Slashdot Mirror
MasterCard Hit By WikiLeaks Payback Attacks
An anonymous reader writes "MasterCard's website has been hit by a distributed denial of service attack. Netcraft describes how the attack uses a voluntary botnet of LOIC (low orbit ion cannon) users to swamp sites with traffic. PostFinance, the PayPal blog and Swedish prosecutors have been targeted previously."
Just like people volunteer for Folding@Home. If one believes in a cause strongly enough they could be convinced to lend CPU cycles (well, network packets) to help DDoS a site.
More Twoson than Cupertino
According to the Washington Post, it's all due Mastercard no longer permitting donations via their services to Wikileaks.
However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.
Just an FYI: you can't take your money elsewhere unless you go completely cash and are picky with ATMs. MC owns a few of the biggest consumer money transfer networks, so even if you pick Visa you'll still often be using MC services.
Developers: We can use your help.
Visa *is* doing the same thing.
Freedom of speech, priceless. For everything else, there's Mastercard.
As it should be!
Apparently, Paypal has admitted to being coerced into smashing the cookie jar.
Living With a Nerd
Note that the latest leaks show that the US Govt put pressure on Russia, to avoid legislation that would level the field for Visa/Mastercard competitors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard
with websites selling fake viagra.
Last year I got a complaint from a Danish ISP that i was spamming their customers. I requested and got forwarded one of my supposed emails. A little bit of poking around I found that the viagra company was based in Hong Kong. Whois told me the address, names, telephone numbers etc. (you'd thing scum like that would hide their info better).
I phoned and emailed Visa, MC, the spam company, even their service provider. The only response was from that Danish ISP their tech guy if you can call him that was complaining about my continual spamming even after I gave him the proof that the email originated from China not Canada. You would think traceroute and whois are kind of basic tools and any dumbass should be able to use them but this guy didn't even know how to look at email header info.
As for visa MC they would not be bothered even though I gave them all the info (btw they were shipping their product from Texas) Visa and MC told be to get bent.
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal.
Not true. It's illegal to initially leak them if you have clearance. Republishing them is not... note that the New York Times has republished most of the leak; has Mastercard stopped doing business with them?
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal. They stopped allowing people to send money to a criminal (in their jurisdiction) company. Case closed. This has nothing to do with 'free speech' and the First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this.
Your statement is incorrect. Please read the decision of New York Times Co. v. United States.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I thought you had to actually be convicted to be a criminal - not just accused.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
The site's just slow, keep hitting reload!
"Ku-Klux-Klan ja, Wikileaks nein"
"Apoyo a organizaciones racistas"
'Je mag met je Visa- of Mastercard wel geld geven aan de Ku Klux Klan, maar inmiddels geen donaties meer doen aan WikiLeaks.'
"Ku Klux Klan'a bagis var, Wikileaks'e yok" [Sorry for the spelling, but
"[..]- nie ma za to problemów z donacj np. na róne odamy Ku-Klux-Klanu"
Shameless karma whoring:
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
The unanimous opinion itself is very short; essentially, designating documents as secret and punishing anyone who publishes them is a 'prior restraint' and presumed unconstitutional.
We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U. S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." Post, pp. 942, 943.
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.
Please see the case of NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES which examines this section and the surrounding ones, and found that the New York Times was not guilty under it for publishing classified documents:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=713
I am highly critical of the release of the cables. It contained very little information for the damage done. I think the decision to release those cables was because they could release them and not due to the insight they provided. My impression is that ego and publicity had a lot to do with it.
CU, Martin
On the contrary, the cables contain plenty of evidence of government wrongdoing, although not necessarily by the US government. As a Swede, it is very interesting to know that the us embassy reports that my government prefers to share information about Swedish citizens using a "strong but informal agreement" instead of having a formal agreement, as such an agreement would have to be discussed by the parliament. If the cable is correct, my government is probably violating the Swedish "grundlag", which can loosely be translated as the constitution of Sweden. See http://www.thelocal.se/30654/20101206/