Mastercard And Visa Hack Argumentative Analysis

To ensure a non-authoritarian state, individuals must be given more freedom to enable each person to have an impact on any event. In the past, freedom promised by democratic governments have been hampered by the government’s own fear of its people. In fact, the FBI has numerous black marks against itself. This is a result of a few individuals that overstepped their boundaries. In 2010, WikiLeaks released video of a drone pilot laughing as he killed twelve innocent civilians. This is the type of information the government wants to restrict public access to. When people read of how drone pilots were behaving, they were horrified and wanted changes in training and procedures. Foreign officials were equally upset. The American government would rather have this kept out of public knowledge to protect international relations. As well, military …show more content…
Often, the results of any action that work to promote the freedom of speech will not be seen in the short term, but may have great results in the long term . The MasterCard and Visa attack is still in its primary stages and results are not yet clear making the attack challenging to assess in terms of resulting changes. It is also challenging to determine if events similar in spirit to the MasterCard and Visa hack should be permissible. While many arguments can be made against Anonymous, such as, “It simply cannot be acceptable for Anonymous to threaten the security of the United States!”, counter-arguments are just as easy to make. With a change of situation, such as the government illegally targeting individuals of a certain race, society would want organizations like Anonymous to stop this crime. Additionally, many protests with the primary tool being DDoS, such the MasterCard and Visa case, are similar to sit-ins of previous decades