They've certainly done some very low things to individuals in /b/, I would draw the line when they've decided to start policing the internet, but they don't seem to have such intentions. Nevertheless, it's in their capability.MikailCaboose said:
Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
MikailCaboose said:
every government has caused such things in history things that hurt many people why are there still governments then?
not all decisions are for the good of the people and in our age governments are mostly corrupt in the pursuit for personal gain. corporations have more say then "the people" ...
the internet is possibly the last place left where the people are in control.
I'm sure your question have been answered already a few times, but if not, I'll try to explain it.Susan Arendt said:
Anonymous is like a collective group of ideals and morals merged into one. To give an idea, lets use an example of say, a mob. This mob has hundreds of random people mashed up together, milling about doing absolutely nothing. Suddenly, someone wants to move, and they shout "Hey, let's move over to the next street!" Suddenly, the mob begins to do this due to not having anything else to do to occupy itself, or it feels like it should morally move there, for whatever reason. Along the way, lets say there's some obstructions, such as trash cans. No one has to shout "move the trash cans," because when they reach it, the closest members already begin to move it without thought. They do this mainly because of "the group is more important than the individual" mentality.
But along the way, there are some that shout "lets kick some trash cans along the way to the street!" Suddenly some begin to kick trash cans just because they can, or because it amuses them, while the rest continue on to the street.
It's a unified mass that has no leader, that has no goals, but is a collective. One thought is passed around, and should anyone believe it's a worthwhile thought, then they'll commit to it and soon it gives them a reason and objective to complete. So for the one that posted the open letter is one of the people that has to "move the trash can" along the way, as it is a necessity for the overall goal they're working on.
(Sorry for the long, boring post)
3: By opposing Anon, they have argued with the trolls. They are claiming the site as their spoils of war.Shjade said:
Governments only have their military and police to do the dirty work for them, but if the government is taken down, all the guns will be useless and when governments resort to guns to police the internet, that just means they've lost.Ken Sapp said:
It wasn't like the FBI was already behind the curve. When they searched and seized the computers of an Anon IRC Admin [https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/11586-FBI-Acts-on-Another-Anonymous-DDoS-Search-Warrant.html] just a few days ago. Or when they stupidly admitted to the complicity of their own members arrested under suspicion as they declared "war" on the United Kingdom's government. [https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/11407-Anonymous-Calls-UK-Arrests-a-Declaration-of-War.html] Or when they got legitimate activists arrested and likely killed in Tunisia [https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/10773-OperationTunisia-Backfires-Activists-Rounded-Up.html] because pissing off dictatorships that are more than happy to pull the trigger on their own citizens sounds like a great plan.
Their ineffectual attempts in Egypt [https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/11383-Anonymous-DDoS-Targets-Egyptian-Government-Sites-.html] and Zimbabwe.
Now they're adding identity theft (not that some of their members haven't already taken liberty with data lifted from Visa and Master Card), obstruction of justice, and a host of other crimes when they are caught. Not to mention if people are all complicit in the same crime as a group. (For obstruction of justice, interfering with a criminal investigation, interference with commerce, bank fraud, identity theft, etc.) Let us not forget that particularly their DDoSing crimes come with a 7,000 dollar fine and up to 10 years in prison. Each. Not to mention significant civil liability from all those companies (Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, Bank of America, PostFinance, etc) that they've wronged.
I suppose you can say they won't find all of them, but they don't need to. They may not be a coherent organization, but under the law it's likely that they'll be treated as one. Plus it's not like these governments aren't used to attempts at intimidation. It's not like they don't have the ability to strike back. Every attack Anonymous undertakes (whether under the banner of group or individual it doesn't matter so long as they're using the name "Anonymous") is going to lead the authorities back to them. Their "declaration of war" shows them to be stupidly naive about not only the law, but their understandings of protests (sit-ins can get you arrested for trespassing, and peaceful protesters can be arrested if A) they fail to get a permit and B) if they attempt to disrupt the business of the organization in question, you can protest someone going into Starbucks, you cannot however STOP THEM FROM ENTERING), and their own rights afforded to them under the constitution.
Anonymous is going to be charged as a group. That means if one individual was part of the attack, they're most likely going to have ALL the attacks and everything Anonymous has ever done that's illegal dumped on their heads. Now a good lawyer should be able to talk that down for them, but that's where this starts for the accused.
I'd advise them to stop now, but that won't happen. Unfortunately for Anon governments, law enforcement agencies, and security firms are used to intimidation tactics and death threats. They don't bother them and the threats of "hacktivists" (though they will surely be taken seriously) will be treated the way they deal with all terrorists, cyber or otherwise. The U.S (and I assume the U.K) does not negotiate with terrorists. All the bullying attempts in the world ain't gonna make them stop the investigation.
Their ineffectual attempts in Egypt [https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/11383-Anonymous-DDoS-Targets-Egyptian-Government-Sites-.html] and Zimbabwe.
Now they're adding identity theft (not that some of their members haven't already taken liberty with data lifted from Visa and Master Card), obstruction of justice, and a host of other crimes when they are caught. Not to mention if people are all complicit in the same crime as a group. (For obstruction of justice, interfering with a criminal investigation, interference with commerce, bank fraud, identity theft, etc.) Let us not forget that particularly their DDoSing crimes come with a 7,000 dollar fine and up to 10 years in prison. Each. Not to mention significant civil liability from all those companies (Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, Bank of America, PostFinance, etc) that they've wronged.
I suppose you can say they won't find all of them, but they don't need to. They may not be a coherent organization, but under the law it's likely that they'll be treated as one. Plus it's not like these governments aren't used to attempts at intimidation. It's not like they don't have the ability to strike back. Every attack Anonymous undertakes (whether under the banner of group or individual it doesn't matter so long as they're using the name "Anonymous") is going to lead the authorities back to them. Their "declaration of war" shows them to be stupidly naive about not only the law, but their understandings of protests (sit-ins can get you arrested for trespassing, and peaceful protesters can be arrested if A) they fail to get a permit and B) if they attempt to disrupt the business of the organization in question, you can protest someone going into Starbucks, you cannot however STOP THEM FROM ENTERING), and their own rights afforded to them under the constitution.
Anonymous is going to be charged as a group. That means if one individual was part of the attack, they're most likely going to have ALL the attacks and everything Anonymous has ever done that's illegal dumped on their heads. Now a good lawyer should be able to talk that down for them, but that's where this starts for the accused.
I'd advise them to stop now, but that won't happen. Unfortunately for Anon governments, law enforcement agencies, and security firms are used to intimidation tactics and death threats. They don't bother them and the threats of "hacktivists" (though they will surely be taken seriously) will be treated the way they deal with all terrorists, cyber or otherwise. The U.S (and I assume the U.K) does not negotiate with terrorists. All the bullying attempts in the world ain't gonna make them stop the investigation.
These guys really seem to think they can't be touched and they're invincible. I gotta laugh at how cocky they are, like get over yourselves you're no better than thugs who pick fights with anyone that looks at them funny.
Built to withstand nuclear war. It will easily out-last the huffs and puffs of politicians and anonsRatRace123 said:
Sorta the "Its fun till it happens to you" idea, Steve has got a solid example of how this can take a turn for the worst, as Anon fans are so eager to point out they are not an organization which means if we let them get out of control they will continue to do as they please in any direction or manner they choose, which will lead to innocent people like steve's bud losing their hard work and possibly livelyhoods to people who, because of aminninity and numbers, just dont careAnton P. Nym said:
A large problem now or a larger problem later, we're fighting the uphill fight but the smart fight in the long-run
Steve's bud will be avenged!
To be honest i doubt this was anon, who in there right mind would go to all this trouble and then go I hacked you ha ha ha ha, but then again this is under the assumption that anon actually exists and isn't just some random internet name you can just claim to be.
To be honest this is the equivalent of poking a lion with a stick. If there hunting you down actively going out of your way to anger them is not the best of policy's im sure they would at least have that much common seance.
On a side note, its weird to see that these methods still work. Especially in a case like this, im assuming he got fired right after this right.
To be honest this is the equivalent of poking a lion with a stick. If there hunting you down actively going out of your way to anger them is not the best of policy's im sure they would at least have that much common seance.
On a side note, its weird to see that these methods still work. Especially in a case like this, im assuming he got fired right after this right.
Aye. That's an unjustified speculation there, now isn't it? Anon's just a bunch of people on the internet who are a bit more complex than a greeting card. They're no criminals, but they've certainly got some illusions of grandeur and a ton of drama. They've done some immature net crap but no crimes, and they've shown support for people fighting for freedom.Sansha said:
Umm.... Anonymous doesn't need funding for their crimes, they aren't a full time organisation, nor are they a single easily defined group. Anyone who has an inclination to, is part of it. Most of them DO work for a living and simply do all this for 'The lulz'shakaar9267 said:
