Anonymous declares war on Wikileaks
Summary: Hacktivist collective Anonymous has withdrawn support for whistleblower site Wikileaks.

In its latest attempt to gain funding, Wikileaks has erected a paywall for users who wish to access the Global Information files. Hacktivist group Anonymous does not approve.
The whistleblower website, a proverbial dumping ground for classified documents from the U.S. and beyond, has been in financial trouble for some time. The controversial nature of the site has resulted in both Mastercard and Visa withdrawing payment support, as well as a stop placed on donations sent via PayPal.
In 2010, the loose hacktivist collective sprung to the site's defense when the payment parties barred Wikileaks. Those days may now be long past.
What's the issue? A paywall -- coding that prevents an online user from accessing a website or service without paying for it first. Implemented October 10, if you attempt to access the Global Information files, you are faced with such a system. Proudly declaring "In this election, vote with your wallet - vote Wikileaks', you are required to donate before being granted access. Interestingly, you can pay by Mastercard or Visa.

We have to keep in mind it is only this portion of the site which is behind a paywall, and not Wikileaks itself. However, Anonymous has taken issue with this step to raise money, and has released a statement in return.
After an angry exchange on Twitter between Anonymous and Wikileaks, the paywall was removed for a short period of time. However, it returned on the 11th -- prompting the hackers to retaliate, believing they have been "betrayed" by such "rabid scrounging for money". The group's statement argues that "Anonymous has been a steadfast ally of both WikiLeaks and Assange", and many Anonymous members have been charged or arrested for their support -- but no Wikileaks staff members have ever been charged or imprisoned:
"To this day, not ONE single WikiLeaks staff are charged or incarcerated. However, Anonymous has 14 indicted (facing 15 years) for online protests defending WikiLeaks - and one (Jeremy Hammond) in prison and facing 20 years for allegedly supplying the Stratfor GI Files. Not to mention the heroic Bradley Manning who now rots in Ft. Leavenworth Prison facing life.
Despite that fact, WikiLeaks has chosen to dishonor and insult Anonymous and all information activists by prostituting the Stratfor Files and other disclosures that Hammond and Manning stand accused of supplying."
Assange defended the scheme, saying that "these donations go to fund WikiLeaks' publishing and infrastructure costs and our legal costs to fight the financial blockade." In addition, Wikileaks has tweeted ways to get around the paywall -- such as disabling Javascript -- but it's not enough to satisfy its former controversial supporter.
"Regardless of any workarounds, the fact remains that a meretricious page is placed for the majority of visitors that cannot be closed. The obvious intention is to force donations in exchange for access. This is a filthy and rotten, wholly un-ethical action - and Anonymous is enraged."
The hacking collective insists it will not attack any of the Wikileaks web assets, as the site is considered a media outlet. According to the group, any future attacks on the site attributed to them is a "lie", but what they can and will do is withdraw support not only for the whistleblower site, but for Julian Assange -- who is currently taking refuge in the London-based Ecuadorian embassy.
"No longer will Anonymous risk prison to defend WikiLeaks or Julian Assange from their enemies. No longer will Anonymous risk prison to supply material for WikiLeaks disclosures. Anonymous turns it's back on WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has with it's actions this past 48 hours betrayed Anonymous, and thus has lost it's biggest and most powerful supporter."
Image credit: ZDNet/Charlie Osborne/ People's Liberation Front
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Copy/paste fail
So I'm gonna copy/paste my comment under that article here too. Here it is:
This is a very untruthful article. Payment is NOT mandatory, people can simply tweet or Facebook the campaign page to get round the pop-up page, or simply wait a while until it disappears. Wikileaks tweeted this within a couple of hours of the "row":
A tweet, share, wait or donate campaign is not a "paywall". You can read about our blockade and funding systems here: http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
If the "journalist" writing this article couldn't even find that, perhaps they need to go back to journalism sckool.
meep
Yep
The Drum
Truth
Also, Visa and Mastercard do NOT support this project. Wikileaks has finally found an obscure French bank as they process transactions through the European entities of Visa/Mastercard.
Turn Wikileaks over to the community and it will never need funding again and the information there can never again be hidden from the public. Wikileaks is good, but it is owned and run by greedy capitalist who want to profit from other peoples moral actions.
Truth ???????
"Turn Wikileaks over to the community and it will never need funding again and the information there can never again be hidden from the public."
We already have fox news and abc news, etc.
Does not look like word to word to me.
Copy paste fail
So I'm gonna copy/paste my comment under that article here too. Here it is:
This is a very untruthful article. Payment is NOT mandatory, people can simply tweet or Facebook the campaign page to get round the pop-up page, or simply wait a while until it disappears. Wikileaks tweeted this within a couple of hours of the "row":
A tweet, share, wait or donate campaign is not a "paywall". You can read about our blockade and funding systems here: http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
If the "journalist" writing this article couldn't even find that, perhaps they need to go back to journalism sckool.
credit cards can be used again
ofcourse wikileaks wants to make money, why the heck do you think it started in the first place ?? thats right, Assanage does nothing if not for the money it will make him.. same with wikileaks.. or google.
If he was in it for the money...
A combination of self promotion and politics seems to be the most likely motive behind Wikileaks. Personally, I don't want to live in a glass house and don't think most other people want to either.
War?
"Not to mention the heroic Bradley Manning who now rots in Ft. Leavenworth"
Anonymous declares war on Wikileaks
“The government being the people's business, it necessarily follows that its operations should be at all times open to the public view. Publicity is therefore as essential to honest administration as freedom of speech is to representative government. "Equal rights to all and special privileges to none" is the maxim which should control in all departments of government.”
"Give me liberty or give me death."
“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself.”
"Freedom is never free."
“It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.”
“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”
So much quotations, but nobody seems to care nor understand them. I think wikileaks is doing some of them if not all of them for the democratic-loving americans who still believe in the founding fathers' legacy enshrined in the us constitution...
Transparency
Good Move Anonymous
No problem with the paywall; I easily get around such BS stuff on the internet with AdBlock.
Anonymous is not at War with WikiLeaks
Anonymous UK and Ireland press release
Anonymous
Sigh.
At the end of the day, what wikileaks decides to do is their own business. To "Declare war" just sounds as pathetic as it really is.
Anonymous should do something useful, like phone up xfactor and vote for the talented people to win.
My opinion
Some things, yes, need to be known, but certain things should be left undelved.
I agree with freedom of knowledge, generally, speaking, but I believe there ARE boundaries on the Constitution. If it puts our soldiers at risk and compromises national security, I say I want no part of the party.
It's sickening to think people actually would go to such lengths as to harm our soldiers AND our own home-front citizens. It's evil.
Anonymous has a good idea as to: don't censor, but HOW they go about it!! It's all STUPID!
They hack people, they DDoS sites. In the end, they're no better than the people they claim they're against.
They claim they're for the little man wanting freedom, and against censorship, yet they are doing EXACTLY that by shutting down servers via attack. Is that NOT hypocrisy?
I also find it ironic that Anonymous won't DDoS attack wikileaks for supposed wretches against a free interet (don't get me wrong, I hate Wikileaks as well, but they still are allowed to make a paywall.), and they are...surprisingly "nice," depending on how you interpret their response and their promise against DDoS, for such an equally leftist site, yet if Fox News dares badmouth Anonymous, it's not just a withdrawal of support: rather, in that case, it's an all-out DDoS war.
It's lunacy and it's hypocrisy. It's lunatic hypocrisy.
At least that's my take on this thing.