{"id":72684,"date":"2011-01-21T17:41:58","date_gmt":"2011-01-21T17:41:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/01\/21\/le-wiki-scam-signe-de-lincomparable-souplesse-us\/"},"modified":"2011-01-21T17:41:58","modified_gmt":"2011-01-21T17:41:58","slug":"le-wiki-scam-signe-de-lincomparable-souplesse-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/01\/21\/le-wiki-scam-signe-de-lincomparable-souplesse-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Le Wiki-scam<\/em>, signe de l’incomparable souplesse US"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le Wiki-scam<\/em>, signe de l’incomparable souplesse US<\/h4>\n

Nul ne pourra jamais dire que les USA, avec leur capitalisme d\u00e9brid\u00e9 et jamais \u00e0 court d’id\u00e9e, ne savent pas s’adapter m\u00eame<\/strong> \u00e0 WikiLeaks<\/em>. La chose est devenue de grande actualit\u00e9, d\u00e9clenchant ce que Charles Arthur, du Guardian<\/em>, qualifie (le 20 janvier 2011<\/a>) de parano\u00efa \u00e0 propos du statut l\u00e9gal de WikiLeaks<\/em>. Le principe est simple : on envoie des messages \u00e0 des cat\u00e9gories de personnes dont on sait qu’il leur est interdit de consulter le site WikiLeaks<\/em> (les militaires, les fonctionnaires f\u00e9d\u00e9raux, les \u00e9tudiants de l’universit\u00e9 Columbia, les utilisateurs de la Librairie du Congr\u00e8s, etc., tous de services ou d’organismes interdisant la consultation de WikiLeaks<\/em>). Le message annonce qu’on risque une amende $25.000 \u00e0 $250.000 d’amende, et l’emprisonnement, mais propose une transaction en un paiement rapide d’une certaine somme, qui \u00e9viterait des poursuites.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa situation est confuse. On ne signale pas que de telles escroqueries Wiki-scam<\/em> aient d\u00e9j\u00e0 eu lieu, mais on remarque que d’\u00e9ventuelles victimes peuvent aussi choisir de ne rien dire s’il s’agit effectivement de personnes ayant consult\u00e9 WikiLeaks<\/em> alors qu’elles n’y sont pas autoris\u00e9es. D’autre part, et pour corser l’affaire, on peut imaginer que les avertissements officiels \u00e0 propos de cette sorte d’escroquerie puissent donner \u00e0 certains l’id\u00e9e de s’y mettre effectivement et de commencer \u00e0 lancer leurs messages<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe call, when it comes, is both unexpected and worrying to its American recipients. Your computer and IP address have been noted as visiting the WikiLeaks site, says the recorded message. The penalty for doing this: a $250,000 or $25,000 fine, and the possibility of imprisonment. But it does leave a number to call where the fine can be paid with a reduction for prompt settlement and without the unpleasantness of a court case.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFor Americans, whose airwaves have been filled with people proclaiming that the WikiLeaks site is somehow breaking the law and a threat to the US, with federal workers being warned not to visit the site while using work computers, and the US government issuing subpoenas for the records of some of the 700,000 people who follow the WikiLeaks Twitter account, the message may sound plausible enough to act on.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut that would be a mistake. For the call is just the latest manifestation of fraudsters’ well-known ability to pick up on concerns and milk them. The Spokane arm of the US’s Better Business Bureau, an independent organisation which accredits businesses, has warned people to beware of the scam. It was only a matter of time before clever scammers would reveal a latest’ approach at attempting to part people with their money in 2011, notes the organisation. If you are military personnel, this type of call could seem very real or hold more significance because the US Pentagon openly banned military personnel from visiting WikiLeaks for security reasons.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Le Wiki-scam, signe de l’incomparable souplesse US Nul ne pourra jamais dire que les USA, avec leur capitalisme d\u00e9brid\u00e9 et jamais \u00e0 court d’id\u00e9e, ne savent pas s’adapter m\u00eame \u00e0 WikiLeaks. La chose est devenue de grande actualit\u00e9, d\u00e9clenchant ce que Charles Arthur, du Guardian, qualifie (le 20 janvier 2011) de parano\u00efa \u00e0 propos du… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[9246,10753,10752,9887],"class_list":["post-72684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-amende","tag-escroquerie","tag-wiki-scam","tag-wikileaks"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72684\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}