Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
ReadWriteWeb
34953 Followers
Derek Markham
5708 Followers
Mendokusai Daiyo
17822 Followers
Anila Arshad
1406 Followers
KristenaWatts
44 Followers
Michael Westen
2692 Followers
Maddy Manny
736 Followers
Ellen Robinson
152 Followers
Brave Heart
4698 Followers
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
police working nice
mlw4428Jan 27, 2011
Sorry, but Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, Amazon, etc are all private companies. They do have a right to choose who to do business with and who not to. Why should they be punished for exercising that right? Who is Anon to judge that right?
grungegbunnyJan 27, 2011
It was because of the knee jerk reaction they pulled. Anonymous goes after anyone that attempts to stifle free speech.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2011
How were they stifling free speech? They weren't telling anyone they couldn't use Wikileaks, they just said they didn't want to do business with Wikileaks further. It's idiotic to defend Anon when they hit an organization that did nothing wrong.
grungegbunnyJan 27, 2011
People donate to wiki leaks... Wiki leaks is considered a form of free press. When These merchant companies stop passing along the donations that they legitimately should have received, what is that doing to wiki leaks? That's right preventing them from collecting the funding they need to continue doing what they do.
Does this still not make sense to you or should I dumb it down more to a Mr. Rogers level for you?
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
That is the way that I see it. They were keeping the money that was donated and not turning it over to WikiLeaks. Wouldn't be a suppression of my rights as a donator. Then again, we are talking about international. What rights?
Doesn't it seem that there is a world government already?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2011
They were keeping it while doing an investigation. In short they were covering their own asses. In that sense, there is nothing wrong and they weren't going to deny those payments forever as long as what Wikileaks was doing was deemed legal.
To put it another way, these same companies won't do business with terrorist groups. I'm not suggesting Wikileaks is a terrorist group, but at the same time it's standard practice for these companies to not want to do business with entities operating outside the law.
hatmadderJan 27, 2011
You don't ever get a "should have received" donation. No donation is mandatory. That's why it's called a donation. You're really going to side with a bunch of cowardly hacktivists who live in cloak-and-dagger and threaten order over legitimate businesses that employ good, hardworking people and who only want to keep their image clean from blemish? It doesn't matter that it was WikiLeaks. It was the bad press it got that caused them to bail out. If it were any other organization that got the same bad press, I'm willing to bet those companies would've done the same thing.
I'm still laughing about how ineffectual their attempts to bring Amazon down were.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
Once again. Corporations>Humans.
aristotle0dudeJan 28, 2011
@offonoffonoff: Corporations are composed of humans with jobs, families and kids to feed you asswipe.
I suppose that you think countries are just "systems" and you ignore the fact that people make up countries.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aristotle0dudeJan 28, 2011
The free press is the "fifth estate" but like all checks and balances, there has to be some accountability. WIkileaks is not the free press. They are information brokers that take in information and then leak it to the actual press.
Wikileaks is like an arms dealer in the info wars.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
Even Visa said that no laws were broken by Wikileaks.... I think its pretty obvious what is going on here... come on man. You know your not that stupid.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
Really? Anonymous is fighting the good fight? ... ... ... Please read this.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18950_9-major-stories-everyone-got-wrong-this-year.html
"So the girl in the video, who goes by Jessi Slaughter, showed up on /b/ one night and, as they tend to do, /b/ tried to get the fifth-grade girl to strip. She refused to show enough skin and eventually took to her webcam to call /b/ a bunch of losers (4chan keeps no archives, but you can find the screen grabs of all this if you Google it and hate yourself).
Anonymous sprung into action. This is the type of cause Anonymous really gets into. Some of you may know them only for their attacks on Scientology or their defense of the WikiLeaks leakers. You probably don't know that for every one "good" deed, they perform several hundred like this. And by "like this," we mean they hunted down the personal information of an 11-year-old girl, including her home address and phone number, and began calling her house at all hours and making death threats. Hundreds and hundreds of 4chan posters jumped onboard, unified in their drive to terrorize a small child."
norman619Jan 27, 2011
Yet people here on digg will keep sucking on 4chan and Anonymous c**k swearing they are righteous.
couragewulfJan 27, 2011
Cracked got it wrong. 4chan owned her for acting like this: Both vids attached
http://regretfulmorning.com/2010/07/11-year-old-loudmouth-gets-destroyed-by-4chan/
aristotle0dudeJan 28, 2011
couragewulf, are you defending a bunch of pedophile adults going after an underaged girl on the internet? Really? Maybe you should have a seat over there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
couragewulfJan 28, 2011
You can't lump 4chan together and make generalizations. How many times have they sniffed out people being cruel to animals, or ACTUAL pedos? Quite a few. Just because CP gets posted from time to time, doesn't mean that everyone on that board is a pedo.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
Well then Anonymous is as f**king stupid as you are since you don't understand free speech. And it wasn't a knee jerk reaction. There was and still is credible evidence that Assange raped a woman. YOU judt choose to believe that the allegations are false because YOU want to have his penis inside you.
Apparently, you and Anonuymous (those silly children who have NEVER changed anything, bythe way) don't want Citibank to be able to practice THEIR free speech.
Typical pieces of s**t (both them and you) saying that only eople you AGREE with should be able to practice "free speech"
grungegbunnyJan 27, 2011
Once again numbnuts I have to play spot the fallacy with you.
What does the the rape allegations against Assange have to do with this? NOTHING. Don't bring it up, Fallacy 1: Red Herring.
I choose to believe the alegations are false? I never once stated my opinion on the matter. Fallacy 2: Strawman.
Citibank is not a person and no government is attempting to limit their free speech nor does it have anything to do with what's being addressed. Fallacy 3 and 4.
Finally you claim that only those that agree with me are entitled to free speech. Did I say this? Fallacy 5. Blatant lie.
I'll pwn your ass each and every time you try this s**t on me.
norman619Jan 27, 2011
Yeah right. They are just a bunch of kids who like to harass people and corps. Don't try to turn thin into more than what they are.
spider_manJan 28, 2011
You clearly have no idea of what free speech is.
aristotle0dudeJan 28, 2011
Bulls**t. According to a story I read, anonymous has harassed and cyber-stalked preteen girls. Google it for yourself. Some of them are allegedly pedophiles who hang hang out at a site called 4chan. Sick f**ks is what they are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ryanwbJan 27, 2011
While true, they can refuse service to anyone, they allow themselves to engage with the KKK and groups that are known to have been involved in abortion clinic bombings. It stinks of government involvement
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101207/09264812164/visa-mastercard-kkk-is-a-ok-wikileaks-is-wicked.shtml
It's just a bit hypocritical and seems to be politically motivated and not on the basis of private business.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2011
It's a company's right to get in bed with politicians. If you don't like that policy, then do not use their services/products. I refuse to buy Apple products because I feel they're patent trolls. I don't DDOS their website for days at a time, light distribution facilities on fire, or carpet bomb their customers.
ryanwbJan 27, 2011
I guess you have a point. The only other thought I would have is I would have to use cash and checks to boycott since Visa and Mastercard have an oligopoly over the credit and debit market. Forget AMEX and Discover, I can rarely find non-big box companies that accept them.
While I don't support their illegal activity, I guess what I'm saying is that I dont mind it. But I guess that makes me kind of a hypocrite in retrospect
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
"It stinks of governmet involvement" No it doesn't. You stink of being a little bitch and saying that anything you disagree with has to be becuase the big evil government that is out to get you must be involved.
Which is why you offered ZERO evidence of government involvement and still felt tht it would make you seem intelligent to make tht claim.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stackoleeJan 27, 2011
All the people up in arms over dropping wikileaks should just Google "PayPal closed my account". It happens. Frequently.
I'm no big fan of wikileaks but Mastercard, Visa and to a lesser degree PayPal provide regulated services. There are limits on how they can close accounts--they can't very well shut down someone's account because of their language or ethnicity--but they can still pretty much close anything they deem to be a nuisance. I would like to know that there was some legal binding process they all had to follow, though. I'd hate to find out that credit card companies could refuse to accept payments for politicians who supported reform, or something similar.
theyac3Jan 27, 2011
Well there goes the whole anonymity deal...
djliquidiceJan 27, 2011
If Anonymous is truly distributed, the police have their work cut out for them.
norman619Jan 27, 2011
It's not the police who are after these guys. It's various federal agencies. These people have committed federal crimes. They are far beyond the jurisdiction of the police.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2011
I haven't heard of any police arresting anyone for DDoS attacking Wikileaks yet. Wierd. They can only find the hackers responsible for attacking credit card companies. Gee that's strange.
law1essJan 27, 2011
Why would they arrest their own?
xtomtomxJan 27, 2011
Not so Anonymous as they may have thought.
kinserJan 27, 2011
So they catch a few out of hundreds. Yeah good jobs catching the few that weren't smart enough to cover their tracks. Kudos. You're doing really good work.
Now instead of catching people that committed harmless attacks against crooked companies, how about catching murderers, rapists, armed robbers?
Hows that 'war on terror' going? Ever catch Mr. Bin Laden? No?
Yeah you guys are doing a wonderful job. GG government. Protect those citizens!
immunofortJan 28, 2011
Why bother catching murders, rapists and armed robbers then? you'll never catch them all?
The problem with your argument is that you assume simply throwing more manpower at a problem will solve it quicker which obviously isn't the case.
tjsvitakJan 27, 2011
Geek Justice
cyborgJan 27, 2011
You are anonymous, until proven to be part of anonymous.
4chan party van time =(
confuciussayJan 27, 2011
Noobs downloading cheap DDoS tools and talking s**te on IRC without a clue of how to avoid detection.
couriersJan 27, 2011
DDOs is not the way to go
njdoo7Jan 27, 2011
Why has the RIAA not been arrested? They DDOS sites they don't like. If the act of DDOS'ing is going to be considered a crime, it should apply to everyone. Oh yea, that's not how statism works..one-way street.
articlechaseJan 27, 2011
OMG I guess that is definitely what shut my tweets down last night! But I tweeted their vid.. yikes oops! This -> http://articlechase.com/newsvid/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=136
turley714Jan 28, 2011
gotta be sneakier than that!
aristotle0dudeJan 28, 2011
Corporations are not virtual "things". They are places where people "work" to earn a "living" to put food on the table for their "families".
When you DDoS a company, you are violating the rights of other people including their other customers.
wireheadlanceJan 28, 2011
like these kids have a political agenda. i bet they can't even find Tunisia on the map. Keep using that tainted LOIC tool or variations there of and see where you end up.
punks