They were not targeting people!

Stop being so one-sided and try to have a different view on the subject.

If person A kills person B, and person C is somehow affected by the death of person B, person C should not be angry at person A. He should be angry at person B for getting himself killed in the first place.

^ quite extreme, but it shows the point quite clearly. ^ related to the whole credit card system.

Fuck the moral values, fuck the ethics, fuck the social system. All we have in common is our race as humans. Everything else is a personal matter. YOU CANNOT JUDGE SOMEONE BY YOUR VIEWINGS!

Oh, and judging by your comments about terrorism, I guess everyone that has ever served in an army (your mom, your dad, yourself) should be labeled as a terrorist too.

They were targeting people! That was the whole point of the exercise!

Your example is ridiculous. If person A mugs and shoots Person B, C is supposed to be mad at B for being a victim of violent crime? How does that begin to make sense? I'm not going to be angry at my credit card provider because an outside force slams their computer system because THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. What you are actually saying is that the victim shouldn't blame the perpetrator...so if your sister gets gang raped, Hell, you shouldn't be mad at the guys who did it. Blame the society that spawned them! Cause that makes any sense whatsoever...

And then the rambling begins that I honestly don't even understand.

You keep telling everyone else they don't have perspective, and yet the same apparently doesn't apply to you. Honestly, further conversation with you on this topic is pointless.

That didn't make a whole lot of sense either, I'm afraid. Why is the publication of public domain documents being compared to murder and child molestation? This isn't about murder or child molestation or kicking kittens or Americans on vacation. At best, those are Sarah Palinesque scare tactics much like the "death panel" thing. Why bother imagining it as something that it isn't? Are you actually fooling yourselves or do you seriously believe you are fooling others?

Wait, Visa card numbers were leaked? Dear lord, please don't be one of mine. Anyways, am I the only one seeing the imprisonment of Assange as a future of things to come?

First off, thank you for keeping this discussion caged within the realm of rational thought. :)

Here is my point : Do these financial institutions have the legal right to deny someone service? Yes. They don't have the right to hold their money barring actual criminal charges being brought against that party, but they do have the right to refuse service. That's a fact. They aren't required to allow Wikileaks donations. So what right do the Anonymous cowards have to try to force their hand?

This is what I'm saying...you're getting all up in arms whenever governments use strong-arm tactics to force someone else to conform, and yet it's apparently somehow noble and good when these guys do THE SAME THING. It can't be wrong for a government to use the fear of attack as a way to get their way and yet also right for a group of wannabe hackers to use the fear of attack to get their way. It's the same offense], and it's equally wrong. This has nothing in common with protests or boycotts or any other LEGAL means of affecting change.

And no, I have never been critical of protests because those are legitimate ways of getting your point across without crossing over in to illegal actions to do the same. I wish MORE people would protest things that they consider wrong.

I would agree that Visa and Mastercard likely have every right to refuse service. Paypal were acting illegally, or it should be illegal (they've been pulling this crap for years, so I really don't know if it's illegal, legal, or illegal and not enforced).

My only point is that I don't think it's fair to characterize it as an assault on ordinary folks, all hysterics aside, I really, really don't see it as one. In fact I don't see how it could really be twisted into one.

Actually, I'm trying not to couch it in moral terms, and if I have, I'm sorry, I shouldn't. I do admit I get a cheap thrill whenever someone prevails against Paypal, they really are dirtbags. My real point is: it was effective, far more effective than anything I've seen in years. They also directly attacked the institutions that they saw as perpetrators of wrongdoing, which I also found refreshing (and is a major reason I don't like the allusions to "terrorism").

So it might be right or wrong (subjective), legal or illegal (arguably less subjective, until you get into a courtroom that is:) ) - which is not the same thing as the first, I'm not really trying to weigh in on those points other than to decry things to me that seem like emotional appeals or kneejerk reactions. If I have given a different impression (and I certainly might have) let me apologize and say that was not my intention, or should not have been.

I'm just saying it was effective and targeted the proper targets given the group's stated grievances.

Also, thank you, as well, for having cogent responses, it makes it much easier to have a discussion:)

No, MasterCard credit cards were leaked, but it was proved to be just fake numbers. ;) At least thats what MC told the press.

... for the above posts... excuse me that my point is not taken. Please, forgive me, I cannot go on!

:p

Okay, I definitely agree that PayPal should not be able to hold back donations already made...that's something I certainly agree should not be legal for them to do. But I would imagine there are legal recourses for Wikileaks to get that money that has been sent to them. So I'll accept that being a bit of a separate discussion from the other parties affected, because that definitely is a different situation (though I still don't think the DDoS attack type methods can be justified).

And no, I probably got your words twisted up with those of others, so don't worry about it. My fault. :) I guess what bothers me the most is that these DDoS attacks are somehow seen as rational responses, when the same people often accepting them as right are the ones who attack a government for doing similar things (and yes, I would say that would be wrong as well). That just doesn't make any sense to me.

The worst part about all of this is that it is going to negatively affect the group that Anonymous claims they're trying to help (personally, I think they'll take any convenient excuse to screw someone around online). While I don't like Assange and think he's in this for his own fame (and again, there have been reports that many within Wikileaks feel the same), I do think the organization as a whole has the chance to be a real force for good. And being tied in with this nonsense is not going to help their public perception at all.

So embassy bombings aren't terrorism?
Attacking a McDonalds isn't terrorism, if you are protesting fast food?

If so, good job, terrorism doesn't exist.


(and I won't really bother responding to your previous reply, since it boiled down to "It isn't a big deal, stop being a baby")

Yeah, it won't help in the court of public opinion in the US at least. Though I'm not sure Wikileaks isn't already "convicted" there in the minds of most folks who believe whatever BS they're fed on the news.

I honestly am not sure Assange is not just acting the clown to draw fire away from the actual work in the organization. Every time something shrill and "horrid" is reported it seems to turn out not true. Oh Wikileaks did ask for help redacting names after all. Oh they did get help from media outlets to redact these other documents properly. Oh there are no actual reported deaths as a result of this leak... The list goes on.

I think of Assange like Bono, he's a clown and he acts it (I'm speaking mostly of Bono's charity work). He probably is full of himself and I probably wouldn't like hanging out with him. That doesn't mean his message is all bad (and I know you already know that) just that he's a bit of a twit or plays one on TV:)

All this spectacle around Assange and yet Wikileaks churns along. It makes me wonder what I don't understand about this whole situation.
Yes, because being denied access to your debit card for a day is exactly the same as dying in a bomb blast. Slippery slope much?

You're the one acting like it's some big deal like something horrible will happen when you card gets declined. Everything else I mentioned has happened to me, saving the mugging part, those people typically pick on people who don't look like me. So yeah, I wouldn't put it in your terms, but you got the spirit of it.

Incidentally bombing McDonald's == terrorism (civilian target), bombing an embassy != terrorism (government target). There is a stark difference that you seem keen on ignoring but is relevant to the discussion on actual terrorism.

However, this wasn't terrorism in any sense of the word.

So, if attacking a buisness (as wrong as it is) with the side effect (wanted or not) that you can't use your credit card for a period of time is terrorism... how would you describe it then, if a torture victim is denied to go to court, while giving complete immunity to its torturers? Bad luck?

Highly doubt that.
First, the stage is pretty much set. Which means that most people have allready taken their stand, be that pro or against Wikileaks - you can see it just skimming through this thread.
Second, the reception in the States differs a lot from, let's say, Europe.
Third, Wikileaks didn't hired them nor did they asked for help in this matter. If you're in a heated argument with someone else and a third comes rushing in, beating your opponent down, you're not automatically responsible for his actions.
Last but not least - never underestimate the David against Goliath / underdog against big buisness effect.

So credit card companies are part of the government now?
What I will say instead is: Are you saying that two completely unrelated wrongs make a right? You feel that the US government tortured people, so it is okay to attack credit card companies?

So everybody is now a cyberpunker, ey? I like it. It is so 80's

Oh I get it... we're supposed to be angry with Assange for getting other people upset with him. Got it, it all makes sense now, it's all Assange's fault! (At least according to your logic and one interpretation of it)