And no one else saw this coming? Like honestly, take down one of the biggest, most talked about websites and you DIDN'T expect this to happen? Julian Assange was put onto INTERPOL's most wanted for what? A little sex crime (I know, sex crimes are a pretty big deal) but it wasn't rape like everyone is screaming, the sex WAS consensual WITH a condom and the condom just so happened to break or he pulled it off and continued aka "Sex by Surprise", a crime punishable by like a $725 fine. Something is fishy there.
When something gets out that the US government doesn't like, they take it down, although, who owns the Internet? I thought the Internet was supposed to be a "no-mans land" sort of deal where no ONE country can own it, yet the US sure is trying to, what with all these recent domain seizures and this entire WikiLeaks ordeal.
Am I all for the people behind the DDoS attacks? Certainly not, I don't believe in the eye for an eye thing, although I do believe in Karma, what goes around comes around. You take out a huge name in the news and it's only common sense someone or some group will target you back. At least someone is practicing their rights for freedom of speech.
You see information about China released all the time, and China is a communist country, but you don't see them trying to take over the Internet because something they don't like is released. If every country starting taking content down because they didn't like it, then what good is the Internet? Might as well stick to the local newspaper.
Wikileaks hackers attack Visa; get banned by Facebook, Twitter
Summary
Anonymous hacker group attacks Visa in support of Wikileaks then gets banned from Facebook and Twitter.
Topics
Hackers claim credit for Visa attack.
The Anonymous hacker group says it took the Visa website down on Wednesday in retaliation for the credit card company suspending payments to the Wikileaks site, with Facebook and Twitter removing the group's accounts.
The group hit the MasterCard site with a distributed denial-of-service attack for the same reason, and it took down PayPal over the weekend. The MasterCard site was back up this afternoon. Visa said on Tuesday that it was suspending payments to the controversial whistleblower site, joining MasterCard and PayPal.
Read: Analysis: Is Wikileaks' Assange actually a terrorist?
Operation Payback also said its page had been banned from Facebook for violating terms of use, and the group's Twitter account was suspended as well. Attempts to reach the group's Twitter page displayed a warning that said "Sorry, the profile you are trying to view has been suspended". A Twitter representative declined to comment on the matter. The group then created at least one new account on Twitter after being suspended.
For more on this story, read Facebook, Twitter boot WikiLeaks supporters after Visa attack on CNET News.
Just In
Exactly Freedom of speech should be protected. Visa etc. are cowards, would they have bowed to Hitler ?
@blackdwarf
Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility for your speech. Why are the hackers "anonymous"? They are merely anarchists who now have a new place to practice their trade.
Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility for your speech. Why are the hackers "anonymous"? They are merely anarchists who now have a new place to practice their trade.
@blackdwarf
You know, the same people who are being targeted for exercising thier freedom of speech?
Nice to know that freedom only extends to those that support Assange...
You know, the same people who are being targeted for exercising thier freedom of speech?
Nice to know that freedom only extends to those that support Assange...
@VictoriaByTheSea
They are known as "Anonymous" because if their identities were revealed, then the government would target them as well. Since 80% of the group (AFAIK) is probably within the US boundaries it's only common sense they try to hide their true identities.
Tell me, if you were part of their group, and you knew the stuff you were doing is punishable by law, would you publicize your name?
@John Zern
OFC Freedom of Speech should not just be limited to those that support Assange. But you are clearly missing the point here. Companies, organizations, and the US government itself is trying to quiet the WikiLeaks group and its supporters by shutting down its sources of income, and the whole domain itself, which greatly impedes on ones Freedom of Speech. It's really a "no-one" wins type of situation at this point in time. The government believes that the media should be censored because it could harm people or the US itself, then there are also people that believe this kind of information should be open to the public so people know whats really going on behind those walls that are the government. You take away someones rights, you can't expect anything else but a rebellion.
They are known as "Anonymous" because if their identities were revealed, then the government would target them as well. Since 80% of the group (AFAIK) is probably within the US boundaries it's only common sense they try to hide their true identities.
Tell me, if you were part of their group, and you knew the stuff you were doing is punishable by law, would you publicize your name?
@John Zern
OFC Freedom of Speech should not just be limited to those that support Assange. But you are clearly missing the point here. Companies, organizations, and the US government itself is trying to quiet the WikiLeaks group and its supporters by shutting down its sources of income, and the whole domain itself, which greatly impedes on ones Freedom of Speech. It's really a "no-one" wins type of situation at this point in time. The government believes that the media should be censored because it could harm people or the US itself, then there are also people that believe this kind of information should be open to the public so people know whats really going on behind those walls that are the government. You take away someones rights, you can't expect anything else but a rebellion.
@myoga Where are you getting this information, you spout it, but you dont cite it, its like watching fox news, I dont believe until I can confirm it. you say the government told these companies to not do business with them? where is your proof? I would be happy to believe you if you actually used facts...
@Myoga. Sarah Palin is being targeted because she dared speak out AGAINST assange. will others in the news media be attacked to because they dont think what he did was a good thing (telling our enemies what buildings are vital to national/(world) security?
i'm with him on that - it looks like assange and his crownies think "your either with us or are our enemies - tout our party line or be attacked".
i'm with him on that - it looks like assange and his crownies think "your either with us or are our enemies - tout our party line or be attacked".
@nickdangerthird
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/guardian-us-politici.html -- For the Amazon
Also I should have worded that differently, not all of the companies may have been forced but surely they did this out of fear because they too were dealing with WikiLeaks.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/guardian-us-politici.html -- For the Amazon
Also I should have worded that differently, not all of the companies may have been forced but surely they did this out of fear because they too were dealing with WikiLeaks.
@cyberspammer2
12/09/2010 09:00 AM
you are saying .....your either with us or are our enemies ok fine
But that wasnt the same quote as Bush said at the UN summit after 9/11 before the war on terror
Not its was QUOTE ---President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
if its good for Bush why Its cannot be good for wikileak and there support ..... Just a question here just sound weird
Because at this point both side are getting crazier and crazier by the minute ..... Well feel weird
Because at this moment both side are nuts
12/09/2010 09:00 AM
you are saying .....your either with us or are our enemies ok fine
But that wasnt the same quote as Bush said at the UN summit after 9/11 before the war on terror
Not its was QUOTE ---President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
if its good for Bush why Its cannot be good for wikileak and there support ..... Just a question here just sound weird
Because at this point both side are getting crazier and crazier by the minute ..... Well feel weird
Because at this moment both side are nuts
@blackdwarf Yeah, most private companies an the church did.
@blackdwarf Bowed?? no a kiss on the lips and a quickie in the back room is more like it. They are slaves to the same mentality that is going to cause the eventual wreckage of this country.
@Myoga- It looks to me like China has tried to take over the internet a couple of times. Where were you when they were breaking into Google?
Notwithstanding that false statement, I wish the US would always do right and I don't think Assange broke any laws for hosting info. He is a scumbag and will cause peoples' deaths, but he'll answer for that before God, not me. He may pay for the sex crime - if it really was one - here however.
Notwithstanding that false statement, I wish the US would always do right and I don't think Assange broke any laws for hosting info. He is a scumbag and will cause peoples' deaths, but he'll answer for that before God, not me. He may pay for the sex crime - if it really was one - here however.
@JimboNobody there will be a long line, filled with people I want no part of, waiting to get into heaven. Besides Assange, there will be other people doing this and sites setup.
Everybody I know and like are going to hell, according to people like you. These are people I really enjoy and many are Jewish. Remember- no Jews in heaven so I guess your Christ and his father will hang with us. Have fun in the heaven you've imagined- it sounds like hell to me. Goodbye
Everybody I know and like are going to hell, according to people like you. These are people I really enjoy and many are Jewish. Remember- no Jews in heaven so I guess your Christ and his father will hang with us. Have fun in the heaven you've imagined- it sounds like hell to me. Goodbye
@Myoga- sorry mate but china censors the hell out of their internet the goverment has full control of their content.
I heard Twitter and face book may be next too. Barclay card has got some who would like to see them hit too now.
They think they are defending free speech, it's possible the only thing that will be accomplished is hastening some kneejerk reactionary politicians to lockdown the Internet so that only "approved" content is visible. Technically very difficult to do but possible.
@Pepper.dot.Net "Kneejerk reactionary politicians" can only lockdown the Internet if "we the people" let them. Will you come out of your shell at that point and fight back? Or just warn people about the consequences of fighting against unjust government actions.
@Pepper.dot.Net "Kneejerk reactionary politicians" can only lockdown the Internet if "we the people" let them. Will you come out of your shell at that point and fight back? Or just warn people about the consequences of fighting against unjust government actions.
They're doing it in China.
@kevintblack
Everythings done in China
Everythings done in China
We are Anonymous.
We are many.
We are Legion.
Expect us. No Exceptions.
We are many.
We are Legion.
Expect us. No Exceptions.
Some years ago I accidentally realised through a spate of people I know getting locked out of their accounts how to do this for an entire bank. Despite the fact that I actually have consulted on security, the bank treated me like an idiot for 15 months of me trying to tell them they had a problem. Eventually I contacted the banking regulator, and only then did the bank condescend to talk to me.
The internet will never be safe or secure; even China will not be able to hold it under control for ever. There are large numbers of people who know how to cause problems. They don't out of a sense of moral responsibility. However, when it appears that governments are trying to control things they don't like, and either through fear or coercion businesses play along with that, then the most morally outraged will do something about it. Just as students are protesting on the streets today in the UK, some protest online.
It does make you wonder how good Visa and Mastercard's systems are if they can be taken down that easily. Don't forget the US government is trying to extradite someone from the UK who accidentally found a way into the Pentagon computers, and from what we know about the Stuxnet worm, it appears to have been masterminded or at least encouraged by governments.
If anything, this highlights that we should have a "UN convention of network rights" much as we do for human rights that should be observed by all internet users.
Simples!! (you have to watch UK commercial to get this)
The internet will never be safe or secure; even China will not be able to hold it under control for ever. There are large numbers of people who know how to cause problems. They don't out of a sense of moral responsibility. However, when it appears that governments are trying to control things they don't like, and either through fear or coercion businesses play along with that, then the most morally outraged will do something about it. Just as students are protesting on the streets today in the UK, some protest online.
It does make you wonder how good Visa and Mastercard's systems are if they can be taken down that easily. Don't forget the US government is trying to extradite someone from the UK who accidentally found a way into the Pentagon computers, and from what we know about the Stuxnet worm, it appears to have been masterminded or at least encouraged by governments.
If anything, this highlights that we should have a "UN convention of network rights" much as we do for human rights that should be observed by all internet users.
Simples!! (you have to watch UK commercial to get this)
Are the types of attacks these hackers are making on sites that dumped WikiLeaks illegal?
Of course they are.
Are they unethical or immoral.
Not at all.
Denial of service is not the same as alteration or destruction of data. As a comparison, the Boston Tea Party was much more reprehensible than a DDOS attack because they actually destroyed the cargo, not just denied the ability of the owners to sell it. Yet their actions were justified as a protest against discrimination; the colonists had to pay a tax on the tea that British citizens living back home were exempt from.
The dumping of WikiLeaks by Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, PayPal, etc etc was the absolute dumbest business act of this century. It was a perfect illustration of way the CLOUD is the worst place to put your business. When service providers can dump you instantly for a mere rumor of wrong doing, or from illegal pressure from Congressional representatives, that's all the proof you should need that the smartest thing to do from an I.T. standpoint is to keep those functions in-house.
Of course they are.
Are they unethical or immoral.
Not at all.
Denial of service is not the same as alteration or destruction of data. As a comparison, the Boston Tea Party was much more reprehensible than a DDOS attack because they actually destroyed the cargo, not just denied the ability of the owners to sell it. Yet their actions were justified as a protest against discrimination; the colonists had to pay a tax on the tea that British citizens living back home were exempt from.
The dumping of WikiLeaks by Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, PayPal, etc etc was the absolute dumbest business act of this century. It was a perfect illustration of way the CLOUD is the worst place to put your business. When service providers can dump you instantly for a mere rumor of wrong doing, or from illegal pressure from Congressional representatives, that's all the proof you should need that the smartest thing to do from an I.T. standpoint is to keep those functions in-house.
@Dr_Zinj "Are the types of attacks these hackers are making on sites that dumped WikiLeaks illegal?
Of course they are.
Are they unethical or immoral.
Not at all."
any idea how silly that sounds? its completely unethical, what about the people who actually do support assange, and deal with those companies, now they are unable to access their information because someone else felt the need for revenge. Companies have the right to not do business with people thats their choice, when those people attack them for not doing business with them, whether its physical or virtual, thats completely unethical.
Of course they are.
Are they unethical or immoral.
Not at all."
any idea how silly that sounds? its completely unethical, what about the people who actually do support assange, and deal with those companies, now they are unable to access their information because someone else felt the need for revenge. Companies have the right to not do business with people thats their choice, when those people attack them for not doing business with them, whether its physical or virtual, thats completely unethical.
@nickdangerthirdi@...
It wasn't their choice not to do business with Assange, the government sent them pretty little notices that said they are dealing with a "terrorist" and practically forced them to remove any and all ties with Assange.
I can guarantee you this was not the businesses doing.
It wasn't their choice not to do business with Assange, the government sent them pretty little notices that said they are dealing with a "terrorist" and practically forced them to remove any and all ties with Assange.
I can guarantee you this was not the businesses doing.
@myoga,
find me proof of that.... While you at it, explain to me if its the government who forced these companies hands why these attackers arent going after the government instead, it would seem to me you cant hold the companies accountable if the government told them to stop doing business with them, so even if you are right, they are attacking the wrong people which again makes them irresponsible....
find me proof of that.... While you at it, explain to me if its the government who forced these companies hands why these attackers arent going after the government instead, it would seem to me you cant hold the companies accountable if the government told them to stop doing business with them, so even if you are right, they are attacking the wrong people which again makes them irresponsible....
why not show us proof - its easy to say something when you can hide behind "government conpirecy" for not having to give any proof.
Myoga --
I think you'd find that most businesses would be just as willing to VOLUNTARILY sever ties with terrorists or drug dealers if they discovered they were dealing with such criminals.
Nothing about the actions of Assange or his followers is noble or positive. (And admit it: the rabid Wikileaks crew is getting rather creepy and cult-like.) Unless, that is, you salute those who jeopardize the lives of people who risk their lives combating terrorism and tyranny. Or maybe you support people who sabotage the legal, widely-beneficial activities of businesses? Knowing the hard-left bent of Wikileaks fans, both of these are probably the true.
Any responsible company should IMMEDIATELY cut ties with customers like Assange/Wikileaks, when their true activities come to light. I wouldn't want to do business with a business that retained customers of that ilk.
I think you'd find that most businesses would be just as willing to VOLUNTARILY sever ties with terrorists or drug dealers if they discovered they were dealing with such criminals.
Nothing about the actions of Assange or his followers is noble or positive. (And admit it: the rabid Wikileaks crew is getting rather creepy and cult-like.) Unless, that is, you salute those who jeopardize the lives of people who risk their lives combating terrorism and tyranny. Or maybe you support people who sabotage the legal, widely-beneficial activities of businesses? Knowing the hard-left bent of Wikileaks fans, both of these are probably the true.
Any responsible company should IMMEDIATELY cut ties with customers like Assange/Wikileaks, when their true activities come to light. I wouldn't want to do business with a business that retained customers of that ilk.
@Churlish
But remember that business is business IBM sold early material to the NAZI regime and they are still operative at this moment and very wealthy ..... which make the comment a little less well pungent .
But yes some person will choose to boycott some .... and other will not ..... to each it own .
Have a nice evening
But remember that business is business IBM sold early material to the NAZI regime and they are still operative at this moment and very wealthy ..... which make the comment a little less well pungent .
But yes some person will choose to boycott some .... and other will not ..... to each it own .
Have a nice evening
@nickdangerthirdi@...
American Administration have sponsored the assassination of democratically elected official in over a dozen country .... do you really think that they are above sending a call ... '' well guy's you see your helping someone who's pissing us off ... you neither cut there funding method or we dig you something .... your choice , have a nice day , god bless america .
so the guy has nothing to prove when you reach the point that high in madness anything even the most tin foiled hat idea is in the range of the possible
American Administration have sponsored the assassination of democratically elected official in over a dozen country .... do you really think that they are above sending a call ... '' well guy's you see your helping someone who's pissing us off ... you neither cut there funding method or we dig you something .... your choice , have a nice day , god bless america .
so the guy has nothing to prove when you reach the point that high in madness anything even the most tin foiled hat idea is in the range of the possible
@quebec-french No I dont believe the american government is above that, or any other government for that matter either... I just ask that if someone make a claim, they follow it up with proof, thats all, I can watch fox news and get baseless facts....
@Dr_Zinj How could they be illegal and not be unethical or immoral. Breaking the law, whether you agree with it or not, is unethical and immoral. That's like saying rape or theft aren't unethical or immoral because I don't happen to agree with the law.
I wish he would Assange would release your personal information and credit cards. See how much you stand up for them then.
I wish he would Assange would release your personal information and credit cards. See how much you stand up for them then.
@nickdangerthirdi @cyberspammer2
Paypal has published, spun, respun multiple times......
They were originally pressured by the US State Department to cease operations with Wikileaks.... Just like there has been pressure brought about against other countries and universities...
Once the label of "terrorist" is applied it is a strict risk adverse approach for a business to avoid doing business with the labeled group - a form of pressure. The government knows this and relies on it - it's a form of statecraft...
Quit screaming for proof in black and white - that will be hard to find and likely "classified"......
chuckle
Paypal has published, spun, respun multiple times......
They were originally pressured by the US State Department to cease operations with Wikileaks.... Just like there has been pressure brought about against other countries and universities...
Once the label of "terrorist" is applied it is a strict risk adverse approach for a business to avoid doing business with the labeled group - a form of pressure. The government knows this and relies on it - it's a form of statecraft...
Quit screaming for proof in black and white - that will be hard to find and likely "classified"......
chuckle
@zenwalker I didnt see it, havent heard it, I just ask that someone post a fact, from a respectable source.
Something that everyone needs to remember is that the internet is not public. Which means that freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. You can go to the street corner and say anything you want. Move that protest into a privately owned parking lot and you have a problem. The same is true on the internet. Host your own webpage and you can say whatever you want. Move that content to another hosting service and you have a problem. Allow that content to move onto a private network like your ISP and you have a problem. When it comes to the internet, you really have no rights. Websites have terms of service for a reason. Basically anything that they find offensive can be removed. If you don't like it, you have every freedom in the world.......to move to another service. I commend Anonymous on their movement, if you have enough power to actually take a network down that's note worthy. Unfortunately it's not going to do much.
@cowboy7381 - Yep, that's about the size of it.
BTW, to all those folks who are damning Amazon due to the cancelling Wikileaks hosting, what you need to realize is that Amazon is a US based company and the information being hosted on Amazon webservers was illegally obtained US classified material, which would have made Amazon guilty by association (aka an accomplice after-the-fact) if it was brought to their attention and they did nothing to remove the illegally obtained material.
Wikileaks KNOWS that the material was obtained illegally, yet they continued to publish it expecting that the truth would set them free. That's not how it works. The truth only sets you free if you were accused of doing a crime that you didn't. Disclosing confidential/classified information without permission *IS* a crime and will actually get you locked up.
That said, the only thing Amazon COULD do was to discontinue the hosting service of Wikileaks once the nature of the hosted material was understood.
BTW, to all those folks who are damning Amazon due to the cancelling Wikileaks hosting, what you need to realize is that Amazon is a US based company and the information being hosted on Amazon webservers was illegally obtained US classified material, which would have made Amazon guilty by association (aka an accomplice after-the-fact) if it was brought to their attention and they did nothing to remove the illegally obtained material.
Wikileaks KNOWS that the material was obtained illegally, yet they continued to publish it expecting that the truth would set them free. That's not how it works. The truth only sets you free if you were accused of doing a crime that you didn't. Disclosing confidential/classified information without permission *IS* a crime and will actually get you locked up.
That said, the only thing Amazon COULD do was to discontinue the hosting service of Wikileaks once the nature of the hosted material was understood.
@PollyProteus:which would have made Amazon guilty by association (aka an accomplice after-the-fact) if it was brought to their attention and they did nothing to remove the illegally obtained material.
Just like the New York Times, right.
Just like the New York Times, right.
Yes, this makes wikileaks look MUCH more respectable than they were, by attacking corporate websites who disagree with their message. Yep thats not facism at all, its blackmail, yep its awesome, that this firm who wishes to be considered a respectable source, has people attacking sites that millions of people use daily, thats freedom right there. YEP you can sure tell that these are great people who are truly concerned with the world knowing what really going since they have a group called the anonymous hacker group do it for them. and they want everyone to know everything except who THEY are and what THEY are doing. pretty disgusting if you ask me, just a bunch of cyber terrorists now is what they are. No better than the 9/11 hijackers in my book.
@nickdangerthirdi@...
Nice to see there are still intelligent people on these boards
Nice to see there are still intelligent people on these boards
@nickdangerthirdi@... maybe the US government is doing it and claiming to be WikiLeaks in order to discredit them.
@HollywoodDog
maybe the US government is doing it and claiming to be WikiLeaks in order to discredit them.
ROTFLMAO!!!
You, sir, are an idiot. Better tighten up that tin-foil hat some more.
maybe the US government is doing it and claiming to be WikiLeaks in order to discredit them.
ROTFLMAO!!!
You, sir, are an idiot. Better tighten up that tin-foil hat some more.
@nickdangerthirdi@... I don't see this as wikileaks telling some blackhats to activate their botnet and perform a DoS on Visa, Paypal, MasterCard, etc.
And two, you do know what the definition of Facism is right? Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy. HMM. Sounds awfully lot a like the United States. A few hints of democracy actually remain, but that gets less and less every year, especially how corporations now have personhood status.
Yes, these botnet hackers performing DoS are cyber terrorists, and whether or not you like what Wikileaks well in some ways it may be a good thing, but again it is disturbing to see how lax the DOD is with their cyber security.
I only find it being a good thing, if what is exposed shows that our government is behaving badly, and that the public holds the scum in Washington accountable. Bad of course if something is released that puts men and women in harms way.
And two, you do know what the definition of Facism is right? Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy. HMM. Sounds awfully lot a like the United States. A few hints of democracy actually remain, but that gets less and less every year, especially how corporations now have personhood status.
Yes, these botnet hackers performing DoS are cyber terrorists, and whether or not you like what Wikileaks well in some ways it may be a good thing, but again it is disturbing to see how lax the DOD is with their cyber security.
I only find it being a good thing, if what is exposed shows that our government is behaving badly, and that the public holds the scum in Washington accountable. Bad of course if something is released that puts men and women in harms way.
@Snooki_smoosh_smoosh I totally agree with you on the DOD's security, and left a post on a previous story making a similar point, obviously if they had done a better job with their security then this would all be a moot point because they never would have obtained the data, ALSO if the stuff wikileaks was releasing was actually useful (which its not) or new information (which its not) then that is something different entirely, I find what wikileaks does akin to a teenage girl who tells two friends what the other one has said behind each others back in attempt to break up and otherwise good friendship, not as whistleblowers...
@nickdangerthirdi@... "No better than the 9/11 hijackers in my book." Are you really this stupid, or do you just feel hyperbole is the only way to make a point?
@dannote i feel that anyone who makes an attack like this is a coward, and I feel that hyperbole is fantastic way to make a point, especially when its OK for them to attack us, but not for us to attack them. My point is they only want free speech when its what they want, when someone else decided to speak out against them, then thats not OK and they will attack you. thats not free speech.... sorry man.
@nickdangerthirdi@... If's not clear to you yet, Assange != Anonymous, they're just people pissed off with the way the governments have been handling this situation (freezing account for legal defense for god's sake, how far do things have to go before you get troubled about this situation)... And, yeah, they should all broadcast their names...That's working out so well for Assange...
@dannote i was troubled by the situation long before this, and yes I do realize they are not the same thing, but they are doing on behalf of assange, so they are working pro bono, this isnt the way to do it, and I cant agree with what they are doing, and I dont agree with wikileaks, so ive been troubled for a while now...
@nickdangerthirdi@...
Do a bit of research dude.
This is not WikiLeaks hacking (ddos is hacking? - chuckle).
This group just loves to find "causes" to practice their skills on, wikileaks being the latest and most headline worthy.
After WL - these folks will be back doing something else in someone elses cause....
Do a bit of research dude.
This is not WikiLeaks hacking (ddos is hacking? - chuckle).
This group just loves to find "causes" to practice their skills on, wikileaks being the latest and most headline worthy.
After WL - these folks will be back doing something else in someone elses cause....
I think the US should just buy a big Chinese made firewall, install it, keep all there citizens in the dark (as they like it) and give up on trying to control the rest of the world.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
