i mean the sites supported wikileaks for how ever long and then as soon as the leaks came out the pressure was put on them all to stop their support.
What? No pressure was put on any of them, really. Paypal, for example, probably just decided that it was best to avoid any legal issues by simply refusing service. There is a difference. No idea what other "sites" supported them. I have a paypal account, it doesn't mean they "support" me.
the pressure came from the same governments,politicans and people that the leaks were about
No. There was no external "pressure" and if there was any, it came from the lawyers of the companies in question, along the lines of "you might be liable if they are doing anything illegal"
the same two faced liars who say one thing in public and another in private
err... everybody acts and talks different in public and private. It's called etiquette. Kind of like when you see somebody fall down it might be funny but you only laugh when you recall how some imbecile fell on his arse earlier. You don't say it right then. Well, unless you're a jerk.
the same that if it was between you and them who went to jail or got into trouble you can bet your life it will be you.
TDEMSYR. Why the *censored* would it be "between you and them" I mean, seriously, *censored* kind of crazy hypothetical situation are you thinking of? it must as ridiculous as those "if a serial killer came into your house and let you keep only one of your kids which one would you choose" that completely forgets the fact that there is a third choice where you smash the guy over the head with a heavy porcelain vase.
only the most secret plans and information should never been seen by the public until its so out of date its no use to anyone , only fit for the bin.
I'm not even sure what you're saying. should never been seen?
secret plans should be keep in a secure building with only a few people allowed in under the best security money can buy.not in a building where hundreds of people work on hundreds of pc's.
and yet, if they had a news story about "Govt building new underground security base using 50 million pounds of taxpayers money" you'd go on another barely comprehensible rant about nothing in particular.
for someone to walk into work with disc's download information and walk out and never searched , some security that is.
Were you there? really? you were? you know exactly how he got the data? No. you don't. your hypothesizing. For all we know he had a secret data storage device that he stored in a molar or something slightly less extraordinary but equally able to circumvent security. You're really pulling in both directions here; on the one hand you like to complain about how slow and lethargic the governments are and on the other you want them to waste even more money and time imposing more security on these same "secret documents" that you think everybody should see. Seriously could you choose a single argument and at least try to reconcile them so they aren't contradictory?
but emails,messages,phone calls and the likes are not secret they will cause no harm to national security , the only harm they will do is to the people who said them about other people in the first place.
Umm, ok, so you'd be fine having your entire e-mail, posting history, browser navigation history and so forth plopped right onto the net like that? didn't think so. Again, the point is that
members of the governing body/party/MLA's and so forth are equally governed and protected by the same laws.
hence the freedom of information bill and the 50 year law in Britain , people can find out anything really except national secrets.
Congratulations. you win a prize for totally not reading the bill before presenting it. I don't even need to look it up to know that it applies to things like the house of commons and other bodies as a whole; it doesn't apply to knowing the private lives of those people who are in those bodies.
i do not support hackers and never will and i never said i did
"Anonymous are doing a great job hitting all sites that are not for the freedom of speech"
and
"Anonymous should start hitting government and politician's sites around the world"
are what? you sure don't like like you're not supporting them there.
they are trying to show the world what these people have done and what they have said against a lot of countries and people around the world
What the *censored* are you talking about? seriously, while it might concern a few tabloids what some random MLA thinks about the U.S, nobody should really care as long as they remember to do their job.
they have done that now and it should stop.
I'm not sure if you're saying the "hacking should stop" or that all government officials are no longer allowed to have opinions.
hey I have an idea, let's create a citizen force, we'll call it the thought police, who will make sure all government officials are completely impartial and don't have personal views on anything, and simply do what the majority of voters say.
of course, if they were to do that, they'd spend the next 50 years fixing roads, and stopping "those bloody skateboarders".
i also think there is a lot more dirt to come out from wikileaks yet , we have not heard the last , far from it.
I also think that is irrelevant.
the best thing for a person to live by is truth , my brothers and i were all brought up to tell the truth and do no harm and at 65 i have always tried to live by that,i tried to teach my children and now my grandchildren this.
there is a fine line between "truth", "made-up *censored* being passed as the truth" and "conspirational truth" the first relies on facts. the second rely on fictions and whimsical fantasy, and the third uses facts and discards any other facts that would make a conspiracy theory more difficult to formulate. And in all three cases you still have to draw a conclusion from those facts. you can't just think "oh no, this one person feels this way about this other country, they are a bad politician" since that's a rather stupid conclusion to come to. it's like saying "oh no, my carpenter is an Orthodox Jew, so he can't make Cabinets" it doesn't make any sense, unless you were a racist bigot.
but for a public servant from the leader of a country down to tell lie's to the public and hide the fact they new it was a lie is completely out of order and they should be brought to book for it.
you're 75 and you are
JUST LEARNING THAT POLITICIANS LIE? Must have been dark in that cave.
in recent years i think the biggest lie was told by Mr tony Blair in the house of commons , IRAQ has W.M.D and they can strike within 5 minutes and also have lots of chemical weapons ready to launch.
Except he may very well have believed that himself. Was it True? probably not. but there is a difference between telling a lie and passing on a mistruth. you are again assuming he knew he was lying. He might have. he might not of. It really doesn't matter.
clearly wrong and they were told this by weapon inspectors and the British weapon inspector was taken into the commons and was made out to be a liar , and later he took his own life , this is what lie's can do.
err... so you're saying it's mr.Blairs fault that these inspectors lied and killed themselves or whatever? why did they lie in the first place. You're not really being very coherent here.
but one thing they should/would/could agree on is right from wrong.
That would work great in a whimsical fairy land where morality was a black-and white subject and things were either good or bad. If you steal, it's bad. But what if you're a poor father stealing only to feed their kids? But then what if you were poor because you're a lazy douche? see bad/good/bad, to some people in that order, for the very same actions. Additionally, some people may feel that in the second case the kids should be taken away and put into a foster home or other better environment. Actions cannot be called good/bad or right/wrong directly, their context is equally important, and additionally everybody is going to interpret things differently.
i have never heard this on any news casts about being a hacker dump site ( what ever that is )
you're basing on of your conclusions on news casts?
everyones emails , telephone calls , fax's , what ever , is listened to or goes through a goverment pc and key words picked out , there is one of these stations ( maybe more ) in england
conspiracy alert.
your telephone supplier may have to and has done in the past give the gov; a full list of all the people and telephone numbers on their books
more conspiratorial nonsense.
Seriously, do you really think governments have nothing better to do then listen to Aunt Doris talk to Cousin Sue about how her Nephew is growing up so fast and how she saw a deal on chicken at the shop? Get real.
[/quote]
