Mastercard

Really2

Malcolm. wrote: »

I agree with Really2 on this issue. I can understand publishing data where politicians have lied or sexed up dossiers, however making a list of potential strategic targets widely available is not (IMHO) a good idea.

Should one of these strategic sites be targetted by terrorists, governments will likely use it as an excuse to pass draconian internet censorship laws. The fallout will be freedom of information and networking sites suffering.

Some one gets me.

Really2

olly300 wrote: »

What you mean releasing information like that Prince Andrew is thought of as a fool and a tw*t by diplomats and journalists? And doesn't seem to have a problem with bribes which journalists just don't understand?

Not quiet as I really do not think that is a danger to the general public.

prince andrew is not the general public, people working at facilities that are of worldwide importance is different to prince andrew being a knob.

Like I said I have no problem with some of the things they have done some have been good. Just the recent ones seemed to have shifted focus?

Perhaps wikileaks should have asked the top 100 sites if they wanted to be listed not the US government, in the end it is them who will have to deal with anything.

kabayiri

MasterCard, hmmm...

Truly an example of "Denial of Quality Service"

Really2

vaporate wrote: »

Mastercard and paypal get what they deserve for bowing down to US pressure and use the clause as a cover up.

I would argue it is the shoppers and shops that are suffering the most not the two companies.

olly300

Really2 wrote: »

I would argue it is the shoppers and shops that are suffering the most not the two companies.

True.

One reason to make sure you have more than one card from one group of financial institutions with a different payment provider.

Malcolm.

olly300 wrote: »

Governments have already being trying to pass them or were you asleep for the last years of Nu Labour rule?

That is my point. Public opinion is currently with internet freedom. It's making it difficult for governments to implement laws without losing public support. An 'event' could be used as a tool to sway public opinion in the governments favour.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Malcolm. wrote: »

That is my point. Public opinion is currently with internet freedom. It's making it difficult for governments to implement laws without losing public support. An 'event' could be used as a tool to sway public opinion in the governments favour.

Certainly some of the information has been deliberately given to wiki.

olly300

Malcolm. wrote: »

That is my point. Public opinion is currently with internet freedom. It's making it difficult for governments to implement laws without losing public support. An 'event' could be used as a tool to sway public opinion in the governments favour.

That would be very difficult to do in the UK. We don't tend to trust our government or the establishment enough. (This thread is an example of it. )

Really2

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Certainly some of the information has been deliberately given to wiki.

Right, I think you have hit my problem there, some things like the us military tapes etc must have been given to them.

And to my mind that was to open the public's eyes to what has happened and to prompt change.
I really don't feel like any of the recent stuff has been in the public interest, it has been all to political.
I just prefered it when they were righting wrongs, the recent stuff does not feel the same to me.
It seems to be to cause damage, it seems to have gone past public interest.

Malcolm.

olly300 wrote: »

That would be very difficult to do in the UK. We don't tend to trust our government or the establishment enough. (This thread is an example of it. )

Were it not for a tragic event, I doubt politicians could have used the national security card to invade Iraq. If you can goto war on the back of national security, you can pass internet censorship laws too.

The internet developed at such speed, it moved faster than politicans and lawmakers could legislate. I'd prefer to keep it that way and not allow the government to play the any nartional security card's when setting internet policy.