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."
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
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
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.
Well, it hurts their business doesn't it ? It is a payback operation. Turning down a legitimate client without any judgement for political reason was a stupid action. Apparently it is fair to do so. Therefore except more stupid actions, that is what you need to get a political voice nowadays. Politicians don't react to legitimate and rational arguments. They react to fear, to things they don't understand, and mostly to the most stupidly statements made in the most stupid way.
Anonymous will get more media coverage for that than outraged reactions of various moderate group. Do they desserve it ? No, sure. Do they have it ? Hell yes.
This may be a stupid action, but it is the most likely to have an impact.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further.
Undoing some moderation here but I must say: BULLSHIT! The only reason the government and these companies are going after Wikileaks is because Wikileaks has dirt on them, and Wikileaks has credibility. Your statement notwithstanding.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
quite rightly distancing itself from Wikileaks because of some very illegal activities.
What is wikileaks doing that is illegal? And are they distancing themselves from the newspapers that are republishing the leaks? It's not quite right. It is a couple of very large corporations colluding to remove freedom of speech, when the speech in question reflects badly on them.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Whoever is doing it, such attacks are just plain wrong. Attacking infrastructure may be harmful and amounts to terrorism
Oh for fucks sake, NO, it doesn't!
Terrorism is coercion through FEAR (or, dare I say it, "terror?"). It is NOT embarrassing hypocritical governments. It is NOT interfering with our corporate overlords. It is NOT inconveniencing an ignorant and apathetic populace in their yearly December feeding frenzy.
Please dfferentiate by action:
Wikileaks releases documents with insight into the Iceland bank scandal: + Credibility
Wikileaks releases documents/videos with Insight to Iraq: + Credibility
Wikileaks founder shows unmitigated ego and drives off supporters: - Credibility
Wikileaks releases diplomatic small talk: +/- Credibility
Wikileaks founders handling of dubious rape accusations: - Credibility
Wikileaks hangarounds launch DDOS attacks: -- Credibility
I think there is a strong need for Wikileaks (or something similar). While Julian Assange has done some great services, he is probably not the person to head such an organisation. 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
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.
Now, I admit that it's pretty funny to see the credit card companies getting screwed for a change. But basically, the Russians tried to f*** over a couple of American businesses, and the U.S. government decided it was necessary to step in and pressure the Russians not to do this. Part of the government's job is to look out for the economic interests of the United States, which includes private corporations. U.S. diplomats are doing their job. Truly shocking indeed.
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?
this is ammo for those that wish to control the Internet. This can not end well.
Instead of smashing 4chan's servers (which wouldn't stop the attacks and would just make you the next target, and give you an anti-free-speech reputation) why not call up Visa and Mastercard and complain, and ask why Wikileaks' accounts have been shut down while they still process payments for the KKK?
And at 5 grand a day, unless you're running on razor-thin margins with just-in-time production, this shouldn't hurt you too much. Relax. You don't even have any competition AFAIK.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Which of course is not the case in "the land of the free, home of the brave", the Glorious USA, where in the spirit of freedom and competition all credit card transactions are welcomed to be processed by assorted small companies in Russia, Finland and Monaco and are not nearly exclusively dominated by a pair of nasty anti-competitive global US-based cartels like Mastercard or Visa who own all the processing facilities almost everywhere and enjoy protection of bought-and-paid-for politicians!
Oh, wait...