Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Jeff Jacobsen, Jan 27, 2011.
Of course it does.
Not one person, but 1000 persons can.
Or take the analogy of sending faxes if you want.
That's afaik also legal.
Usually, a reference for a law is the law itself...
IANAL, but the law mentioned in the article seems to be this one: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/48.
Surprisingly, a search for "denial" returned 0 result... and BTW many articles seem to apply only to England and Wales...
^ doesn't get it
I don't know what kind of fucked up world you live in, but I'm kinda glad that if I make a website, there are laws against a bunch of basement dwellers that don't like me deciding that I don't get to have a visible website anymore.
(1) Nobody would visit your website. (2) Preventing people to access a site for a while - as a sign of protest - and doing it permanently are two different things. (3) Do not pretend to be more stupid than you really are.
ITT, Herro and Ann get a room.
What gives someone the right to make my website unaccessable for any amount of time? Do it as a form of protest if you want but accept the fact that there are consequences for your actions.
1. Nobody would try to make it unaccessable; but inaccessible, yes, perhaps.
2. Laws about the Internet are still young and might be changed.
Clearly Ann is the dom.
There aren't laws against that. There are only laws against DDOS.
Why are people even trying to defend Payback?
Meanwhile in Connecticut
Congratulations. The Daily Campus has promoted WWP as the leaders of anonymous.
And this is a news site aimed at universities?
Would a large unambiguous anti-derp banner on the front page of WWP help?
Comments open. Requires site registration or Facebook account.
It is me or the action of the FBI and the paper are wrong on so many levels ?
*pictures rookie FBI agent lurking, searching WWP for national security threats only to find endless posts about scifags, scilebrities and delicious caek*
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!