Bekijk Volledige Versie : MasterCard en Visa blokkeren betalingen naar Wikileaks, maar niet naar Ku Klux Klan
Volgens "The Guardian" blokkeren sinds 7 december Mastercard en Visa Wikileaks voor donaties via deze kaarten. Maar u kunt nog steeds deze kaarten gebruiken om te doneren aan racistische organisaties, zoals de "Knight Party", die wordt gesteund door de Ku Klux Klan.
Bron The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates)
knuppeltje
08-12-10, 12:21
Tja, ik denk ook niet dat die twee card-verstrekkers betalingen aan dictators blokkeren.
Shijnheilige flikkers.
Abu_Hurayrah
08-12-10, 13:00
Wikileaks can in my opinion be seen as an offshoot from the scene and the moral code that comes with the promotion of democracy.
Knowing that when one analyzes this phenomenon back to its root cause, then the conclusion would be that it stems from the spirit of democracy.
The longing to maximum transparancy for governments is in this matter te topic of discussion.
Now we see that other businesses react different, some coming to the help of Wikileaks by for example making a mirror website and some stopping their services like paypal and now also Mastercard and Visa. The question here is, who is right and who is wrong? To me it is clear, I think the best people available should govern countries, just like in businesses, and that also like in businesses there should be a code of secrecy. The problem is that the spirit of democracy undermines these things.
LOL misschien maakt Wikileaks het te transparant voor onze belasting-geld-slingerende overheden.
Wederom een onzin verhaal, omdat de donaties niet binnen komen bij wikileaks maar bij Wau Holland Foundation in Duitsland een stichting die destijds mensen hielpen die pagina's kraakten.
Deze stichting bestaat al meer dan 10 jaar en inderdaad heeft deze stichting gelden gegeven aan de oprichters van wikileak.
Maar een test geeft aan dat er nog steeds gewoon kan worden gestort op hun rekening en ben dus ook weer een euro armer door deze leugen..........Grrrrrrom.
To me it is clear, I think the best people available should govern countries, just like in businesses, and that also like in businesses there should be a code of secrecy. The problem is that the spirit of democracy undermines these things.
Dan is het toch best wel verbazend dat die 'best people' van bedrijven af en toe de relatieve transparante regeringen nodig hebben om uit de financiele stront getrokken te worden.
Abu_Hurayrah
08-12-10, 14:34
Dan is het toch best wel verbazend dat die 'best people' van bedrijven af en toe de relatieve transparante regeringen nodig hebben om uit de financiele stront getrokken te worden.
I just made a link between chosing the best people for leading positions and respecting secrecy of the company. I did not say that the government is a company or is like a company completely. Because I adhere to the opinion that it is wrong to see the government or a country like a big enterprise. This because of the simple fact that a country can not go bankrupt.
Having said this I want to ask you if you agree with the similarities that I hold to be existant in businesses, that should also be existant in governments?
Having said this I want to ask you if you agree with the similarities that I hold to be existant in businesses, that should also be existant in governments?
Nee. Ik geloof zeker niet dat geheimen nodig zijn om een land te besturen in de 21ste eeuw. Of geheimen in bedrijven nodig zijn waag ik te betwijfelen. Momenteel wordt informatie te veel gebruikt om een machtspositie te creeeren/beschermen.
Abu_Hurayrah
08-12-10, 15:30
Nee. Ik geloof zeker niet dat geheimen nodig zijn om een land te besturen in de 21ste eeuw. Of geheimen in bedrijven nodig zijn waag ik te betwijfelen. Momenteel wordt informatie te veel gebruikt om een machtspositie te creeeren/beschermen.
Governing a country means also having foreign relations, wether these relations are trusted or not. You can't tell me that even in this field secrecy is of no importance to you, do you?
Besides this, have you heard about groenlinks chanting for the rights of civilians not being registered in a database without willing to be registered in that database? That's still a fictitious policy, but wouldn't you like the government standing up for this sort of secrecy that we call privacy?
The matter is that secrecy and privacy are like sisters, and when the people blindly follow their whims in extraordinarily keeping track of the steps that a government makes, the knife will cut on both sides, on the side of the government as well as on the side of the civilian.
Secrecy is good if it serves higher objectives that are in the advantage of the large public, especially when they are not up to date about it. It may be true that another sister of secracy might be corruption, so a middle road in this would be desirable. As you can see I am not totally disagreeing with you, and it is a matter of defining which things should stay secret and which things may become public.
Do you think Wikileaks should have concern for this distinction? Or should they publish blindly what they get their hands on?
Governing a country means also having foreign relations, wether these relations are trusted or not. You can't tell me that even in this field secrecy is of no importance to you, do you?
I doubt whether the displayed secrecy adds anything to the relations. Most Cablegate information that has been released so far either confirms most peoples opinions (Sarkozi, Berlusconi, Putin etc.) or has information that the respective governments want to hide from their own populations.
I doubt whether diplomatic relations would really suffer if all information is made public. It would definitely gain in efficiency.
Besides this, have you heard about groenlinks chanting for the rights of civilians not being registered in a database without willing to be registered in that database? That's still a fictitious policy, but wouldn't you like the government standing up for this sort of secrecy that we call privacy?
I haven't heard about it, and seems indeed Utopian. There is, in my opinion, a rather distinct difference between governments and individual citizens, especially in democratically ruled states where the populace is supposed to control the government (direct or indirect). Regardless, privacy will turn out to be an illusion eventually. The questions is, was it really much different throughout most of history?
The matter is that secrecy and privacy are like sisters, and when the people blindly follow their whims in extraordinarily keeping track of the steps that a government makes, the knife will cut on both sides, on the side of the government as well as on the side of the civilian.
I do think governments should and can be kept to higher standards than it's individual citizens. However, current legislations seem rather geared towards governments getting the information they desire when deemed necessary, and necessity is judged upon by the governments. Whether or not information is released to the public is again decided upon by the same governments and hence there seems to be a unbalance in information flow. It is, to me, not surprising that this unbalance leads to dissatisfaction.
Secrecy is good if it serves higher objectives that are in the advantage of the large public, especially when they are not up to date about it.
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you keep information from the public they will never be up to date and will not be able to make well reasoned decisions. Where has a populace in recent years profited from government decisions based on secret information, and would not have made similar decisions if the information would have been freely available?
It may be true that another sister of secracy might be corruption, so a middle road in this would be desirable. As you can see I am not totally disagreeing with you, and it is a matter of defining which things should stay secret and which things may become public.
Corruption is an issue, but what I am more afraid of is the monopolization of information. Governments, and leaderships in many businesses, are very good at that. After all, an uninformed population, or uninformed employees and customers are much less likely to criticize and complain.
Do you think Wikileaks should have concern for this distinction? Or should they publish blindly what they get their hands on?
They do take out some sensitive names, currently, so don't quite blindly publish what they get their hands on. With regards to government documentation I'd definitely not see why they wouldn't. In respect to businesses I would say that publishing technologies would disturb the otherwise somewhat level playing fields. Strategic information.... I am not sure whether I see large disadvantages in publishing those.