WikiLeaks is at it again-this time, State Department in "contigency" mode.

RICO has been used in creative ways to prosecute groups not envisioned by the original legislation. For example, it was used against pro-life activists for blocking clinics, even though they had no financial gain by it.

I don't think Anonymous' actions fall far from what RICO is aimed at. It is an organization of people brought together to commit a crime. And they're expressed aim is to blackmail companies to take a particular course of action (an action which will help fill the coffers of Assange's defense fund with money, btw). Wrecking someone's business and then compelling them to do what you say under threat of further attacks is pretty textbook racketeering. Anonymous is essentially a cyber-mafia.

 

blackmail companies? really? that's really, really stretching it. You say that it will help fill assange's coffers with money. How so? Are you implying that anonymous is blackmailing visa and mastercard into transferring funds to wikileaks? because it sounds like that's what you're saying. it can be argued that anonymous is retaliating in a perceived self-defensive measure against efforts to censor a non-profit internet media organization by applying political pressure to its revenue sources and web hosts.

also, sure, anonymous got together to commit a crime. However, the fact that something is illegal does not make it unethical. conversely, something being legal does not make it ethical. think of it this way. If you say that wikileaks supporters should have waited for the trial to work its way through the court systems - how do you think that would have ended up? Without a source of funds, his legal defense would have suffered immediately and most likely not even made it past the first rounds of appeals. So in essence, by applying pressure to have his accounts shut down, the government was denying him the right to a fair trial - probably part of the plan all along. A de facto censoring of a media outlet. I believe what the government did was just as much racketeering as what anonymous did. Of course, we only get to blame anonymous because we view them as a bunch of 4chan-affiliated hooligans making an online ruckus.

 

Lol, I'm not scared of lions and tigers and bears.

But I'm scared, of Julian Assange.

Because he's a child of divorce, woah woah woahhh
And a hacker with a moral conscious
Who has reasons for wanting to expose murders
In a fake war for a fake cause

Why does it feel like
Those who give in
They only wind up, losing a friend

Fly across the ocean, swim across the sea
But the most frightening thing
Is Julian talking about me

 

Sorry I never got back to this. I probably should let it lie, but Ronnie revived the thread; so, I'll blame him.

Yes, blackmail is when you demand that a person/company do what you want or else you will inflict some negative consequence. So yes, it really really does fit. I'm not implying that they want these companies to pay Assange, only that they want the companies to continue to do business with him so that others may give him money. I mention it because of a possible reservation about non-financial goals (which isn't necessary to be considered racketeering, but is the most common).

You can say Anonymous is retaliating in defense of a non-profit since that is exactly what they're doing. And, it might apply some political pressure. That doesn't keep it from being racketeering or illegal.

Being illegal doesn't make it unethical. But, being ethical doesn't make you immune to RICO prosecutions. DDoS attacks are illegal. Racketeering is illegal.

I do have a problem with what looks to me like inappropriate government pressure on private companies to stop doing business with political adversaries to squelch free speech. I think Assange's lawyers should pursue that line of argument. It's not up to Anonymous to level some vigilante justice on whomever they see as evil-doers. Because I don't want to entrust the mechanics of justice to the wisdom of a bunch of immature anonymous kids on 4chan.

 

so boycotting a company is tantamount to blackmail? great to know that's how you feel.

i understand that. but you also know there's something called jury nullification, in which a jury can rule someone not guilty if they disagree with the law? i believe there is a similar civic obligation to do something when you feel that legalities have prevailed over perceived, reasonable justice. hence riots in europe over government actions and inactions. remember the pentagon papers? nixon tried to make it illegal then, and it's happening again.

yeah, wikileaks' lawyers should pursue that angle, but 4chan isn't wikileak's legal counsel. you do what you can. the legal battle takes a long time and with enough money, mastercard/visa may be able to weasel their way out of any sort of punishment. what does get their attention is an immediate negative reaction through the press and through stock prices. honestly the anonymous DDoS's did very little damage to mc/visa physically - the websites were down a few hours and none of the transaction mechanisms were affected. What was much more effective was the increased media scrutiny (and that was probably what led to Paypal eventually unfreezing wikileaks' money). As it goes, DDoS is a very soft crime. No property destroyed, no injured or killed people.

 

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hl4NlA97GeQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hl4NlA97GeQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Typical stupid canned response influenced by watching US media. 90% of you guys slamming Assange would be kissing his ass if directed in that direction by MSNBC and company.

The point isn't that Assange is going to vet things better than the US State department or the military. Assange isn't even American, the point is that wikileaks is oriented towards free information with no responsibility to American interests while the State Department and military has very little orientation towards free information to the public with primary responsibility to American interests. What the hell are you talking about? The two are not in any way related they're in fact diametrically opposed yet here you are supposing that the information that Assange leaks could be handled in "proper" channels by the State Department or the military?

As for high handed comments about "cost in blood" lmao. How would Chinese declarations about suppression of "sensitive" information in the interests of the common good sit on you? Don't you know that release of information about Tibet and West China foments insurrection that costs thousands of lives when people riot and people DIE (this is actually true)? I guess Western media and dissenters in China better check themselves before they wreck themselves.

Not saying that wikileaks has no cost, but I wonder if you actually have a requisite synapses in your head to realize that you have to do better than that. "Lives will be lost!" is the exact popular ballad that every suppressive government has used to justify itself.

The truth is that any free exchange of comes with some cost. After 10 years of crap reporting where the media was complicit in selling the Iraq War, was silent about abuses in the banking industry and generally seems to have an axe to grind in all directions, the mere existence of wikileaks is an indictment of the media in general, as much as it's about the US foreign policy or military. 30 years ago, whisteblowers might well have gone to CBS news with this **** to get vetted or even *gasp* the FBI. Now people pretty much understand that the media is a joke and there really doesn't exist in the US a credible source for sensitive information. Seriously, have you watched cable news? When 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon is spun on-air in real time by elements of the Israeli Defense ministry and the US military media strategists can scrub "rebels" from the lexicon of CNN in favor of "insurgents" where do you think free information is going to exist? On CBS or the Defense Department website? LMFAO