (the moral of this story is take a deep breath and don't post while angry about other things)
However this

I said the way I said simply based on your rant in which there was no hint of civil discussion.

Wound't it be better to be the better man and act mature to show me what I was doing wrong rather then using insults and "lowering to my level" so to speak?

Aye, we certainly can call a truce. Last thing I want is some stupid flame war over an article about Anonymous. No matter what I may think about the whole Julian Assange/Wikileaks thing, I can't abide by the group Anonymous. They attack as a form of protest but all it does is make anyone who sides with them by pure happenstance look like morons. Last time I checked there were forums for things that don't include breaking their business or the law, after all.

 

[Erttheking]

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?

 

[Erttheking]

While I don't approve of this kind of cyber vandalism, PayPal needs to suffer consequences for their business practices.

And how will they pay for their practices? It's not like any fair trade group could punish them even if they wanted to. The government and corrupt legal system would stop them. This is the only choice. Going through legal channels wouldn't work because the legal system itself is corrupt. This was the only way, if you can think of a better idea that would work then be my guest. Otherwise, you can't really condone them for doing what a non-corrupt government would've done.

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.

 

[Callate]

$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.

 

[jetriot]

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.

 

[Nikolaz72]

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.

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.

 

[flarty]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

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.

 

[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.