Indeed. This kind of thing has no legitimate purpose:

Exclusive: Sarah Palin Under Cyber-Attack from Wikileaks Supporters in 'Operation Payback'
December 08, 2010 5:12 PM

The website and personal credit card information of former Gov. Sarah Palin were cyber-attacked today by Wikileaks supporters, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate tells ABC News in an email.

Hackers in London apparently affiliated with “Operation Payback” – a group of supporters of Julian Assange and Wikileaks – have tried to shut down SarahPac and have disrupted Sarah and Todd Palin’s personal credit card accounts.

. . . Exclusive: Sarah Palin Under Cyber-Attack from Wikileaks Supporters in 'Operation Payback' - Political Punch

I don't care if she's a politician with whom many may disagree or discredit...she's entitled to privacy regarding her personal credit card information for obvious reasons and so is the card issuer from the kinds of fraud that can come from identity theft before they catch on that the number has been leaked and/or hassles of changing the account information. As for any private citizens who get their personal information released, that's even worse given the harms are harder to correct by the time they are realised, lesser economic circumstances, etc.

It's also perfectly within the rights of a private companies like MasterCard, Amazon.com and PayPal to decline to services to Wikileaks. They aren't government agencies and can set their business standards and with whom they'll service within the confines of the law. For example, this website's server does not allow hosting of pornography and if our site did so, we'd lose it as a server. Does that mean we can post porn and feel entitled to disrupt the server's business with cyberattacks if they refuse to allow us to do so? Not IMO. If that's what we want to post, then it's up to us to go find a service that will allow us to host porn. Also targeted in the attacks is the lawyer representing the two Swedish women who have accused Wikileaks founder Julian Assange of sexual assault. So lawyers can't do their jobs anymore on behalf of their clients if they have any claims against Assange and/or wikileaks?

These people if and when detected need long stints in prison.

I had a wonderful childhood. Thank you for asking.

Here at USPO we seem to have a few members that like to (mentally, usuing plenty of imagination) right all wrongdoings in the world, real or imagined. Real protectors of the downtrodden little guy, the oppressed, or societies garbage. In this case they just love the idea of a malcontent leaking stolen classified info so long as it makes the US govt look bad.
On the other hand if someone hacked into their private email and stirred up shit with the content, why that would be different. Its not about making the US govt look bad, its about taking meaningful steps to make it impossible for all govts and corporations to operate as they have done for centuries. Its about dissent and resistance - you know, the things that america at one time valued.

Andrew

Ah, but it is Americans who have been his primary target - always a popular theme for you. Now other nations are being attacked.

Is your unquestioning support for this madness still going strong? What is Canada was the focus?

Mastercard, along with other corporations, have decided to cooperate with governments in preventing wikileaks from operating and receiving financial donations.

This is not about fairness or legal vs illegal, its about doing whatever is possible to ensure that wikileaks, and others who might follow them, are able to continue to operate going forward.

Andrew

No. Going back 4 years there have been plenty of targets. The reason that the focus is now on america is for a few reasons - they have a trove of american documents to release, thanks to an american soldier no less. And america is the most influential nation in the world.

Is your unquestioning support for this madness still going strong? What is Canada was the focus? Absolutely - im all for harming the ability of Canada and its corporations to operate business as usual.

Andrew

Unless Wikileaks is classified as a terrorist organisation, then govts have no authority to deny anyone from donating to them, provided it's via legal means. Various govts around the world are undoubtedly embarrassed by the material that is coming out (my own govt in particularly is having very embarrassing info released each day, including revelations today that one of our senior ministers is an informant to the US embassy), and their response to this has been to act like virtual criminals in their desire to save face. Why are we hearing almost nothing about the attempts to prosecute the person/s who leaked the info to Wikileaks to begin with?

Ah, I see - so MasterCard and other businesses are required to do business with WikiLeaks? No choice, just submit to the will of WikiLeaks or face criminal attack by an electronic Manson Family?

Matt

The question should be asked "why are they being asked not to do business with them?" Unless Wikileaks is deemed to be a terrorist organisation, then there's no reason why anyone can't donate to them. I would argue that religious organisations the world over have been responsible for worse atrocities throughout history than Wikileaks, yet there's no problem giving them money...

MasterCard can do business with whomever they choose. This is just a modern version of Al Capone - "you'll do business with us, or else!"

Matt

But my understanding was that Mastercard ceased doing business with them because the US govt asked them to cease. Isn't that then the same as Capone saying "you'll cease doing business with them, or else!"?

I hadn't seen that. If the government actually asked that, I agree it was out of line.

No mention of government involvement here, though: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_1...01-503543.html

MasterCard says WikiLeaks violated their terms of service, according to that article.

Matt

Prosecute Manning? Heck, The city of Berkeley is planning on celebrating his "accomplishments".

Alleged leaker Bradley Manning: hero to Berkeley?

You know, in all honesty, the worst I can think of Anonymous and WikiLeaks is that they're civil disobedients. I have to really applaud them. They have the balls to stand up to secretive governments; something which is rarely done these days. I just wish I had the computer skills to join in.

My personal view about this whole wikileaks mumbojumbo is that according to law in sweden, he has done nothing wrong to be prosecuted (for wikileaks).
This is why the hillarious rape allegations are a simple trap into sending Assange to Sweden, and then to US.
This guy is probably going to get killed someway, somehow.
So all this bullshit American secret services are pulling, threatening major companies like amazon, paypal and such is just out of place.

If anything I blame the US for not being able to hold these cables safe. Plus let us not forget that wikileaks is merely a platform where anonymous volunteers post the information onto the site.
So if anyone should get arrested or insulted, it should be the American traitors who contributed to secretly steal the cables.

Now, as far as the whole privacy shit is going, then yes, I totally oppose wikileaks, as that does tamper with the Law of almost every jurisdiction on the planet.
Most of the leaks aren't new news anyway. If these leaks weren't about governmental cables, but rather personal information of You and I, then we would all be fuming our asses in anger and dismay!!
Having said this, I believe there should be total transparency in govts, always.

As for the Hackers attacking websites on behalf of wikileaks, I think its a dangerous game, because it is planting the seeds for more actions like these of younger hacking generations, and I am pretty sure no govt is ready to withstand a cyber attack.

It all feels like that V for Vendetta movie.. and I really can't be fucked to wear masks to show my support.. its not my style.http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/001_cool.gif

It was Sen. Joe Lieberman who intervened in the case of Amazon for sure, and it does not take much to figure out that paypal, MC, and VISA were all likewise pressured by the US gov as well.

Lieberman pressures Amazon to drop WikiLeaks - Yahoo! News

The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com)

Matt, i know you are not so naive to believe all these corporations all of a sudden at the same time decided wikileaks was in violation of their terms. They were more than happy to service them prior to the cable leak.

The fact of the matter is that wikileaks has broken no laws, so the US gov is applying pressure via their close contacts with the corporate world.

Hence, Operation Payback.

Andrew

Sure. I suspect there is nothing out there that would cause embarrassment to wikileaks though.

Andrew

Does the possibility that any of these corporations might consider a backlash from their customers for supporting WikiLeaks factor into the equation for you at all? I mean it'd be nice to be able to survive just on the revenue from one client but planning on that may be a little overoptimistic.

If these companies are claimed to be victims of undue coercion of the US government for the sake of the argument, then what is the proper justification of attacking the victims?

I suspect there is nothing WikiLeaks could do that would draw anything from you but fawning admiration.

Matt

So far they have done nothing but earn my admiration.

Show something to the contrary and i will consider it closely and honestly, like i always do.

Andrew