Interesting activism here
I note with interest that ANY post with negative comments is downvoted in volume, regardless of the point it makes.
Interesting activism. Sad, too.
WikiLeaks' Iceland-based payment processor says it will take immediate legal action against Visa and MasterCard for suspending service to the renegade whistle-blowing website, according to ZDNet UK. DataCell EHF, which facilitates credit card-based donations to WikiLeaks, said it will file suit in the UK against Visa Europe, …
I note with interest that ANY post with negative comments is downvoted in volume, regardless of the point it makes.
Interesting activism. Sad, too.
"I note with interest that ANY post with negative comments is downvoted in volume, regardless of the point it makes."
If that's news to you, I take it you haven't read many of the Pirate Bay threads.
how can a post on the one hand have negative comments and then be downvoted irrespective of content.
the negative comments are the CONTENT, ergo the content must be assesed to meet the first clause. thereby making the second clause..... a load of old sour graped bollocks
you just have the hump cos you are on the wrong side of the arguement
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that the intended reading is "negative posts are downvoted regardless of whether or not they're making any sensible points".
That certainly seems to be the case in some threads around here.
Sometimes even neutrally stating a simple fact in a TPB/filesharing thread is sufficient to get a clutch of knee-jerk downvotes from people who either think that collectively they can actually outvote the Real World, or that someone daring to contradict one of them even when they're factually wrong is somehow evil.
The same treatment can happen to someone simply asking a question, if it's clear that the factual answer isn't what some people want to believe.
The funny thing is, I really don't think that the people concerned realise just how silly and childish that makes them look, or how much it devalues their votes.
Honestly, it makes me wonder why 'hivetard' is practically a Googlewhack.
I wouldn't complain about people downvoting your posts because they don't like the truth and it contradicts their 'collective' opinion.
The real truth is your posts are far from the truth. You keep repeating the Wikileaks are doing illegal things line which is utter nonsense. They haven't been convicted of ANYTHING. They haven't even been charged with ANYTHING. Therefore, the one with his facts back to front is you. They are entirely innocent and the judicial system says so as they haven't been found guilty. Yet, they are being treated as if they are guilty by the US government and some others.
So, what you're saying is you wish to rid the world of due process and simply agree with anything the US government says. Guilt will be determined by congressmen, senators, lawyers and the president without reference to any legal system.
Once and for all, understand that Wikileaks are currently entirely innocent of EVERYTHING as they have not been convicted or even accused and your rants to the contrary are complete fiction of the worst kind. That's why you're being downvoted.
On planet Mad Mike, if I spot someone climbing out of your bedroom window with a big bag marked 'SWAG' and they throw me some jewellery, I could keep it perfectly legally? After all, they haven't been convicted of ANYTHING, so they must be innocent of EVERYTHING. What an odd world you must live in.
Chris, I'd watch out.
Mad Mike obviously seems to think he knows who all the anonymous posters are, since he addresses comments to a strand of the thread where, (judging from their posts here and elsewhere), the only named person in it isn't who he's talking to, but he still directs his comments at an invisible 'you', AND he apparently seems to reckon he knows just what that 'you' is thinking.
Still, I guess shouting at a straw man on the internet makes a nice change from shouting at the television, or at real or imaginary pedestrians on the street.
Seeing as wikileaks has bought the apolcalypse unto us all (or so the amount of media coverage would seem to suggest) I'm off for a beer. See you allon the other side.
"Not being able to receive money from the public for a week can cost WikiLeaks seven-digit figures in losses, and DataCell as well"
Not that the suit has any chance of winning. Vendors always include clauses that the contract is null and void if the buyer is engaged in illegal activity. State Department sent official notice that they were, MC, VISA, and Paypal are therefore all within their legal right and OBLIGATIONS to withhold services.
"Vendors always include clauses that the contract is null and void if the buyer is engaged in illegal activity"
'engaged in illegal activity' usually means that a judge has ruled said activity to be illegal, or at least has sent a letter to the company asking them to stop giving the service, not that some suit or shyster working for USA.gov wrote a letter claiming so. If we take in account the fact that USA.gov hasn't even pressed charges against Assange and/or Wikileaks the only logic conclusion is that the clauses you refer to don't apply here.
Now, in two days I've read dozens of comments like yours stating that Wikileaks acted illegally. All of them have been answered with good logic and very strong arguments, and proved wrong time and time again.
When someone voices that broken argument again, I always wonder whether the commenter didn't bother to read the other comments to the article, or has trouble understanding what he reads, or is simply disseminating FUD.
This is about a self absorbed egotistical sh!tbucket who wants to make a name for himself so he doesn't have to pay call girls to get himself some.
The screen shot linked to in the article contains fake CC numbers. Mastercard account numbers all start with a 5. (AMEX is 3, Visa is 4, and Novus/Discover is 6)
"I actually almost feel sorry for Visa and Mastercard."
I don't. They are happpy to process payments for the KKK so they are hardly standing up for any noble principles. They are just doing what some right-wing-nut-job-senator is telling them to do.
Amazon won't host Wikileaks data but is happy to sell it for cash in Kindle format.
They could easily stand up to the US Government if they wanted. They simply need to ask politely for a court order.
The Government should not be able to take action on a whim without being subject to the rule of law. If people want a society where the Government can operate above the law I suggest they book a flight to Burma.
Anonymous? Hell yeah!
"If people want a society where the Government can operate above the law I suggest they book a flight to Burma."
And if Anonymous hacktards want a society where anarchy is favoured over government, maybe they should book a flight to Somalia.
Assuming they can actually get Mummy's credit card to work today.
Just because a government or company might be in the wrong doesn't justify morons taking the law into their own hands.
Except that I guess a self-congratulating collective always feels like it's in the Right, as long as the people inside it only ever listen to each other.
But then it was never about legal rights and wrongs, as evidenced by the previous attacks against organisations like the RIAA.
It's only *ever* been about who the group likes or dislikes today, and whether the targets are actually breaking any laws doesn't really matter.
Today they may *pretend* they're trying to somehow uphold the law, but the instant that excuse doesn't fit what they want to do, they'll ditch it and try some other rationalisation.
The sooner some of them get a good fat criminal record, the better.
A very interesting link. This guy seems to be one of the few politicos able to make a good analysis of the actual status quo and at the same time being brave enough to make it public . In the comments to the video someone wrote this reference "09KABUL1651". I recommend all our fellow commentards to google it.
I am not going to shed tears over Paypal this is the company that
They fail to mention their total lack of security to prevent your account from being compromised by phishing & spoof sites. That if your account is accessed by a criminal using one of these methods, PayPal will hold YOU monetarily & legally responsible! Also, no place do they openly tell potential members that their money is 100% at risk. That PayPal can, will, and has in the past, completely cleaned out customers' accounts, (including your checking or savings account) with no appeals process available. Instead they bury in the fine print of 37 pages of their "Terms of Service" (ToS) where they disclose to you that PayPal can close your account for any reason what-so-ever, or no reason, and then you have to wait 180 days to get your money
hahahahah use Paypal? only if i was a complete fuckwit
Can't wait for next week when Christmas shopping starts in earnest....
No surprise really as the US gov fronts for visa and mastercard around the world.
Western democracy meet western hypocracy I am sure you will get on well together.
I suppose it's inevitable given the globalisation the internet has brought, but we're clearly seeing the start of an effort to make laws converge across many countries - and I'm sure this will involve many struggles like this one.
We've seen the US attempting to enforce its intellectual property laws abroad through trade agreements. We've seen the use of extradition agreements to project domestic laws on to citizens in other countries. Now we're seeing power being exercised abroad through the financial payments system. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised as anti-money laundering laws have allowed this area to be almost completely tied down by governments.
But there clearly have to be limits. Bull fighting is illegal in England (and in the US I guess) but that shouldn't (IMO) mean that Spanish citizens should be extradited for attending a bull fight in their own country. Countries are entitled to define their own laws, if only because the democratic process doesn't allow them to influence laws in other countries. So it's definitely a worry that we seem increasingly subject to foreign laws in which we have no say.
Of course, the other worrying thing is that 3 companies have the internet payments system stitched up. That's a position of power that would be (ahem) all too easy to abuse. Probably we need some EU legislation to define this as an essential service and control how and when it can be withdrawn. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the current example is likely to inspire the EU in that direction.
Forgetting his past crimes which are all over and done with some years ago.......
Wikileaks and Assanje have committed no crimes. No court has convicted them of anything yet, so this is absolute fact. Indeed. Wikileaks and Assanje haven't even been accused (by anyone sensible) of any crimes and certainly not charged in relation to Wikileaks. Assanje has been accused (and so far no more) of some sex crimes, but these are independant of Wikileaks. If some people believe there is a connection, that's up to them and conspiracy theories.
So, on the basis of no conviction, no charge and not even an accusation, Wikileaks and Assanje are being targetted by the US and various other countries and companies. If that isn't unfair treatment, I don't know what is. If they've broken the law, charge them, try them and then you have a verdict. At the moment, they've been accused, tried and found guilty by the US government (and anyone they have power over). This is blatant abuse.
Anyone who attempts to defend any organisation, country or other entity that wildly accuses people of doing illegal acts etc. without the slightest bit of evidence and plenty to the opposite is clearly not interested in due process or the law and has no right to talk about legal, illegal, guilt or anything else as they clearly don't have a clue.
If Wikileaks are guilty of something, prosecute them. Otherwise, leave them alone and stop threatening people going about their perfectly legal business such as Paypal, VISA and Mastercard accepting their payments.
"If Wikileaks are guilty of something, prosecute them. Otherwise, leave them alone and stop threatening people going about their perfectly legal business such as Paypal, VISA and Mastercard accepting their payments."
Here is a fact check for you; when someone handles stolen property in the form of sensitive information about diplomacy, intelligence [...] has to expect a good slapping from the governments they have crossed. These twits have crossed most major governments in the world. For them and you to cry foul is most amusing. As I said before, I've invested in popcorn and expect to see some good twatting over the next few days, weeks, months... ...expect a few interesting twists in the tale, never mind Julian's telling of it. A lot of dubious people will be brought from the shadows into the glare of public scrutiny, a lot about their methodology and finances will become clear, and then we will see who laughs last.
If anyone seriously expects to do these sorts of things and get away without a lot of pain is either not very well and in need of a needle in the gluteus maximus, very naive, or trying hard to defend themselves whilst applying their brakes so hard that the pads are gone and the backing is metalling on the disc.
I'm a tad surprised by how many supporters there are here of 'big government', one of whose basic requirements is an all-pervasive secrecy. Must be Democrats / NewLabourites...
>>"Must be Democrats / NewLabourites..."
Yeah - since no right wing party would /ever/ be in favour of secrecy, or spending public funds on their mates, or would consider starting dubious wars.
"I'm a tad surprised by how many supporters there are here of 'big government', one of whose basic requirements is an all-pervasive secrecy. Must be Democrats / NewLabourites.."
Apart from the fact that using the argumentum ad hominem in whatever form is an illicit technique in argument (that is, from the perspective of epistemology, it is a failed gambit), it is the case that this is not about 'big' government, it is about someone stealing and then publishing state secrets of a completely different order; this is nothing to do with the nanny state, except possibly in the minds of those who 'think' that international affairs are Nanny's business. It is more a matter of intelligence, diplomacy (which does not mean being firm but nice like Nanny, in case you did not know), and military affairs.
Big government. Hah. What new form of ad hominem argument are people who are pro wikileaks going to pluck from in between their cheeks? It does not say much for the intellect and comprehension of Julian Assange et al. (and thus their self appointed international enterprise) that they have been employing just such arguments.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018