Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
do you know how much money that would cost after a while? ^^ also alot of the people use proxies from other countries, for instance if you proxy from russia there are good chances they are not giving out any information to the us. it can be done, but having people on it is exspensive, getting these people up for trial will also be hard. and more importantly arresting random hackers that might not have done a lot of hacking won't solve much. ^^Wiezzen said:
If this is a matter of public support, I think the public is a little split.
There are those interested in a tidy little world.
There are those who find "tidy" to be synonymous with "complacent."
Both have a purpose, and both draw their support from different portions of the population.
There are those interested in a tidy little world.
There are those who find "tidy" to be synonymous with "complacent."
Both have a purpose, and both draw their support from different portions of the population.
Who's to say that some of them do not work legitimate jobs making piles of money? That's the thing with Anonymous. They come from all walks of life and come and go as they please, which makes them a very hard target to hit back against.Daemascus said:
Errrmmm, gonna have to disagree there. The other raids they do don't make the news, and they are capricious and mean, sometimes downright hostile. These involve random individuals who piss off or otherwise strike the wrong chord with anonymous, often who have never even had contact with 4chan or whatever before -- and they get harassed and, sometimes, have livelihoods wrecked all at the whim of some people who are doing it because they felt like it.Tenky said:
Anon might be taking the high road now, but by no means are they interested in justice for all. They do what they do for their own self interest. No more, no less.
Yes, what you're saying here is true and as you said. What these anons do will reflect badly on the group.Starke said:
What coldblood and others did goes against anonymous rules. He claimed to be an anonymous representative. He did not properly cover his face or appearance and gave his other online alias. Lastly He came off looking like a ignorant cyber terrorist.
He was largely ridiculed for all of this. I'm sure he got the message anon did not approve of his actions. With such a large group with no real leadership its impossible to micromanage all the faggots like this.
There are anons around that have this keyboard warrior, internet tough guy attitude. I'm fully against this. But I'm ok with most of the anonymous propoganda. I will be watching the cases with interest to see what the verdicts are.
Its also a very provocative tool, this whole incident about the FBIs declaration of war against Anonymous.Wiezzen said:
When a government uses fear as a tool for control more than it uses appeals to reason, the rule of law and appeals to patriotism - it is typically an indication of a government that is losing its legitimacy.Wiezzen said:
Well, again, understand this is a huge non-organization. This is the same group that has had guys in Guy Fawkes masks show up to protest scientology and similar things. This is to say nothing of all the meme based jokes and the like.Starke said:
Everything your seeing there, and talking about is true, my point is that I don't think that is all there is to Anonymous. Just as Anonymous and /B/ are not the same thing even if Anonymous has been known to hang out there or have their ear to that forum.
Yes, you have people who are genuine hacktivists, just as you have people who are simply trolls, you also have tons of scriptkiddies of all stripes in the ranks, those people are part of Anonymous, but they are not all it is. If they were, it would never have gotten this far.
See there are the guys in Anonymous who did this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4o4QLsKrRs
That is one side of the coin, and largely what we're seeing at the moment from the people speaking (for the 5 minutes of fame). That side of things however does not represent the people who have done things like tell the Australian goverment they were coming, and then still managing to paralyze a lot of govermental systems for nearly an hour. Granted the hordes of script kiddies were involved in that with the black faxes and such, but there is a tiny minority of people within Anonymous as far as it seems to me that does the heavy lifting during their successful attacks.
I'll also be honest in saying that someone had to make those programs that have been getting someone tracked and caught. I suspect that these programs were intended to get the kiddies using them caught as part of the entire performance we're seeing now. As an entity, exploiting it's unskilled masses of members for it's own benefit so to speak.
But to protest on public property (or even assemble) you need a permit. You do not have the right to protest on private property (unless it belongs to you) without the permission of the owners of that property. And here's a funny thing about the internet, it's all private property. The websites you visit are owned by someone, somewhere.BVBFanatic said:
You also do not have the right to interrupt business practices when you protest. Like I said, you can protest against Starbucks, but you cannot bar someone the right to entry. (What exactly did those DDoS attacks do? Oh right, customers could not access those websites.)
Sure, okay, you've got the right the Freedom of Assembly, but it's not limitless and certainly not without restriction. When you gather on the internet it is always at someone's sufferance. It's important to remember that.
You want to E-protest? Sign a petition.
As I have said before, and will always say, you could arrest every single person who has ever called themselves "Anonymous" and there would still be thousands more who would take up their throne.
The governments need to realise truly what they are dealing with. Hell, they have more of a chance sorting out the fuck-up that is the War on Terror, than they do stopping anonymous.
The governments need to realise truly what they are dealing with. Hell, they have more of a chance sorting out the fuck-up that is the War on Terror, than they do stopping anonymous.
No, we COULD do that, don't confuse couldn't with won't.qeinar said:
Generally speaking, for all the tough talk, if we decided to put our morality and some fear aside, nobody at the moment could stop us from pretty much doing whatever we wanted, even if they all united. Even the threat of WMD retaliation is kind of pointless since the people doing it are pretty much pointing a gun at their own heads. Incidently it's the US's morality and an unreasonable fear of nukes that concerns us there. You'll notice that with nations like Russia, there is no such fear or morality involved there. They pretty much curb stomped the EU not too long ago by threatening Poland, cutting off the gas, and moving an army right up to it's borders when invading Georgia. If the US decided to be just as belligerant we would be a heck of a lot worse because we're a global super power, where Russia is a mere shadow of it's former self. We won't do it, because we choose not to. We prefer to be moral and diplomatic even against our best interests, and we tend to be unusual vulnerable to the suggestion of WMDs being used, when in reality if we just took the "lulz, go for it" attitude that Russia has done, it's no more going to be a factor than it was with them, especially seeing as nukes are a minimal threat to us anyway unless the entire planet was to pretty
much empty it's silos simultaneously in an attempt to saturate our safeguards.
See, Anonymous also isn't a big enough deal to even get people thinking along those lines yet. They are annoying, but nothing the terrorists that saw our current half-arsed response.
I'll also be honest in saying that the US does engage in black ops, though hardly like we used to. A lot of people seem to get black ops confused with "espionage" which caused some confusion over the current "Modern Warfare" game when people thought it would be more stealth oriented. Black Ops. being when you deploy the military into a country to do something (seize a target, destroy something, or just wreck mayhem for a purpose) under the table, and deny it. Typically a situation where everyone knows it was you, but nobody can actually prove it. Of course Anonymous isn't liable to ever be the kind of threat to justify us doing that kind of thing to go after a few of their members, or terrify a populance into finding them/giving them up/killing them themselves to prevent our guys from coming in periodically and randomly burning down villages and the like. One of the reasons why "Brushfire Wars" got their name was because the CIA and Special Forces community used to head into South and Central American nations and pretty much engage in terrorism to leverage the goverments. Nobody could prove it was us, but in general for a while a town destroyed in a "Brushfire" was generally US troops coming in covertly, shooting everyone, and then burning the place down. It actually worked pretty well despite the criticisms... not that we'll ever admit to having ever done it.
The point is that the US today is far less militant than it should be, and in general while we still do some nasty things, our morality has greatly weakened our responses. Even if Anonymous became worth it, the current USA would not take action because it was "wrong" and fear of the collateral damage.
I mean it's like this, we could act like Russia and invade and nobody could do much about it except whine (same as with Russia). But more reasonably, if we just started sending small armies into countries we didn't like to do whatever, it's unlikely anyone would ever be able to prove anything even if it was obvious who was responsible. If say the US was to tell another country "we have traced Anonymous to this town, give us whomever is responsible" and had the request denied, followed by say the entire town suddenly going dark communications wise, and then burning down (at the hands of like 150 commandos being covertly inserted and extracted) everyone is going to know what happened, but unless the troops were captured and actually admitted it, nobody would prove anything adequetly for the international community. Stuff like this has happened before.
Heck, why do you think Chavez down in Venezuala has been so terrified of us.
That's fine. I'm simply here to point out that your statement "...protesting is not a right." was erroneous. If you want to be more persuasive, you must clean up your methods of persuasion.nightwolf667 said:
Also not ALL public property requires permits to assemble there, there are exceptions to every rule and to provide an example I will note the local park here in my hometown where you have the right to assemble without a permit. Granted these are *exceptions*.
The issue with e-protests is that it is very difficult (legally) to determine property due to the globalized nature of the web. It's not entirely unlike the ocean. The DDoS attacks did bring down the websites however the rumor that somehow the services provided by those companies were interrupted is just that - a rumor. The reason that you cannot bar entry to a business like Starbucks is because it prevents them from doing business. The DDoS attacks did not prevent any business from occurring. Moreover there is nothing to suggest that any information was taken from these companies. Those are the two main factors that DDoS attacks have been prosecuted with in the past.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html