If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #3353
Joined: Sat Oct 23 2010, 11:21PM
Location: Greece
Posts: 90
Chris Russell wrote ...
...The US doesn't have the power to censor the internet...
Yes, i was under that impression too, but now that i read about "postings about Wikileaks could be detrimental during a background check", i can see that instead of censoring the internet directly, they can accomplish almost the same effects (that internet censorship would cause) by having people's posts "checked" for "politically incorrect" statements! This has the added bonus of reminding people that "big brother" is always waching. So maybe the US is not so "freedom-friendly" to start with...
Registered Member #1334
Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615
Ash Small wrote ...
Nicko wrote ...
.You are still covered by the Official Secrets Act (1989) whether or not you "sign" a document - the law is the law. The ONLY purpose of asking someone to sign it is to remind them of their obligations under the act - doing so does not add or remove any application of laws.
Cheers
Nicko, once you've signed the OSA you've signed it for life. You are not allowed to say anything against the government, any government, no matter how wrong they may be.
The penalties for leaking information are more severe than if you've not signed it, life imprisonment.
I was reminded of my obligations when I refused to sign it. Comments were also made that I had principles and refused to sign, rather than just signing it and keeping my mouth shut, as anyone with 'alterior motives' would do.
I'm more than aware of my obligations to my country and I'm patriotic, as I said previously, but I still reserve the right to expose corruption rather than be obliged to 'help cover it up'.
I believe you are completely missing the point - "signing" the Official Secrets Act (OSA) has absolutely no effect on any obligations you may or may not have - the law regarding secrets and your obligations still applies in exactly the same way, regardless of whether you "sign" or not.
What you are missing is that the OSA is an Act of Law, and NOT a contract - signing a piece of paper has absolutely no effect on any outcome of your actions - the process of "signing" is simply to drum into you that you (like everyone else) are covered by the OSA.
Good for you that you refused to sign it. So what? You are still covered by it, like it or not. Its law, not contract.
I, like many others, have been through this loop several times. The reason you are asked to sign is, as much as anything, to check your response. If you had actually realised that there is no significance at all in signing, you could have done so - that fact that you seem to rebel against something with no meaning in law means that you probably weren't suitable for whatever the job was in the first place.
Registered Member #3414
Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
Nicko wrote ...
.Good for you that you refused to sign it. So what? You are still covered by it, like it or not. Its law, not contract.
I, like many others, have been through this loop several times. The reason you are asked to sign is, as much as anything, to check your response. If you had actually realised that there is no significance at all in signing, you could have done so - that fact that you seem to rebel against something with no meaning in law means that you probably weren't suitable for whatever the job was in the first place.
Cheers
I stand corrected, Nicko. Maybe the 'old' OSA (pre-1989)was different. I was always under the impression that you were subject to stricter guidelines if you had signed it. By the way, I got the jobs anyway, one building ships for the Royal Navy, and one working for British Nuclear Services.
Registered Member #1221
Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196
In the news here in denmark they are saying that the dutch police have caught a 16 year old kid who have admitted to have been part of the cyber attacks in favour of wikileaks.
They call it "16-Ã¥rig WikiLeaks-hacker anholdt" which in english is something like "16 year old wikileaks-hacker arrested."
It also says in the article that wikileaks supporters(!) are threatning to attack Amazon. The hackers are mad because there have been closed for the donations and mr assange have been arrested, stuff like that.
Of couse he could be innocent and just be some random guy they tortured until he would say he did it, so it would be easier to convince people that it was hackers like him who did the attacks for wikileaks, I cant deny that possibility although I must say that I find it unlikely... or maybe they just made it up? Maybe there is no hackers, maybe there is no cyber attacks? If you're paraniod enough everything is possiable. You belive what you choose to, and i choose to belive this guy did hack the websites for the wikileaks, like the news article indicates. And Im not the kinda person who belives everything if just it has been in the news..
You guys heard about it in the states too? aperantly the article is from friday the 10th december. heres a link if someone else happen to know danish or got a translator handy
edit, yeah ok I got bored and googled it, turns out theres plently in english. For example this one in which they mention that the attacks are called "operation payback".
The cbsnews thing also mentions a guy who aperantly calls himself "coldblood" and threatens with this "war of data", thats the kind of people im refering to when i say rebelous kids who fight because of the romance.
"so-called WikiLeaks allies behind denial-of-service attacks against commercial websites which have withdrawn services from WikiLeaks " Thats the sort of thing I meant when I said they was attacking people whom they disagree with. Of course, just because it made the news doesnt make it true, but Im not the only guy saying things like that obivously.
Falsehood of the worst sort, Chris?
By the way, why doesnt wikileaks ask the hackers to stop messing around instead of just saying "we are not directly behind the attacks"? That leads me to assume they dont ask them to stop because they want them to continue.
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
GluD wrote ...
Falsehood of the worst sort, Chris?
Yes, it is still a falsehood of the worst sort to claim that Wikileaks is behind Operation Payback, or any of these hacks. They are being done on behalf of Wikileaks, without any authorization or request from Wikileaks at all. I could go spraypaint a building tomorrow in the name of Microsoft, but that doesn't make Microsoft responsible in any way for my actions.
By the way, why doesnt wikileaks ask the hackers to stop messing around instead of just saying "we are not directly behind the attacks"? That leads me to assume they dont ask them to stop because they want them to continue.
Any statement from Wikileaks would be ineffective at this stage. Hackers would simply say "yeah, they say that in public, but secretly they probably want us to keep hacking," and corporations would learn that Wikileaks can be made to bend under pressure. Moreover, there might be legal implications in making a public statement that implies they have any influence at all over what the hackers do.
Registered Member #1221
Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196
Yeah fine lets call it falsehood then. But please not of the worst sort, I think theres worse than that, we dont actually know its false, it could be right we just havnt got the infomation to see it. Why dont they leak that huh.
I dont see how there should be legal implications about them saying they would rather be without the hacking. (as if that was the case....) Maybe you're right its ineffective, but it would make them look much more responsibel, not careless like they seem to be now, careless about the security of serval countries ( in effect that may turn out to be careless about human lives), careless about the victims of the hacking which they could probably stop (assuming the hackers arent lying when they say they do it for wikileaks, if that was true surely they would stop if asked to by the people they adore so much)
Besides isnt it strange that the hackers claim they fight for free speech and such, but still they limit others degree of free speech by closing their websites and threatning people with this "war of data". What a nobel quest for freedom indeed!!
If HV stuff was ilegal and i got caught arcing&sparking all over the place and some of you folks started hacking people on my behalf, I'd surely ask you to stop it as I'd find it damaging for my chances in court. Especially if you'd call it things like "payback" and cyber attack the laywers website (which they actually did if we are to belive the medias). Not exactly the sort of thing you need if you wanna win the hearts of the public which I think is essential in matters like these where its the "average joe" against "big brother".
In general I belive the better a person behaves himself, if he makes as little trouble as possiable, or better yet none at all, the better his chances when it comes to the police, the law and court systems. An example of that could be that it might be hard for the cops to belive that the marijunas is just for medical use if you got your basement full of high power lights and theres growing weed all over the place and a fancy BWM is parked outside even though your on social services. Maybe you won the BWM in a lottery two months ago, and maybe you're growing the weed yourself because you dont want to support the gang down the corner, but the cops wont think that far, neither belive it if it was explained to them. ( cant really expect them to.. i wouldnt belive it either.) However if you just got a joint or two it may seem alot more plausiable that its for medical reasons. So its all about making the right set of circomstances and being prepared to go down.
Wikileaks did not do that by the looks of it (the fancy BWM is parked outside and it wasnt won in a lottery). Neither does they show respect for the general public now, assuming that its correct that wikileaks is not doing the hacking, I think it is very disrespectful of them not to try to stop it. I think it would increase their credibility if they showed some respect for the general public who are being victims for this "war" alledegly started by people like this "coldblood" guy, what sort of name is that anyway. I think both wikileaks and the hackers (again assuming its not the same group of people) show a great deal of disrespect for the people whom they are suposed to "work" for, us, the general public. What about all the people who wanted to read Mastercards website, arent their freedom of infomation violated (they are denied the infomation about Mastercards), why does nobody stand up for those people? And arent Mastercards freedom of speech violated too(they cant tell people how wonderfull Mastercards are). Wheres the justice in that.
Registered Member #3414
Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
GluD wrote ...
.What about all the people who wanted to read Mastercards website, arent their freedom of infomation violated (they are denied the infomation about Mastercards), why does nobody stand up for those people? And arent Mastercards freedom of speech violated too(they cant tell people how wonderfull Mastercards are). Wheres the justice in that.
I think one of the main issues here is that no-one has yet been proven guilty of anything. Not in a court of law.
If you were accused of something, but you were innocent, and your bank accounts were all frozen so that you couldn't afford a lawyer and you ended up going to prison because you didn't have a good lawyer would you be happy?
The courts haven't asked the banks to freeze the bank accounts, a government has. A government with stuff to hide about war crimes and stuff.
Who are the real criminals here? Assange and Wikileaks or members of the US government?
Registered Member #543
Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
Ash Small wrote ...
I stand corrected, Nicko. Maybe the 'old' OSA (pre-1989)was different. I was always under the impression that you were subject to stricter guidelines if you had signed it. By the way, I got the jobs anyway, one building ships for the Royal Navy, and one working for British Nuclear Services.
Honestly, Ash, Nicko is wholly right. The point of 'signing the OSA' is three-fold, namely:
1. To put the frighteners on.
2. To weaken any mitigation that you did not know something was secret. Note that I have said mitigation and not defence, since ignorance is no defence in UK law.
3. To give a badly paid menial job a bogus aspect of working for the 'national interest.'
PS I've added the last point out of pure mischief, but when has mopping out toilets not been in the 'national interest.'
Registered Member #543
Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
In the wake of online attacks on corporations by pro-WikiLeaks hackers, {Julian's lawyer}Stephens said Assange was concerned that "people have unjustly accused WikiLeaks of inspiring cyber attacks".
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London
