More USA documents get released by Wikileaks

[fakeitormakeit2]

At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. Yet all three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations.

 

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/funding-illegal-israeli-settlements-priceless/

 

edit: THANKS, BLOODSTAIN for that post. Prison-rape jokes need to stop. It's a serious issue and a serious problem in America.

Interesting article Magekillr. It puts things into perspective when the US government condemns a matter on the grounds of its "legality".

[krimi]

http://www.geekosystem.com/operation-leakspin/

A better kind of action I suppose.

[sees_all1]

http://www.geekosystem.com/operation-leakspin/

A better kind of action I suppose.

"Use misleading tags, everything from Tea Party"

 

 

I petition all parents of the world to kick their pale-skinned teenaged sons and or daughters out of their basements, and force them to get a real job. The quickest way to stamp out this nonsense is to make them get a real job.

Edited December 14, 2010 by sees_all1

[Furah]

http://www.geekosystem.com/operation-leakspin/

A better kind of action I suppose.

"Use misleading quotes, everything from Tea Party"

 

 

I petition all parents of the world to kick their pale-skinned teenaged sons and or daughters out of their basements, and force them to get a real job. The quickest way to stamp out this nonsense is to make them get a real job.

What about those who have a job and don't live with their parents?

[Bloodstain]

http://www.geekosystem.com/operation-leakspin/

A better kind of action I suppose.

"Use misleading quotes, everything from Tea Party"

 

 

I petition all parents of the world to kick their pale-skinned teenaged sons and or daughters out of their basements, and force them to get a real job. The quickest way to stamp out this nonsense is to make them get a real job.

 

Educating people/making them more aware seems more effective and productive than attacking websites

[meol]

http://www.geekosystem.com/operation-leakspin/

A better kind of action I suppose.

"Use misleading quotes, everything from Tea Party"

 

 

I petition all parents of the world to kick their pale-skinned teenaged sons and or daughters out of their basements, and force them to get a real job. The quickest way to stamp out this nonsense is to make them get a real job.

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

[sees_all1]

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

Not intentionally, which is different than what they're doing. I fixed it, btw.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

I just plain don't like anon. If I don't log in again in 3 weeks, it'll be because anon DDOS'd me.

[Furah]

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

Not intentionally, which is different than what they're doing. I fixed it, btw.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

I just plain don't like anon. If I don't log in again in 3 weeks, it'll be because anon DDOS'd me.

Which aspect are you most displeased about?

[Bloodstain]

Julian was granted bail, prosecution decided not to fight it, and he will be released when the money is delivered.

 

Also, Iceland is considering banning Visa and Mastercard because of Wikileaks.

Credit card companies that prevented card-holders from donating money to the secrets outlet WikiLeaks could have their operating licenses taken away in Iceland, according to members of the Icelandic Parliamentary General Committee.

 

Representatives from Mastercard and Visa were called before the committee Sunday to discuss their refusal to process donations to the website, reports Reykjavik Grapevine.

 

"People wanted to know on what legal grounds the ban was taken, but no one could answer it," Robert Marshall, the chairman of the committee, said. "They said this decision was taken by foreign sources."

 

The committee is seeking additional information from the credit card companies for proof that there was legal grounds for blocking the donations.

 

Marshall said the committee would seriously review the operating licenses of Visa and Mastercard in Iceland.

 

WikiLeaks' payment processor, the Icelandic company DataCell ehf, said it would take immediate legal action against the companies to make donations possible again.

 

"DataCell who facilitates those payments towards Wikileaks has decided to take up immediate legal actions to make donations possible again," DataCell CEO Andreas Fink said last week. "We can not believe WikiLeaks would even create scratch at the brand name of Visa."

 

"It will probably hurt their brand much much more to block payments towards WikiLeaks than to have them occur," Fink added.

 

After news that the companies had stopped processing donations to the secrets outlet, those participating in an online campaign known as "Operation Payback" temporarily knocked the websites of Visa and Mastercard offline.

 

"This does clearly create massive financial losses to WikiLeaks which seems to be the only purpose of this suspension," Fink continued. "This is not about the brand of Visa, this is about politics and Visa should not be involved in this."

 

Neither company has offered a detailed explanation of why they stopped processing payments to WikiLeaks. MasterCard said only that WikiLeaks had acted in an "illegal" manner, in violation of the company's terms.

 

The companies still process payments to The Guardian and the New York Times, which have published leaked US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

 

"I can use Visa and Mastercard to pay for porn and support anti-abortion fanatics, Prop 8 homophobic bigots, and the Ku Klux Klan," Jeff Javis noted at The Huffington Post. "But I can't use them or PayPal to support Wikileaks, transparency, the First Amendment, and true government reform. Just saying."

 

Last week, the Swiss bank Postfinance closed the account of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange because he gave "false information regarding his place of residence during the account opening process." Swiss authorities are investigating if the bank violated secrecy rules by publicly announcing that it had closed his account.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/

 

 

 

 

Also, ROFL at Obama

quote is on Change.gov, Obama's campaign site.

 

"Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud and abuse of power in government,"

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

[Skeptical]

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

Not intentionally, which is different than what they're doing. I fixed it, btw.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

I just plain don't like anon. If I don't log in again in 3 weeks, it'll be because anon DDOS'd me.

Which aspect are you most displeased about?

 

They support freedom of speech, and then take down Caribou Barbies when she says something that they don't like - she has as much right to freedom of speech as any other idiot.

[sees_all1]

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

Not intentionally, which is different than what they're doing. I fixed it, btw.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

I just plain don't like anon. If I don't log in again in 3 weeks, it'll be because anon DDOS'd me.

Which aspect are you most displeased about?

I'll give you a hypothetical.

 

 

Furah, I just don't plain like you. I'm going to figure out your address, your place of work, find your IP address, and post it for anon. Good luck over the next couple hours, you'll likely to be terrorized by random people that only know of you because I told them you're "bad". I can feed them bull crap information too, like you abuse baby seals, and your torment will last that much longer.

 

No, I'm not going to do that, but I hope you get the idea I'm trying to convey. As apolitical, anarchist or freedom-oriented anon thinks they are, they don't realize that they're just being used by someone else for precisely those reasons they hate the most.

[Skeptical]

He will continue!

 

I'm wary about donating cash through the post, but I really can't do it through money orders. Stupid PayPal.

[PrevDharockslayer]

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

Not intentionally, which is different than what they're doing. I fixed it, btw.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

I just plain don't like anon. If I don't log in again in 3 weeks, it'll be because anon DDOS'd me.

Which aspect are you most displeased about?

I'll give you a hypothetical.

 

 

Furah, I just don't plain like you. I'm going to figure out your address, your place of work, find your IP address, and post it for anon. Good luck over the next couple hours, you'll likely to be terrorized by random people that only know of you because I told them you're "bad". I can feed them bull crap information too, like you abuse baby seals, and your torment will last that much longer.

 

No, I'm not going to do that, but I hope you get the idea I'm trying to convey. As apolitical, anarchist or freedom-oriented anon thinks they are, they don't realize that they're just being used by someone else for precisely those reasons they hate the most.

 

If you would base your knowledge on actual experience rather than unrational fear, then I would let you slip. However as you show signs of the latter, I will explain why you would not get randomly attacked.

 

If I were to, say, make a thread on the gutter of the internet stating you killed cats, without any source. It would quickly get bumped away or flamed using 'Not your personal army' or 'No pic no proof'.

The situation I will give as an example are the one which one kid brutally murders and maims a cat caught on tape, and a random girl acting like the queen ***** of the world. Both are on tape. Both are proof of them doing such things. In no way will anon attack someone randomly because some other anon says so.

 

I could understand that you dislike anon because they are a stupid, mindless mass. But there is no reason to fear them if you don't act stupid.

[Dupin]

Anon is both an extremely immature wreck and a beautiful product of uninhibited communication. You can't base your opinion of the whole off the actions of a few of them, but at the same time I don't think you should entirely trust or support Anon, as those few are always around.

[sees_all1]

If you would base your knowledge on actual experience rather than unrational fear, then I would let you slip. However as you show signs of the latter, I will explain why you would not get randomly attacked.

 

If I were to, say, make a thread on the gutter of the internet stating you killed cats, without any source. It would quickly get bumped away or flamed using 'Not your personal army' or 'No pic no proof'.

The situation I will give as an example are the one which one kid brutally murders and maims a cat caught on tape, and a random girl acting like the queen ***** of the world. Both are on tape. Both are proof of them doing such things. In no way will anon attack someone randomly because some other anon says so.

 

I could understand that you dislike anon because they are a stupid, mindless mass. But there is no reason to fear them if you don't act stupid.

Are you saying that those with proof were targets of anon?

 

 

EDIT:

There's a story I read on the internet, an example given for what an actual DDOS is, instead of a DOS. A student at a university did not like a professor he had, and received a failing grade in his class. The student then went on several different websites, created various profiles for that professor (filling in everything), and then trolled with those profiles (posting offensive things on serious websites, mostly stuff about making and distributing kiddy porn).

 

The professor's email started filling up. The professor began receiving hate mail, threatening phone calls. The professor had no idea why this went on, but could no longer live their current life or keep their job for fear of their safety (eventually had to change name and address). Everyone that participated in the "internet justice" didn't realize they were duped.

 

 

Proof can be faked, easily enough. Anon, collectively speaking, has a mob mentality, and is because of this is unstable.

[PrevDharockslayer]

If you would base your knowledge on actual experience rather than unrational fear, then I would let you slip. However as you show signs of the latter, I will explain why you would not get randomly attacked.

 

If I were to, say, make a thread on the gutter of the internet stating you killed cats, without any source. It would quickly get bumped away or flamed using 'Not your personal army' or 'No pic no proof'.

The situation I will give as an example are the one which one kid brutally murders and maims a cat caught on tape, and a random girl acting like the queen ***** of the world. Both are on tape. Both are proof of them doing such things. In no way will anon attack someone randomly because some other anon says so.

 

I could understand that you dislike anon because they are a stupid, mindless mass. But there is no reason to fear them if you don't act stupid.

Are you saying that those with proof were targets of anon?

 

EDIT:

There's a story I read on the internet, an example given for what an actual DDOS is, instead of a DOS. A student at a university did not like a professor he had, and received a failing grade in his class. The student then went on several different websites, created various profiles for that professor (filling in everything), and then trolled with those profiles (posting offensive things on serious websites, mostly stuff about making and distributing kiddy porn).

 

The professor's email started filling up. The professor began receiving hate mail, threatening phone calls. The professor had no idea why this went on, but could no longer live their current life or keep their job for fear of their safety (eventually had to change name and address). Everyone that participated in the "internet justice" didn't realize they were duped.

 

 

Proof can be faked, easily enough. Anon, collectively speaking, has a mob mentality, and is because of this is unstable.

 

Yes, indeed I do. Though I do not remember the name of the catmurderer, I do know the name of the girl. Jessica Slaughter ( although this case is debatable, however stupid she acted ). Which I'm sure you've seen.

 

I'll make an hypothesis now, consider this. I spread a couple of pictures of you making children pornography, it shows both you, a camera, and whatever deeds you are filming. I send them to all kinds of people.

The news brings out the adress of this person. What does the general populace do? Some of them go to that place of residence and start throwing in windows, waving torches and shouting deaththreats. Most of them just get angry but don't vent their frustration on you.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

Infact, I believe that if I go to some random court and say a priest from a church bla bla molested me and I told more people about it without any source whatsoever. Than I would get more 'immature and extreme' responses from those people rather than some bored people who just F5 as a way of protest.

 

Edit: I've been so kind to edit this post with your edit in it. It was originally posted without it.

 

Though the point you bring up is interresting indeed, you can just as easily say that any large body of people has a mob mentality. Proof can be faked on the internet and you might recieve a couple of hatecalls, an email account completely spammed. However considering that proof can also be faked in the real world and can get you imprisoned wrongly for 25 years, I find that Anon is the least of my worries.

 

The problem is that "Proof can be forged". The consequence is that mobs follow proof that has been fed them via whatever medium. Be it news, radio or a messageboard. These mobs are both regular everyday people, or anon.

[Bloodstain]

 

I'll make an hypothesis now, consider this. I spread a couple of pictures of you making children pornography, it shows both you, a camera, and whatever deeds you are filming. I send them to all kinds of people.

The news brings out the adress of this person. What does the general populace do? Some of them go to that place of residence and start throwing in windows, waving torches and shouting deaththreats. Most of them just get angry but don't vent their frustration on you.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

 

Pretty sure a rational person would, you know, take those pictures to the POLICE

[Dupin]

mob mentality

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

[PrevDharockslayer]

 

I'll make an hypothesis now, consider this. I spread a couple of pictures of you making children pornography, it shows both you, a camera, and whatever deeds you are filming. I send them to all kinds of people.

The news brings out the adress of this person. What does the general populace do? Some of them go to that place of residence and start throwing in windows, waving torches and shouting deaththreats. Most of them just get angry but don't vent their frustration on you.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

 

Pretty sure a rational person would, you know, take those pictures to the POLICE

 

I do not see what value this reply has other than to make my example look 'invalid'?

I would gladly discuss your views on the matter. But please don't make straw arguements like this.

[Bloodstain]

 

I'll make an hypothesis now, consider this. I spread a couple of pictures of you making children pornography, it shows both you, a camera, and whatever deeds you are filming. I send them to all kinds of people.

The news brings out the adress of this person. What does the general populace do? Some of them go to that place of residence and start throwing in windows, waving torches and shouting deaththreats. Most of them just get angry but don't vent their frustration on you.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

 

Pretty sure a rational person would, you know, take those pictures to the POLICE

 

I do not see what value this reply has other than to make my example look 'invalid'?

I would gladly discuss your views on the matter. But please don't make straw arguements like this.

 

Your hypothetical situation sucks

[Dupin]

 

I'll make an hypothesis now, consider this. I spread a couple of pictures of you making children pornography, it shows both you, a camera, and whatever deeds you are filming. I send them to all kinds of people.

The news brings out the adress of this person. What does the general populace do? Some of them go to that place of residence and start throwing in windows, waving torches and shouting deaththreats. Most of them just get angry but don't vent their frustration on you.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

 

Pretty sure a rational person would, you know, take those pictures to the POLICE

 

I do not see what value this reply has other than to make my example look 'invalid'?

I would gladly discuss your views on the matter. But please don't make straw arguements like this.

 

Your hypothetical situation sucks

We at tip.it are proud to have an intelligent, welcoming community. We hope you enjoy your time here.

 

Your hypothetical situation sucks.

[Bloodstain]

 

We at tip.it are proud to have an intelligent, welcoming community. We hope you enjoy your time here.

 

 

False

 

5.44pm: Just to recap: Assange will remain in prison, at least until the appeal is heard. That seems to be the end of the excitement and confusion – for today at least. I'm off home. Thanks for all your comments.

[sees_all1]

I'll make an hypothesis now, consider this. I spread a couple of pictures of you making children pornography, it shows both you, a camera, and whatever deeds you are filming. I send them to all kinds of people.

The news brings out the adress of this person. What does the general populace do? Some of them go to that place of residence and start throwing in windows, waving torches and shouting deaththreats. Most of them just get angry but don't vent their frustration on you.

In your hypothetical situation, say the news service found my identical twin, who is not at fault. Or some guy 10 miles away that looks like me. Then they'd be responsible for what happened to the innocent individual. They'd be held responsible, sure. That doesn't and can't happen with Anon, which is another reason to dislike "them".

[Furah]

http://www.neowin.net/images/uploaded/ANONOPS_The_Press_Release.pdf

 

I'll give you a hypothetical.

 

 

Furah, I just don't plain like you. I'm going to figure out your address, your place of work, find your IP address, and post it for anon. Good luck over the next couple hours, you'll likely to be terrorized by random people that only know of you because I told them you're "bad". I can feed them bull crap information too, like you abuse baby seals, and your torment will last that much longer.

 

No, I'm not going to do that, but I hope you get the idea I'm trying to convey. As apolitical, anarchist or freedom-oriented anon thinks they are, they don't realize that they're just being used by someone else for precisely those reasons they hate the most.

As others have stated, no pics no proof and not your personal army. However, if I was to do something against free-speech or something that Anonymous views as harmful to a cause they're for, then action would be taken against me in a heatbeat.

[PrevDharockslayer]

I'll make an hypothesis now, consider this. I spread a couple of pictures of you making children pornography, it shows both you, a camera, and whatever deeds you are filming. I send them to all kinds of people.

The news brings out the adress of this person. What does the general populace do? Some of them go to that place of residence and start throwing in windows, waving torches and shouting deaththreats. Most of them just get angry but don't vent their frustration on you.

In your hypothetical situation, say the news service found my identical twin, who is not at fault. Or some guy 10 miles away that looks like me. Then they'd be responsible for what happened to the innocent individual. They'd be held responsible, sure. That doesn't and can't happen with Anon, which is another reason to dislike "them".

 

Hmmm, so your thought behind it is that when wrongdoings are non-proscecutable, the potential wrondoers should be disliked. Fair enough. I respect your well explained opinion.

Though I find it odd that the news would be held responsible for what individuals are doing based on the information they provide. But I find this matter to be less important and more of a straw arguement myself to start an arguement about. Moving on.

 

I find this fitting to the subject at hand. Considering that the government is getting away with crimes and wrong actions without being able to be proscecuted or sanctioned. Anon does it through the veil of anonymousity, the government does it through their built up veil of secrecy.

If Anon gets damage to their internet anonymousity through censorship or through forced ID's on the internet, they do whatever is in their might to try to combat that. Now the government is getting damage to their secrecy because documents are leaked out, they do whatever is in their might to combat that.

 

Funny that two completely different entities operate so simular in terms of reacting to damaging their 'veil'.