Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

[HyenaThePirate]

Prison is scary

You're assuming I live in America. If I was arrested in my country, it is more likely to cause attention. These personal life speculations are tedious and irrelevant. Can we please stick to the topic here?

What you quoted me as saying and your response to it is what is irrelevant.

"Prison is scary"... "You're assuming I live in America."

Your country does not have laws or prisons? Are you someone of importance in your country? Because plenty of people go to prison without any real mainstream recognition or attention. If you think that you being taken in by authorities over what the government might assume are malicious actions, even at the behest of the United States Government will cause a commotion amongst anyone but your closest relatives, you may be seriously over-valuing yourself.
Oh and I assumed you were American because of your profile. Apparently you aren't too proud to display the red, white, and blue next to your name.

Guantanamo Bay is FULL of people who people don't have knowledge of, or care about. In fact, a carefully orchestrated action by the American government and its allies could sweep up a number of Anonymous members, including you, put you on trial, and the majority of the free world won't even notice the blurb about it on the 4th page of their newspaper under the Family Circus cartoon.

By the way, I was discussing the topic at hand. It was YOU who made the cavalier statements about going to prison and such. I merely responded to it.

I will say this. I admire your conviction, for what its worth...
But if you disappear, I won't even notice you are gone. Or care.
How many people will be like me?
All I'm saying is, if you think someone is going to organize and orchestrate some campaign to free you, or even acknowledge you, prepare to spend many a night in that cell contemplating just how terribly wrong you might have been.

 

[AnonOperations]

I will say this. I admire your conviction, for what its worth...
But if you disappear, I won't even notice you are gone. Or care.
How many people will be like me?
All I'm saying is, if you think someone is going to organize and orchestrate some campaign to free you, or even acknowledge you, prepare to spend many a night in that cell contemplating just how terribly wrong you might have been.

I'm not so arrogant to believe that it will go mainstream. I'm just saying that it is a very real possibility considering my country and my contacts. When people remind me of immoral behavior of Americans, that are operating outside international law like at Guantanamo. That only strengthens my conviction, it doesn't scare me.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I will say this. I admire your conviction, for what its worth...
But if you disappear, I won't even notice you are gone. Or care.
How many people will be like me?
All I'm saying is, if you think someone is going to organize and orchestrate some campaign to free you, or even acknowledge you, prepare to spend many a night in that cell contemplating just how terribly wrong you might have been.

I'm not so arrogant to believe that it will go mainstream. I'm just saying that it is a very real possibility considering my country and my contacts. When people remind me of immoral behavior of Americans, that are operating outside international law like at Guantanamo. That only strengthens my conviction, it doesn't scare me.

Well I suppose that such is a commendable thing.
Although, I have always believed that talk is cheap.
Let us both hope that you never have to back up that conviction.

 

[Starke]

No offense, but I think THIS post shows a certain amount of immaturity, and possibly something worse.
PRISON is no cakewalk. Especially if you go to prison under the conviction as a TRAITOR or threat to national security. And at the age that I suspect you are, prison is going to be the worst experience you've ever had.

He claims to be 29[footnote]His public profile on the site lists his DoB as 2/5/81.[/footnote], though I find that statistic somewhat dubious.

In answer to your earlier question directed at me: on the off chance he would actually think about the question before spouting rhetoric. I'm a hopeless pedagogue when it comes down to it, and if I can get someone thinking then whatever time I've burned here on this is worth it. I'm starting to think our resident propagandist isn't worth the effort, but still, hope springs eternal or some tripe.

 

[AnonOperations]

No offense, but I think THIS post shows a certain amount of immaturity, and possibly something worse.
PRISON is no cakewalk. Especially if you go to prison under the conviction as a TRAITOR or threat to national security. And at the age that I suspect you are, prison is going to be the worst experience you've ever had.

He claims to be 29[footnote]His public profile on the site lists his DoB as 2/5/81.[/footnote], though I find that statistic somewhat dubious.

In answer to your earlier question directed at me: on the off chance he would actually think about the question before spouting rhetoric. I'm a hopeless pedagogue when it comes down to it, and if I can get someone thinking then whatever time I've burned here on this is worth it. I'm starting to think our resident propagandist isn't worth the effort, but still, hope springs eternal or some tripe.

As you may have noticed, I am a bit fanatical on the subject of wikileaks and anonymous. I have 440 pages of notes related to this and I've thought through more then you know.

You have twisted my words in an attempt to discredit me which I do not appreciate. I do appreciate some of the discussion we have had and have noted the fact that future press releases and actions need to be carefully considered.

 

[Danpascooch]

They're human, how could they not understand the difference between being executed for saying something the government doesn't like, and being allowed to say things the government doesn't like?

Now there's a striking oversimplification. That may be how you see the issue, but let's look at American democracy from the position of the average Iranian in the street, shall we? They see American politicians talking about freedom and liberty, but also invading other countries. Many of them are old enough to remember the Iranian Revolution, they know that the Shah was installed and that America stood by while he oppressed them. They saw America doing the same damn thing in Egypt until this month. Then they saw America's lukewarm support of the Egyptian revolution, and it doesn't seem like America is practising what they preach. Iranians already have a govt that does that - the Ayatollahs will and have justified anything they want with scripture, and scripture cannot be disputed. What's more, they have seen in Iraq how American involvement in the regime change leads to chaos, bloodshed and profiteering. From where they sit, western democracy as offered and exemplified by the U.S. seems a bit like rearranging the rhetoric of power rather than freeing the people.

To bring us vaguely back on topic, aren't American politicians calling on the extrajudicial assassination of Assange because he has given out information they didn't like? Aren't American predator drones currently roving over Afghanistan and Pakistan, executing people in foreign lands without any process or oversight? The US military tells us they are terrorists, and some probably are, but we only have their word on that - no trials, no evidence made public. I would trust their word if they could point to a long history of integrity and honesty in respecting people everywhere, and perhaps the Middle-East would too. But they can't, so claims that the US is there to help the people are viewed with skepticism.

They're people, and they can tell the difference between being allowed to say what they want and not having that freedom, but they just don't see that as the choice offered to them by the West.

Woah woah woah woah. You're confusing my point here.

If you look at the previous posts nowhere was I talking about Western style democracy, or even democracy at all. In fact, if you look at the original Anon member's post, you'll see it was about the right to being able to speak your opinion without being murdered by the government. I don't think our style of Democracy should ever be forced on a country that doesn't want it, but I don't EVER think fighting for the right to speak your opinion without being murdered is a bad thing.

I see where your coming from, you're just telling me I'm wrong for something I never said. I was talking about the right to free speech without being killed, not democracy.

 

[Danpascooch]

They're human, how could they not understand the difference between being executed for saying something the government doesn't like, and being allowed to say things the government doesn't like?

Who's being executed? The American hikers? Because they aren't being arrested over freedom of speech. The Iranian people? Because that isn't what's happening there either.

You can have a cookie for completely missing the point on that whole post though. Congrats, that takes true dedication.

That's hardly fair, judge him on what he says and does, not from your preconceived notions of the group (hardly even a group really) that he comes from

Even what he's saying is incoherent and inconsistent, combining it with reality completely tanks his credibility into the range of a little kid spouting off "let's say that..." repeatedly to change the rules with no regard to what came before.

I see you just said his posts are incoherent and inconsistent, good, see, THAT is a valid reason to disapprove of him. I was just saying your earlier post saying "what's more likely, that an Anon member knows what he's talking about or an Anon member that makes shit up" wasn't exactly fair. It's fine to hate that guy, just make sure you do it for the right reasons is all I meant.

Are you saying the Iranian people aren't being arrested over free speech? I point you to the Blasphemy Law in Iran. Google it if you don't know what it is, basically you can be imprisoned or worse for criticizing the Quran.

Frankly your hostility toward me is uncalled for, I have never been hostile toward you, and I just provided a clear example of the people of Iran being denied the right to free speech.

If you don't think that right is worth fighting for that's fine, but don't act like they already have free speech.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Woah woah woah woah. You're confusing my point here.

If you look at the previous posts nowhere was I talking about Western style democracy, or even democracy at all. In fact, if you look at the original Anon member's post, you'll see it was about the right to being able to speak your opinion without being murdered by the government. I don't think our style of Democracy should ever be forced on a country that doesn't want it, but I don't EVER think fighting for the right to speak your opinion without being murdered is a bad thing.

I see where your coming from, you're just telling me I'm wrong for something I never said. I was talking about the right to free speech without being killed, not democracy.

Apologies, Danpascooch, the first time I read that as being a far more narrowminded conservative "They hate us for our freedom" type argument. My bad, a review of some of your other posts in the thread shows that isn't who you are, or what you were saying. Emotions running high in this thread, mine included - looking back, I broke out some grade-A vitriol yesterday...

 

[Danpascooch]

Woah woah woah woah. You're confusing my point here.

If you look at the previous posts nowhere was I talking about Western style democracy, or even democracy at all. In fact, if you look at the original Anon member's post, you'll see it was about the right to being able to speak your opinion without being murdered by the government. I don't think our style of Democracy should ever be forced on a country that doesn't want it, but I don't EVER think fighting for the right to speak your opinion without being murdered is a bad thing.

I see where your coming from, you're just telling me I'm wrong for something I never said. I was talking about the right to free speech without being killed, not democracy.

Apologies, Danpascooch, the first time I read that as being a far more narrowminded conservative "They hate us for our freedom" type argument. My bad, a review of some of your other posts in the thread shows that isn't who you are, or what you were saying. Emotions running high in this thread, mine included - looking back, I broke out some grade-A vitriol yesterday...

That's fine, the fact that you admit a mistake when you weren't even overly hostile in the first place is representative of a maturity rarely found in an online forum.

....That was a lot of big words, my head hurts now.

Anyway, yeah it's totally fine.

 

[tsb247]

It should probably be noted that in so far of the FBI investigation(and the very limited information available) the feds do seem to be targeting those Anons who behave like "leaders"/staff. IRC channel admins who organize the different "operations" and the like.

There has to be some kind of structure, they can't have people coming in and spamming etc. These people prosecuted are comparable to forum moderates.

As I witnessed last night and today, press releases are a combined effort from whoever is available and willing to work on them at the time. There is no specific people doing each of them, anyone can help and add ideas etc.

Which goes back to my point I made earlier...
Who controls who does what and ensures that members of Anonymous aren't engaging in corrupt, illegal, or even dangerous activities?
Who vets the materials to make sure that members are releasing doctored documents or even flat-out lies? How do you establish credibility with such an organization where just about anyone can do anything and simply slap the "Anonymous seal of approval" on it.

Just as in this case... which member of Anonymous sat there and reviewed each and every one of those 60,000 documents, parsed the information that was relevant from what was irrelevant, took the pains to protect the innocent from having their personal or private information bundled in accidentally and revealed to the world unwillingly, and redacted anything else that might have been unnecessary to release?

It couldn't have been one person, this information, this "plot" is too new, too fresh.

This is what makes Anonymous dangerous... they boast while saying they do not boast. They attack with impunity without a care to the collateral damage they cause, and offer no reparations to the third parties that might have been inadvertently harmed. When I see a story that says "Anonymous takes collection, pays off mortgage for poor chap that got fired when his companies evil plans were exposed by hacked documents they released", then I'll perhaps view them in a favorable light.

Until then, I'll remain heavily suspicious and wary of them, and perhaps even in support of some sort of Government investigation into their actions. Heck, how do I know that right now I am not being marked for "reprisal" for speaking my opinion and pointing out concerns? I am not an evil man with evil plans, yet my logic and lack of support my sway opinions about them, thus making me a potential threat? How long before someone from Anonymous decides to to take so-called "non-violent" action against me? Maybe even a member that just wants to do it for the Lulz because he's so down for the cause?

Which leading member of Anonymous, if any, who has any real clout within the organization can give me a personal assurance of safety and privacy? I don't want the Government in my business, but I sure as hell don't want Anonymous in it either.

This is exactly what I have been getting at. If the, "Organization," (since it's obviously something very difficult to describe) goes completely unmoderated, and there is little structure, who is to say the innocent will not be harmed? You pointed out and built on many of the points I had made in earlier posts, and all of them are valid. No thought is paid as to whether or not collateral damage will occur when one of their ops is pulled off. What is to become of the information that dig up from the banks? Whose accounts get drained by Anon hackers? What if some classified documents they steal and leak start a war? All of these things are certainly possible when one examines the purpose, scope, and complexity of Anon operations.

In the end, it's all about power - not freedom.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

How's this for an analogy? (Brace yourself, time for physics!) Anon is a bit like drift current in a conductor. See, in a piece of metal the electrons just sort of float about on the lattice of nuclei, moving randomly according to quantum chance. But the moment you put a potential voltage across the metal, there's a trend towards one side. It's not that all the electrons line up, some of them still move nearly perpendicular to or even against the field. But taken as a group, the average position of all electrons moves, and this is what we see as current.

Anon is kinda like the electrons - a bunch of bored net users just floating according to their own whims on the conductor that is the internet. When there is an issue that polarises debate, such as censorship, the average of all the views tends to move a certain way, seemingly creating organisation through a central goal when it's really more of an aggregate of similar responses to an outside stimulus. "Anonymous" is the current flowing - it's made up of the anon-electrons, but none of them could be said to be running the show.

Could it be dangerous? Sure. Could it be stopped without pretty much dismantling the internet? I don't really think so. People will find a way to keep voicing their dissent in telecommunications media as long as we have worldwide telecommunications.

EDIT: My captcha had a capital phi in it?! How the hell am I gonna type that?!

 

[AnonOperations]

Yes, they are good points, and the questions raised are difficult to answer. Anonymous is a blanket term used to describe certain internet sub cultures. As you are probably are aware by now, there are many forums and organizations using this name. 4chan, 7chan, Ebaums world, 711chan etc sometimes use it for various malicious pranks. AnonOps use it primarily to stage protest and assist those experiencing oppression & censorship. You believe there is no thought given to collateral damage. In the case of AnonOps, that is completely false. There is much thought gone into the operations. For example, regarding OpIran - people in the area are told not to participate in any digital sit in protests because Iran has deep packet inspection on.

There was a top AnonOps news source claiming that they(AnonOps) did not have anything to do with the HBGary incident. This just proves that in the end, it is very difficult to tell what groups and organizations using the name took part in what.

Basically Anonymous = The internet. I can't guarantee you safety from everyone on the internet.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

This is exactly what I have been getting at. If the, "Organization," (since it's obviously something very difficult to describe) goes completely unmoderated, and there is little structure, who is to say the innocent will not be harmed? You pointed out and built on many of the points I had made in earlier posts, and all of them are valid. No thought is paid as to whether or not collateral damage will occur when one of their ops is pulled off. What is to become of the information that dig up from the banks? Whose accounts get drained by Anon hackers? What if some classified documents they steal and leak start a war? All of these things are certainly possible when one examines the purpose, scope, and complexity of Anon operations.

In the end, it's all about power - not freedom.

I think an apt adage that I've been considering during this entire conversation may be the final word on how I feel about the Government vs. Anonymous/Wikileaks:

"Better the devil you know..."

Are Governments and Corporations corrupt? Sure. But so are ANY alliance, group, association, or organization that involves large groups of HUMAN BEINGS. At least governments and corporations have SOME checks and balances... as ineffective as it might seem, they have SOME oversight, and ultimately, if either gets too far out of hand, the people know exactly who to direct their ire at.
Governments can be toppled by their people. Corporations can be rendered bankrupt by consumers.

But should the people grow tired of Anonymous and Wikileaks, what is our course of action? Who do we hold accountable in the event someone who claims to be part of those groups goes "rogue?"

How many anonymous members used stolen banking information taken from documents they acquired for their own personal gain? Will the rest of anonymous turn on and out these errant members? Or is there an unspoken rule about loyalty and anonymity, like how in prison the unwritten rule amongst inmates is that you don't RAT out other inmates?

If forced to choose between two evils, and yes I consider both evil to certain degrees, I'd rather have the corrupt Government I can readily identify and if need be target than a spectre of an organization whose members act with relative impunity from behind a veil of absolute secrecy.

If Wikileaks and Anonymous truly believed in the Transparency of truth, they wouldn't bother hiding, now would they? You can't have it both ways without ending up being a hypocrite in one way or the other.

 

[AnonOperations]

If Wikileaks and Anonymous truly believed in the Transparency of truth, they wouldn't bother hiding, now would they? You can't have it both ways without ending up being a hypocrite in one way or the other.

There are good reasons why these people choose to remain anonymous. If you check the images in the spoiler in my previous post, it addresses this subject. If the sources were revealed and these people did not remain anonymous, the U.S. Government would do anything they can to discredit and do away with them. They clearly do not want evidence of their dirty deals and corruption revealed.

 

[tsb247]

How's this for an analogy? (Brace yourself, time for physics!) Anon is a bit like drift current in a conductor. See, in a piece of metal the electrons just sort of float about on the lattice of nuclei, moving randomly according to quantum chance. But the moment you put a potential voltage across the metal, there's a trend towards one side. It's not that all the electrons line up, some of them still move nearly perpendicular to or even against the field. But taken as a group, the average position of all electrons moves, and this is what we see as current.

Anon is kinda like the electrons - a bunch of bored net users just floating according to their own whims on the conductor that is the internet. When there is an issue that polarises debate, such as censorship, the average of all the views tends to move a certain way, seemingly creating organisation through a central goal when it's really more of an aggregate of similar responses to an outside stimulus. "Anonymous" is the current flowing - it's made up of the anon-electrons, but none of them could be said to be running the show.

Could it be dangerous? Sure. Could it be stopped without pretty much dismantling the internet? I don't really think so. People will find a way to keep voicing their dissent in telecommunications media as long as we have worldwide telecommunications.

EDIT: My captcha had a capital phi in it?! How the hell am I gonna type that?!

While that does paint a nice picture, I cannot entirely get behind that explanation. It is not in human nature to be truly random (such as an electron). No matter how random a person may try to be, everyone will eventually fall into a discernable pattern. It is just how we work. All of us are like this, without exception.

Anon is a mob mentality - a, "Hivemind," as has been stated before. However, behind every angry mob there are a few individuals inciting the riot. An idea, not unlike an electrical current, has to have a source; something supplying it (say, a battery - in this case, a person or group of people). Someone actually has to say, "Hey let's go hack, 'xyz,' and being down, 'abc!'

There is still a person, or group (small or large) responsible for each and every act committed by Anon. There simply is no other way.

I cannot be made to believe that a group of people can polarize themselves is such a way without some form of leadership. It just doesn't happen.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

How's this for an analogy? (Brace yourself, time for physics!) Anon is a bit like drift current in a conductor. See, in a piece of metal the electrons just sort of float about on the lattice of nuclei, moving randomly according to quantum chance. But the moment you put a potential voltage across the metal, there's a trend towards one side. It's not that all the electrons line up, some of them still move nearly perpendicular to or even against the field. But taken as a group, the average position of all electrons moves, and this is what we see as current.

Anon is kinda like the electrons - a bunch of bored net users just floating according to their own whims on the conductor that is the internet. When there is an issue that polarises debate, such as censorship, the average of all the views tends to move a certain way, seemingly creating organisation through a central goal when it's really more of an aggregate of similar responses to an outside stimulus. "Anonymous" is the current flowing - it's made up of the anon-electrons, but none of them could be said to be running the show.

Could it be dangerous? Sure. Could it be stopped without pretty much dismantling the internet? I don't really think so. People will find a way to keep voicing their dissent in telecommunications media as long as we have worldwide telecommunications.

EDIT: My captcha had a capital phi in it?! How the hell am I gonna type that?!

EXCELLENT analogy.
As a physics minor, I truly appreciated this analogy, and gives me a new perspective on Anonymous.

But it also illustrates the point of my concern:

Who controls that voltage that mobilizes the electrons? Even more to the point, the actions of the electrons would still be random, as in they would never trend towards or perpendicular to the field in the same way, position, or in some cases, not at all. That's too much "randomness" for me. It means that any of those electrons can be doing whatever the hell it wants to, even if it is moving in a coerced direction.

This means that on one hand, someone could conceivably control or manipulate the group into doing something that only serves that person's ultimate purposes... and on the other hand, no one has any control whatsoever over what any of the other members might do.

But all it's going to take is one member with a big mouth to do something "wrong", like steal money from several bank accounts, then crack under interrogation and acknowledge that he got the bank accounts from Anonymous to turn the tide of public opinion against them... or to at least mobilize the government into more decisive action to deal with the "threat." Worse, someone could provide sensitive information to an unfriendly nation for personal gain.

Those risks have to be considered as well before one throws their unwavering support behind the Anonymous..

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I'm not quite sure if I believe all this (although in light of Palantir's stance and the Apology call...I might be starting to), but I just want to say this...

If this is true.
If. This. Is. TRUE.

Then hell yeah, Anon. You get my thumbs up. The government needs to be accountable to the people. We do NOT want the world to end up like it does in Deus Ex (the old one). We need someone to look out for the people, and while I STILL think anonymous is a pack of deranged pricks in their moms basements...They get shit done when they want to.

So as long as they're fighting the good fight, I salute them.

I recently learned that Sweden (my country of Citizenship) is a rare exception when it come to the government and how it deals with "Secret Files". Apparently, unlike most other countries, the Swedish governments leaves all government files public (I suppose active military information is locked away for the safety of the troops), and any citizen has the right to request to see files concerning the government. When such a request is made, a board is available to determine if the information in the file would lead to endangering someone's life if released. If not, then the citizen is free to view the file. If determined that relasing the file in question would endanger someone, then it is stamped "secret", but only temporarily. I forget what the maximum amount of time is, but it's not decades, probably not even years. It can always be renewed after it expires, it would go through the same process.

Apparently, most countries do the exact OPPOSITE! Ever heard of Honesty and Transparency? Or Civil SERVANTS?
The citizens of any country are the Lord/Lady of the mansion, the government is the maid/butler/cook/driver/gardener/guard, and can be easily replaced if they do not do their jobs properly.

...THIS is how things should be done. The government needs to be accountable to the people, not the other way around.

Really, as long as Wikileaks doesn't leak any info that could get people killed (military plans and stuff), then I wholeheartedly support them. We have a right to know about the government's dirty screw-ups. If they don't want us to know about them, then they should stop doing dirty dealings! If they won't be transparent and honest with us, then we must MAKE them transparent!

 

[LCP]

I understand government stopping release of sensitive info, but banks have no business doing that

 

[AnonOperations]

Again, I see the basement dwellers sterotype come up. You know, the average person would likely apply the same sterotype to people posting on a gaming forum. And saying AnonOps is just a bunch of bored net users is also inaccurate. It shouldn't be hard to understand that people are willing to fight for a free press and a transparent government. If I was bored, I would spend more time playing games or watching media. This is something I actually believe in.

But it also illustrates the point of my concern:

Who controls that voltage that mobilizes the electrons? Even more to the point, the actions of the electrons would still be random, as in they would never trend towards or perpendicular to the field in the same way, position, or in some cases, not at all. That's too much "randomness" for me. It means that any of those electrons can be doing whatever the hell it wants to, even if it is moving in a coerced direction.

This means that on one hand, someone could conceivably control or manipulate the group into doing something that only serves that person's ultimate purposes... and on the other hand, no one has any control whatsoever over what any of the other members might do.

But all it's going to take is one member with a big mouth to do something "wrong", like steal money from several bank accounts, then crack under interrogation and acknowledge that he got the bank accounts from Anonymous to turn the tide of public opinion against them... or to at least mobilize the government into more decisive action to deal with the "threat." Worse, someone could provide sensitive information to an unfriendly nation for personal gain.

Those risks have to be considered as well before one throws their unwavering support behind the Anonymous..

As I said in my previous post, many people use the Anonymous name and for various reasons. I don't think any 1 person agrees with everything that "anonymous" has done.