Sure, it's pointless and serve only to hurt innocents. But then we must ask ourselves if we really want to use the services of such a company, who freeze accounts for 100% political reasons?Reverend Del said:
Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Oh you. Get them to send you a pre-paid self address envelope and attach it to a metal box full of bricks and lead.Zaik said:
Unless anonymous had solid evidence that this was happening, then no they aren't 'looking more heroic'.
Anon aren't heroes, nor are they villains. Anon aren't anything or anybody. Anon is a gloop where individual bits of gloop can branch off and do their own thing before assimilating back in to the big pile of gloop.
Occassionally part of that gloop does something noble, most of the damn it's just an arse.
Anon aren't heroes, nor are they villains. Anon aren't anything or anybody. Anon is a gloop where individual bits of gloop can branch off and do their own thing before assimilating back in to the big pile of gloop.
Occassionally part of that gloop does something noble, most of the damn it's just an arse.
Anonymous Claims Possession Of Insidious Stuxnet Virus
Binaries for Stuxnet - i.e. the EXE/DLL files.
http://blogs.forbes.com/chrisbarth/2011/02/11/anonymous-claims-possession-of-insidious-stuxnet-virus/
Binaries for Stuxnet - i.e. the EXE/DLL files.
http://blogs.forbes.com/chrisbarth/2011/02/11/anonymous-claims-possession-of-insidious-stuxnet-virus/
This is getting bizarre, and going towards a place I really don't want to exist. Nothing to do but sit back and watch, I guess.
Then-again some stubborn servants who have been around for more than 30 years, during which time they have done an execrable job performing their duties to the Household, after being asked to leave resolve to chain themselves in the basement for 18 days while their Family makes-off with the jewels and silverware. Then they mysteriously slither away leaving the first-hand to deal with the repercussions :-/DanielDeFig said:
Can you guess who I'm talking about?
According to the Intel released by Aaron Baar, a top Anonymous member is working for Wikileaks. But you can't trust Aaron.scifidownbeat said:
Anything illegal posted on /b/ results in permanent bans and sometimes investigations by the FBI.scifidownbeat said:
Read the anonymous manifesto for answers to that: http://truthisrevolutionary.org/news/message-anonymousscifidownbeat said:
Oh man this is like a great Cyberpunk novel. Someday this will be made into a movie and it will be epic.
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"?
I can only speak for myself. I feel that in this instances, the DDOSing of corporates who are caving to political pressure in an attempt to silence wikileaks was perfectly legitimate. In light of this, I am glad that Anonymous are anonymous, because in this day David cannot fight Goliath without hiding his identity.
We ask you to support us, not for our sake, but for your own. Do not allow governments, corporations, or anyone else to control what you are allowed to see, hear, and think. Censorship will not be tolerated.
Palantir Tries to Preserve Their Government Contracts
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/10/palantir-tries-to-preserve-their-government-contracts/
HBGary Fees: ?Dam It Feels Good to Be a Gangsta"
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/11/hbgary-fees-dam-it-feels-good-to-be-a-gangsta/
Hacked Documents Show Chamber Engaged HBGary to Spy on Unions
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2...wits-hbgary-work-now-that-theyve-been-hacked/
We ask you to support us, not for our sake, but for your own. Do not allow governments, corporations, or anyone else to control what you are allowed to see, hear, and think. Censorship will not be tolerated.
Palantir Tries to Preserve Their Government Contracts
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/10/palantir-tries-to-preserve-their-government-contracts/
HBGary Fees: ?Dam It Feels Good to Be a Gangsta"
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/11/hbgary-fees-dam-it-feels-good-to-be-a-gangsta/
Hacked Documents Show Chamber Engaged HBGary to Spy on Unions
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2...wits-hbgary-work-now-that-theyve-been-hacked/
This happened because someone on HBGarys network was attacking anonymous and openly claiming to go to the FBI with largely false information.Deshara said:
Things like BOA hiring firms to attack wikileaks, which was revealed after the attack, is a bonus.
Hackers Reveal Offers to Spy on Corporate Rivals
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/politics/12hackers.html?_r=2