WikiLeaks founder charged with rape and molestation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are a lot of people who support the hackers, but what I am advising those who are not involved is to stay away from the entire mess, because a lot of people are going to start getting arrested and questioned.
 
AnthonyCea said:
There are a lot of people who support the hackers, but what I am advising those who are not involved is to stay away from the entire mess, because a lot of people are going to start getting arrested and questioned.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know. And I agree that they're going to start doing that to almost any WikiLeaks supporter.
 
Well, there will be a lot of websites that will ban discussion about WikiLeaks soon, looks like this one will be next.
 
I wonder if we're talking about the guy that got accused of rape, which has now been cancelled anyway.
Or the wikileaks web site and how no charges has been filed against them, and amercia doesn't ask other countries to extradite him ..

It's almost like it's non-news. Nobody seems to have claimed what he leaked is illegal, as no judge ruled on it - no charges are pending against him or wikileaks web site for leaking content, ..
 
AnthonyCea said:
Well, there will be a lot of websites that will ban discussion about WikiLeaks soon, looks like this one will be next.
Click to expand...
And I agree, this web site is about xenforo, and while it has an offtopic section I think a topic like wikileaks is not suitable for this site - but then again, we have videos of muffin smashing going on here as well, so who knows :)
 
AnthonyCea said:
What is going on is the WikiLeaks hackers are attacking financial websites and creating zombie botnets by taking over innocent users computers to conduct those attacks.

This is a crime, so people will start getting arrested.
Click to expand...
Yikes! This is about to get real ugly then.
 
But see that's the troubling part, financial websites should be left out of it...similarly to how innocent civilian loss should be maintained to an absolute zero if possible during war...it kind of slows down the whole purpose which wikileaks stood for (right or wrong as they may be) I believe they were against the powers that be having two such drastically different faces and their goal I would have to guess was to inform the people and let them decide what they believe based on fact not speculation.

Hacking people, entities, or organizations as in this extreme case financial institutions...in the name of wiki links is dishonoring them somewhat. Under the logic that bad publicity is good publicity yeah great that is awesome, but... by those acts you now incorporate all of those illegal activities with a group a people who were what seemed to me to be merely exercising some global civil liberty ( I'm not saying as to whether it was gone about the proper way but there is so much fact we will never be privy to and for good reason that we will never be able to complete the true scenario as it played out).

Point is it is actually making things worse for wikileaks and users of the internet in general and those who really knew nothing about this will associate any news they hear about online hacking and such to wiki leaks even though nothing they were doing has anything to do with using hostility to attack a financial institution and along with that the integrity of a digitized system.
 
If hackers take control of your computer, using it as part of a zombie botnet to attack banking websites after installing malware on your computer, it is the same thing spam botnet operators have done for years, it is cyber crime period.

Let's say you go to some WikiLeaks website and those guys have code on their website designed to take your computer over, if you do not have great security you could have your machine taken over without your knowledge.

By what they are saying on the news, this is a full fledged cyber war like the web has never seen before, and you can bet that giant spam botnet operators are participating in some way.

PS: What is the difference if it is an unofficial WikiLeaks hacker or an official WikiLeaks website or a mirror, if they are installing malware on machines who cares if it is official or unofficial ???
 
AnthonyCea said:
If hackers are attacking your computer, using it as part of a zombie botnet to attack banking websites by installing malware on your computer, it is the same thing spam botnet operators have done for years, it is cyber crime period.
Click to expand...
yes using knowledge to defraud, threaten, or harm is a crime that should be taken seriously and punished extremely.


AnthonyCea said:
Let's say you go to some WikiLeaks website and those guys have code on their website designed to take your computer over, if you do not have great security you could have your machine taken over without your knowledge.

By what they are saying on the news, this is a full fledged cyber war like the web has never seen before, and you can bet that giant spam botnet operators are participating in some way.

PS: What is the difference if it is an unofficial WikiLeaks hacker or an official WikiLeaks website or a mirror, if they are installing malware on machines who cares if it is official or unofficial ???
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that they are participating (the hackers) but I highly doubt wikileaks authorized and/or was complicit in such a crime as well do I doubt that the people who actually run wikileaks have knowledge of it going on at their site. As far as the founder...it is in his better interest to have nothing to do with the hackers as it renders his purpose moot so I would really doubt it's anything more than a bunch of private people or groups that support an individual or group and are radical in defending it.

My relation is this....

If you went to jail and were on trial for something that looked hokey and I felt compelled to say start a hunger strike to bring awareness and show support of you getting a fair trial and a place to tell your side of the story without compromise and somehow in the middle of the peaceful demonstration one of the hunger strikees dies of a malnourishment complication, you couldn't be held accountable for the person striking dying of hunger as you weren't even present and did not tell any of them to do such an act. Though in the eyes of the public who didn't support you you would be responsible for that persons death.

It's not always the facts but sometimes how they are presented.
Click to expand...

I think the founder had nothing to do with these attacks and they should be investigated separately.
 
Erik said:
You should make it clear the these are not representatives of WikiLeaks. Just unofficial supporters.
Click to expand...
True. They claim they are in no way affiliated with Wikileaks and are just fighting for the same thing. And here it starts - the fact that they are using the word fighting alone is disturbing enough. If they just want to show support - there are other, more civil ways to do so.
 
SilverCircle said:
True. They claim they are in no way affiliated with Wikileaks and are just fighting for the same thing. And here it starts - the fact that they are using the word fighting alone is disturbing enough. If they just want to show support - there are other, more civil ways to do so.
Click to expand...
Exactly
A bank's network is not the forum to be cavalier.
 
I was going to purchase something but paypal is down.

Also, I read a few comments made by you guys and some I agree with, others not quite, but in the end it's just one's opinion and this discussion isn't worth one's time.
 
Ray said:
I was going to purchase something but paypal is down.

Also, I read a few comments made by you guys and some I agree with, others not quite, but in the end it's just one's opinion and this discussion isn't worth one's time.
Click to expand...

LOL? then why did you just post :p
 
Whatever you might think about those DDOS attacks. Their message is pretty simple:
"Anonymous is supporting WikiLeaks not because we agree or disagree with the data that is being sent out, but we disagree with any from of censorship on the internet," he said.
"This is why we are acting against these companies as we believe that if we let WikiLeaks fall without a fight then governments will think they can just take down any sites they wish or disagree with."
Click to expand...

And looking at the media attention that "Cyber War" gets they definitely delivered that message. Which is a good thing.

It's a shame that people from the US want to see him executed instead of standing up for freedom of speech. I was told there used to be a time where that mattered in the US. Not anymore I guess.
 
Just discovered this thread, and have not read everything in it. I just thought I'd share my thoughts on the matter. As someone who dabbled with information security, and someone who will fight every rule the government can think of as an excuse to somehow get their hands on my fingerprints, iris scans and/or DNA (while I am NOT a direct suspect in a crime, and only under the agreement that I get total information on what happens to my data afterwards), I can see a need for a site like WikiLeaks. The videowith the journalist being killed, THAT was what the site was founded for. THAT was stuff the governments would have conveniently kept from the public.

However, WikiLeaks has totally lost its original goals. They leaked loads of documents, where they left the names of informants or government officials in there. The Taliban is rumoured to have already killed some of these informants for collaborating with the enemy. If they just wanted to publish things being kept from us, they could easily have ensured that names were replaced or anonimized.

The publication of diplomatic documents also served no real purpose. It's uninteresting gossip from diplomatic circles that at best confirms a bunch of stuff that was already suspected. And it embarrased the US diplomatic corpse, perhaps. It probably also ensured that . Other than that, nothing in those documents really revealed anything newsworthy, and seemed to have been more about Assange's quest to get his name out than the reason of why Wikileaks was started for.

It would also be good to see whether WikiLeaks can expose some documents from other countries. Other than the US, that is. I might not agree with absolutely everything done by the US, but somehow I cannot help but think that there are probably far worse things going on in the world than just what is coming out of the US. I also think that Mr Assange overlooks that the US is one country that has a constitution that allows him to do what he is doing, whereas a multitude of other countries would most likely have disposed of him way earlier if he did there what he is doing.

In short, I do think WikiLeaks serves a purpose, but that it currently is being used as a platform for Assange to get his name out there. I am really not sure what to think of the charges he has been arrested under, but Sweden does not strike me as a country that would have him arrested on a whim, only to then directly hand him over to the US. I do expect Assange to receive a fair trial.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom