• OMG!!! GDPR!! GDPR!!! GDP f***ing R!!!!!!!!!!!111111one!

    Bla, Bla, Bla, updated privacy policy, because "we care about you! "

    ಠ_ಠ

    If you even give a shit, our privacy policy is here.

    Pro-tip: If you have a reasonable, and transparent policy from Day 1, then you don't have to run around like an asshole!

WikiLeaks: Our Site's Been Hit By Weeklong Denial-Of-Service Attack

Dec 8, 2004
48,186
20,676
693
Maine
#1
The secret-busting organization WikiLeaks says it's been the victim of a sustained denial-of-service attack which has left its website sluggish or inaccessible for more than a week.

In a statement released late Saturday the group said the assault intensified around the beginning of August and has since expanded to include attacks against affiliated sites.

Denial-of-service attacks work by overwhelming websites with requests for information. WikiLeaks has said it's been flooded with 10 gigabits per second of bogus traffic from thousands of different Internet addresses.

Josh Corman, with online content delivery company Akamai, characterized that as "a bit larger" than attacks commonly seen in the past few years.

WikiLeaks, which has angered officials in Washington with its spectacular releases of classified U.S. documents, remained inaccessible Sunday.
Link

I wonder who's doing that... Kirk in 4... 3... 2...
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,074
6,771
568
Nothern VA
#2
Everyone knows it's the guberments.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#3
I'm thinking this could be the US gubiment.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#9
How about you explain what your issue with his comment is instead of some passive aggressive argument.
I can't speak for him, but the argument is likely to be the same as mine. Wikileaks deals in stolen and classified information.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#10
How about you explain what your issue with his comment is instead of some passive aggressive argument.
I thought my point was clear: I don't think he has a sound understanding of the concept liberty. Liberty does not mean the right to sabotage the defense of a nation which is protecting that liberty.

But my question stands. He might be using the word in a different sense than the founders for instance. While I doubt you can, either one of you has a chance to try and define liberty in different way, without contradicting yourselves.

Not contradicting yourselves means that you can't define "liberty" as both the right to live freely and to own slaves, at the same time, for instance. Similarly, you can't define liberty as both the right to live freely, and the right to betray the government which is fighting against tyrants and religious zealots looking to impose religious law over half the globe.

In other words, when two actions conflict, you have to choose one or the other as the action people ought to have a right to. You can't have both. Contradictions don't exist outside the minds of wishful thinkers.
 
#11
I can't speak for him, but the argument is likely to be the same as mine. Wikileaks deals in stolen and classified information.
From what I understand, Wikileaks didn't STEAL the info, and Publishing those documents is not illegal. Wasn't that the point of the SHIELD Act?
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Jan 12, 2010
36,214
21,811
398
Northern California
#12
From what I understand, Wikileaks didn't STEAL the info, and Publishing those documents is not illegal. Wasn't that the point of the SHIELD Act?
To what extent should this be allowed? Only when it involves government documents... or also when they're documents from corporations? How about personal documents?
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,074
6,771
568
Nothern VA
#13
Actually, you can. That's the fun thing about abstract concepts like liberty. My idea of liberty might differ from yours, Hawk's, and Don's. All the while being valid interpretations even if restricted by greater laws.

Contradictions don't exist outside the minds of wishful thinkers.
 
#14
To what extent should this be allowed? Only when it involves government documents... or also when they're documents from corporations? How about personal documents?
Good question. What about documents that someone created, like a book, or copywrights? No one seems to mind sharing these on torrent sites.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#15
Actually, you can. That's the fun thing about abstract concepts like liberty. My idea of liberty might differ from yours, Hawk's, and Don's. All the while being valid interpretations even if restricted by greater laws.
You could at least try to understand what I wrote.

Yeah, and I take it neither one of you has a definition for liberty. You're right, that would've been a bit much to ask.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,074
328
#16
From what I understand, Wikileaks didn't STEAL the info, and Publishing those documents is not illegal. Wasn't that the point of the SHIELD Act?
Neither is covert US action against their stupid foreign website. So it's settled then.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Jan 12, 2010
36,214
21,811
398
Northern California
#17
Good question. What about documents that someone created, like a book, or copywrights? No one seems to mind sharing these on torrent sites.
Torrenting copyrighted material is illegal. How does that example help your point? Are you saying liberty gives us the right to infringe on copyrighted materials, or wikileaks violated the law by making these documents available?

I really want to know what your opinion is regarding liberty vs stolen information. Now if you said us as American citizens have a right to these documents, since they originated in our government, you could argue that point. However, what right does an international organization (which is what Wikileaks is) have to publish those documents? If a website got a hold of your personal medical records and published them, are they exercising their liberty, or violating your rights?
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,074
6,771
568
Nothern VA
#18
Torrenting copyrighted material is illegal. How does that example help your point? Are you saying liberty gives us the right to infringe on copyrighted materials, or wikileaks violated the law by making these documents available?

I really want to know what your opinion is regarding liberty vs stolen information. Now if you said us as American citizens have a right to these documents, since they originated in our government, you could argue that point. However, what right does an international organization (which is what Wikileaks is) have to publish those documents? If a website got a hold of your personal medical records and published them, are they exercising their liberty, or violating your rights?
Poor analogy, your medical records aren't like to implicate you in any crimes.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#19
Poor analogy, your medical records aren't like to implicate you in any crimes.
I know it's the “cool" thing to do on the internet to defend Wikileaks, but they're fucking scumbags that get their information from thieves and traitors. This isn't a Bradley Manning fan site. Many of the people here have actually defended this country, and Wikileaks makes those people less safe.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Jan 12, 2010
36,214
21,811
398
Northern California
#20
Poor analogy, your medical records aren't like to implicate you in any crimes.
If they showed positive drug test results they would. How about another analogy being documents/notes made by your lawyer or therapist, which may very well contain information regarding crimes?

Do newspapers have the liberty to post the information "accidentally leaked" by the prosecution in the Zimmerman case?

I'm not really debating either side anyway, just trying to figure out what he means by us having the "liberty" to post information we happen to come across.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#21
I'm not really debating either side anyway, just trying to figure out what he means by us having the "liberty" to post information we happen to come across.
I think it has something to do with the belief that when governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
12,755
2,889
258
Sunnydale
#23
And not a single fuck was given. They deserve it.
Yeah, the government should be able to murder AP reporters and say they were with AlCIAda without some nosy nelly exposing the truth. Obama said it best...

[video=youtube;ypAU28t5Ya0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypAU28t5Ya0[/video]

"The only people who do not want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide."
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,764
1,337
628
#24
And not a single fuck was given. They deserve it.
This.

Not illegally obtained classified information.
This, too.

I haven't seen that nonsensical argument in awhile.
Tell my friends and former coworkers downrange that it's nonsensical.

Yeah, the government should be able to murder AP reporters and say they were with AlCIAda without some nosy nelly exposing the truth. Obama said it best...
Thank you for, once again, proving that you are a fucking idiot. If you had ever watched the unedited video without going into it with preconceived notions, you would have seen that it was a legit shoot. That Apache crew did nothing wrong.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,764
1,337
628
#25
And not a single fuck was given. They deserve it.
This.

Not illegally obtained classified information.
This, too.

I haven't seen that nonsensical argument in awhile.
Tell my friends and former coworkers downrange that it's nonsensical.

Yeah, the government should be able to murder AP reporters and say they were with AlCIAda without some nosy nelly exposing the truth. Obama said it best...
Thank you for, once again, proving that you are a fucking idiot. If you had ever watched the unedited video without going into it with preconceived notions, you would have seen that it was a legit shoot. That Apache crew did nothing wrong.
 
Top Bottom