Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
I wonder how many mistress that alex Karp guy has to sever ties so quickly.
This story is getting very good but if this is like all those crazy stories about the indepent radical group saving people from tyrany the next step is framing them for an immoral attack. The people lose their faith in the group and a witch hunt for its memebers are next!!!
This story is getting very good but if this is like all those crazy stories about the indepent radical group saving people from tyrany the next step is framing them for an immoral attack. The people lose their faith in the group and a witch hunt for its memebers are next!!!
If we are to report about the news, could we please do so without the profanity and obvious editorial bias? You know, I used to read The Escapist every day, almost religiously, but this kind of sensationalist biased reporting puts me off it lately. It reminds me far too much of FOX News.
Neither side is in the right here. Neither is doing the morally correct or upstanding thing. We are essentially watching a bunch of children trying to say they're better than the other kids. And I say children because that's how it comes off - insecure and immature.
Neither side is in the right here. Neither is doing the morally correct or upstanding thing. We are essentially watching a bunch of children trying to say they're better than the other kids. And I say children because that's how it comes off - insecure and immature.
Listen to the Anonymous Phone conference with Aaron Barr. Tell me which one you think comes off as a whiny child.Caiti Voltaire said:
http://piratepad.net/HBGary
Yep, most people have been conditioned so that they will not only accept a corrupt system, they will actively defend it. Usually with something naive that pretends to be cynical such as 'I knew they were corrupt, so what's the point of this' - it's incredibly idiotic, and it amazes me that people have been manipulated to he point where they think it's acceptable.Popido said:
I agree with all of what you said. It seems to me like they stopped playing, "Robin Hood," a long time ago, and are now in it simply for power.Ubermetalhed said:
According to this article Here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/how-one-security-firm-tracked-anonymousand-paid-a-heavy-price.ars/3
Anon is attempting to extort HBGary now that their attack succeeded.
"When Leavy showed up to plead her case, asking Anonymous to at least stop distributing the e-mails, the hivemind reveled in its power over Leavy and her company, resorting eventually to tough demands against Barr.
'Simple: fire Aaron, have him admit defeat in a public statement,' said Topiary, when asked what the group wanted. "We won't bother you further after this, but what we've done can't be taken back. Realize that, and for the company's sake, dispose of Aaron.'
Others demanded an immediate 'burn notice' on Barr and donations to Bradley Manning, the young military member now in solitary confinement on suspicion of leaking classified documents to Wikileaks."
It's one thing to expose a conspiracy, but it is something completely different to attempt to exploit it.
As for their attacking Bank of America, what about the millions of Americans who keep their money there; those innocent people who simply want to live thier lives and have no knowledge of Bank of America's dealings?
These people aren't heroes in any sense of the word. They are attempting to create chaos where none exists. They seem to be the very definition of, "cyber terrorists," to me.
The attack any entity they don't agree with, and they make demands. If their demands aren't met, they continue their attacks. How is that honorable in any way?
You see, this is what happens when you jump in mid stream. If you had read the rest of my post, you would see I was responding to someone who was extolling the "freedom of speech and global openness" that Anon is trying to create.What I was saying is that far from creating a more open forum for global communication, all Wikileaks and Anon have done is created a new demand for protection of personal documents, I guess I can thank them for creating new job opprotunities. It is true the government does take an unbearibly long time to make documents public, but they eventually do. ANd for the screwing people over, the government was doing that before Wikileaks, and the government will be it after Wikileaks. Corporations will always have a hand in politics. Also I can without knowing what my government thinks of Austrailia or whereeverthefuckistan.The Naked Emperor said:
No Anon is a terrorist organization. Underhanded? Unless some new secret law has been passed (and by your logic it might have been) cyber theft, hacking into business servers and peoples e-mail accounts, and basically using a phising scheme to gian private information are all illegal acts, and Anon has done ALL of them. I'm not saying that the government and the corporations are not corrupt at some level. But what is revealing that corruption going to do? You're going to get some low level accounted fired cause no matter what you do you cannot take down the people at the top. Actually the only way so far that the people at the top have been held responsible for their corruption has been through government committee hearings.
People in the West (myself included) have no idea how good we have it. You call the government despotic because you yourself have never actually experienced a government like that. In all honesty, what personal rights have you lost? Yes the full body scanners are an invasion of privacy and the full body search alternative is not much better. However they are not in every airport in America, and what are is everyone so afraid of with these scanners? Some stranger is goin to find out about your "insecurities"? I know this a bit of a "tiger and the rock" moment (if you don't know what that means, ask me in your next post), but the only attck after the scanners had been put in place was a package bomb, so there not much a fully BODY scanner is going to do about that. On no you can't bring your hunting knife on a plane with you anymore, boo hoo. You want to bring shampoo and a large amoutn of hand cream with you on your vacation? Put it in your stowed luggage, not your carry-on.
It honestly doesn't matter who comes off as a whiny child. Please explain to me how Anonymous is in the right? See my post above. They are no better than HBGary.h264 said:
1. They attack any entity they do not agree with - relentlessly.
2. They essentially hold that entity hostage until their demands are met.
3. ????
4. Profit - push whatever agenda they choose to.
There is no honor in that. How can there be? What bothers me the most is that they seem to think that thier collective will is the only right in the world.
There is no consideration paid to any possible collateral damage their acts may cause. There is no thought given to whether or not their operations may harm the innocent, or are there no innocents?
HBGary is/was in the process of selling itself off. What of those who could lose their jobs; people who had ZERO knowledge of what was taking place behind closed doors and Barr's escapades?
What of the millions who keep their money at Bank of America that have ZERO knowledge of the banks's dealings? What happens to them if Anonymous somehow manages to topple Bank of America (which I doubt will happen)? Why should a relatively small group of people be allowed to decide the fates of others to such a degree - and all for sport; for teh LULZ?
I could possibly support them if they did not resort to such tactics, but seeing how they have begun to operate over the years, I simply cannot stand by them.
It's one thing to want free information, it's another thing to take it by force.
Not all information can be free. The right information in the wrong hands can be more dangerous than a homicidal maniac with a loaded gun or an A-bomb hidden in a Pepsi machine in Dodger's Stadium.
It's not like I don't get it....
"The megacorporations are evil and exploit the common man, governments are involved in shady dealings with rather unscrupulous people, etc."
Yeah, I understand... Why does Anonymous feel the need to stoop to their level? There is no justice in unjust acts. It's like killing a man for killing your wife. One extreme does not allow for another. Sure, one may want to, but where is the real satisfaction in it?
So please, justify Anonymous's actions.
True but its nice to have a bit on anarchy in the wind, I mean if the government or a big corporation / business does the same to a single person what happens? They pretty much get bulldozed over.tsb247 said:
The System is broken, education is a joke, and politics are filled with corruption and hypocrisy.
And who gets to decide if an company is corrupt? You speak of all of this freedom, and rellaying against corruption, but at the same time you descibe an organization (or rather a group of people that randomly come together from time to time) that attacks indescriminately to silence those who oppose them or their ideals.h264 said:
Tell me, who is corrupt? Who is free? It is in fact a two way street, is it not?
It seems to me that those who vocally oppose Anonymous are excercising the same freedoms that the group claims to represent - freedom of thought, information, and the ability to exercise it.
If anonymous really stood for freedom from corruption, tyranny, and freedom of informtaion, you would not have written that sentence.
Maybe, but the use of such tactics will only invite harsher response. Sometimes information itself is enough to solve these problems. Digital hostage taking/ransoms/threats/DDoS attacks are only going to steel the opposition's resolve.Sandytimeman said:
I also find hypocracy in Anonymous's actions. I see them as attacking what they perceive to be a threat without considering the consequences. It's like dropping of 500lb bomb on an enemy target that is nestled amidst civilian structures. You may hit your target, and you may even cripple/destroy it, but at what cost?
I wrote it because it is the truth. This is shown by the evidence. HBGary Federal attacked anonymous in a brutal way by trying to sell largely false information to the FBI. His motives of this was to show off his capability to gain a big money making contract. He was then attacked, also in a brutal way. It doesn't take many for an op like this and it doesn't distract from the other big operations.tsb247 said:
You responded to a statement, but not to any of my questions.h264 said:
Is it really that simple? An eye for an eye? He tried to, "Hurt," Anonymous, so they are going to try and, "Hurt," him back? To what end? So much for the high road, right?
How can we trust Anonymous's word over HBGary's? Both parties resorted to equally immoral acts. What makes Anonymous more credible? Is it their creedo, or is it the idea of what they represent? Both can be discredited. The rational explanation is that neither party can be trusted. For all I know, Barr had the right names. We may never know.
We could easily shift the focus away from the U.S. and go on to the unscrupulous dealings of any government in the world. How are any of them different? Governments and industries in China, the U.K., Australia, etc. all behave in a similar manner. Basic political science and international relations can explain that.
Look at you... Calling them, "Ops," and whatnot. How is Anonymous not a terrorist group again?