TeaFan Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Well perhaps you could inform me of this crime of the century that the cable release has uncovered? Lot's of emarassing things which having been made public strain diplomatic relations but what great crime has been unearthed? Don't you think that Shell bragging that they essentially control the government of Nigeria is both startling and worrying? Nigeria is meant to be a democracy, is it not? Surely it's in the interest of Nigerians to know how far Shell's influence reaches into their government, since Shell don't actually stand for election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Don't you think that Shell bragging that they essentially control the government of Nigeria is both startling and worrying? Nigeria is meant to be a democracy, is it not? Surely it's in the interest of Nigerians to know how far Shell's influence reaches into their government, since Shell don't actually stand for election. The shell stuff hadn't been released when i wrote that and i've not yet read the cables. I know shell have denied the newspaper claims but haven't read the detail yet so can't comment on the veracity or otherwise of the story. However if it was the case that someone from shell claimed they were close to whoever ran the place and thus had access to huge ammounts of money it would not exactly be the first time that had happened in Nigeria would it? Nor would it justify the previous outpourings of title-tatle previously released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 That's because easyDNS, former champions of the underdog, have been bought by Dyn inc. Name servers: arjeplog.scnr.ch [80.246.50.106] dns1.syshack.org dns2.easydns.net dns2.syshack.org elrido.no-ip.org lou.porcus.ch [193.28.181.57] marmotta.brabbel.ch [217.147.219.146] ns1.buzzernet.net ns1.pcdog.ch [85.124.251.171] ns1.twisted4life.com ns2.easydns.com s2.s3cr3t.de v217241437.yourvserver.net Thumbs up to Wikileaks for attacking Sarah Palin's website Eh? Wikileaks haven't attacked any web site:confused:. Me thinks you're confusing a legitimate news site with a protest group. I'm having a quiet chuckle at the BBC's coverage of the DoS attacks against Visa at the moment: What damage did the attacks do? Most of the sites targeted suffered downtime to a greater or lesser extent. However, the attacks on Visa and Mastercard did more than just knock the homepages of both companies offline for some time. The attack also hit some credit card transactions. This is because one of the checks done when you try to pay involve consulting servers that sit on the same network as the homepages. Whichever moron thought it would be a good idea to put a card authentication server on the same network as a publicly available server, quite frankly, needs shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 The shell stuff hadn't been released when i wrote that and i've not yet read the cables. I know shell have denied the newspaper claims but haven't read the detail yet so can't comment on the veracity or otherwise of the story. However if it was the case that someone from shell claimed they were close to whoever ran the place and thus had access to huge ammounts of money it would not exactly be the first time that had happened in Nigeria would it? Nor would it justify the previous outpourings of title-tatle previously released. I think you need to read them properly then, because they weren't saying that one person was close to whoever runs the place, they were saying that they had inserted their people into every layer of government and therefore knew everything that was going on within the government, giving them huge influence. That's above corruption, that's a take-over. These were of course just part of the huge batch that was released. If wikileaks had decided which ones they thought were worthy of publishing then they would have been as guilty of censorship as anyone else. Since they oppose censorship they have therefore acted in line with their principles, i.e. with integrity. And by letting us decide which we think are important and which are not they have treated us like adults, whereas governments treat us like children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I think you need to read them properly then, because they weren't saying that one person was close to whoever runs the place, they were saying that they had inserted their people into every layer of government and therefore knew everything that was going on within the government, giving them huge influence. That's above corruption, that's a take-over. Well even taking it on complete trust and suppose that's what is the reality- what's the alternative? Someone else has their people at every level of their government, likely as not the Chinese. I need diesal for my van, I need unleaded for my tools. They go, i'm out of business. So if you're dealing with corrupt countries which most of the countries with oil are then you need to play their game or someone else will. I'd honestly rather have Anglo-Dutch securing fuel supplies for me than the Chinese securing fuel supplies for them. These were of course just part of the huge batch that was released. If wikileaks had decided which ones they thought were worthy of publishing then they would have been as guilty of censorship as anyone else. Since they oppose censorship they have therefore acted in line with their principles, i.e. with integrity. And by letting us decide which we think are important and which are not they have treated us like adults, whereas governments treat us like children. As i've said, the treating us like adults by publishing everything argument is what detracts from any credibility they have as a public interest argument. If they published 1 or 2 or 50 or 100 with a journalistic rationale behind why the publication of each one was justified and in the public interest then I'd support them. They are publishing them because they have them and if a handfull of what they publish is in the public interest to disclose then it does not justify the publication of the rest. If a council suspects a benefit claiment has savings over £16K and search his bins looking for evidence and find a savings account statement proving that he does indeed, and also evidence that hes having a gay affair with his bosses husband what eveidence would you expect them to make public? If you're a wikileaks council you'd drip drip first he's a woopsie...then he's having an affair....then you'll never guess who he's having an affair with...then oh, yes we also think he did a crime and stuff. Not journalism, no whistleblowing, not in the public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Whichever moron thought it would be a good idea to put a card authentication server on the same network as a publicly available server, quite frankly, needs shooting. Since the servers in question have to be accessed by the public when shopping - well where would you suggest they put them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Well even taking it on complete trust and suppose that's what is the reality- what's the alternative? Someone else has their people at every level of their government, likely as not the Chinese. I need diesal for my van, I need unleaded for my tools. They go, i'm out of business. So if you're dealing with corrupt countries which most of the countries with oil are then you need to play their game or someone else will. I'd honestly rather have Anglo-Dutch securing fuel supplies for me than the Chinese securing fuel supplies for them. One alternative is societies which aren't corrupt, in which people know what is happening, and which aren't run by money. Quite an alternative, sure, but I think that's one of the good things about the leaks. If it shows just how corrupt everyday capitalism is that is a good thing because it helps people to understand the reality of what goes on, and they can make a more informed choice about whether they want that or not. Someone who is so sanguine about large-scale corruption (and remember, anti-Shell activists have been killed in Nigeria) really doesn't have the right to get on a moral high horse over Wikileaks, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Since the servers in question have to be accessed by the public when shopping - well where would you suggest they put them? On a separate network? That way, this type of attack would have had little to zero affect on the back end authentication systems used (I couldn't get a balance yesterday from any of the link machines with my card yesterday). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 One alternative is societies which aren't corrupt, in which people know what is happening, and which aren't run by money. Quite an alternative, sure, but I think that's one of the good things about the leaks. If it shows just how corrupt everyday capitalism is that is a good thing because it helps people to understand the reality of what goes on, and they can make a more informed choice about whether they want that or not. Someone who is so sanguine about large-scale corruption (and remember, anti-Shell activists have been killed in Nigeria) really doesn't have the right to get on a moral high horse over Wikileaks, in my opinion. If you can deliver oil rich countries which aren't corrupt then great. I don't like corruption, in an ideal world it would not exist but we don't live in an ideal world. Are there leaks about bribery of canadian officials to secure oil sand supplies? No, of course not. But will there/have ther been suggestions that third world countries are corrupt and dodgy as hell and that our companies have to operate within that framework or **** off. Yes. The Empire's gone. We can't impose our ideals on them anymore and we're already losing out to china in africa for our moralising. The choice is get or not get. The corruption will still be there, just someone else will win. And it's the likes of wikileaks who bathe in the glorious milk of "exposing" that target the west and know damn well if they tried it with the russians or the chinese secret archives they'd be wearing their scrotum as a hoodie in about 3 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 On a separate network? That way, this type of attack would have had little to zero affect on the back end authentication systems used (I couldn't get a balance yesterday from any of the link machines with my card yesterday). Most of the stuff inside the banks operate in the same way... Oh, I went into a easy payment store the other day, the assistant showed off her new laptop she was using to fill out the application (trying to sell me a crud spec laptop), when I noticed that none of the web page interface was secured and it wasn't local intranet server. I pointed it out and they told me that it would be. I'm desperate to do some war driving just to see if their wifi network is even secured! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.