Welcome to HBGames, a leading amateur game development forum and Discord server. All are welcome, and amongst our ranks you will find experts in their field from all aspects of video game design and development.
I think that's the funniest part about the whole thing is the media making anonymous out to be so much more than the bunch pimply teenage skiddies attaching themselves to the latest 4chan lulz that it is. Cyber terrorism? Really?
It just goes to show how little the media actually understands internet tech. Out of all the security concerns that people like paypal and VISA would have I'm sure DDoS is the lowest on the list of priorities since it can be easily weeded out and at least VISA can still do business whether it's website is up or not since the important hardware for payments is well shielded from anything you can do to the website. DDoS is also likely the most easy to rectify after the fact whereas system intrusion, decryption and information theft aren't. And at the end of the day which would be more damaging to the company? Five hours of downtime on a website mainly for customer service, or the theft of thousands of customer account numbers and credit card numbers with cvv's? I think the answer is obvious and the network admins would likely devise security accordingly.
It's even worse when they describe their Ddos capability as pervasive after listing a bunch of podunk sites, that likely don't even have an admin that knows the first thing about net security, they've raided.
Yeah, they're seriously mistaken if they think a DDoS means much of anything. It's annoying while it happens, but once it's over there's nothing left to deal with. You might as well just be some kid using reloadevery on some invisionfree forum.
I really hope mass media gets a little more internet savvy in the future, because they're not accomplishing anything beyond giving script kiddies an ego trip.
I gotta hand it to them, though, being so forthcoming about how they tried to directly attack a couple of multi-billion dollar companies' assets. It's not so much chutzpah as suicidal ignorance, though. You know that age when you're just finishing high school and feel like an unstoppable force, so you go and get into a car crash?
you are citing the US Freedom of Information Act and the Espionage Act.
[which have been amended like 6 billion times, but insofar as they apply to this particular case ... ]
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
it states that the govm't must release a public record of govm't actions, when any record is requested, unless it is excluded under several limitations.
among those exclusionary limitations are included: info with executive order (e.g. prez-mandated) to be sealed, trade secrets, interoffice banter/personal medical files, and files deemed sensitive to current military/police operations.
reagan, in the 80's, put an exec order to seal just shitloads and shitloads of information, and among those classified documents, were pieces of data on controversial military operations (specifically, shit about the cold war).
clinton reversed some of this in the mid-late-90's, by adding an amendment to the exclusion: exec orders to seal documents could only last for 25 years.
bush tried to basically undo that after 9/11 ... but obama reversed it again recently.
so, wikileaks is in violation of this law as it stands in this fashion, as it has distributed some records which may violate one of the FOIA's exclusionary clauses.
BUT here's how they're not actually currently breaking this law ...
The OPEN Government Act
enacted in 2007; amends the FOIA.
here's what it does in regards to Assange:
>> any news media representative can request & publish govm't documents that are supplied. that means any--including digital media. many of the docs they have on there were obtained in this fashion. it was not until last year that a review process was assembled to validate FOIA claims/requests.
there are talks of adding another amendment here which would clarify exactly what a "news media" person is ... likely that they would have to be a reporter with a security clearance.
(which would severely limit the information a reporter could impart about secure information they received.)
(which kind of defeats the point of being a reporter.)
Basically, specific to WL, it states that it's not an infringement of the 1st Amendment to be convicted to detainment or prison time for 'threatening military progress' during wartime.
(Example: during WWI, e.e. Cummings (famous poet) was once detained for several months, because he was talking a lot to fellow soldiers about how he didn't really mind Germans. Officials worried his easy tongue would end in people defecting or deserting.)
in 1953, it was amended, to include a provision about how the publication of classified military data could possibly be considered a 'threat'. (and that the guilty party could be sentenced to 10 years in prison.)
us code":40tfkph9 said:
The term "classified information" means information which, at the
time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national
security, specifically designated by a United States Government
Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms "code," "cipher," and "cryptographic system" include in
their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of
secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method
used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents,
significance, or meanings of communications;
The term "foreign government" includes in its meaning any person
or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any
faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or
within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or
any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a
foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by
the United States;
The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and
methods used in the interception of communications and the
obtaining of information from such communications by other than the
intended recipients;
The term "unauthorized person" means any person who, or agency
which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories
set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or
by the head of a department or agency of the United States
Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage
in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
Technically, under the strict view of this act only, it could be determined that WL is acting in a 'threatening' manner, and Assange (and, possibly, other info providers) could be prosecuted.
BUT
This provision has been proven numerous times to actually be superceded by Supreme Court rulings that came after its affect which extend 1st Amendment rights.
(Example: there was a KKK member named Clarence Brandenburg, who spoke openly with hate speech against the government and said that people should get mad about some dumb racist thing.
he was convicted & fined for advocating violence in ohio. so he claimed that ohio law was infringing his 1st Amendment right and it went before the Supreme Court.
the Supreme Court ruled that you can't punish someone just for saying that crime is cool, unless they are directly ordering or telling someone to specifically commit a crime. (and in this case, nothing happened, and prosecution wasn't doing anything to stop anything.)
this judgment overwrites a part of the Espionage Act because it's saying that sharing info in a 'threatening' manner towards govm't operations can't be prosecuted.)
there was also a court case at some point which stated that re-publishing previously-distributed illegally-acquired data couldn't be punished ... i can't remember what case it was.
and so
while it is POSSIBLE that Assange could MAYBE be held liable for going against the Espionage Act,
it's really fucking difficult to prove.
plus he'd have to be extradited, which doesn't seem likely at the moment.
lol you like research, im not gonna fight your view because i wont change your mind and you wont change mine, you should look up what the leaker COULD get according to the UCMJ which all US military members sign.
ucmj
(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is—
(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or
(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.
(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense.
(b)
(1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless—
(A) the m bers of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).
(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on— (A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence; (B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or
(C) all such evidence. (3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:
(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.
(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).”
Elements.
(1) Espionage.
(a) That the accused communicated, delivered, or transmitted any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense;
(b) That this matter was communicated, delivered, or transmitted to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly; and
(c) That the accused did so with intent or reason to believe that such matter would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.
(2) Attempted espionage.
(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;
(b) That the act was done with the intent to commit the offense of espionage;
(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and
(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of espionage.
(3) Espionage as a capital offense.
(a) That the accused committed espionage or attempted espionage; and
(b) That the offense directly concerned (1) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (2) war plans, (3) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (4) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
Explanation.
(1) Intent. “Intent or reason to believe” that the information “is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation” means that the accused acted in bad faith and with-out lawful authority with respect to information that is not lawfully accessible to the public.
(2) National defense information. “Instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense” includes the full range of modern technology and matter that may be developed in the future, including chemical or biological agents, computer technology, and other matter related to the national defense.
(3) Espionage as a capital offense. Capital punishment is authorized if the government alleges and proves that the offense directly concerned (1) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (2) war plans, (3) communications intelligence or cryptographic in-formation, or (4) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy. See R.C.M. 1004 concerning sentencing proceedings in capital cases.
Lesser included offense. Although no lesser included offenses are set forth in the Code, federal civilian offenses on this matter may be incorporated through the third clause of Article 134.
Maximum punishment.
(1) Espionage as a capital offense. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. See R.C.M. 1003.
(2) Espionage or attempted espionage. Any punishment, other than death, that a court-martial may direct. See R.C.M. 1003.
idk. ive gotten away from why i started this thread. im gonna try to talk less and read more. i only wanna know what people think. i just got all mixed up with my own opinion, im sorry.
@plague: the UCMJ applies to active military people, not to civilians. Assange is not a member of the United States Armed Forces and would not be subject to the uniform code.
edit: oh wait i re-read what you wrote. yeah whoever leaked WITHIN the military would be subject to it. but it'd probably be rather hard to pinpoint. and in the end, it's likely dozens--if not hundreds--of people. who may or may not actually even be IN the uniformed military but who just may be keeping its records, or is no longer with it.
(p.s. to my last post) if we wanted to take the Espionage Act literally, without respecting the 1st Amendment or any court ruling in regards to it, I could be fined $10k and/or prosecuted to 10 years in prison for even just arguing on the internet in Assange's favor, and someone in the armed forces happens to read it. Because TECHNICALLY my words could SWAY you SO MUCH that you would go AWOL.
or you could prosecute Dennis Miller for slander against military leaders,
or you could prosecute a tv journalist for talking about where he is and there happen to be some active army guys in the camera shot,
or you could prosecute your mom for giving you a pamphlet about why you shouldn't join the military,
etcetera.
ok there can potentially be some consequences for defaming the military or embarrassing the govm't
but this act is just a nasty little piece of outdated law architecture designed to vilify dissidents.
and when this entire debacle will obviously only end in making a pariah out of a man pursuing first amendment rights,
and cause the officials raising shitfits to be scrutinized harder than ever before (what have they got to hide they're so vehemently protecting?),
i don't see why any official would ever seek punishment for it.
unless there were some clear, obvious, provable consequence.
like suddenly all of al qaeda knew the location of every squadron or something.
but
there haven't been.
because none of the info is current enough to validly cause problems in that fashion.
so
yeah
What the fuck I thought if you change the law after something has been done, you can't be prosecuted for them.
For example there's a drug that isn't illegal and you sell it and a week later they make a new law to make it illegal; they can't put you in jail for that.
