[Toilet & Bowels]

has anything thing ever been achieved from internet petitions? I.e. examples. (genuine question, not rhetorical)

[kinn]

yes, there have been various successes related to various subjects. a petition like this is more to do with sending a message to make people who might try to fuck with wikileaks think twice. shows whose side the public is on.

[stu666]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

has anything thing ever been achieved from internet petitions? I.e. examples. (genuine question, not rhetorical)

Stewart Lee apparently got a second series on the BBC after they first said no.

and

BBC6 music?

[knox]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

has anything thing ever been achieved from internet petitions? I.e. examples. (genuine question, not rhetorical)

yes, this particular institution has managed to change a lot of things, somethings are mentioned on the website.

these petitions have been used to pressure politicians, and they're even used in court - which could end up happening in this case. The idea is to let them know people know what is going on and giving assange unfair treatment is bad PR.

[kinn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpwVf...layer_embedded

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

has anything thing ever been achieved from internet petitions? I.e. examples. (genuine question, not rhetorical)

to my knowledge, nothing serious. however, organizations like amnesty international use letter-writing campaigns as one of their tools to pressure governments for human rights.

see: http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/guide.pdf

internet petitions are a bit lazier and reflect a lesser commitment (and perhaps a willingness to be spammed), but they are like a wind vane of public opinion, nothing more, and for those who can be swayed by this, maybe some sort or pressure.

re: 4chan - Anonymous has been organizing the DOS attacks( that sometimes have succeeded and others haven't) against corporations that left wikilieaks hanging (master card, visa, amazon, paypal, some fucking swiss bank)-- the attacks are mostly symbolic but again, public opinion, etc.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by knox

I think you misunderstood. Wikileaks is not pirate or hacking, it is just a website that posts information sent to them, nothing illegal about it, nothing newspapers cannot do - in theory.

They wouldn't have gotten the same publicity and impact, because the real significance is not in the documents themselves (tho scary, nothing that people did not know or imagine) but what they're actually doing to this one person: ignoring laws, calling for execution, unfair accusations and procedures. That is saying something significant, that causes a reaction in people. It's not like they didn't know this was going to happen. It isn't about the documents it's about the fuss.

Originally Posted by kinn

the people doing the hacking of paypal etc. are not affliated with wikileaks in anyway. they are a completely separate group of hackers.

suchfriends' point about wikileaks staying "underground" doesn't make any kind of sense. they need donations to keep going, what is the point of leaking things if noone sees them? the whole point is visibility. there's no way to be "underground" and some how avoid the apparatus of the state when you leak its secrets, because if you are underground enough it will just be able to arrest you and noone will find out.

you're both absolutely wrong. WikiLeaks is by definition pirate, as ALL of the documents they are leaking over the past few years are not authorized, they are stolen (not just these war chest documents and diplomatic cables, wikileaks has been leaking corporate and govt documents for years now) and it is a crime. The people who directly leak these documents face prison terms, shit even potentially the death penalty in the US
Further, I think the current situations with people being incarcerated across the world, from China to Burma to the US to the UK effectively demonstrates that even with the spotlight of mass media attention and publicity, the government still can and will find and arrest those it deems a threat. Shit President Obama has been continually fighting for the legal authority to assassinate US citizens (under the pretext of this Awlaki character) as a war strategy!

this is by very definition piracy. If wikileaks wanted to be the LATimes, they would have leaked the documents like Ellsburg, but they are pirates, so they went entirely with the hacker/pirate DIY vibe, which worked quite well for them over the past few years. It is only recently when they starting using corporate mechanisms for fund raising and corporate mechanisms for publicity (like inviting mainstream news crews to film their servers or using paypal/mastercard/visa to solicit funds)

Had they stayed underground like they were, they could have easily publicized the material on their reputation alone, without having to go for the full out walmartization effect and go brutally corporate. They have been whistle blowing against corrupt government, media and corporations for years now, what did they honestly expect? You can not use the devils tools to take down the devil, you can never take down the System as an insider. If you try kill the snake from the inside by crawling in its belly, unfortunately all the happens is the snake makes a meal of you..

If illegally leaking stolen government and corporate material isn't piracy, and using the DIY internet model for public distribution isn't hacking, what is?

[SonicBebs]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

has anything thing ever been achieved from internet petitions? I.e. examples. (genuine question, not rhetorical)

yeah, loads
we didn't go to war in Iraq. China stopped be horrible to dogs. The uk gov didn't increase the tuition fees. Facebook stopped letting peado terrorists wank over kittens. 6music is still on air.

loads

[knox]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

you're both absolutely wrong. WikiLeaks is by definition pirate, as ALL of the documents they are leaking over the past few years are not authorized, they are stolen (not just these war chest documents and diplomatic cables, wikileaks has been leaking corporate and govt documents for years now) and it is a crime. The people who directly leak these documents face prison terms, shit even potentially the death penalty in the US
Further, I think the current situations with people being incarcerated across the world, from China to Burma to the US to the UK effectively demonstrates that even with the spotlight of mass media attention and publicity, the government still can and will find and arrest those it deems a threat. Shit President Obama has been continually fighting for the legal authority to assassinate US citizens (under the pretext of this Awlaki character) as a war strategy!

this is by very definition piracy. If wikileaks wanted to be the LATimes, they would have leaked the documents like Ellsburg, but they are pirates, so they went entirely with the hacker/pirate DIY vibe, which worked quite well for them over the past few years. It is only recently when they starting using corporate mechanisms for fund raising and corporate mechanisms for publicity (like inviting mainstream news crews to film their servers or using paypal/mastercard/visa to solicit funds)

Had they stayed underground like they were, they could have easily publicized the material on their reputation alone, without having to go for the full out walmartization effect and go brutally corporate. They have been whistle blowing against corrupt government, media and corporations for years now, what did they honestly expect? You can not use the devils tools to take down the devil, you can never take down the System as an insider. If you try kill the snake from the inside by crawling in its belly, unfortunately all the happens is the snake makes a meal of you..

If illegally leaking stolen government and corporate material isn't piracy, and using the DIY internet model for public distribution isn't hacking, what is?

No. Wikileaks can be considered a media vehicle. The media does not have any obligation to hold back and not publish things they get hold of. Wikileaks did not hack and get these documents, they are simply sent to them. Other people are facing punishment for doing so:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

What has been done is certainly not a crime, so much so they could not charge him for it, he's in jail for "having sex without a condom". What did they expect? They expected this (see video posted above). Wikileaks is winning.

As for whether Internet petitions are effective or not, sometimes they are, most of the times they aren't but surely taking 2 minutes to sign them is not gonna kill anyone.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

you're both absolutely wrong. WikiLeaks is by definition pirate, as ALL of the documents they are leaking over the past few years are not authorized, they are stolen (not just these war chest documents and diplomatic cables, wikileaks has been leaking corporate and govt documents for years now) and it is a crime.

But if the govt is covering up a crime, then you are not committing a crime by publicizing that information. OR do you think that the State has the right to deny the citizens knowledge about its crimes? And I think "Piracy" isn't quite accurate, there are no materials of value, its just information.

[knox]

sign this while you're at it, please.

http://www.standwithbrad.org/

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by knox

No. Wikileaks can be considered a media vehicle. The media does not have any obligation to hold back and not publish things they get hold of. Wikileaks did not hack and get these documents, they are mostly sent to them. Other people are facing punishment for doing so:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

What has been done is certainly not a crime, so much so they could not charge him for it, he's in jail for "having sex without a condom". What did they expect? They expected this (see video posted above). Wikileaks is winning.

As for whether Internet petitions are effective or not, sometimes they are, most of the times they aren't but surely taking 2 minutes to sign them is not gonna kill anyone.

by your definition any hacker with a blog is a legitimate media source, and further who defines legitimate in the first place? You are supposing that being an internet pirate is somehow morally wrong or negative, where as from my ethos surely it was the better tactic considering the circumstances. With war crimes continuing daily in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Colombia and Iraq (and a dozen other places probably) meanwhile Americans are still griping over the Dream Act and ideological tax debates I dare say WikiLeaks hasn't done a fucking thing! I never asked wikileaks to hold back anything in regards to distributing their materials, but I do believe that have went against their initial purpose and intentions. They were a DIY internet based distributor of documents, which they solicited from any hackers/whistle blowers who possessed such and were looking for an outlet, wikileaks was supposed to be the wikipedia of leaked documents and secrets, now it has become more an Amazon.com

I don't believe wikileaks initially ever wanted to be considered any kind of so-called legitimate media source, and that has been their flaw now, as the play with the big boys. Mass media is all about sponsors and advertisers, and so that is the constituency which mass media has to address, where as wikileaks was DIY. In abandoning the DIY/pirate/hacker ethos which it was founded on, it has lost its way. In collaborating so fully and openly with the mass media machine, what did it expect? WikiLeaks already had a bit of publicity without having to had pimped themselves out so much for media attention. They could have had a media blitz campaign still on the DIY platform, but instead they opted to turn to the current and corporate model, and as such it has come to bite them in the fucking ass!

Originally Posted by tesla69

But if the govt is covering up a crime, then you are not committing a crime by publicizing that information. OR do you think that the State has the right to deny the citizens knowledge about its crimes? And I think "Piracy" isn't quite accurate, there are no materials of value, its just information.

you completely misunderstand me. Just because I stated the obvious (that the current government consider such leaks criminal activity) does not mean I support the government's intentions. But reality is reality. I smoke weed, and its a crime, not to me personally, but to the police on the street, so why would I ask a pig for a light for I-spliff?

[knox]

There is no crime in what Wikileaks did.

Also, if you're working for a company they may ask you to sign a non-disclosure agreement. However, if you find any information about criminal activity it's ok for you to break that contract, in fact, you could even face charges if you don't.

What Manning did was exactly that. He witnesses a war crime and he wanted to make it public. He used his access to find out more about it and other crimes. He probably wanted the responsible for these crimes to be stopped and judged.

Terrorism and spying apply to getting illegal access to information in order to commit crimes, acts of violence or obtain power for yourself or a group. This man should not be in jail, he was denouncing crimes and lies that interest not only the american people, but the entire world.

Laws are being ignored in order to punish and silence these people. Countries and companies are ignoring procedures and depriving people of their rights and assets.

As for being "underground" their goal is not to be "cool" and have a few people read the website regularly. The goal is to get people's attention.

[knox]

Suchfriends, you don't seem to understand that this was the goal. They're not "being bitten in the ass", this is the plan.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by knox

There is no crime in what Wikileaks did.

Also, if you're working for a company they may ask you to sign a non-disclosure agreement. However, if you find any information about criminal activity it's ok for you to break that contract, in fact, you could even face charges if you don't.

What Manning did was exactly that. He witnesses a war crime and he wanted to make it public. He used his access to find out more about it and other crimes. He probably wanted the responsible for these crimes to be stopped and judged.

Terrorism and spying apply to getting illegal access to information in order to commit crimes, acts of violence or obtain power for yourself or a group. This man should not be in jail, he was denouncing crimes and lies that interest not only the american people, but the entire world.

Laws are being ignored in order to punish and silence these people. Countries and companies are ignoring procedures and depriving people of their rights and assets.

As for being "underground" their goal is not to be "cool" and have a few people read the website regularly. The goal is to get people's attention.

Morally, of course there is no crime in fact it is a virtue what they are doing. But from an existing legal standpoint, to solicit people to commit a crime is a crime, and further it is in poor taste to solicit people to commit potentially capital crimes in then sell out for the mainstream, that puts a lot of people in vulnerable positions. So you think they only arrested this dude on that trumped up sex crime (of which he has yet to be formally charged with by the way) or is it just subterfuge to allow the system the opportunity to put the heat on this guy and his organization to give up they black book?

The system is nervous, that is for sure, and according to the system to steal secret and sensitive material is indeed a crime, which many people are currently incarcerated for, including the military renegade who initially sent wikileaks this material in the first place! I do not support it being a crime, but since it is, I can only logically promote a pirate approach.

Should it be a crime, of course not, but it thus remains one, and potentially a capital crime at that. So should wikileaks have NOT distributed the material in fear of the laws, no, but they should have been a bit more cautious, that is all. Going mainstream from a DIY platform was a mistake, and that is clear and obvious in light of the current situations.

Kudos for wikileaks for having some balls, but unfortunately I must criticise their abandonment of DIY/pirate integrity.

Originally Posted by knox

Suchfriends, you don't seem to understand that this was the goal. They're not "being bitten in the ass", this is the plan.

what plan was that? To get villified while also getting arrested and potentially putting all their sources at risk of also getting arrested in having gone so public? Just because wikileaks can keep releasing material on shadow servers and mirror links does not mean the system is not putting the heat on them, we do not know what is happening behind closed doors, or what has happened with wikileaks black book.

[DeadDiscoDildo]

While I do not believe in War, I recognize that we ARE in one and I feel that non military personal have NO right interfering and making public battle strategies and plans etc.

What we didnt know all government is corrupt and doesnt tell the public whats really going on? Jesus christ, grow up already or start the revolution yourself. But this guy certainly isnt starting any kind of revolution.

Just damaging already sensitive relations in the world.

[knox]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

what plan was that? To get villified while also getting arrested and potentially putting all their sources at risk of also getting arrested in having gone so public?

yes.

[knox]

Originally Posted by DeadDiscoDildo

While I do not believe in War, I recognize that we ARE in one and I feel that non military personal have NO right interfering and making public battle strategies and plans etc.

.

No? how unlennon of you.

[kinn]

very convenient, you do not "believe" in war, but want people to shut up and let the war your country started, (sorry, "are in") continue. they shouldn't question it, cos they aren't experts or part of the military. the military should just be allowed to do whatever it wants, noone needs to know but the generals. but you don't "believe" in the war so your own beautiful soul is saved.

and those sensitive relations are due to your country spying on all the other diplomats and starting the wars and threatening all the aggression against people that don't go along with it's religious suicide mission - sorry, "war on terror".

there is no hope for an anti war movement in britain or the us at this point. most people simply want the genocide to continue as long as they don't have to know too much about it. because thinking makes them feel bad, it makes them all depressed and helpless, and life is about enjoyment, so anyone that wants to make you think is oppressing you. people want to be able to continue to pretend their "opinions" and "beliefs" some how matter, and aren't just the redundant subjective narcissism that feed the smooth operating of the most violent excesses of the state. as long as you can save your own beautiful soul by stating that you don't "believe" or "agree" with the war. that's democracy, which is why we are committing genocide. because it's something that can be transferred to islamic states. especially at the barrel of the gun. after all if they don't share our democratic values they must be behind us, they will evolve into our way of thinking at some point. they HAVE to. next you're going to be telling me millenarianism and progress aren't real ffs.

[DeadDiscoDildo]

All governments spy. Are we unique in that aspect? The whole world is fucked. We are just on top of the pyramid of cunts. You think if another country had the power we did they'd be any different? All governments are SHIT man. SHIT.

And I did NOT vote for that asshole who started the war, so what are you trying to say?