Interesting, but I'll be honest in saying that I don't consider defending Wikileaks to be honorable or heroic. From what we're hearing, "Bank Of America" was going after Wikileaks for it's own reasons, but that does not excuse Wikileaks revealing things like classified goverment documents connected to diplomacy and the like. Especially not when the revelations seem weighted specifically against the US and work to the favor of a lot of very unpleasant people.
See, had Wikileaks simply been focused on the private sector, and going after corrupt businesses and banks and so on, I'd be a lot more sympathetic, the problem here is that they were outing classified information in situations where millions of lives could be affected.
The thing with Bank Of America is a situation where you more or less have one apparent bad guy going after another, that really changes nothing about Wikileaks or why it stepped over the line.
As I've said before, I agree with a lot of what Anonymous does at times, but I do not see them as an entirely benevolent force. I also do not agree with them on this entire Wikileaks thing. I do not consider it a work of activism, I think they are on the wrong side, if they were even going to take a side on something like that. That's simply my opinion though.
As far as not being able to falsify documents here, understand that they wouldn't need to fake all 60,000 of them. If they wanted to perform a "set up" all they'd have to do is create the set of documents with the information they wanted, make them seem fairly authentic compared to the others, and stick them into the pile. I'm not saying they did falsify this, I have no idea, I'm just saying it's not some ridiculously herculean task, so it can't be dismissed on that level. What's more implying Anonymous is too honorable to do something like that compared to these other "mooks" or whatever is absolutly ridiculous. Anyone who thinks that has no idea who they are dealing with, Anonymous themselves hardly present themselves as paragons of virtue. I mean cripes people, look at their overall body of work, they terrorize mildly annoying people "for the lulz". Yes she was annoying, and maybe she even deserved some of it, but the whole "Jessie Slaughter" thing definatly was not the honorable action of virtuous cyber-paladins.
Anonymous is an unpredictable and multi-faceted non-organization. Head over to something like "Encyclopedia Dramatica", and understanding the way they report things (which is shockingly accurate considering the humor involved) and take a look at both Anonymous' creed, and it's overall "body of work".
I mean the stuff about wikileaks being irresponsible, destructive and not worthy of defense is just what I think. Obviously people are going to disagree with me there, but how can you defend the honor and virtue of Anonymous when it claims itself to have none? The scary thing about Anonymous is that it will do pretty much anything it can in pursuit of it's goals, whatever those goals may be, you think that for a second if they had something to gain they wouldn't insert documents into that pile "because it's wrong"?
See, had Wikileaks simply been focused on the private sector, and going after corrupt businesses and banks and so on, I'd be a lot more sympathetic, the problem here is that they were outing classified information in situations where millions of lives could be affected.
The thing with Bank Of America is a situation where you more or less have one apparent bad guy going after another, that really changes nothing about Wikileaks or why it stepped over the line.
As I've said before, I agree with a lot of what Anonymous does at times, but I do not see them as an entirely benevolent force. I also do not agree with them on this entire Wikileaks thing. I do not consider it a work of activism, I think they are on the wrong side, if they were even going to take a side on something like that. That's simply my opinion though.
As far as not being able to falsify documents here, understand that they wouldn't need to fake all 60,000 of them. If they wanted to perform a "set up" all they'd have to do is create the set of documents with the information they wanted, make them seem fairly authentic compared to the others, and stick them into the pile. I'm not saying they did falsify this, I have no idea, I'm just saying it's not some ridiculously herculean task, so it can't be dismissed on that level. What's more implying Anonymous is too honorable to do something like that compared to these other "mooks" or whatever is absolutly ridiculous. Anyone who thinks that has no idea who they are dealing with, Anonymous themselves hardly present themselves as paragons of virtue. I mean cripes people, look at their overall body of work, they terrorize mildly annoying people "for the lulz". Yes she was annoying, and maybe she even deserved some of it, but the whole "Jessie Slaughter" thing definatly was not the honorable action of virtuous cyber-paladins.
Anonymous is an unpredictable and multi-faceted non-organization. Head over to something like "Encyclopedia Dramatica", and understanding the way they report things (which is shockingly accurate considering the humor involved) and take a look at both Anonymous' creed, and it's overall "body of work".
I mean the stuff about wikileaks being irresponsible, destructive and not worthy of defense is just what I think. Obviously people are going to disagree with me there, but how can you defend the honor and virtue of Anonymous when it claims itself to have none? The scary thing about Anonymous is that it will do pretty much anything it can in pursuit of it's goals, whatever those goals may be, you think that for a second if they had something to gain they wouldn't insert documents into that pile "because it's wrong"?
- Except 1 difference in the game, was making money from hacking, no money is made from this.
