A site that provides a list of Wikileaks mirrors has cried foul over its classification as potentially dangerous to visit. WikiLeaks.info provides links to sites that serve as mirrors for WikiLeaks.org website, a role that has become more important since the original whistleblower website has come under regular denial of service …
and once again, anyone can have free speech just so long as said speech doesn't annoy the pro-wikileaks brigade.
Fact: wikileaks.info is on a server known to be infested
Fact: Spamhaus etc have informed the world that this is so
Fact: Spamhaus etc have NOT blacklisted the site
Fact: the mere mention of the warning is itself enough to set certain idiots off
i, personally, have had reason to be less than happy with some of Spamhaus' decisions in the past, and when I made my displeasure known I was told to suck it up and deal. Seems like good advice for the pro-wikileakers. Suck it up and deal.
Now, what _I_ did was to take steps to fix the problem, as I'm an adult. I can't _wait_ to see what these children do.
AC 'cause I _know_ that at least some of those children would try to do it to _me_ after they read this.
> Fact: wikileaks.info is on a server known to be infested
Actually, that is a FALSE statement. Just because an ISP has one infected server, or even caters to malware distributors, does not mean that all of the servers housed at that ISP are infected.
There is absolutely no indication that the web site there is any more dangerous to visit than any other website - NONE WHATSOEVER - thus the real purpose of the announcement from Spamhaus was for Spamhaus to get some free publicity on the coattails of the WikiLeaks scandal.
RE: those bloody kids etc
So after making your displeasure known about Spamhaus you decided to make your displeasure at others making there displeasure known about Spamhaus known? That _displeases_ me.
So to use a dodgy analogy
They are saying something like "Do not visit your friend in the USA as that is a place where known murderers and rapists live."?
Feel free to provide a better analogy (just please don't use cars; I hate those).
Deliberately poorly thought analogy
Don't be surprised if you get robbed when go and visit Fred because his apartment is surrounded by crack houses and shooting galleries
But be my guest to misunderstand
Don't go to Fred's place as his landlord owns another building in which one or several bad guys have been known to live at some point in the past. And maybe in the present too, we're not too sure.
That's a rather fanciful warning to be honest.
stirring it up wiki leaks
how many hosts have turned down your money for hosting - only amazon? thought so.
That we know of
Spamhaus say that one copy of wikileaks that is hosted by dodgy people might be dodgy.
Spamhaus say use another another location as it isn't dodgy.
Dodgy people complain about being labelled dodgy.
But in answer to AC above, the analogy is "don't go down that street to get to where you want to be because people around there get shot every day"
So why blame Wikileaks? They were forced to move by Amazon
Possibly Spamhaus could arrange hosting services with a server farm acceptable to them.
A proper warning should be...
"Visiting this site may bring unwanted attention from the three-letter agencies."
Spamhaus warning seems perfectly reasonable to me
Actually, I believe the Reg had already warned leaks seeker that malware pushers always ride on the wave of the currently fashionable, sometimes within minutes. I do not recall that anybody accused the Reg at the time of bowing to pressure from the US.
"However, some web activists have ignored the destination in writing to Spamhaus and are threatening possible denial of service attack if it doesn't remove its "blacklisting" of WikiLeaks.info."
That for me is the tipping point where i no longer condone what Anonymous have been doing, i support freedom for Julian, but Anonymous have shown themselves to be attention seeking thugs.
And i hope they all get caught.
Surely they get a server of their own...?
I would suppose that if most of the hosting provider's customers are criminal malware distribution businesses, then they will want their own services to be NOT contaminated with OTHER customers' malware. And the hoster probably has more experience of malware, including how to prevent it.
Hey... the nifty Linux "SystemRescueCD" is or was similarly hosted in a "bad neighbourhood", IP address range. Now granted, I haven't used it since I found that out...
Likewise the news web site you operate has a name that sounds very like famous erotic blogger The Rogerista, what do you say to that! Perverts!