2 ms·

There seems to be a lot of confusion between the Wilkileaks disclosure and the DDOS attacks. The disclosures can be debated within the terms of government tran

by gwright 16y ago

There seems to be a lot of confusion between the Wilkileaks disclosure and the DDOS attacks. The disclosures can be debated within the terms of government transparency and public policy, but the DDOS attacks were all about a small group of private individuals attacking private companies because they disagreed with how they ran their business. The two issues are related by a common party, Wikileaks, but other than that they aren't even in the same ballpark. My comments were about the DDOS attacks and not the Wikileaks disclosures. You seem to be talking about the disclosures.

wtallis 16y ago
What Wikileaks is doing is called journalism. I wouldn't compare that to revolution, even if they are both rare these days. What Anonymous is doing is an attack, and its only justification so far is the attempted suppression of Wikileaks' journalism. Suppression of rights like the freedom of the press are among the best justifications for revolution. So, while the current DDOS probably isn't the start of a revolution, it is the kind of thing you would expect to see in the opening stages of a modern revolt in an industrialized society, before things get to the physical violence.
- gwright 16y ago
  Freedom of the press is about protecting the press from the government. It is not about forcing private companies to run their businesses according to the diktats of small group of anonymous geeks.
  - sirrocco 16y ago
    Well wikileaks would not have the problems it does if the government would not have interfered. The government stepped in and `advised` the private companies that it wouldn't be in their best interest to continue doing business with wikileaks. Even though nothing illegal on the part of wikileaks has been proved. Taking away the freedom of press doesn't mean shoot the leader in the head and imprison all the rest. If they manage to isolate you enough , they've succeeded in taking away your freedom.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    Visa and MasterCard cannot act in isolation from the government: They form a duopoly that requires regulation, and they are subject to quite a bit of it. As felixmar pointed out elsewhere in the thread [1], they have gotten favors from the government that have been exposed by the very leaks at issue. It doesn't take actual evidence of a specific request from the government to establish that the government influenced their decision to change their minds about doing business with Wikileaks. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1985128 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1985128

by gwright 16y ago

wtallis 16y ago

What Wikileaks is doing is called journalism. I wouldn't compare that to revolution, even if they are both rare these days. What Anonymous is doing is an attack, and its only justification so far is the attempted suppression of Wikileaks' journalism. Suppression of rights like the freedom of the press are among the best justifications for revolution. So, while the current DDOS probably isn't the start of a revolution, it is the kind of thing you would expect to see in the opening stages of a modern revolt in an industrialized society, before things get to the physical violence.

gwright 16y ago
Freedom of the press is about protecting the press from the government. It is not about forcing private companies to run their businesses according to the diktats of small group of anonymous geeks.
- sirrocco 16y ago
  Well wikileaks would not have the problems it does if the government would not have interfered. The government stepped in and `advised` the private companies that it wouldn't be in their best interest to continue doing business with wikileaks. Even though nothing illegal on the part of wikileaks has been proved. Taking away the freedom of press doesn't mean shoot the leader in the head and imprison all the rest. If they manage to isolate you enough , they've succeeded in taking away your freedom.
- wtallis 16y ago
  Visa and MasterCard cannot act in isolation from the government: They form a duopoly that requires regulation, and they are subject to quite a bit of it. As felixmar pointed out elsewhere in the thread [1], they have gotten favors from the government that have been exposed by the very leaks at issue. It doesn't take actual evidence of a specific request from the government to establish that the government influenced their decision to change their minds about doing business with Wikileaks. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1985128 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1985128