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."
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further. The best and only response should be: take your own money elsewhere.
CU, Martin
Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!
And now because of Slashdot linking to MasterCard, their denial of service attack increased even more.
I wonder how they feel being denied due process...
Visa and Mastercard contribute loads of cash to political candidates -- you may recall recently the whole credit reform stuff making headlines? Well, Congress reached back and asked them to kill wikileaks as a return favor. Good old boys network... has nothing to do with ethics, since they have none: They're a business.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
For some time I hated americans, living in a post communist country, with all it's problems, while americans seemed to cause even more. And then I saw a slogan, used by some americans, I love my country, but I fear the government. That's why, when you make such statements "bitches of the US", be sure to add government. It will make everything better.
You actually make a very interesting point.
For the purposes of elections and raising funds for a political party, monetary donation is considered an exercise of free speech. That is the premise that allowed billions of extra funds from private individuals to go towards the election without any tracking.
Yet, financially supporting an organization deemed "terrorist" by the government is not a function of free speech. Now the lines are becoming even more blurred, given Wikileaks isn't even termed a terrorist organization. They are, however, denying the public the ability to support them financially.
By the same logic of the courts, this should be an issue of free speech. Mastercard et al are impeding free speech.
.
Well, you see, the text of the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". In this case, instead of making a law, they're just suppressing speech by strongly suggesting to the corporations that it would be in their best interest to comply.
With the Wikileaks case, the powers that be have demonstrated quite clearly that they don't give a damn what's legal and what's not legal. They're going to do what they're going to do, and screw the Constitution if it gets in the way.
I am officially gone from
Its probably going to reenforce their decision, and give anyone else pause if they choose to do business with Wikileaks. This is a really dumb thing to do, look at it this way, why would any payment process ever want to work with wikileaks again if they know their fanboys will attack them if they don't continue to do business with them? Its a no win situation for the payment processor, its better to never do business with wikileaks.
Python
They are boycotting Wikileaks because it already has buckets of dirt on financial institutions, and so they are afraid that they are next.
If there's one thing that's sure to keep wikileaks from attacking them, it would be pissing wikileaks off as much as possible. Wait, no, that can't be right.
Try again. Wikileaks aren't attacking anyone.
Really? The government can just threaten companies to get them to stop providing services to people whose speech the government doesn't like? And that's not a free speech issue?
I love how so many people are so unknowledgeable about this issue that they think Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal all suddenly decided to stop provides services for no reason, when both Mastercard and Paypal stated quite bluntly that the government made them do it, and it's probably the same story for Visa.
Remember, folks, the government can't punish you for free speech, but it can threaten everyone who interacts with you so you quickly die homeless and staving in the gutter.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Too bad. They're essentially a "common carrier" for funds and should have to act that way.
Also, I don't associate MasterCard with, say, a big box store that royally pisses me off by jerking me around (which is similar to the situation with MC and Wikileaks). The excuse that MC doesn't want to be associated with Wikileaks is B.S.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Sorry, I disagree.
CC companies are sneaky to be sure, but they do serve a purpose - they're a hedge against short term super-crunches. That's the real problem in society - a giant tragedy of the commons type thing (slight off, but I don't know the correct term). What I mean is that when landlords and mortgagers force a certain price for housing, while other companies force down wages, citizens get caught in a colossal game of musical chairs until they just can't hold on.
This first shows up as a micro-crunch - being 12 days short of being able to pay rent is enough for people to lose their homes. Voila Overdraft Protection. The unfortunate part is that once they're in the red, people aren't yet trained to eat bread and butter and 3-day cheese for 8 days straight to catch up to neutral, so THAT's when they get cooked with a balance that never dies.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Many people believe feel this denial of service was caused by government. Paypal has admitted it. I don't know if Mastercard and VISA have admitted it yet, but it's not hard to guess. We're not talking about private action.
If I own the printing press which you rent to print things I consider obnoxious, and then I decide I don't want to be associated with your bullshit anymore and stop letting you use my printing press, then you're right, there's nothing to suggest the government has overstepped its constitutional limits.
If I own the printing press which you rent to print things the government considers obnoxious, so they send goons over to point a gun at my head and explain that I will not let you use my printing press anymore, then the government has overstepped its constitutional limits. And that's what happened here, assuming money==speech.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There's no Journalism license out there. Bloggers are not journalists? What about people who provide context in the comment section of an online newspaper story?
Until they start handing out Journalism licenses, the threshold for being a journalist is saying "I'm a journalist."
you're comparing this to anti-segregation protests???
Who needs to get a grip, one who equates one protest with another or one who ridicules such comparisons?
Quite frankly voters can not make informed decisions when they are not informed. Wikileaks is informing voters of what their government is doing.
Falcon
Now as for "informed voters" that is another subject.
Should there be a Law?
Neither John F. Kennedy nor Nikita Kruschev would have had the support of their governments had their positions been known because of something like a Wikileaks release.
Why would you assume that the public would have chosen nuclear war over bargaining?
and the real hackers come out of the wood work and utterly GARBAGE the usa's websites.
until know i have sat back and watched...do not threaten these youth's...you do so at YOUR PERIL.
WE think of the children unlike you and believe in freedom to the adverse of corporate fascism that you preach.
From how you type you are the child. DDOSing a website? That is amateurish script kiddie BS. You aren't advancing the cause of network neutrality, internet liberty, human rights or anything by taking down websites. The only thing you generate is negative publicity for yourself and for the internet as a whole.
This will result in Lieberman being able to pass the Internet Censorship bill. Don't you see you are a useful idiot? You are being used to help pass this bill which would never be able to pass if Anonymous did not do stupid pointless BS.