Re:Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and
on
Angles On Anonymous
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A) It does absolutely nothing to help Wikileaks. It's just a revenge tactic. The decisions have been made.
it does.
paypal was at frist blabbering about 'tos violation' regarding wikileaks cut-off. after what anonymous did, they have come up saying that they did it due to political pressure.
other companies will probably follow suit or take similar routes to unload responsibility. this will put the blame where it lies.
this, if anything, is much more important in that it will make it clear that censorship is being attempted by politicians.
we should just keep doing nothing, because doing something is not always better than doing nothing.
and when we actually do anything, we should go back to doing nothing, because there will always be someone who himself does nothing but comes up saying "doing x is better than doing the thing you are doing"...
please, act, or shut up. world has enough people who never act, but talk.
have you read and understood the post you replied to ? it doesnt seem that way. "there has been never a solid exposure of grand scale of wrongdoing belonging inherently to the SYSTEM"
Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and
on
Angles On Anonymous
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What you have done, on your part, really ? at least, these people are implementing a good idea, with a crappy implementation. that's something there. nothing on your side to show for it yet ?
All that one needs to do is to go visit those websites and hit F5 a few times to see whether they come up or not. like, sec, let me see.... nope, they are not coming up. and i even checked 4-5 times...
being paid top dollar in their perched position, and inventing/trying to guess what the next 'trend' will be. and, manufacturing bullshit trends in the meantime too.
totally distant from the trenches and ordinary people.
i for one, played games for 26+ years. im 35 now, and i cant be arsed with waiting the hassles of other people to gather around, and get ready and do anything at night at 21.00, in a multiplayer game. i dont have that much time. and i cant be arsed to do repetitive things over and over again, because it is 'multiplayer'. ranges from cs matches to wow raids for me. doesnt matter.
for relaxing i prefer well written and executed single player games. fallout 3, oblivion, maybe ac2, old games that had great stories and whatnot. i even played wow like single player for a loooong time. (blizz realized that a lot of people wanted to play that way and made wotlk play as such until raids)
the ea exec is maybe saying that 'we are incapable of making good single player games because we are way too industrialized megacorp and we lost innovation and novelty'. if so, it he is right. single player games are dead for you, if you are incapable of producing good ones, as a company.
this, dns-p2p, and etc are turning the internet into a truly decentralized, uncontrollable, REAL cloud as it should have been from the start.
i, for one, am not suprised that the ones to save net freedom, are ending up being people who have been accused of piracy. after all, if it is not detrimental to the control of private interests, why villify something in mass media, right...
you are right. it didnt. it was the closest we could get to something that was major. but even that wasnt major. but, unfortunately, the furthest example we can show to such things, is watergate.
wikileaks is helping to put forth the corruptness of the system, than individuals. people will see that if there are SO many corrupt people everywhere, it means the system is deficient.
has there been ANYthing that has exposed the corruptness of the system this openly at that high level before, despite almost ALL people on the world knew the system was totally corrupt ?
no. it was always 'individual' events, manageable by accusing/villifying a few persona or corporations. there has been never a solid exposure of grand scale of wrongdoing belonging inherently to the SYSTEM, than a few individuals or a few corps.
No, the responsibility of first recognizing that just simply dumping EVERYthing in metered doses appearing for all the world geared to keep the spotlight on Wikileaks, doesn't entirely serve
your analysis is narrow and shallow in this. it assumes an ideal world.
we are not in an ideal world. in an ideal world, a leaker of information as such would not be removed through any means possible, when the spotlight is off of them. ie, stabbed in some back alley after a 'bar fight', ran over by a car in a roadside, or, just, die from drug overdose.
same goes for the outfit. it would be much more easier to remove all wikileaks presence on internet, if it was not on the spotlight. but see, now, visa, mc, paypal is taking hell for what they have done, and paypal has even come around and declared that it had done that because of political pressure. this was something they were denying before.
moreover remember previous leaks, remember previous scandals. how much of it remained on the agenda of news channels for enough time ? private interests have skillfully veered the public eye away from those issues by manufacturing shit, like american idol, britney spears drug scandals, this that.
the process undertaken this time, has assured that the world would talk leaks, and nothing but leaks, and no pop star, tv show, sports match would overshadow it. the only way these can mildly be overshadowed now, if even, would be some major pop stars coming up gay, having sex with their own asses, or doing something 'beyond' the logic of what has public seen before. or, maybe a war, or a doomsday.
Call that censorship if you must, and I suppose it wouldn't be completely wrong, but I hare you sure you are not more into "deliciously fighting against it", and/or "burning down the house" than really being concerned for everyone involved here? Because this is deeply disturbing our (as in the government of the US working in our best interests collectively) ability to do the peoples business on the world stage.
let me break a fact to you - if you give ANY means to prevent ANY level of information for ANY reason, the people who perpetrate these filth, will use those means to prevent you from learning anything they are doing. this has been as such up to this date, and this will be like that if it turns into a publishing/news/journalism bracket again. it is simple - cram all the publishing/media/news agencies/outlets into major corporations (it happens due to capitalism mechanics anyway, acquisitions), which, are naturally then tied to the private interests that govern the economy. and this way, it is an assured cooperation from those interests with the government. add to this the fact that governments get supported into power by those interests, and you have a complete circle.
you cant go around this. there is no 'responsible' censoring. if there is ANY censoring, corporations, interests will place one of their men at the heel, just like how that shell representative talks about having infiltrated every level of nigerian government, boasting about it.
Frankly the more I read, the more this individual seems to operate from a position of ego rather than service.
i would like to see an individual who would take on THAT much filth (leave aside the risk to his persona, life), and stay without exhibiting any personality quirk. excuse me, but such a saint has no business moping up shit of this civilization on this planet.
But I also thing there needs to be a curtain for our government to get it's work done behind. And removing that curtain should serve a purpose other than to throw a bar into the gears.
as i stated ; the only reason all this filth going in both government and corporate world, is because there are two concepts : national secret/security and trade secret. just because of these, corrupt entities can keep committing crimes in democratic countries. and not only get away with it, but further it.
it didnt work up until this point. there is no point in needlessly trying to push it to make it work.
Well, yes. It's all detrimental. The question is whether the problem being uncovered is more important than the damage done outing detrimental information.
that doesnt work. private interests and government will ALWAYS say there are big things at stake, and prevent anything from being published. this is what happened up till today, and the only reason we are discovering these stuff is because some people decided governments corporations and news outlets shouldnt decide what is worth it and what is not.
i think you have missed the word 'major'. enron, tobacco, were all stuff that were related to individual companies, which could just be forth as 'individual troublemakers' and done off. in the end, they all belong to conglomerates, and when one goes down, another gets founded with a different name in a few months.
MAJOR information means watergate. major information means stuff that can shake the system. because, as long as system perpetuates, those who commit crimes can just jump ship and do everything again.
And because you release it to everyone, you release it to opposing factions who use the intelligence contained. Well done. That'll help everyone. And it'll do a real wonder for whistleblowers to come.
what will happen when journalists get it ? wont it be the same ?
and, if you even attempt to argue that the journalists will censor 'dangerous' information that can be used by opposing factions, that basically means anything that is detrimental to the private interests and government will be censored, including stuff like the cover up of child prostitution going on afghanistan and their cover ups for contract acquisition.
the responsibility of censoring information that u.s. or other governments dont want published ?
wikileaks already has removed names from those leaks. there isnt any sensitive info in them in regard to 'people's lives'.
and what will these people do ? release information to NEWS outlets. 90% of news outlets in usa are owned by parent corporations of 4 movie studios. and they are the very corporations who are also pressurizing and villifying wikileaks.
i fail to see your logic regarding 'fresh'. that seems like what we have been NOT having since watergate : journalism.
i dont want my information censored or edited by any news corporation. i want it direct and uncensored.
so, they will leak the information to journalists. the people that any notable ones from among them would be in the employ of established media conglomerates, which are subject to pressure of politicians and corporations ?
i think the fact that there has been no major leak that is detrimental to a government or a company has occurred since watergate, escapes these people. werent there any scoops ? werent there any brave journalists to handle them ? surely. why didnt anything in the scale of watergate came up ?
information must be provided to EVERYONE. we are the people, we are the owners of these governments and countries. we have the right to see them first hand. not anyone else, regardless of their profession.
by the way, journalists are people too, from among us. if you release it to us, you release it to everyone.
i really think you have never been in a position that your physical and life force had been drained out consistently.
no. personal responsibility doesnt exist in that situation. you cant even think. life is (unfortunately) not that easy in this system. hopefully you dont get into any situation in your life that you will have to work or live like that.
you dont get the main point here. what they are able to do, may not impress you. may not be accomplishing too much in the direction of what they are going for.
but, that is what they can do. doing anything else, is not within their capability.
you seem to be thinking 'lazy people' or something about the people involved. i take it that you havent worked in a demanding job, and then had to look after anyone when you have come back home.
ill tell you - when i was in that situation, all i could do was to sit in front of the tv, mindlessly staring at some shows for a few hours until i go to bed.
i could do nothing else.
yes. those people are 'lazy'. but, they are MADE lazy, by the system that keeps them in that position so that they wont stir trouble. this may be an intended result, a side effect. doesnt matter.
If you care, *show* me you care through your actions. And, hey, guess what? Maybe you miss a class. Maybe you miss a mortgage payment. If it's *important* to you, you'll be willing to miss those things.
yes. miss a mortgage payment, not be able to pay a few bills. of course, that is if you actually are able to take time off your job.
real people are not able to risk missing their mortgage or bills. they cannot forfeit the means to care for their loved ones as easily as you speak.
they dont have the time or resources or the means to mount and run nation-spanning political campaigns, engage in social activity for prolonged periods. they have lives that they are forced to attend to.
If they're not willing to suspend their lives in *any* way, then it can't be a very important issue to them, could it?
"I'm against this, but I can't be arsed to protest it in an effective manner".
and how will they suspend their lives, and what exactly will they suspend ? will the kid who is studying at college with hard earned cash of his father, or student loans, suspend his studies for a year to mount a political campaign ? will a mother of two, stop working, to work in a social campaign ? who will provide for kids ? will a youngster who is working at wal mart for 10+ hours to pay bills stop working for participation ? who will pay the bills ?
mortgages ? support ? children ? expenses ?
who will take care of these ?
lets face it - if you dont have the means and the time to do something, freedoms do not matter. no freedom that you cant use, is a real freedom. only a lie.
but you cant say that it hasnt worked. see, paypal had spilled the beans, saying that they were pressurized to cut wikileaks donations by politicians in united states. back a few days ago, they were not directly admitting it, saying stuff about tos violations and some other blabber. the least the attack has done, has been make paypal come out spilling the beans. and this is bad for the politician (hello joe liebermann, arent you too old to be alive already, just die out) that pressurized private companies to censor free speech.
what justice would it be ? regular justice ? which can only be had, if you have heaps of cash. and even in that case you would get less justice than those who have more ?
the justice which is totally subservient to the administrations, which are actually people who have won elections with direct or indirect support and funding of established private interests ? even the supreme court judges are directly appointed.
if, you leave no justice option for people to pursue, they pursue mob justice. thats the cold hard reality of life.
they were not going to do it otherwise ? so, acta, coica, this that, has been cooking since 2004, for nothing ? there werent even the mention of these kind of situations back then, you know. yet they were more than ready to censor it.
so, you will just let them do it, just so that you can have an illusion of freedom a little longer ?
If the only option you leave for people is DDOS, they will ddos.
people talk 10+ hours for minimum wage. people tend their kids. people are studying in colleges by paying to them, in order to have a chance at future. those who have established some career, are busy paying bills.
they dont have the time or resources or the means to mount and run nation-spanning political campaigns, engage in social activity for prolonged periods. they have lives that they are forced to attend to.
and, in the end, because of all these necessities our current dog-eat-dog capitalist system enforces upon people (its always good to cut benefits, social security, and wages for profit after all, aint it..), what's left to people ?
hitting 'like' button on facebook, doing comments under online news stories, discussing in forums, instant messengers, online blabber. maybe donating a few bucks to a ngo. and the most extreme of what they can do online, ends up being DDOS. they cant even do serious hacks, they dont time or the means to learn and further any knowledge in that area.
and they do this. ddos. because, this is the travesty of a situation our current society manufactures, and then pays for. the ironic thing is, the very perpetrators, creators of this situation, the big corporations, end up on the receiving end of this. hunter hunted.
no, ddos may not be ethically so justifiable. but, as said, if you leave the only option for people to DDOS, they will DDOS.
Courts can't just interpret the constitution to change its meaning as they see fit, and people keep saying how all of these people are in danger and Wikileaks is irresponsible
there are some interpretations in regard to how certain freedoms apply to a new field of life (ie freedom of speech in internet, this that) occasionally. but as you said, they cant interpret the validity/condition of freedom. it exists.
but as far as I know, there's not a single report of someone dying because of them.
thats probably because wikileaks has been removing names.
actually maybe they should have given them out openly. because, it seems, the powers that be in the u.s. do not understand from that kind of courtesy. maybe losing all their dirty spy network and double agents and moles and whatnot, make them realize that they should not attempt to repress freedom of information.
Slashdot Mirror
A) It does absolutely nothing to help Wikileaks. It's just a revenge tactic. The decisions have been made.
it does.
paypal was at frist blabbering about 'tos violation' regarding wikileaks cut-off. after what anonymous did, they have come up saying that they did it due to political pressure.
other companies will probably follow suit or take similar routes to unload responsibility. this will put the blame where it lies.
this, if anything, is much more important in that it will make it clear that censorship is being attempted by politicians.
we should just keep doing nothing, because doing something is not always better than doing nothing.
...
and when we actually do anything, we should go back to doing nothing, because there will always be someone who himself does nothing but comes up saying "doing x is better than doing the thing you are doing"
please, act, or shut up. world has enough people who never act, but talk.
have you read and understood the post you replied to ? it doesnt seem that way. "there has been never a solid exposure of grand scale of wrongdoing belonging inherently to the SYSTEM"
What you have done, on your part, really ? at least, these people are implementing a good idea, with a crappy implementation. that's something there. nothing on your side to show for it yet ?
All that one needs to do is to go visit those websites and hit F5 a few times to see whether they come up or not. like, sec, let me see .... nope, they are not coming up. and i even checked 4-5 times ...
being paid top dollar in their perched position, and inventing/trying to guess what the next 'trend' will be. and, manufacturing bullshit trends in the meantime too.
totally distant from the trenches and ordinary people.
i for one, played games for 26+ years. im 35 now, and i cant be arsed with waiting the hassles of other people to gather around, and get ready and do anything at night at 21.00, in a multiplayer game. i dont have that much time. and i cant be arsed to do repetitive things over and over again, because it is 'multiplayer'. ranges from cs matches to wow raids for me. doesnt matter.
for relaxing i prefer well written and executed single player games. fallout 3, oblivion, maybe ac2, old games that had great stories and whatnot. i even played wow like single player for a loooong time. (blizz realized that a lot of people wanted to play that way and made wotlk play as such until raids)
the ea exec is maybe saying that 'we are incapable of making good single player games because we are way too industrialized megacorp and we lost innovation and novelty'. if so, it he is right. single player games are dead for you, if you are incapable of producing good ones, as a company.
this, dns-p2p, and etc are turning the internet into a truly decentralized, uncontrollable, REAL cloud as it should have been from the start.
...
i, for one, am not suprised that the ones to save net freedom, are ending up being people who have been accused of piracy. after all, if it is not detrimental to the control of private interests, why villify something in mass media, right
you are right. it didnt. it was the closest we could get to something that was major. but even that wasnt major. but, unfortunately, the furthest example we can show to such things, is watergate.
wikileaks is helping to put forth the corruptness of the system, than individuals. people will see that if there are SO many corrupt people everywhere, it means the system is deficient.
what proof do we have ?
has there been ANYthing that has exposed the corruptness of the system this openly at that high level before, despite almost ALL people on the world knew the system was totally corrupt ?
no. it was always 'individual' events, manageable by accusing/villifying a few persona or corporations. there has been never a solid exposure of grand scale of wrongdoing belonging inherently to the SYSTEM, than a few individuals or a few corps.
No, the responsibility of first recognizing that just simply dumping EVERYthing in metered doses appearing for all the world geared to keep the spotlight on Wikileaks, doesn't entirely serve
your analysis is narrow and shallow in this. it assumes an ideal world.
we are not in an ideal world. in an ideal world, a leaker of information as such would not be removed through any means possible, when the spotlight is off of them. ie, stabbed in some back alley after a 'bar fight', ran over by a car in a roadside, or, just, die from drug overdose.
same goes for the outfit. it would be much more easier to remove all wikileaks presence on internet, if it was not on the spotlight. but see, now, visa, mc, paypal is taking hell for what they have done, and paypal has even come around and declared that it had done that because of political pressure. this was something they were denying before.
moreover remember previous leaks, remember previous scandals. how much of it remained on the agenda of news channels for enough time ? private interests have skillfully veered the public eye away from those issues by manufacturing shit, like american idol, britney spears drug scandals, this that.
the process undertaken this time, has assured that the world would talk leaks, and nothing but leaks, and no pop star, tv show, sports match would overshadow it. the only way these can mildly be overshadowed now, if even, would be some major pop stars coming up gay, having sex with their own asses, or doing something 'beyond' the logic of what has public seen before. or, maybe a war, or a doomsday.
Call that censorship if you must, and I suppose it wouldn't be completely wrong, but I hare you sure you are not more into "deliciously fighting against it", and/or "burning down the house" than really being concerned for everyone involved here? Because this is deeply disturbing our (as in the government of the US working in our best interests collectively) ability to do the peoples business on the world stage.
let me break a fact to you - if you give ANY means to prevent ANY level of information for ANY reason, the people who perpetrate these filth, will use those means to prevent you from learning anything they are doing. this has been as such up to this date, and this will be like that if it turns into a publishing/news/journalism bracket again. it is simple - cram all the publishing/media/news agencies/outlets into major corporations (it happens due to capitalism mechanics anyway, acquisitions), which, are naturally then tied to the private interests that govern the economy. and this way, it is an assured cooperation from those interests with the government. add to this the fact that governments get supported into power by those interests, and you have a complete circle.
you cant go around this. there is no 'responsible' censoring. if there is ANY censoring, corporations, interests will place one of their men at the heel, just like how that shell representative talks about having infiltrated every level of nigerian government, boasting about it.
Frankly the more I read, the more this individual seems to operate from a position of ego rather than service.
i would like to see an individual who would take on THAT much filth (leave aside the risk to his persona, life), and stay without exhibiting any personality quirk. excuse me, but such a saint has no business moping up shit of this civilization on this planet.
But I also thing there needs to be a curtain for our government to get it's work done behind. And removing that curtain should serve a purpose other than to throw a bar into the gears.
as i stated ; the only reason all this filth going in both government and corporate world, is because there are two concepts : national secret/security and trade secret. just because of these, corrupt entities can keep committing crimes in democratic countries. and not only get away with it, but further it.
it didnt work up until this point. there is no point in needlessly trying to push it to make it work.
Well, yes. It's all detrimental. The question is whether the problem being uncovered is more important than the damage done outing detrimental information.
that doesnt work. private interests and government will ALWAYS say there are big things at stake, and prevent anything from being published. this is what happened up till today, and the only reason we are discovering these stuff is because some people decided governments corporations and news outlets shouldnt decide what is worth it and what is not.
i think you have missed the word 'major'. enron, tobacco, were all stuff that were related to individual companies, which could just be forth as 'individual troublemakers' and done off. in the end, they all belong to conglomerates, and when one goes down, another gets founded with a different name in a few months.
MAJOR information means watergate. major information means stuff that can shake the system. because, as long as system perpetuates, those who commit crimes can just jump ship and do everything again.
And because you release it to everyone, you release it to opposing factions who use the intelligence contained. Well done. That'll help everyone. And it'll do a real wonder for whistleblowers to come.
what will happen when journalists get it ? wont it be the same ?
and, if you even attempt to argue that the journalists will censor 'dangerous' information that can be used by opposing factions, that basically means anything that is detrimental to the private interests and government will be censored, including stuff like the cover up of child prostitution going on afghanistan and their cover ups for contract acquisition.
after all, its detrimental.
Wikileaks just forked.
the responsibility of censoring information that u.s. or other governments dont want published ?
wikileaks already has removed names from those leaks. there isnt any sensitive info in them in regard to 'people's lives'.
and what will these people do ? release information to NEWS outlets. 90% of news outlets in usa are owned by parent corporations of 4 movie studios. and they are the very corporations who are also pressurizing and villifying wikileaks.
i fail to see your logic regarding 'fresh'. that seems like what we have been NOT having since watergate : journalism.
i dont want my information censored or edited by any news corporation. i want it direct and uncensored.
so, they will leak the information to journalists. the people that any notable ones from among them would be in the employ of established media conglomerates, which are subject to pressure of politicians and corporations ?
i think the fact that there has been no major leak that is detrimental to a government or a company has occurred since watergate, escapes these people. werent there any scoops ? werent there any brave journalists to handle them ? surely. why didnt anything in the scale of watergate came up ?
information must be provided to EVERYONE. we are the people, we are the owners of these governments and countries. we have the right to see them first hand. not anyone else, regardless of their profession.
by the way, journalists are people too, from among us. if you release it to us, you release it to everyone.
i really think you have never been in a position that your physical and life force had been drained out consistently.
no. personal responsibility doesnt exist in that situation. you cant even think. life is (unfortunately) not that easy in this system. hopefully you dont get into any situation in your life that you will have to work or live like that.
but, that is what they can do. doing anything else, is not within their capability.
you seem to be thinking 'lazy people' or something about the people involved. i take it that you havent worked in a demanding job, and then had to look after anyone when you have come back home.
ill tell you - when i was in that situation, all i could do was to sit in front of the tv, mindlessly staring at some shows for a few hours until i go to bed.
i could do nothing else.
yes. those people are 'lazy'. but, they are MADE lazy, by the system that keeps them in that position so that they wont stir trouble. this may be an intended result, a side effect. doesnt matter.
If you care, *show* me you care through your actions. And, hey, guess what? Maybe you miss a class. Maybe you miss a mortgage payment. If it's *important* to you, you'll be willing to miss those things.
yes. miss a mortgage payment, not be able to pay a few bills. of course, that is if you actually are able to take time off your job.
real people are not able to risk missing their mortgage or bills. they cannot forfeit the means to care for their loved ones as easily as you speak.
they dont have the time or resources or the means to mount and run nation-spanning political campaigns, engage in social activity for prolonged periods. they have lives that they are forced to attend to.
If they're not willing to suspend their lives in *any* way, then it can't be a very important issue to them, could it?
"I'm against this, but I can't be arsed to protest it in an effective manner".
and how will they suspend their lives, and what exactly will they suspend ? will the kid who is studying at college with hard earned cash of his father, or student loans, suspend his studies for a year to mount a political campaign ? will a mother of two, stop working, to work in a social campaign ? who will provide for kids ? will a youngster who is working at wal mart for 10+ hours to pay bills stop working for participation ? who will pay the bills ?
mortgages ? support ? children ? expenses ?
who will take care of these ?
lets face it - if you dont have the means and the time to do something, freedoms do not matter. no freedom that you cant use, is a real freedom. only a lie.
but you cant say that it hasnt worked. see, paypal had spilled the beans, saying that they were pressurized to cut wikileaks donations by politicians in united states. back a few days ago, they were not directly admitting it, saying stuff about tos violations and some other blabber. the least the attack has done, has been make paypal come out spilling the beans. and this is bad for the politician (hello joe liebermann, arent you too old to be alive already, just die out) that pressurized private companies to censor free speech.
what justice would it be ? regular justice ? which can only be had, if you have heaps of cash. and even in that case you would get less justice than those who have more ?
the justice which is totally subservient to the administrations, which are actually people who have won elections with direct or indirect support and funding of established private interests ? even the supreme court judges are directly appointed.
if, you leave no justice option for people to pursue, they pursue mob justice. thats the cold hard reality of life.
they were not going to do it otherwise ? so, acta, coica, this that, has been cooking since 2004, for nothing ? there werent even the mention of these kind of situations back then, you know. yet they were more than ready to censor it.
so, you will just let them do it, just so that you can have an illusion of freedom a little longer ?
talk = work in the above post, 2nd sentence.
If the only option you leave for people is DDOS, they will ddos.
..), what's left to people ?
people talk 10+ hours for minimum wage. people tend their kids. people are studying in colleges by paying to them, in order to have a chance at future. those who have established some career, are busy paying bills.
they dont have the time or resources or the means to mount and run nation-spanning political campaigns, engage in social activity for prolonged periods. they have lives that they are forced to attend to.
and, in the end, because of all these necessities our current dog-eat-dog capitalist system enforces upon people (its always good to cut benefits, social security, and wages for profit after all, aint it
hitting 'like' button on facebook, doing comments under online news stories, discussing in forums, instant messengers, online blabber. maybe donating a few bucks to a ngo. and the most extreme of what they can do online, ends up being DDOS. they cant even do serious hacks, they dont time or the means to learn and further any knowledge in that area.
and they do this. ddos. because, this is the travesty of a situation our current society manufactures, and then pays for. the ironic thing is, the very perpetrators, creators of this situation, the big corporations, end up on the receiving end of this. hunter hunted.
no, ddos may not be ethically so justifiable. but, as said, if you leave the only option for people to DDOS, they will DDOS.
Courts can't just interpret the constitution to change its meaning as they see fit, and people keep saying how all of these people are in danger and Wikileaks is irresponsible
there are some interpretations in regard to how certain freedoms apply to a new field of life (ie freedom of speech in internet, this that) occasionally. but as you said, they cant interpret the validity/condition of freedom. it exists.
but as far as I know, there's not a single report of someone dying because of them.
thats probably because wikileaks has been removing names.
actually maybe they should have given them out openly. because, it seems, the powers that be in the u.s. do not understand from that kind of courtesy. maybe losing all their dirty spy network and double agents and moles and whatnot, make them realize that they should not attempt to repress freedom of information.