4chan brings down Mastercard for being anti-wikileaks

Is this the first true public cyber battle? Hackers and governments bring down Wikileaks and the people supporting them - and in return, different hackers unite to bring down those.
Where does this end?
I actually take the people who are doing this - and the ones, that brought down Wikileaks (and the Governments who helped them) as far more detrimental to us than anything else that has came from this.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11935539


Internet hacktivists are claiming to have brought down the Mastercard website as revenge for the firm withdrawing services to Wikileaks.
The Anonymous group of hackers have also brought down the website of the Swedish prosecutors office which is pursuing founder Julian Assange.
It has pledged to launch denial-of-service attacks on websites it sees as anti-Wikileaks.
Earlier it hit the Swiss bank that froze Mr Assange's assets.
PayPal, which has stopped processing donations to Wikileaks, has also been targeted.
Anonymous is a loose-knit group of hacktivists, with links to the notorious message board 4chan.
"We are glad to tell you that Mastercard is down and it's confirmed," the group tweeted.
Mastercard has not yet spoken out about it but security experts have said the site has been under a so-called distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS), which swamp a site with so many requests that it becomes overwhelmed,
However, access appears to be possible intermittently and it is still visible from some countries, experts say.
Earlier the group confirmed other targets: "In response to the arrest of Julian Assange, Anonymous has taken down PostFinance.ch, who terminated Wikileaks bank account, using a distributed denial-of-service attack. Subsequently, Anonymous attacked http://www.aklagare.se, the Swedish Prosecutors office, also using a DDoS attack, and took the site down in under 10 seconds of beginning the attack," the group said in a statement.
Noa Bar Yosef, a senior analyst at security firm Imperva said the attacks are "very focused".
"It is recruiting people from within their own network. They are actually asking supporters to download a piece of code, the DDoSing malware, and upon a wake-up call the computer engages in the denial of service," he said.

Before the Mastercard attack, a member of Anonymous, who calls himself Coldblood, told the BBC that "multiple things are being done".
"Websites that are bowing down to government pressure have become targets," he said.
"As an organisation we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means."
"We feel that Wikileaks has become more than just about leaking of documents, it has become a war ground, the people vs. the government," he said.
Some of the early DDoS hits failed to take sites offline, although that was not the point of the attacks, according to Coldblood.
"The idea is not to wipe them off but to give the companies a wake-up call," he said. "Companies will notice the increase in traffic and an increase in traffic means increase in costs associated with running a website."
DDoS attacks are illegal in many countries, including the UK.
Coldblood admitted that such attacks "may hurt people trying to get to these sites" but said it was "the only effective way to tell these companies that us, the people, are displeased".
Anonymous is also helping to create hundreds of mirror sites for Wikileaks, after its US domain name provider withdrew its services.

Ending contracts
The attacks are part of an ongoing infowar involving Wikileaks.
The whistle-blowing site has also been hit by a series of DDoS attacks, following the release of a quarter of a million US embassy cables.

Which brings up the interesting question, can you live without the internet? Not just for a vacation but if it went down forever?

I'd be fucked for a bit, not just for work but keeping in touch with everyone. My hand muscles would have to reallign from being used for the reverse left hand shuffle and learn how to use a pen, again for a start.

good on the hacktivists for bringing down mastercard and visa! why can one not donate to wikileaks when visa still allows one to donate to the KKK?????

Visa/MC are fucking Morons.

I'm cancelling my VISA debit card tomorrow after work (will ask for scissors from the cashier and cut it up in front of them) and telling everybody in the bank about it.

Following pasted from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...e#comment-fold



Perhaps swamping VISA and Mastercard with complaints as to why they've stopped processing payments for wikileaks and the legal defence fund for Julian?


Especially since they can't have a moral argument -


4.14pm: Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan. The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are "white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God."


Email VISA/Mastercard here:


Peter Ayliffe is the CEO of Visa Europe: ayliffep@visa.com



enquiries.europe@visa.com


And Mastercard: consumer_inquiries@mastercard.com


If they want a war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kieron

good on the hacktivists for bringing down mastercard and visa! why can one not donate to wikileaks when visa still allows one to donate to the KKK?????

Visa/MC are fucking Morons.

I'm cancelling my VISA debit card tomorrow after work (will ask for scissors from the cashier and cut it up in front of them) and telling everybody in the bank about it.

Following pasted from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...e#comment-fold



Perhaps swamping VISA and Mastercard with complaints as to why they've stopped processing payments for wikileaks and the legal defence fund for Julian?


Especially since they can't have a moral argument -


4.14pm: Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan. The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are "white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God."


Email VISA/Mastercard here:


Peter Ayliffe is the CEO of Visa Europe: ayliffep@visa.com



enquiries.europe@visa.com


And Mastercard: consumer_inquiries@mastercard.com


If they want a war...

---

dude spin out of it you sound like a spoilled brat who got his favorite toy taken away for gods sake now go cut up your card you know the one you cant afford in the first place and have a party do you really think the bank really gives a shit if you cut up the card in front of them? spew your bullshit and watch the tellers laugh there asses off and hopefully one of them will put it on youtube so the rest of us can see what a retard you are.

Well, the next time Keiron tries to rent a car or book a hotel room, he'll regret not having a credit card Lisa. :)

With this latest "release" I consider WikiLeaks no more than a cross between The Huffington Post and Perez Hilton. There is no story here ,other than "look what I can do!!!"

Well isnt that precious Stuart.

4chan <3

my card was actually a Visa Debit card to allow myself to pay for things with my own money (not the banks), I don't have ANY credit cards to my name, I live off my weekly pay and won't get sucked in to having a credit card,

in saying that I may apply for one or two cards, take the limits to the max (around AU$50,000 each if I can) and then take all the money out, hide the money overseas and declare myself bankrupt, that would fuck Visa and Mastercard in the process.

@ Lisa:

Look at who Visa still processes donations for!!!! If you have a Visa card you are supporting Racism indirectly! and if you have either or both you are supporting Censorship and violations of the US First Ammendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisaparadise

dude spin out of it you sound like a spoilled brat who got his favorite toy taken away for gods sake now go cut up your card you know the one you cant afford in the first place and have a party do you really think the bank really gives a shit if you cut up the card in front of them? spew your bullshit and watch the tellers laugh there asses off and hopefully one of them will put it on youtube so the rest of us can see what a retard you are.

---

Ditto!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kieron

@ Lisa:

Look at who Visa still processes donations for!!!! If you have a Visa card you are supporting Racism indirectly! and if you have either or both you are supporting Censorship and violations of the US First Ammendment.

---

yes i have a visa and mastercard as well as a prepaid visa i use strickley for the net aka ebay.but i dont support terrerist in any way shape or form.period.

The Reaction of Governments to Wikileaks Should Scare the Hell Out of You

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...e_messoped.jpgWikileaks is a flawed endeavor represented publicly by a smug egotist. But it deserves the respect and support of anyone who prioritizes the privacy of individuals over that of governments.
You don't have to like it or Assange in order to value the counterpoint they represent to the modern high-technology security state. Instead, it is best to assess the major issues hiding in the rhetoric on their merits, and realize as a result that the conversation America is currently having with the world about transparency is ultimately the most valuable achievement of this peculiar organization.
The contents of the leaks are not the main issue; in fact, they are at most an interesting bonus and occasionally a dangerous distraction. No less a personage than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, no admirer of Wikileaks, has stated that the practical impact of the leaks in terms of security and compromised diplomacy is negligible. He goes on to make the point that countries don't do business with the US on the basis of ideals but rather as a result of self interest. Your mileage may vary, but I believe it's safe to take his word as an intelligence veteran charged directly with national defense over the flatulent posturing of elected leaders whose need for a good target to harangue often takes precedence over the facts of the matter.
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...0.33.50_am.jpg
The main issue is the meta-discussion about the balance between public oversight and national security. Evgeny Morozov nailed it succinctly via a twitter comment early on, and it is precisely that which needs to be on the center stage. The Pentagon Papers are a logical point of comparison: they were every bit as far-reaching and classified (technically moreso, since they were top secret) and have been exonerated both legally and historically by their clear role in serving the public interest. Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker in that instance, has his points of divergence from Assange but has no problem connecting the two leaks.
The difference between the two has to do with their targets: the Papers being released clearly constituted a criticism of Vietnam strategy and government dishonesty. The Wikileaks cables have less to do with individual decisions than with the broader approach the United States has accelerated since 9/11 towards aggressively invading the privacy of its citizens and foreign nationals, all the while shielding even its most mundane government functions from scrutiny under the aegis of national security. Uncomfortably for Assange, if he succeeds in his mission to any significant degree he is unlikely to match his hyperbole in damaging the US, and far more likely to drive it to renew its institutions into a more palatable and competent upgrade of the status quo. That's not a clear victory for anyone, but it's better than the current alternative and a goal that many Americans should be able to get behind.
That said, the leaks are fascinating and clearly in the public interest once made available. Andrew Napolitano at Fox explains it in legal terms to Newt Gingrich, who's in fine form atop his pedestal of bullshit (via LibertarianChristian), and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has no problem seeing the upside despite her broader reservations in terms of allowing a window into a professional bureaucracy that is usually denied the ability to defend its competence when attacked thanks to the nature of its work. One significant caveat is that the alleged source of the leak is in very dangerous territory legally; while precedents have been set in the past for whistleblowers operating on a similar scale, Bradley Manning's status as an active duty member of the military means that he can easily be held to a different legal standard and fried accordingly. Another worthwhile note would be that it is likely that Wikileaks and its partner newspapers will fail to vet more sensitive items to everyone's satisfaction, such as the recent "sensitive locations" item that has triggered discomfort even within the ranks of its supporters. It's bound to get worse as both sides up the ante, and it's important to focus on whether something is materially dangerous (so far unproven) or simply creates a convincing impression of danger from a distance.
Finally, the reaction of governments to these leaks should scare the hell out of you. The seemingly inevitable arrest (via Reddit) of Julian Assange by British authorities on Swedish sexual assault charges as encouraged by the American government likely represents a 21st century remix of the classic honeypot, and the willingness to use it on such a high profile individual should be worrisome irrespective of the veracity of the charges. It's just the tip of the iceberg, though. Apart from Facebook's notably understated position, the ease and rapidity with which corporations across the US and the world were reminded of where the fishes sleep should be of tremendous concern. If Amazon, credit card companies, Paypal, and Swiss banks are the big stories with their reliance on technicalities to wriggle out of their responsibilities in obvious response to government pressure, it is EveryDNS being brazenly strongarmed into abdicating its role as a neutral gatekeeper that should set the tone for future conversations about net neutrality.
The potential for Comcast or Verizon abusing their place in the food chain pales in comparison to an overt example of governments colluding to silence what they can't defeat in court with intimidation and technological warfare. Naturally, some will point to the "hacktivist" response (apologies if that's your first exposure to that term) as an equal and opposite reaction: while possibly emotionally gratifying, in the end it has the same outcome of discouraging corporate work with transparency organizations since dealing with governments is not as easy to opt out of. As Senator Joseph Lieberman makes clear (via Cory), it's easy for unscrupulous advocates of censorship to view this as an opportunity, a watershed that brings together their traditional loathing of old media with contemporary technology.
The Chinese were criticized by the US for attacking Google, despite it not really being inconsistent with their stated policy priorities even with the Wikileaks bonus intel. It's now the United States' turn to reflect on what the last decade of enhanced government privacy has brought citizens of our nation as well as the world generally, and to do so in terms of the marginal benefits it has brought a tiny minority of bureaucrats, elected officials, and corporations relative to the general public. To paraphrase Machiavelli's views on the Roman republic into the American situation, it was when they were willing to learn from mistakes rather than simply condemn the messenger that institutions could be renewed in a manner that best maintained a balance between a functional government and individual liberty for citizens.

Roberto Arguedas is a public school teacher in Atlanta with a focus on diplomatic history. He served in the Marine infantry in Fallujah (post Phantom Fury) and Ramadi (during the surge). He blogs at Philistine Vulgarity about politics, games, and more.

I like this part:
To paraphrase Machiavelli's views on the Roman republic into the American situation, it was when they were willing to learn from mistakes rather than simply condemn the messenger that institutions could be renewed in a manner that best maintained a balance between a functional government and individual liberty for citizens.

This all just gets more entertaining by the minute.

thank you dd123 for your piece, is much appreciated and to see a fox news presenter theoretically defending Assange and the 1st Ammendment is pleasing.

Lisa should watch this video and look at the FACTS, that the US Gov't/global elites are trying to blind the US public with bullshit, introduce more surveillance and track everyone/everything that happens except themselves.

I heart Judge Napolitano!

~BB~