This could be very interesting -

31,000 peoplehave downloaded the "tool" to launch cyber attacks on those that attack WikiLeaks !

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11957367

good to see some action on this

31,000 botnets downloaded in ONE day .... the ramification are horrendous.

I dont think the Yankers thought this through (do they ever?) when they ganged up on anyone who supported WikiLeaks

the extradition case will be quite fascinating.

The magistrate's comments were encouraging. I think the Swedish case will collapse.I think British justice really is on trial as well.

On the other hand-that rogue Pinochet was able to live in luxury while he fought his case and even then Spain was unsuccessful.

veritas wrote:
the extradition case will be quite fascinating.

The magistrate's comments were encouraging. I think the Swedish case will collapse.I think British justice really is on trial as well.

On the other hand-that rogue Pinochet was able to live in luxury while he fought his case and even then Spain was unsuccessful.

The new Eurpean Extradition Warrant must be scrapped .... it forces Judges to allow extradition without havig any chance to evaluate the "evidence" against the,

As the clip you posted yesterday clearly showed - even the Swedish "prosecutor" hasn't got the faintest idea whether there is any evidence or not !

Locked Out wrote:
[color=#004080]Thirty One Thousand. Out of how many millions?

You'll pardon me if I fail to be excited about this.


31,000 botnets - all launching cyber attacks - can do an awful lot of damage !

"31,000 botnets - all launching cyber attacks - can do an awful lot of damage !"

That is certainly true. I'll give you another scenario.

A lone idiot armed with a hand grenade walks into a shopping mall and lobs the device into a shop whose manager he has a grievance with. In the resulting explosion not only does he take out the intended victim but kills 36 other people.

My point was that the 31,000 botnets downloaded may indeed do a lot of damage.

But that doesn't make their deployment right. And it doesn't make their deployment by an assumed 31,000 computer users representative of any significant public opinion.

31,000 rogue US Marines might kill millions. But it wouldn't make that action representative of the desires of the American people.

And that's a bad example in so many ways.

One of my main moral anchors has been "Don't kill anyone" - indeed, "don't harm anybody" - but suppose the shop had been a bunker and the target Hitler? Likewise, if the SAS had taken out Saddam and his family...

Sometimes you need to kill someone to save millions.

A difficult moral maze.

JK2006 wrote:
Sometimes you need to kill someone to save millions.

Let's NOT go there ..........

Isn't that exactly the reasoning used by the Yankers to launch their war in Iraq?
Oh yeah - quite a few will die, but the rest will thank us, dor the "democracy" we bring ?!

WHO decides who should die, and who should live?

One of the problems about Hitler was that the West had told sdo many lies in / after WW1, that when they started going on about what Hitler was doing no one actually beleieved them. They thought "here we go again".

Thats what happens when you tell lies.

Amazon deny it (well they would, wouldm't they?) - but you can't help thinking that this is rather a co-incidence !

news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Amazon...ervices_To_WikiLeaks