Wikileaks Internet Fight- Channers Hit Back

Marquis de Carabas said:
A DDoS is the very antithesis of free speech. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Further, I would strongly advise against anyone joining the "protests", not on any political grounds, but merely because voluntarily joining a botnet is just a stupid thing to do from a security standpoint.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Yes, it is.

You seemed to imply that the harassment of the credit card and paypal websites was somehow an attack on free speech.
Click to expand...
Right, the sites, not the cards.

A DDoS attack is an attempt to silence. I imply nothing. I state that attempts to silence those you have a beef with are assaults on the ideals of freedom of expression.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Right, the sites, not the cards.

A DDoS attack is an attempt to silence. I imply nothing. I state that attempts to silence those you have a beef with are assaults on the ideals of freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

The harassment of the credit card websites was an attempt to obstruct their conduct of commercial transactions in response to their attempt to impede freedom of speech. It is no more an attack on 'free speech' than would be a strike, boycott or protest outside a corporate office.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
The harassment of the credit card websites was an attempt to obstruct their conduct of commercial transactions in response to their attempt to impede freedom of speech. It is no more an attack on 'free speech' than would be a strike, boycott or protest outside a corporate office.
Click to expand...

They attacked PostFinance because they closed the Wikileaks account because Assange gave wrong information, he claimed to be living in Geneve, witch turned out to be a big fat lie. so they had to close it, and the kiddys that thought they are so cool, startet to atack them......

they are just stupid kids that have no clue what they are doing.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
The harassment of the credit card websites was an attempt to obstruct their conduct of commercial transactions
Click to expand...
You're talking motive; I'm talking tactics. I don't care why a DDoS attack is initiated. The tactic is one of disrupting communication. It is an attempt to silence.

When the target is a business, then an added effect is to disrupt transactions, yes. That does not negate the fact that at heart a DDoS is an attack on communication.

in response to their attempt to impede freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Refusing to accept donations for a third party is not an abridgment of anyone's freedom. No-one has a right to MC (or anyone else) conducting transactions for them.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
You're talking motive; I'm talking tactics. I don't care why a DDoS attack is initiated. The tactic is one of disrupting communication. It is an attempt to silence.When the target is a business, then an added effect is to disrupt transactions, yes. That does not negate the fact that at heart a DDoS is an attack on communication.
Click to expand...

I don't think this holds water comrade. Not all communication of information is 'free speech'; transmitting a computer virus, for example, falls outside the definition.


Refusing to accept donations for a third party is not an abridgment of anyone's freedom. No-one has a right to MC (or anyone else) conducting transactions for them.
Click to expand...

Yikes! I hope that's not the case, especially as online transactions become more and more a part of how businesses and organizations operate.

If the few companies who do online payment processing can decide who can and who can't receive online payments at their own discretion then doesn't that give them a tremendous and inordinate amount of power? Imagine if MC and Visa and Paypal decided they didn't want to process donations to the green party, or to a consumer advocacy group that advocated for more transparency and regulation of the credit card industry, for example.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
I don't think this holds water comrade. Not all communication of information is 'free speech'; transmitting a computer virus, for example, falls outside the definition.
Click to expand...
You're equating credit card company websites with the transmission of computer viruses? I see you've sailed your ship out of the port of rational discourse, Captain. Bon voyage.
 
lol
not quite

your original statement was that the DDoS attacks on the online payment companies were an attack on free speech

I was all like, what? How so?

You then said well, cause online transactions are the transmission of information

So I said yeah, but that doesn't mean that this kind of transmission of information is 'free speech', just like sending out a computer virus (also just a transmission of information) isn't free speech

I'm not equating credit cards with computer viruses other than in the very narrow area of comparison required to examine whether or not all transmission of information is a kind of 'speech' that should be 'free'

I dunno what 'bon voyage' means but I'm assuming it's Russian for 'more pickled herring, please', in which case it is in fact you who have exited rational discourse.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
I don't think this holds water comrade. Not all communication of information is 'free speech'; transmitting a computer virus, for example, falls outside the definition.




Yikes! I hope that's not the case, especially as online transactions become more and more a part of how businesses and organizations operate.

If the few companies who do online payment processing can decide who can and who can't receive online payments at their own discretion then doesn't that give them a tremendous and inordinate amount of power? Imagine if MC and Visa and Paypal decided they didn't want to process donations to the green party, or to a consumer advocacy group that advocated for more transparency and regulation of the credit card industry, for example.
Click to expand...

Yes, but transmitting viruses is not really the topic of discussion though, is it? We're talking about information. And keeping with the topic at hand, we are talking about a group that preaches to free flow of information. The irony is lost on some.
 
okay

let me put it to you this way

an online financial transaction is just information
so is a computer virus

if all transmission of information are 'free speech', then a computer virus is 'free speech'

you can get mad at the DDoS attacks on the online paymasters without having to say that they're an attack on free speech.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
lol
not quite

your original statement was that the DDoS attacks on the online payment companies were an attack on free speech
Click to expand...
Wrong. My original statement was that DDoS attacks are the very antithesis of free speech. I did not qualify it with "on the online payment companies".

I was all like, what? How so?

You then said well, cause online transactions are the transmission of information
Click to expand...
Wrong again. I said DDoS attacks disrupt communication, which was a reference to the target site's owners communication with whomever wishes to view their site. You are the one hung up on the transactions.


So I said yeah, but that doesn't mean that this kind of transmission of information is 'free speech', just like sending out a computer virus (also just a transmission of information) isn't free speech

I'm not equating credit cards with computer viruses other than in the very narrow area of comparison required to examine whether or not all transmission of information is a kind of 'speech' that should be 'free'
Click to expand...
So you used a stupid analogy.

Yes, there are transmissions of information that are not (or should not be) protected speech, but unless you are seriously prepared to argue that the sort of things a typical credit card company is posting on its site are illegitimate speech, then that's irrelevant.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
okay

let me put it to you this way

an online financial transaction is just information
so is a computer virus
Click to expand...
See my above post, but it bears repeating: I am not talking about the transactions.

you can get mad at the DDoS attacks on the online paymasters without having to say that they're an attack on free speech.
Click to expand...
I am not mad at them. I am dismayed at their hypocrisy.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
I am not mad at them. I am dismayed at their hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

How are they being hypocritical? They are enacting a boycott (and a poor one at that). They are expressing their right to boycott a company! :D

is it wrong that I enjoy these stunts Anon pulls?

:boxedin:
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Wrong. My original statement was that DDoS attacks are the very antithesis of free speech. I did not qualify it with "on the online payment companies".
Click to expand...

Lol
Okay well if DDoS attacks are the very antithesis of free speech, then how does this not apply to DDoS attacks on credit card websites? You obviously included the payment companies in that statement.

The internet pay sites that were attacked weren't attacked because of what they were saying, but rather they were attacked to try and hamper their ability to transfer funds electronically. The attack on electronic transfer of funds doesn't become an attack on 'free speech' because both speech and money can be transferred electronically.

So you used a stupid analogy.
Click to expand...
No, I think it was an apt analogy that was lost on you.

Yes, there are transmissions of information that are not (or should not be) protected speech, but unless you are seriously prepared to argue that the sort of things a typical credit card company is posting on its site are illegitimate speech, then that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'm saying there are transmissions of information that are not 'speech'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom