Melancholy_Ocelot said:
There is little if anything illegal about WikiLeaks.
A Federally funded reactionary security force, judicially exempt from the 4th amendment and answerable to no elected official on the other hand... I digress.
A DDoS attack creates no true damage, only disruption. The same as a giant protest outside of a bank.
I can still donate to the American Nazi Party and the KKK through Pay Pal, and HAVE donated to WikiLeaks. If Fox News and CNN hosts are considered "Journalists," then by that standard what is WikiLeaks?
"Judicially exempt from the 4th amendment"...ok, I don't know a whole lot about the FBI, but I do know some about the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the 4th amendment specifically allows for exceptions (i.e, warrants) when there is probable cause, right? I'd say there definitely is probable cause here, so where is the unconstitutionality?
Ytmh said:
hcig said:
Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?
This entire thread is populated by people who don't -know- what the hell an anonymous group actually means, even if it's in the goddamn name.
And yet, they all have rather well defined opinions on what whatever their interpretation of this group is. Classy.
An anonymous group, by definition, can be ANYTHING. Random people out of nowhere can bomb a hospital or do bank robberies and claim to be anonymous. There's nothing stopping this. Anyone can do anything under the name "anonymous," and that's the entire point.
Talking about "anonymous" as if it were a specific group of people is wrong. I mean, maybe 80% of this thread is anonymous "members?" Who knows? Certainly nobody will say anything that directly links them to this public image, which is obvious.
Be fair, here. It should be obvious that we're (or at least, most of us are) simply saying "Anons", in this case to refer to the specific anons behind this attack, since there is not other short way of referring to them.
Dr.Nick said:
HyenaThePirate said:
Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?
Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.
Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.
And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.
This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.
Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.
Paypal and Visa had a choice to maintain their fair services to wikileaks or to cave in to unreasonable demands from a government that overstepped its bounds. They deserved those DDoS attacks as a reminder that we shouldn't just cave in.
"Overstepped its bounds". Not at all. There are laws in place, such as The Patriot Act, that specifically allow that. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of the Patriot Act until the heat death of the universe (and, for the record, I'm against it), but the fact remains that this law is on the books and has been for years. They're using authority they've had for quite a while.
Actual said:
HyenaThePirate said:
It's like a criminal organization and the cops.
If the cops demand that you can no longer sell guns to a group of people, and you do it, how does it make it right if that group comes and breaks your legs and burns down your store for complying with the authorities?
If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:
You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.
An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".
Sorta, except that instead of not being allowed to sell to people who look Middle Eastern, they're not allowed to sell to one specific person who is known for being a criminal.