[goldenthunder]

This is a weird subject because it is totally dual sided.

1) It promotes freedom of speech and taking action as a community to promote change.

2) It is completely illegal which goes against the laws and freedoms they are trying to promote.

Right Idea - Wrong Method

[melpo]

It's the same as with any uprising really. You can't expect people to follow laws when they are made by the "enemy".

That so many people are willing to break the law when taking action shows how important the issue is to them. It also suggests that there is no other effective way to take action.

[rimantas]

I have a problem there with "so many people" and "no other effective way". Blocking my payments is very effective way to piss me off indeed, not sure what good it brings otherwise.

I am still amused how quickly critical thinking switches off in many people. After initial categorization "wikileaks is good, government is bad" not much effort goes into actual considerations, how is it good, what good did it bring, etc.

Governments suck, uh oh, what a news. Maybe it will be a news to some, but we do elect governments. I guess it is easier to enjoy some braindead DDoS than go to elections, put some more thought whom to elect and make sure those elected are responsible for their work as officials.

Now it looks like governments were brought by some aliens and just forced on us. Demanding responsibility from the government is very good, how about taking some responsibility of the governments we have?

And that's where I have a problem with wikileaks: at least I can imagine that I had some say in what people do rule my country, so I can claim a bit responsibility for the power they have.

Wikileaks on the other hand is self-proclaimed savior, responsible to whom?

[chc]

> we do elect governments

This is just not accurate in any meaningful way. I don't elect my government, and neither does anyone else here. I vote, but my vote's effect on what actually happens is so small it's not even measurable. Elections are not decided by thoughtful voters; they're decided by propagandists who control the majority of thoughtless voters.

[zaphar]

Laying aside the propagandist argument for a bit I'd argue that the really hard part is finding someone to actually vote for. The last three elections I haven't seen any candidate I felt was worthy of my vote. What does one do then? I could run for office I suppose but that doesn't really solve the problem either since I wouldn't consider myself vote worthy either. (wrong skill sets)

[goldenthunder]

Truth. If we vote trustworthy people into government, there is no need for transparency.

[chc]

Easy in theory, impossible in practice. Since we have yet to prove the existence of psychic powers, transparency is the only way to know whether somebody is in fact trustworthy.

[phob]

Psychic powers would be another form of transparency.

[goldenthunder]

Yep. I was raised in a religious school and the most fascinating topic we ever touched was when a law is morally and contextually 'ok' to break.

[dfox]

While I don't agree with this course of action, I'm not entirely sure to what extent this is actually illegal. Clearly, organizing DDoS with malicious intent should be illegal, but is it really illegal? After all, technically, it is only causing high load by doing something that is more or less intended use for the technology.

[okaramian]

If the people making the laws rig the game, you're not going to stand a chance of winning if you follow the rules.