Payback: Bank That Froze Julian Assange's Bank Account Has Now Been Taken Down By Hackers - Polidicks

Swiss bank - We'll hold stuff for nazi's BUT JULIAN ASSANGE HAS BLOOD ON HIS HANDS!!!

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;26554624]Coming from a guy whose avatar is a picture of Einstein... that sounds really clever. Care to elaborate on that a little more, please??[/QUOTE] He is breaking the Espionage act of 1917 and committing treason.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];26555569']He is breaking the Espionage act of 1917 and committing treason.[/QUOTE] He's not from the US, so he can't be charged with treason. Lrn2legal

[QUOTE=TheSpy;26554036]You are happy about doomsday?? When your friends and parents die i bet you will cry.[/QUOTE] I don't think you picked up on my sarcasm I'm trying to point out how irrational people's actions are to this political shitstorm Assange has created [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;26554439]It's not talking about the ends justifying the means...In fact, I said I wasn't advocating anything...I even used those words...brain...logic...failing...arrgg....... I was merely pointing out that a fire is fire, no matter how you start it. We're talking about the means to an end, not the ends justifying the means. Totally different, and to be honest, I think the only reason you said that was because you wanted to use "so the ends justify the means" in an argument. Kudos, you did, just not a good example.[/QUOTE] touche. The problem I had with your "fire is a fire" analogy is that it doesn't really add or subtract for what is debatable about the story, more or less what the attackers did was justified or not by their goal

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26554274] Fun fact, US civilians can view many government files legally under the FOIC, given you fill out the proper paperwork, and don't ask to view files that may breach national security.[/QUOTE] Guess who gets to decide which documents "breach national security" with absolutely no oversight

[QUOTE=Zeke129;26556252]Guess who gets to decide which documents "breach national security" with absolutely no oversight[/QUOTE] Ask Title 5 of the United States code, Section 552. [quote] [LIST=1] [*](A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][/URL] [*]related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][/URL] [*]specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; [see FOIA exemption statuses][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][/URL] [*]trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][6][/URL] [*]inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][6][/URL] [*]personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][6][/URL] [*]records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][/URL] [*]contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][/URL] or [*]geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.[/quote][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29#cite_note-ACUpamplet-5"][/URL] [/LIST]

[QUOTE=TH89;26555337]Neither is your email. If someone hacks your email and posts everything, that's okay because it's "freedom of speech?"[/QUOTE] His email inbox doesn't have the Iraqi civilian body count, though And as a private citizen he's got privacy rights

[QUOTE=Athena;26556621]His email inbox doesn't have the Iraqi civilian body count, though[/QUOTE] It still contains information I am pretty sure he would want to keep private. Unless he twitters every email he receives.

[QUOTE=Mr. N;26549130]DDOS = PORFESUNOL HAKS Really.[/QUOTE] It's not just a bunch of 4channers. In order to take something relatively large down like a bank you'd have to have quite a sizable botnet.

[QUOTE=Lick;26557059]It's not just a bunch of 4channers. In order to take something relatively large down like a bank you'd have to have quite a sizable botnet.[/QUOTE] It was probably a collaboration of different people with more then 1 botnet, even then GMOD Rpers can take down multiple servers and keep them down for days, weeks, or months just for being banned. If you think about it in the sense if you have the right programs and people who have nothing else to do it is easy.

Great, let's make a country's economy slightly less stable for the sake of an arsehole who is releasing security information which is doing more harm than good.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;26558759]Great, let's make a country's economy slightly less stable for the sake of an arsehole who is releasing security information which is doing more harm than good.[/QUOTE] Show me tangible proof that it's doing more harm than good, if any harm at all.

Shit is going to hit the fan. Also way too many Wikileaks news, even though they are interesting.

[QUOTE=animephreak135;26554103]It SHOULD be the property of the U.S. people, but our government likes to keep secrets; a good deal of which are funded with taxpayer dollars. Julian Assange is bringing transparency to an American government that doesn't want to be transparent. How can you possibly demonize him for that?[/QUOTE] "They won't give it to me so I'll just take it" Yah, I can see one or two things wrong with that.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26549067]So they're support the release of mundane information, that will make no change to the socio-political climate, by committing internet vandalism? Sounds pretty pointless to me.[/QUOTE] No they are supporting freedom of speech, and they support the idea that governments should not be allowed to have secrets hidden away from the people they are bound to serve.

I know it's not supposed to be funny, but i find this hilarious.

[QUOTE=bravehat;26562060]No they are supporting freedom of speech, and they support the idea that governments should not be allowed to have secrets hidden away from the people they are bound to serve.[/QUOTE] For the last time, leaking files has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Also: [QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26554274]Governmental transparency is a joke, a proper government needs to be able to keep secrets from it's people in order to conduct it's actions. A government cannot function, while ever single idiot civilian goes about viewing information they have no information about, it would only lead to complete national dysfunction or total corruption. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26562024]"They won't give it to me so I'll just take it" Yah, I can see one or two things wrong with that.[/QUOTE] This isn't about having things that they don't want to give away, it's about them keeping secrets that people should know. If they don't want to give it away because it's embarrassing then all secrets would be kept and there would be no accountability. If it isn't taken from them, it never comes to the light of day.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26562090]For the last time, leaking files has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Also:[/QUOTE] Simple solution, be transparent, and don't act like a bunch of fucking morons. No war crimes, no problems. Also /b/ is now for some reason setting it's sights on mastercard :v: fuck knows why though

[QUOTE=bravehat;26562144]Simple solution, be transparent, and don't act like a bunch of fucking morons. No war crimes, no problems. Also /b/ is now for some reason setting it's sights on mastercard :v: fuck knows why though[/QUOTE] Mastercard blocked wikileaks payments too if I'm not mistaken. Oh, and as if war crimes are the only sensitive information.

I used war crimes as an example, the fuckin company in texas who started buying drugs and pimpin out kids to the fuckin Afghan police during their training as well. And fair enough then, I'm actually in the thread /b/ are organising from. EDIT: Holy fuck apparently mastercards stock has fell 6.3 points (2.5%) in the last 4 hours and is still falling.

[QUOTE=bravehat;26562206]I used war crimes as an example, the fuckin company in texas who started buying drugs and pimpin out kids to the fuckin Afghan police during their training as well. And fair enough then, I'm actually in the thread /b/ are organising from. EDIT: Holy fuck apparently mastercards stock has fell 6/3% and is still falling.[/QUOTE] 6%? Source or I call bullshit.

Every important political movement in history started out small. These guys make a difference by giving public support to Julian. Just because they didn't storm in and bust Julian out of prison in a fiery show of patriotism doesn't mean their actions aren't important.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26562220]6%? Source or I call bullshit.[/QUOTE] Google finance which is a live following: [url]http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:MA[/url] Down 2.52 now Also /b/ has took em down they say and moving to a new target. Actually it's not just /b/s word now, they are on the front page of the guardian now: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/[/url]

[QUOTE=bravehat;26562144]Simple solution, be transparent, and don't act like a bunch of fucking morons. No war crimes, no problems.[/QUOTE] Care to elaborate? [QUOTE=bravehat;26562330]Google finance which is a live following: [URL]http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:MA[/URL] Down 2.52 now[/QUOTE] Jesus fucking Christ... this not good at all.

Elaboration would be, don't buy drugs and kids to whore out to the afghan national police, discipline troops heavily when they make intentional fuck ups, generally don't do anything that can harm your image, and when you do, make it known to the public and apologise profusely. The governments of the world should be serving the fucking people.

[QUOTE=bravehat;26562424]Elaboration would be, don't buy drugs and kids to whore out to the afghan national police, discipline troops heavily when they make intentional fuck ups, generally don't do anything that can harm your image, and when you do, make it known to the public and apologise profusely. [/QUOTE] And show all your enemies that you're a spineless pussy. Total government transparency ain't gonna work out, as much as you want it to.

[QUOTE=bravehat;26562424]Elaboration would be, don't buy drugs and kids to whore out to the afghan national police, discipline troops heavily when they make intentional fuck ups, generally don't do anything that can harm your image, and when you do, make it known to the public and apologise profusely. The governments of the world should be serving the fucking people.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but that still doesn't mean that the government should keep secrets from it's people, whether they are hiding some war crime, or a massive economic stimulus. The world thrives on lies; if everyone, including governments were honest, society would collapse because secrets arose because people can't handle truths.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26562445]And show all your enemies that you're a spineless pussy. Total government transparency ain't gonna work out, as much as you want it to.[/QUOTE] Implying a transparent government is spineless? now really, how the fuck would that make any sense? Again simple solution, go to war prove you're not spinelss, when war crimes happen hold them up to the light and show the people you've fucked up, carry on fighting. [editline]8th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26562456]Yeah, but that still doesn't mean that the government should keep secrets from it's people, whether they are hiding some war crime, or a massive economic stimulus. The world thrives on lies; if everyone, including governments were honest, society would collapse because secrets arose because people can't handle truths.[/QUOTE] No it wouldn't society would be fine, people would be pissed off, apologies would be made, sunrise sunset. Sure some secrets pertaining to current military operations and threats to national security yeah, but nothing else.

[QUOTE=bravehat;26562467]No it wouldn't society would be fine, people would be pissed off, apologies would be made, sunrise sunset. Sure some secrets pertaining to current military operations and threats to national security yeah, but nothing else.[/QUOTE]If your talking non-military matter then, check out my posts on FOIA, that enough government transparency for you? If it's not threatening towards a persons well being (with exclusion of the president), or doesn't breach security, it can be viewed by civilians.