Impressive, at first glance. It won't affect their operations at all, though; the website is just meaningless marketing fluff.

If you can figure out where their validation requests are going to, by fiddling with a card processing unit, say, you could really have an impact -- mostly by pissing off millions of shoppers at Christmastime, which would surely make all those shoppers love Wikileaks so much more.

Does this kind of thing have any impact on the people at the top who actually make decisions? Or does it just mess with the frontline flunkies, and the lower-income customers who don't have other resources?

I'm sure there's a term in philosophy that describes a day in which Brave New World will possibly be banned from schools and Big Brother comes to life over Wikileaks' funding mechanisms.

@2: Likely not, but in the meantime, we like-minded First-Amendment-loving, commie-pinko-polesmoking-bleeding-hearts get a cheap chuckle. It's hilarious digital graffiti.

@5, exactly. Digital graffiti. A chuckle.

Since when did being a pain in the ass become the preferred from of protest? I can understand being upset at Mastercard's treatment of Wikileaks but is taking out the site any different than a WTO protester spray painting a wall or breaking a window? Sure, it might feel good and it makes someone's life difficult (like a business owner or shopper trying to use their card) but how does it bring about any change?

@1 Agreed.

Except that most people don't have the attention span to go from 'My card won't work!?' to 'mastercard failed' to 'because a group of Anonymous hackers don't like it' to 'Because it denies payments to wikileaks'. Very few people would really get past the mastercard failing part. It would strike a pretty serious blow.

It could probably be done. Spam millions of those temporary online credit card numbers and find a way to charge 0.1 cents on all of them at the same time. Difficult and maybe improbable, but not outlandish.

Rules 1 & 2, not your personal army.

Smells like Low Orbit Ion Cannon to me.
@9: Nobody broke rules 1 or 2, you newfag.

This is all starting to look like a misguided Shadowrun LARP.

Priceless.

@8, it's worse than that. Most people can't or won't make the distinction, and all they're going to think is "Wikileaks won't let me buy my kids Christmas presents", and then when they see on the news "Wikileaks shut down" or "Wikileaks worse than Hitler" they're going to go "good".

@7, your questions are probably meant to be rhetorical, but...

Being a pain in the ass has always been the preferred form of protest. Good activism is a pain in the ass that brings light to an issue that has been passively or actively ignored by the general public, especially those that have the power to themselves take action. Great activism is a pain in the ass that draws huge amounts of attention without hurting anyone or damaging property. Genius activism is a pain in the ass that makes us not just aware of an issue, but of its root causes and some course for addressing those causes.

This is not genius activism.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that posting a lot of links to a website has nothing to do with a DDoS attack.

2: I have no doubt the people at the top find it embarrassing. Something along the lines of "We expect people to trust us with their money, but can't keep a simple website functioning?". Which probably just leads to the shit heading down... which is probably all that ever happens when you embarrass powerful people.

@16 And don't forget. all this is costing big money. So the stock holders will want answers.

So expose is more important? How does this serve anyone? Wikileaks has value. But if they choose to publish without discretion, how does that make them any different then our own governments that conceal without discretion?
The US government has fucked up time and time again. But, there are things they have done right. Is everything at everyone's discretion?
Look at the guy sitting next to you on the bus. Do you trust him to help make every autocratic decision in your life? What if he is a homophobe, racist, or a plain beck head?
I choose to vote because I think the public is important. I don't think the masses have the right decide my personal rights based on public opinion. THAT IS WHY CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE SO IMPORTANT! What checks and balances does wikileaks have?

You are a clever boy indeed Mr. Constant.

@17, what big money? Mastercard.com doesn't mean big money. It's a vanity website. Nothing to do with the money side of their business.

I wonder how many Americans are carrying USB sticks with the wikileaks "insurance" encrypted on them right now ...

I'm guessing it's a LOT.

Information wants to be free.

Fnarf is right, of course. This is a minor inconvenience to them at best. These are not the computers that process transactions.

It might not be that great an inconvenience, but it'll at least get their attention for a brief moment. Compare this with a string of Angry Letters or Concerned Emails or some other more measured response; I doubt anybody at Mastercard would even pay attention to such a thing, much less care.

So I just think of it as an opportunity to wave our collective upraised middle fingers at the company before things go back to normal in short order.

@pussnboots: Not to go all Appeal to Ridicule on you, but...that's fucking stupid.

The point of a free press is to publish without discretion. If they choose discretion as a courtesy, fine, but they are not the government. They are a voice. They do not have a Constitution or other rules by which they must play, aside from always reporting truth.

And how do you accuse them of no discretion and then accuse them of their own special type of discretion within two paragraphs?

Again, the press does not run our lives, it is only one voice that speaks a little louder. It is not an autocrat. Which is precisely why there was no uprising when the leaks were leaked. People can choose to read them or not. I am SHOCKED you try to equivocate that.

Checks and balances are important where something can directly affect the lives of the public, as can the government. The press - any press not government-run - does not fall under that definition.

Logic: Its not just for breakfast anymore.

4Chan FTW!

ddos is not hacking.

I AM 1337 HAXXOR I DL PROGRAM THAT SOMEONE ELSE WROTE THAT AUTODDOS'!

First, these people may not be geniuses, but they aren't morons, either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-119…

Mastercard, which stopped processing payments to the whistle-blowing site, said the attack had had "no impact" on people's ability to use their cards.

But the BBC has been contacted by a payment firm that said its customers had "a complete loss of service".

In particular, it said that an authentication service for online payments known as Mastercard's SecureCode, had been disrupted.

Second, in a world where thousands of people staging street demos get virtually no media coverage, these protests are leading news.bbc.co.uk, nytimes.com and many others right now. Like it or hate it, that's something.

@2pussnboots,

A free Press can publish what they want when they want. The exceptions to this rule are very narrow. The Constitution does not govern the Press. Checks and Balances refers only to the government. The bus rider next to me has an absolute right to sway public opinion either individually or collectively.

Do not equate swaying public opinion with autocratic rule. Wikileaks has no power other than to persuade and/or inform.