MasterCard Hit By WikiLeaks Payback Attacks 715
An anonymous reader writes "MasterCard's website has been hit by a distributed denial of service attack. Netcraft describes how the attack uses a voluntary botnet of LOIC (low orbit ion cannon) users to swamp sites with traffic. PostFinance, the PayPal blog and Swedish prosecutors have been targeted previously."
Idiots! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!
That'll stop the public being behind them, just like the Miners' strike in the UK. Damaging the corporate side is the right idea.
Re:Idiots! (Score:4, Informative)
Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!
Once again the same kind of shameless ignorance seems to rise to the top.
Like many people have pointed out already - that does nothing to truly affect Mastercard, they still have people owing them money, all that does is attacks the people who use mastercard. It's going to be hard to generate sympathy when you make people's lives considerably harder.
On top of that... Do you understand how the money traffic servers work? They're not like publicly accessible HTTP Web servers, you can't DDoS them. All the purchase requests that go through Mastercard enter the MC network and get sent off to the hundreds of servers that process them -
In order to even reasonably take this down you not only need to know the IP of where these are entering (It COULD be the same as the web server, but I doubt it) - the only way you're gonig to manage that is to somehow get some kind of tracking on your packets when you make a legit purchase - or gaining access to the server you are starting your purchase on (For example, the Steam servers when you purchase a game). These may make a request to the webserver to point them to the nearest Mastercard payment processing server - there might actually be hundreds spread out across the world to ensure fast processing.
Then, suppose you've figured out your point to attack, you need to figure out the vector. Using the LOIC as is won't cut it, they probably have the most minimal of firewalls that knows to just drop anything that looks like an HTTP request - so in order to really DDoS it you'll need to figure out which port your using (Which shouldn't be too difficult if you've managed to reach this part) - but then you might also need to form your requests in such a way that they don't appear malformed either, lest they be trended and dropped.
But no - really - if you've figured it all out, you know the logistics of how to attack the money-traffic servers, AND you can prove that this is a better idea than taking out their webserver right now? By all means, write them an email, I'm sure they'd be glad to hear about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a statement from MasterCard a few hours ago:
Please be advised that MasterCard SecureCode Support has detected a service disruption to the MasterCard Directory Server. The Directory Server service has been failed over to a secondary site however customers may still be experiencing intermittent connectivity issues. More information on the estimated time of recovery will be shared in due course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Essential (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, I disagree.
CC companies are sneaky to be sure, but they do serve a purpose - they're a hedge against short term super-crunches. That's the real problem in society - a giant tragedy of the commons type thing (slight off, but I don't know the correct term). What I mean is that when landlords and mortgagers force a certain price for housing, while other companies force down wages, citizens get caught in a colossal game of musical chairs until they just can't hold on.
This first shows up as a micro-crunch
Re:Idiots! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My sarcasm meter is malfunctioning. I can't tell if that's hilarious or worrying.
Re: (Score:3)
A guy who used to work in IT at 2 large banks told me most banks don't encrypt their offsite backups 8-(
Mastercard: Thanks Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
And now because of Slashdot linking to MasterCard, their denial of service attack increased even more.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor Mastercard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Poor Mastercard (Score:4, Insightful)
I think some people would be less inclined to react with a mob mentality if this stuff were about governments using actual laws. So far it has just been large business and governments leaning on Wikileaks and anyone else involved. How can the average citizen respect that? If Wikileaks were charged with an actual crime, one that is on the books, one that you or I could be charged with, I think the public would have a very different reaction to this. Instead it just goes on a laundry list of items involving threats and intimidation that have fueled a number of dissenting opinions.
Re:Poor Mastercard (Score:4, Insightful)
It does bind the government from threatening them with non-existence laws unless they stop providing such a service to certain parties, you idiot.
Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (Score:5, Insightful)
Visa and Mastercard contribute loads of cash to political candidates -- you may recall recently the whole credit reform stuff making headlines? Well, Congress reached back and asked them to kill wikileaks as a return favor. Good old boys network... has nothing to do with ethics, since they have none: They're a business.
Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (Score:5, Interesting)
since Wikileaks next target seems to be a major bank
That's the one I'm waiting for. I don't give two shits about the majority of these gossipy cables.
Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (Score:4, Insightful)
They are boycotting Wikileaks because it already has buckets of dirt on financial institutions, and so they are afraid that they are next.
If there's one thing that's sure to keep wikileaks from attacking them, it would be pissing wikileaks off as much as possible. Wait, no, that can't be right.
Try again. Wikileaks aren't attacking anyone.
Forgive me if I'm off topic here... (Score:5, Funny)
I keep trying to read the story at http://www.mastercard.com/ [mastercard.com] but nothings happening.
Re:Forgive me if I'm off topic here... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You scratch my back... (Score:5, Informative)
Note that the latest leaks show that the US Govt put pressure on Russia, to avoid legislation that would level the field for Visa/Mastercard competitors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard [guardian.co.uk]
High fees? ...Millions of dollars (Score:5, Funny)
Adult responses vs epic tantrums (Score:3)
Regardless of the merits of Wikileaks and the service/information that the supply, I really don't see this as a productive response by their supporters. Rather, it just makes it appear as if a significantly-sized contingent of destructive, if not criminally-minded people support Wikileaks. It may or may not be Wikileaks' fault but the fact that groups are using, albeit incorporeal, violent action to pursue their political agenda is pretty much the definition of terrorism and they're really just making it easier for the government and media to paint Wikileaks with that brush. A campaign against companies which are at the heart of the modern economy is easy enough to paint as a threat to economic stability and therefore "national security" and is probably going to come back to bite them in the ass, one way or another.
Of course, they're going to do what they're going to do. As long as they don't knock out the credit card processing capabilities then it won't affect me since I never go to the websites of these companies. But still, as they say on The Boondocks: "that's not a good look" and will probably have no positive outcome for those participating in the action.
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless of the merits of Wikileaks and the service/information that the supply, I really don't see this as a productive response by their supporters. Rather, it just makes it appear as if a significantly-sized contingent of destructive, if not criminally-minded people support Wikileaks. It may or may not be Wikileaks' fault but the fact that groups are using, albeit incorporeal, violent action to pursue their political agenda is pretty much the definition of terrorism and they're really just making it easier for the government and media to paint Wikileaks with that brush. A campaign against companies which are at the heart of the modern economy is easy enough to paint as a threat to economic stability and therefore "national security" and is probably going to come back to bite them in the ass, one way or another.
Of course, they're going to do what they're going to do. As long as they don't knock out the credit card processing capabilities then it won't affect me since I never go to the websites of these companies. But still, as they say on The Boondocks: "that's not a good look" and will probably have no positive outcome for those participating in the action.
So you suggest we ignore the problem of free speech and free press being restricted? That if we disagree what a government or company is doing, we should ignore it?
Remember, this is not an organised group, it is a group of people who are pissed off. Voting hasn't worked. Writing letters hasn't worked. The only thing these companies will listen to is an attack on their profits and bad publicity. And even then they're being very quiet about admitting to it.
Unless, of course, you've got some other genius
Re: (Score:3)
If this DOS-mob isn't actually trying to make the payment processors change their mind and allow them to continue contributing to Wikileaks then the argument about free speech isn't relevant anyway, because its just being used as an excuse to justify a destructive act that they're doing just for the sake of being destructive and any sense of nobility should be dispensed with.
Just to clear this up if you didn't know:
Visa and MC have no problem being associated.... (Score:5, Informative)
Last year I got a complaint from a Danish ISP that i was spamming their customers. I requested and got forwarded one of my supposed emails. A little bit of poking around I found that the viagra company was based in Hong Kong. Whois told me the address, names, telephone numbers etc. (you'd thing scum like that would hide their info better).
I phoned and emailed Visa, MC, the spam company, even their service provider. The only response was from that Danish ISP their tech guy if you can call him that was complaining about my continual spamming even after I gave him the proof that the email originated from China not Canada. You would think traceroute and whois are kind of basic tools and any dumbass should be able to use them but this guy didn't even know how to look at email header info.
As for visa MC they would not be bothered even though I gave them all the info (btw they were shipping their product from Texas) Visa and MC told be to get bent.
Re:Visa and MC have no problem being associated... (Score:4, Interesting)
If they're now blocking transactions which the government doesn't require them to and that they have good reason to believe the cardholder consented to, that's got to open up all sorts of liability over their connection with cybercriminals.
Masterrace? Reactions from Europe (Score:5, Informative)
"Ku-Klux-Klan ja, Wikileaks nein" [sueddeutsche.de]
"Apoyo a organizaciones racistas" [publico.es]
'Je mag met je Visa- of Mastercard wel geld geven aan de Ku Klux Klan, maar inmiddels geen donaties meer doen aan WikiLeaks.' [volkskrant.nl]
"Ku Klux Klan'a bagis var, Wikileaks'e yok" [hurriyet.com.tr] [Sorry for the spelling, but
"[..]- nie ma za to problemów z donacj np. na róne odamy Ku-Klux-Klanu" [konflikty.wp.pl]
Re:Masterrace? Reactions from Europe (Score:5, Informative)
Please see the case of NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES which examines this section and the surrounding ones, and found that the New York Times was not guilty under it for publishing classified documents:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=713 [findlaw.com]
Re:"voluntary botnet" (Score:5, Informative)
Just like people volunteer for Folding@Home. If one believes in a cause strongly enough they could be convinced to lend CPU cycles (well, network packets) to help DDoS a site.
Re: (Score:3)
"voluntary botnet" why does such a thing even exist?? Did voluntary Borg exist?
It's called that because the latest version of LOIC has a 'Hive Mind' feature where users give control of their computers (temporarily) to an IRC channel operator, thus becoming part of a voluntary botnet, more so than just 'Lets all attack this target.' See LOIC [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
So... slashdot is posting self-fulfilling articles now?
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com], it's all due Mastercard no longer permitting donations via their services to Wikileaks.
However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For some time I hated americans, living in a post communist country, with all it's problems, while americans seemed to cause even more. And then I saw a slogan, used by some americans, I love my country, but I fear the government. That's why, when you make such statements "bitches of the US", be sure to add government. It will make everything better.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Insightful)
You actually make a very interesting point.
For the purposes of elections and raising funds for a political party, monetary donation is considered an exercise of free speech. That is the premise that allowed billions of extra funds from private individuals to go towards the election without any tracking.
Yet, financially supporting an organization deemed "terrorist" by the government is not a function of free speech. Now the lines are becoming even more blurred, given Wikileaks isn't even termed a terrorist organization. They are, however, denying the public the ability to support them financially.
By the same logic of the courts, this should be an issue of free speech. Mastercard et al are impeding free speech.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:4, Informative)
Except the first amendment only applies to the government. If a company wants to impend your speech they can.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? The government can just threaten companies to get them to stop providing services to people whose speech the government doesn't like? And that's not a free speech issue?
I love how so many people are so unknowledgeable about this issue that they think Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal all suddenly decided to stop provides services for no reason, when both Mastercard and Paypal stated quite bluntly that the government made them do it, and it's probably the same story for Visa.
Remember, folks, the government can't punish you for free speech, but it can threaten everyone who interacts with you so you quickly die homeless and staving in the gutter.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people believe feel this denial of service was caused by government. Paypal has admitted it. [guardian.co.uk] I don't know if Mastercard and VISA have admitted it yet, but it's not hard to guess. We're not talking about private action.
If I own the printing press which you rent to print things I consider obnoxious, and then I decide I don't want to be associated with your bullshit anymore and stop letting you use my printing press, then you're right, there's nothing to suggest the government has overstepped its constitutional limits.
If I own the printing press which you rent to print things the government considers obnoxious, so they send goons over to point a gun at my head and explain that I will not let you use my printing press anymore, then the government has overstepped its constitutional limits. And that's what happened here, assuming money==speech.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you see, the text of the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". In this case, instead of making a law, they're just suppressing speech by strongly suggesting to the corporations that it would be in their best interest to comply.
With the Wikileaks case, the powers that be have demonstrated quite clearly that they don't give a damn what's legal and what's not legal. They're going to do what they're going to do, and screw the Constitution if it gets in the way.
Re: (Score:3)
this should be an issue of free speech. Mastercard et al are impeding free speech.
Yes it is! Except they can do it.
The Constitution are a limit on the government, not private parties.
Of course, if this happened because of gov pressure is another discussion entirely, and then I'm not sure it's protected by the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Informative)
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal.
Not true. It's illegal to initially leak them if you have clearance. Republishing them is not... note that the New York Times has republished most of the leak; has Mastercard stopped doing business with them?
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Informative)
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal. They stopped allowing people to send money to a criminal (in their jurisdiction) company. Case closed. This has nothing to do with 'free speech' and the First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this.
Your statement is incorrect. Please read the decision of New York Times Co. v. United States.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Informative)
Shameless karma whoring:
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) [google.com]
The unanimous opinion itself is very short; essentially, designating documents as secret and punishing anyone who publishes them is a 'prior restraint' and presumed unconstitutional.
We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U. S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." Post, pp. 942, 943.
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963) [google.com]; see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931) [google.com]. The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971) [google.com]. The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal.
No it's not, you fucktard.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you use your MasterCard to pay for your New York Times subscription? If so, MasterCard are a bunch of hypocrites.
Re: (Score:3)
WikiLeaks were collecting donations using MasterCards and VISA as forms of payment on their website, up until the two giants pulled away because they didn't want to be associated with the website.
Re:why mastercard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I don't associate MasterCard with, say, a big box store that royally pisses me off by jerking me around (which is similar to the situation with MC and Wikileaks). The excuse that MC doesn't want to be associated with Wikileaks is B.S.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Informative)
Just an FYI: you can't take your money elsewhere unless you go completely cash and are picky with ATMs. MC owns a few of the biggest consumer money transfer networks, so even if you pick Visa you'll still often be using MC services.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, Visa is already doing the same thing.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Interesting)
Consumer action is another tactic. Here's the letter I sent my bank:
Dear Smile.co.uk,
One of the reasons I am a customer of Smile Banking is your commitment to ethical banking.
I do not believe that Visa's recent decision to block payments to Wikileaks is consistent with that ethical stance.
I understand that due to Visa's near-monopoly on card payments and online payments, it is not really practical for either Smile Banking or myself personally to discontinue our use of Visa debit card facilities. However I would like to send a message to Visa that this decision has weakened, not strengthened, their brand reputation to me and, I would assume, others.
To this end:
1. Please would you forward this message to Smile Banking's board of directors
2. Please would Smile Banking collate any similar messages of disapproval regarding Visa's actions from other Smile customers, should they be received, and communicate the aggregate message to Visa
3. Please, so that I can modify my behaviour where possible, would you advise me to what extent the following activities result in income to Visa
a: A debit card payment where I the cardholder am present
b: A cash withdrawal at a high street ATM
c: An online/telephone debit card payment
Many thanks,
Re:Stupid action (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous will get more media coverage for that than outraged reactions of various moderate group. Do they desserve it ? No, sure. Do they have it ? Hell yes.
This may be a stupid action, but it is the most likely to have an impact.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further.
Undoing some moderation here but I must say: BULLSHIT! The only reason the government and these companies are going after Wikileaks is because Wikileaks has dirt on them, and Wikileaks has credibility. Your statement notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikileaks had credibility, back when they were a whistleblowing site and not a media corp.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
Please dfferentiate by action:
Wikileaks releases documents with insight into the Iceland bank scandal: + Credibility
Wikileaks releases documents/videos with Insight to Iraq: + Credibility
Wikileaks founder shows unmitigated ego and drives off supporters: - Credibility
Wikileaks releases diplomatic small talk: +/- Credibility
Wikileaks founders handling of dubious rape accusations: - Credibility
Wikileaks hangarounds launch DDOS attacks: -- Credibility
I think there is a strong need for Wikileaks (or something similar). While Julian Assange has done some great services, he is probably not the person to head such an organisation. I am highly critical of the release of the cables. It contained very little information for the damage done. I think the decision to release those cables was because they could release them and not due to the insight they provided. My impression is that ego and publicity had a lot to do with it.
CU, Martin
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Informative)
I am highly critical of the release of the cables. It contained very little information for the damage done. I think the decision to release those cables was because they could release them and not due to the insight they provided. My impression is that ego and publicity had a lot to do with it.
CU, Martin
On the contrary, the cables contain plenty of evidence of government wrongdoing, although not necessarily by the US government. As a Swede, it is very interesting to know that the us embassy reports that my government prefers to share information about Swedish citizens using a "strong but informal agreement" instead of having a formal agreement, as such an agreement would have to be discussed by the parliament. If the cable is correct, my government is probably violating the Swedish "grundlag", which can loosely be translated as the constitution of Sweden. See http://www.thelocal.se/30654/20101206/ [thelocal.se]
Re:Stupid action (Score:4, Insightful)
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further. The best and only response should be: take your own money elsewhere.
CU, Martin
Not sure why this is marked Troll. Here's another perspective - anonymous sends the clear message: "If you support suppressing this information, we will suppress you*. Because when we do it, it is right and good -- and when you do it, it's wrong and evil and must be punished." Here's the problem with that line of thinking: when it's wrong for one party to do it, it's no better when the other party does it.
That barely touches on the overtly childish nature of the behavior. "LA LA LA LA I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU CAN, NOBODY CAN HEAR YOU NOW!". Nor does it get into how this affects a large number of third parties (eg Mastercard customers) who have had no part in this decision -- and yet must still pay the price now.
And before somebody compares it to a sit-in on the basis of that last comment, there's a critical difference: a sit-in involves people with names and faces, standing up [or sitting down] for what they believe in - though doing so may cost them reputation, time, and even money. On the other hand, the type of action under discussion involves a bunch of wannabes hiding behind distributed botnets, Tor, and various anonymous proxies pressing a button or running a script.
In addition, when customers show up at a physical place of business to discover a sit-in preventing them from receiving service, they get a clear and immediate understanding of why - thus a message is sent to them as well as to the business they're supporting. They may even learn of practices that weren't aware of, and change their own behavior appropriately. But what do mastercard.com customers find? A web site that doesn't response. There's no message they can receive - they'll just come back later, when the site is back online.
There is no basis for comparison between the two types of actions.
* Help, help, I'm being repressed!" [xkcd.com]
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
What actions have MC taken to deal with the DDOS (Score:3)
Has anyone noticed what actions MC has taken to deal with the DDOS? It looks like they've done almost nothing--they are still trying to serve the same content and haven't moved their DNS servers off network. They did reduce the TTL on the DNS records to 15 minutes, but I'm not sure how that helps?
I would think that the inability to get to the DNS records would be blocking all the email traffic into MC (I couldn't see their MX records), which would bounce all the mail.
I would have thought that they had a bac
Re:Stupid action (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that there is no where else to take your money.
Regardless, I'm getting increasingly disenchanted with the "don't like it, don't participate" mentality. First it was the TSA: "don't like it, don't fly." Now it is "don't like what MC is doing, don't use them." Of course Visa and PayPal are doing the exact same things...
How about if instead of asking me to submit I ask THEM to submit?
Yeah, I like that a lot better.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Informative)
Visa *is* doing the same thing. [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And they both have been exposed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/246424 [guardian.co.uk]
and banks may get to be the next target of w.leaks (Score:3, Interesting)
WikiLeaks Founder Says Next Target Is Major US Bank [aolnews.com]
"Early next year, WikiLeaks will publish tens of thousands of internal documents from a major U.S. bank, exposing the institution's rampant corruption and unethical practices and executives' brazen self-interest, Assange said in an interview with Forbes magazine. [forbes.com]"
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I admit that it's pretty funny to see the credit card companies getting screwed for a change. But basically, the Russians tried to f*** over a couple of American businesses, and the U.S. government decided it was necessary to step in and pressure the Russians not to do this. Part of the government's job is to look out for the economic interests of the United States, which includes private corporations. U.S. diplomats are doing their job. Truly shocking indeed.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
Which of course is not the case in "the land of the free, home of the brave", the Glorious USA, where in the spirit of freedom and competition all credit card transactions are welcomed to be processed by assorted small companies in Russia, Finland and Monaco and are not nearly exclusively dominated by a pair of nasty anti-competitive global US-based cartels like Mastercard or Visa who own all the processing facilities almost everywhere and enjoy protection of bought-and-paid-for politicians!
Oh, wait...
Re:Stupid action (Score:4, Insightful)
US secretly helps MasterCard And Visa. MasterCard and Visa decide to help the US shut down Wikileaks. Nice to know how it all works. Everybody wins, right?
Re:Stupid action (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a problem. I'm quite willing to drop MasterCard is there's a good alternative. The main requirement is that it needs to be accepted by all web shops. So that restricts my options to PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, I think.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Informative)
As it should be!
Apparently, Paypal has admitted to being coerced into smashing the cookie jar. [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that Flattr is the child of brokep right?
Seems a bit odd to see a coalition like this forming up.
Re: (Score:3)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think they count as zombies when the botnet is voluntary. This is more like a coordinated attack by ninjas and pirates.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This has nothing to do with freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither John F. Kennedy nor Nikita Kruschev would have had the support of their governments had their positions been known because of something like a Wikileaks release.
Why would you assume that the public would have chosen nuclear war over bargaining?
Re: (Score:3)
mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc
Credit card companies don't care about freedom of speech but they do care about making money and if by denying access to servers through DDOS attacks MasterCard and Visa lose money they will pay attention. As you also say business can be taken elsewhere too but how many retailers, online and offline, accept other forms of payment? Of course there's cold hard currency, which is how I prefer to pay for things, but you can't make online payments with it.
Fa
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
quite rightly distancing itself from Wikileaks because of some very illegal activities.
What is wikileaks doing that is illegal? And are they distancing themselves from the newspapers that are republishing the leaks? It's not quite right. It is a couple of very large corporations colluding to remove freedom of speech, when the speech in question reflects badly on them.
Re: (Score:3)
If you (and serviscope_minor above your post) read my comment and don't skip bits, you'll note I said "If the average person on the street learns of this, they see...". This is the common perception. My post doesn't actually state this is what I believe. (That said, and I hope this does not place too much of a strain on your parsing abilities, I do agree with that opinion.)
So far as your comment Nixon is concerned, I can't give an opinion on that. I am not an American; I grew up in a country that quite simp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what do you want adolescents to do then? Vote?
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Interesting)
"Act like fucking adolescents?"
This is the modern equivalent of a lunch counter sit-in. [wikipedia.org] No user has had their computer hijacked, they are all participating of their free will. Are they "disrupting business"? Perhaps, but no worse than the lunch counter sit-ins did.
Re: (Score:3)
Voluntary Botnet == modern sit-in
See the difference?
Re:Stupid action (Score:4, Interesting)
DDoS != modern sit-in
Voluntary Botnet == modern sit-in
See the difference?
Where does this leave a DDoS implemented using a voluntary botnet?
dude, get a grip (Score:5, Insightful)
you're comparing this to anti-segregation protests???
Who needs to get a grip, one who equates one protest with another or one who ridicules such comparisons?
Quite frankly voters can not make informed decisions when they are not informed. Wikileaks is informing voters of what their government is doing.
Falcon
Now as for "informed voters" that is another subject.
Re:dude, get a grip (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikileaks is...not fundamentally changing society.
The anti-segregation movements did not fundamentally change society immediately. They worked towards a fundamental change. Wikileaks is also a tool for working towards a fundamental change, namely open government, freedom of information, and the tools necessary for a true democracy.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of smashing 4chan's servers (which wouldn't stop the attacks and would just make you the next target, and give you an anti-free-speech reputation) why not call up Visa and Mastercard and complain, and ask why Wikileaks' accounts have been shut down while they still process payments for the KKK?
And at 5 grand a day, unless you're running on razor-thin margins with just-in-time production, this shouldn't hurt you too much. Relax. You don't even have any competition AFAIK.
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupid action (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever is doing it, such attacks are just plain wrong. Attacking infrastructure may be harmful and amounts to terrorism
Oh for fucks sake, NO, it doesn't!
Terrorism is coercion through FEAR (or, dare I say it, "terror?"). It is NOT embarrassing hypocritical governments. It is NOT interfering with our corporate overlords. It is NOT inconveniencing an ignorant and apathetic populace in their yearly December feeding frenzy.
Re: (Score:3)
Rather do something stupid than do nothing? Neither a good nor the right choice IMHO.
Re:and that will be when you really fail (Score:4, Insightful)
and the real hackers come out of the wood work and utterly GARBAGE the usa's websites.
until know i have sat back and watched...do not threaten these youth's...you do so at YOUR PERIL.
WE think of the children unlike you and believe in freedom to the adverse of corporate fascism that you preach.
From how you type you are the child. DDOSing a website? That is amateurish script kiddie BS. You aren't advancing the cause of network neutrality, internet liberty, human rights or anything by taking down websites. The only thing you generate is negative publicity for yourself and for the internet as a whole.
This will result in Lieberman being able to pass the Internet Censorship bill. Don't you see you are a useful idiot? You are being used to help pass this bill which would never be able to pass if Anonymous did not do stupid pointless BS.
Re:Whatever... (Score:5, Interesting)
Operation Payback hit ACS Law a second time, knocking out the site. In the process of bringing it back up, someone exposed the server's directory structure through the Web instead of showing the website itself. Those conducting Operation Payback immediately moved in and grabbed a 350MB archive of ACS Law e-mails, then threw the entire mass up on sites like The Pirate Bay. This is more than a matter of mere embarrassment. The UK has tougher data protection laws than the US, and the country's Information Commissioner has already made it clear that ACS Law could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of pounds. That's because, in addition to his iTunes receipts ("Hooray for iPads. I love mine," Crossley says at one point) and Amazon purchase orders, the e-mails include numerous attachments filled with all manner of private information: names, addresses, payment details, passwords, revenue splits, business deals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Assange is not behaving like an ethical member of the press.
The press is not behaving like an ethical member of the press. The failure of the press in the last decade to act as anything except a mouthpiece for the US government and the special interests that control it has caused far more damage to this country and the world than anything Assange could dream of. It's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
He has threatened to leak even more information about financial institutions. Folks, he is pot