And as I have said before, that is what makes "anonymous" Dangerous and quite possibly a threat equal to or greater than the "corrupt" governments and corporations they supposedly are fighting on our behalf against.AnonOperations said:
Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
You should probably read exactly what they did. Looks like Aaron and Ted [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars/] are REALLY stupid with tech issues...HyenaThePirate said:
And they work at a Tech Security Firm...
My point was, not everyone that uses the name is fighting for these causes. A lot of assholes just use the name for trolling purposes. This is a main reason that there is so much hate for anons. If you want to hate on 4chan and other groups that are using the name for malicious pranks, that is fine. But don't try and associate them with this largely separate group - anonops.HyenaThePirate said:
You know, just considering all the arguing that is going on, with Starke, Hyena and whoever else - I'd just like to voice my support.AnonOperations said:
I appreciate that you, whoever you are, take the time to make AnonOps presence known, and highlight all the noteworthy news-articles.
And other matters:
I also wholeheartedly support the goals of AnonOps... And contrary to what Starke is saying(or inferring), supporting the goals (in this case freedom of speech) of an organisation has nothing to do with supporting the means in which any such goal is reached. This, however, I am quite sure you already know.
I can say "I support the anti-terrorism campaign of the U.S.", without breaking American law.
I cannot say "I support illegal wiretapping, false imprisonment etc., etc.", without breaking American law.
Key difference.
Then again, I probably wouldn't be prosecuted either way, as I would only be agreeing with the American government on its own matters. Poor example. Brings my point across, still.
As a whole other side note, libel is a criminal offense. I know there is no name attached to your user, but it seems Starke is more of "criminal" than many others in this thread. Yourself included.
I'm not worried about HOW they did it. I'm worried that they DECIDED to do it and about WHO it was that decided to do it.Gindil said:
Anonymous' methods of action are only part of the greater concern, but are nothing compared to the concern that a group of untouchable, unidentified individuals with no discernable moral or ethical limitations can take it upon itself to engage in a crusade of information without defined guidance, someone who can be held accountable by the people if the network itself becomes "corrupted", and with little regard for collateral damage.
The people can reasonably fight back against a tyrannical government, expose evil corporate actions, and hold infamous parties relatively accountable... all things Anonymous claims they wish to do, with the notable exception of removing THEMSELVES from that list.
Bottomline, they have no accountability and no manner of being curbed or controlled. And in my book, that is a more troubling situation than a bank and an IT security firm trading emails about spreading rumors.
But that's the bloody problem. How DO we separate one part of Anonymous from ANOTHER? Heck, prior to now, you largely supported the statement that Anonymous was an ideal, not an actual GROUP of people, that it was ultimately subject to no true leadership and was comprised of random members who either participated or not on little more than a whim and scant amounts of information.AnonOperations said:
Thank you s0denone
Follow AnonOps on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/anonops
Keep up to date with Anon News:
http://www.anonnews.org/
http://anonops.blogspot.com/ [http://anonops.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-01-10T08:43:00-08:00&max-results=10]
http://anonops.tk/
Anonymous manifesto: http://truthisrevolutionary.org/news/message-anonymous
For a recent explanation on Anonymity and who we are:
http://i.imgur.com/6OeQa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ul7Sm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Qq3bn.jpg
My apologies for any confusion. You can separate the AnonOps part of Anonymous by checking the AnonOps news sources and manifestos listed below.HyenaThePirate said:
Follow AnonOps on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/anonops
Keep up to date with Anon News:
http://www.anonnews.org/
http://anonops.blogspot.com/ [http://anonops.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-01-10T08:43:00-08:00&max-results=10]
http://anonops.tk/
Anonymous manifesto: http://truthisrevolutionary.org/news/message-anonymous
For a recent explanation on Anonymity and who we are:
http://i.imgur.com/6OeQa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ul7Sm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Qq3bn.jpg
For the record, I am in favor of free speech. I am disturbed by the abbreviation of it, even in Iran, and Wikileaks does pose a serious dilemma for me, because on one hand there is a very viable reason why this information should be out there, but on the other hand it is endangering real lives by being there.s0denone said:
The problem for me is that Anonymous isn't about freedom of speech. I mean, they say they're about freedom of speech, but it's kinda the same way the Soviet Union was for Worker's Rights. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about controlling who says what to mesh with their worldview.
The attack on Gene Simmons, for instance, wasn't motivated by any love of free speech. It was about punishing someone who chose not to praise Anonymous, and pointed out that, surprise surprise, piracy is a crime. Now, Anon may not agree with what he had to say, but if they were really in favor of free speech, the correct response would be to challenge his arguments, not to try to silence him punitively.
Similarly Visa, Mastercard and Paypal were DDoSed for withdrawing their support. That is, to an extent an act of free speech, but Anon saw fit to slap them about over this. Why? Not because they value free speech, but because they didn't like what Visa, Mastercard or Paypal were saying and saw fit to gag them.
That isn't free speech. That is Anonymous saying "I get to decide what you can say, and what you can't, and if I don't like what you have to say, then fuck you." And, I'm sorry, but I cannot support a group that is pro-censorship, especially so petulantly.
If you mean I'm leaning towards an analysis of this from a criminal law perspective, then you're right. Anonymous is staring down the gun of the United States Judicial system, and the rules they'll be following are the laws that govern criminal conduct. if you're calling me a criminal, then you might want to revisit the terms of service for this site.s0denone said:
That is not what they are saying at all.Starke said:
The point of this Operation, was to hinder the public face of the companies to draw media attention to what they did to wikileaks. Not to harm infrastructure that people use day to day.
Comparable to a sit-in, DDoS protesters disrupt business or government actions by obstructing the flow of normal traffic, in order to make a political point.
I don't ask you to support the group. But I will ask you to stop making false claims based on your opinion.Starke said:
Related articles:
Caving to pressure from supporters, PayPal releases WikiLeaks? funds
http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-from-supporters-paypal-releases-wikileaks-funds/
PayPal Decision to Block WikiLeaks Was Influenced by State Department Letter Calling the Site Illegal
http://erictric.com/2010/12/08/paypal-decision-to-block-wikileaks-was-influenced-by-state-department-letter-calling-the-site-illegal/
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/08/news/companies/mastercard_wiki/index.htm
I don't "hate" him he is getting on my nerves, but that's different. As a personal position, I don't have a problem espousing an idea I don't agree with. And I enjoy a good spirited debate. The catch is when someone isn't thinking, and instead are simply responding in rote. Now, from what The-artist-formerly-known-as-H2whatever is posting, he really does seem to be falling more into the not thinking, and vomiting up whatever comes from the releases of the hive mind. Some of this would make sense, but most of it is simply badly written over wrought attempts at sounding high minded. I've read far too much legitimate political philosophy over the years to fall for that, and I can recognize ill-conceived attempts at it almost instantly (or ill-conceived genuine examples).danpascooch said:
So where all this is going is, from what AnonOps is writing, he doesn't appear to have really digested (or thought about) the information he is relaying. It is at best schizophrenic, and at worst incoherent, regardless it is self-contradicting.
Now, pushing him to think about what he's saying has so far failed, but I don't hate him, he's just on my nerves at the moment.
It isn't that Iran's free speech is unlimited. And it isn't that free speech isn't worth fighting for. It's the methods.danpascooch said:
Okay, Richard Weaver was a political philosopher in the mid 20th century. In Ideas Have Consequences he argues that the height of man was the southern aristocrat. He's arguing that this man of leisure was the best suited individual to deal with the world.
Now, when I read this my immediate response is that the man is insane, he wants to revert to a kind of Platonic society that preys upon slave labor, while promoting an individual who has no particular or specific skill set, but rather a holistic view of the world. Reading this is (or at least for me was), quite frankly disgusting. Until you realize that the context of what he is using as an example distracts you from the underlying philosophy.
The philosophy is that by specialization of skills we lose the capacity to make great leaders. But the example it's couched in conceals this under 150 years of American history.
The same thing is true with Iran. Iran needs free speech, more than they have at any rate. But what Iran does not need is a group of westerners arguing for free speech, calling their government illegal, while pointing at a government that was backed by the United States and was far more oppressive than their own.
Like my reading of Weaver, the Iranians lose the actual philosophy behind historical context.
In Iranian historical context, the United States backed the Shah's oppressive regime, which was far more harsh it it's suppression of dissent while using rhetoric almost identical to what Anon is now using. To ask them to filter through that is a waste of time. It won't happen. Because, to an Iranian citizen, Anon's message isn't recognized as a call for free speech. It is recognized as a call to colonial enslavement.
So again, Anon may have noble goals, but the don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're actually doing. And in the end can at best achieve nothing, and at worst piss them off more and get the remaining hikers killed as spies.
That is something I cannot support.
I would daresay that these acts were acts of others subgroups of Anonymous than "AnonOps". I'd be guessing, though, I admit.Starke said:
I do not condone any of the actions your examples at all, and can easily follow your reasoning on Wikileaks. I am of the stance, however, that the dilemma is not bigger, for me, than I can say free speech should triumph over censorship.
Would I feel differently had I been to war myself, or knew people directly affected by the release of the documents? Impossible to tell.
I was appalled that documents were released without being proofread and have sources/names in general removed.
With that fixed, however, I do not see why documents should not be published in the future.
I do not agree with AnonOps methods, but I think they fight a good fight.
I may not like the odd trolling attack, or the release of this HBGary CEO Aaron Barrs personal information at all, but I think the group also does some good, and its ideals are certainly delightful.
I was merely poking fun at you for telling this AnonOperations(h264 before) user that he was guilty by association, which wouldn't hold up in court, while you simultaneously go on to infer him a liar. Raising questions about his given age, his veracity in general, and other things.
If he could legitimately form a case that his reputation on the escapist was proportional to how much money he earned, you could be sued.
I must admit though; you were one of the few people not speaking rashly. Having read all of the pages before replying, I had just seen a lot of "this guy is an idiot" or the like, to be able to attribute it to any user in particular - you were just the target, as you were deeming h264 the criminal yourself.
Well in that sense it failed. Again, Anon does not control the media, and really outside the tech sector they simply aren't getting attention. What Anon did get attention for was the attacks themselves. The attacks are news, the motives aren't. This is a sad fact of the news, unless you are very savvy, it is a media director, not you, who shapes the story. So the attacks were reported, but the Wikileaks angle was burred near the bottom of the article.AnonOperations said:
Now, most people only ever read the headline, of those that do pierce that the most you can reliably hope for is for them to read the first paragraph. If it didn't make the first paragraph of a news article it's background for the five people out there who care. This results in self selection, the people who know you did this over wikileaks already knew about the wikileaks angle and you've gained nothing, except an FBI investigations into messing with the money.
I'd ask you to do the same, but I think we both know the other will not acquess in this. The best you can hope for is that I will evidence my claims, so...AnonOperations said:
Gene Simmons [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104513-Gene-Simmons-Declares-War-on-Anonymous] did nothing except piss off anonymous.
As for this, I've got reports on my desktop about the Australian Secure Servers going down at the same time as the DDOS, I've got reports of a list of card data popping up shortly after published by someone claiming to be a member of anonymous, while MasterCard (understandably) called the list fake, I've pulled both of these bits off the Register, but I don't keep a running archive of all the way Anon has fucked itself, so you'll need to dig around if you want to see the source data on this, sorry.AnonOperations said:
Anonymous does have contacts in the media, specifically the Guardian, and has helped to write articles. I don't agree that the operation failed here. Most news articles, if not all of them, including the anonymous interviews, referenced that these attacks were due to these companies freezing wikileaks funds or cutting their ties with wikileaks. I do think however, that a better way of showing support was operation leakspin and hosting wikileaks mirrors.Starke said:
Related News on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ZoOZ4fI4
And here is the crux of the problem Anon faces. By masking themselves as a non-entity they have on control over what is or is not associated with themselves. Which is why I picked the Gene Simmons example, as (IIRC) AnonOps claimed credit for it as part of Operation Payback. This is also why I did not cite the Epilepsy Foundation of America site hacking [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/08/tech/main4079730.shtml] which was arguably sourced to someone affiliated with either Anonymous or the chan.org family. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29#Epilepsy_Foundation_forum_invasion]s0denone said:
There is a legitimate argument to be had here. The failure to vet the documents comprehensibly in the past was an incredibly tragic error. Now, it doesn't kill wikileaks, and their willingness to delay future releases while they do vet the files does speak to a degree of ethical responsibility on their part.s0denone said:
But, this self-restraint is not something that AnonOps shares. When they released their email cache from HB Gary Federal for instance, it (reportedly) came with loads of individual's personal information which HB Gary had collected. They argued that these weren't Anon members, but they still blithely released the personal information of individuals with their only justification being, "at least it wasn't us." Depending on how comprehensive this personal information was, Anon basically opened up a huge cluster of innocent people to identity theft for no other reason than they didn't like the company that had collected the data.
Except, again, they show an incredible disregard for anyone else. Either the HB Gary data above was accurate and they simply wanted to throw people off their trail brazenly or it was inaccurate, as they claim, and they opened up unaffiliated bystanders to identity theft because, why not?s0denone said:
We know that Aaron Barr's social security number is out there, but did the cache include ours? Yours? Mine? Or just H286's?
At that, by what right to they release that kind of information about people at large. Do Aaron Barr's children deserve death threats because their father works for a company that failed corporate ethics? Does his wife? Hell, does he? Really?
For it to be libel, legally, it has to be both false and I have to know it was false. If he's in fact not American than the standards may be even more strict, for Brits it has to be false, I need to know it was false, and I need to have intended him harm by saying it. As for other nationalities, I'm not sure, but there you go.s0denone said:
His narrative leaves me with some questions about his veracity. I'm not saying "he's full of shit" or the like, but I am left with a kind of "hmm, you don't say" skepticism at some of his claims.
*munches rashly on S0denone*s0denone said:
To be fair, if you're keying off what I think you were, I was telling him to get a lawyer. By claiming to be a participant in the attacks on Tunisia[footnote]H286 claims otherwise. Either way my recollection that he had claimed this did fuel my recommendation.[/footnote] he has admitted committed a criminal offense and could get wrapped up in all of this. As weird as it sounds, the intent was to try to keep him from digging a deeper hole for himself.
I don't relish the idea of kids in jail, but I also don't see a realistic situation where that isn't how this is going to end.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a bit like claiming to have "media contacts" in The Weekly World News?AnonOperations said:
Now, I'll grant you that the tabloids can produce real content from time to time, and I believe The Enquirer actually took home a Pulitzer a year ago, but still. Barret Brown has his opinion, and he helps you, and that's fine, but if you want mainstream media support it might help to find a "media contact" who's rag doesn't require the use of naked girls on page 3 to sell copy.
I never claimed to be a participant in any attacks, can you please remove that false claim from your post?
I agree entirely.Starke said:
That said, it is a difficult decision for Anonymous.
If they stay Anonymous, they are basically untraceable and can operate however they please with relatively(to not being anonymous) no real fear of repercussions. "Anonymous" is also slowly becoming something of a brand, and the Guy Fawkes mask more and more associated with them -- It is far from mainstream, but it has a growing popularity.
If they move away from being "Anonymous", they all risk jailtime(as they would presumable be easier to detect, if not infiltrated) and will then have to start a brand anew.
I agree.
Not much more to add here. I think releasing the personal information of any person without their consent is wrong - and a whole heap of people, as is the case here, is quite despicable.
I have to admit, though, that I am torn on the issue. Would I rather that AnonOps hadn't acted, and HBGary could freely go through with their plans without anyone knowing, or that AnonOps did indeed act, albeit with the cost of personal information of certain employees?
Very clever rhetoric, here. Breaking up a singular point I make, replying to it twice, underlying your own first reply in your second.
Well it certainly didn't include mine, since I'm not American by any stretch, but I concede the point here, again.
Raising doubts about ones trustworthiness is very much libel... If he can prove it to have a detrimental effect on his job opportunities, income or social acceptance. You do so by inferring him to have lied about his age, and find some of his statements to seem like "making stuff up as he goes along". (You were the one to say that, right?)
If you can prove that he is doing so, it isn't - but if you can't, then it is.
In all honesty I have seen him as a biased relayer of AnonOps' thoughts here. You may disagree with them, find them to be inconsistent or the like - but you have to give him credit for persisting. I agree with the overarching sentiment, as you do, that freedom of speech is very important.
Now that was certainly rash!
He already replied to this himself. If he did indeed claim any responsibility, I also missed it. Had it been the case, I also wouldn't argue against finding a lawyer!
And that is the main problem with Anonymous, isn't it? Every "operation" will potentially have the cannonfodder button-mashing DDoS'ing teenagers thrown in prison.
The reality of the real world is that you can't have it both ways.s0denone said:
You can't say "Oh well I support what they claim to be fighting for, but I'm against the harmful methods they use to do it, so ultimately I think they are doing a good thing with their bad things."
The bigger problem I have is this idea that Anon and Wikileaks stand for "Freedom" when it would be more accurate to say that they stand for their personal DEFINITION of "Freedom" as THEY believe it should be. Essentially what they seem to be doing (as best as I can observe) is dictating who they feel should have "freedom of speech" and who should not, and worse, what TYPE of "freedom of speech" they are "allowed" to have. As long as it jives with Anon and Wikileaks ideas of "freedom" it's all hunky dory. But the second you say or do something they don't like, they take a piss all over your "freedom" to disagree with them.
What I find the most distressing is how easily it seems Anonymous (as exampled by our friend on this very thread) dismisses away any negative actions or wrong doing by someone on behalf of their organization (I still contend that it is a group, hive-mind or not) by simply saying "Oh, they were part of some OTHER subset of Anonymous, not Anonymous-. As evidenced by a few threads here, we've seen that the most reprehensible actions were not done by "the REAL Anonymous" or at least Anonops, who seem more than glad to take credit for actions that produced favorable results with minimal backlash while passing the buck to their wayward 4chan brethren when convenient.
But in the end, regardless of what "cell" or "subset" or "group within the non-group" or whatever part of Anonymous one tries to place one's loyalty with, the negative actions of one group reflect on Anonymous as a whole.
In fact, given the open nature of Anonymous as it is, and how it appears to be splintered into dozens of little groups with no ties or oversight under a semi-united banner, it would almost appear that any plans that the Government could use to undermine or discredit Anonymous or wikileaks with are wholly unnecessary, since given enough room to operate, the less honorable (or desirable) elements of Anonymous by their actions would do enough to derail any positive images AnonOps might garner outside of the small microcosm of the internet techie culture. Because while you can tell us until the cows come home about how AnonOps had NOTHING to do with something negative, if someone else in Anonymous is claiming that "Anonymous did it (for example, that whole declaration of war on the British Government fiasco", the majority of the world is going to see it as an action by ALL Anonymous.
The only answer I can see for Anon Ops is probably to distance themselves as much as possible from Anonymous and change their name to avoid confusion.
Otherwise, when the media reports something bad that Anonymous has done, ALL the subgroups and satellites of Anonymous or Wikileaks are going to get the blame as a whole. They aren't going to care about what part did what when to whom.
Of course I can say that.HyenaThePirate said:
I do not support or endorse the release of personal information, but I do support the reason for taking action against this HBGary security firm, the reason for taking action against Scientology, etc. etc.
It has nothing to do with having anything one way or another. I am not involved, so I can easily have it every which way without anyone caring but myself.
First off all, you have to tell me how exactly Wikileaks is doing harm (provided they remove names/sources from their documents)? Also how they are "taking a piss" on whoever disagrees with them?
I agree that AnonOps would be more credible if they distanced themselves from Anonymous properly - but being a distinct group also makes you a much easier target.