Damn us evil Liberals...Not just trusting the government to be good and wage continuous war. We actually want to know what they do. The balls!
Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am certain Anonymous is more than just 1 group, likely a lot of non-related groups are using the name.
I will agree that there seems to be two sperate anons. the better organized one is the one I can stand (for the most part).I am all for the transparacy of government, but there are lines and yes they did cross them. International dimplomacy is one of those lines. Those files are kept secret because all government officials lie. They say they're not talking to this one group, but they are. And these secrets, when revealed, lead to not a more open transfer of ideas, but a world where no one trust anyone (not that that trust is really impressive now) and distrust breeds anger. I'll take deceit over war anyday.h264 said:
Am i condoning corruption, no. But I am seeing it as a lesser of two evils when compared with the hacking and cyber espianage that Anonops uses.
You are incredibly unskilled at looking past the obvious.Hucket said:
Yes, wikileaks discredits people and corporations, but it does it by exposing corrupt or negligent behaviour. Voicing support for a progressive group is in no way bad; people are allowed to express their opinions.
And how is Anon gaining some sort of profit or benefit? World recognition, how does that negatively affect?
Wow, you are wrong on every single level there. Except for the fact that some Anons are truly l33t.Carnagath said:
Anons do what they do for three reasons: A. They are bored. So they do something stupid in the hope that if enough people do it no one will get singled out. B. The chan world is their life and thus they go Anon because it provides something they can devote time to while feeling like they're helping people. or C. They decide something should be done about something. So they run up the Anon flag. Announce something in the chan world. And hope for others to join them. These guys are quite likely C with a little bit of B.
What's outlined in these sets of proposals, as Glenn points out, "quite possibly constitutes serious crimes." And as it relates to Glenn and the others, it constitutes an unconscionable attempt to silence journalists doing their jobs.
One nice point about the criminality is that (at least in my jurisdiction) the confidential information regimes are an outspring of the law of equity, and one of the core equitable maxims is those who come to equity must do so with clean hands (ie, the law won't recognise your rights where they protect unconscionable conduct)
Berico Technologies severs ties with HBGary
http://www.bericotechnologies.com/press/
One nice point about the criminality is that (at least in my jurisdiction) the confidential information regimes are an outspring of the law of equity, and one of the core equitable maxims is those who come to equity must do so with clean hands (ie, the law won't recognise your rights where they protect unconscionable conduct)
Berico Technologies severs ties with HBGary
http://www.bericotechnologies.com/press/
Really Wikileaks is a progressive group? its a subversive group. What good comes from revealing these files? It is in no way creating a more open society, if anything this has caused an increase in attempts to maintian these secrets. And if you look at my other posts on this thread (responding to a different poster) you'll see my thoughts on revealing sensetive documents. I am in no way saying people should not express there opinions, but wikileaks is in NO WAY about free speech. The people who created these documents not only had the freedom to make them public, but also had the promise of keeping them secret. They made a choice to keep their documents secret. If anything Wikileaks was an encroachment on the personal freedoms of the people who created these documents.fundayz said:
World recognition of what? Anon? Yes Anon is garnering world recognition, but for illegal activity. I do belive Anon is a terrorist organization, so Anon garnering world recognition for their illegal activity, becoming a group known for hacking personal data and orchastrating DDoS attacks against companies they do not agree with, is not far off from say other groups garnering world recognition for more physical, violent acts against those they do not agree with ( I don't want to name names because someone will get pissed and I'm WAY too tired to deal with that). And before you come and start flaming me for that analogy, a terrorist group, is a terrorist group no matter the tactics.
Well to hell with it. Down with the machine, rise to the cause!
Corrupt government and big business, that steals, cheats, poisons and lies to the people. You will only see more and worse of what's happened.
Corrupt government and big business, that steals, cheats, poisons and lies to the people. You will only see more and worse of what's happened.
Do you like censorship? Do you like sucking the government's c**k and swallowing all of their lies and bullshit? I thought not.
Assange has already said that his primary concern is the marriage between states and corporations. They have internal struggles between their various factions, but they're all united against the common people. His goal is to make them too paranoid to trust each other, thus weakening them from within.
Do people have to be afraid of their governments, which they elect? Is WikiLeaks publishing state secrets? Or are the ?secrets? their leaking just a way for governments to hide the lies and corruption they haven?t been telling us? I think the George Orwell quote says it all: In a time of universal deceit ? telling the truth is a revolutionary act
War or Protest - This is Historic No Matter How You View it. But I believe we're seeing the new "militia." The people of Anonymous, Julian of WikiLeaks, whether you agree or disagree, stands true to the original principals of many of the revolutionaries in the early days of America. Transparency of government, Rights of the people.
Assange has already said that his primary concern is the marriage between states and corporations. They have internal struggles between their various factions, but they're all united against the common people. His goal is to make them too paranoid to trust each other, thus weakening them from within.
Do people have to be afraid of their governments, which they elect? Is WikiLeaks publishing state secrets? Or are the ?secrets? their leaking just a way for governments to hide the lies and corruption they haven?t been telling us? I think the George Orwell quote says it all: In a time of universal deceit ? telling the truth is a revolutionary act
War or Protest - This is Historic No Matter How You View it. But I believe we're seeing the new "militia." The people of Anonymous, Julian of WikiLeaks, whether you agree or disagree, stands true to the original principals of many of the revolutionaries in the early days of America. Transparency of government, Rights of the people.
So revealing secrets will make governments and corporations work harder to keep secrets. What? What does that have to do with anything? They wouldn't reveal that stuff anyhow and frankly it's for the best that someone challenges them otherwise they can screw people over without consequence. I for one am tired of that because usually we suffer for it.Hucket said:
Illegal isn't the same thing as immoral. Anon is not a terrorist group for putting information out there even if they had to use underhanded methods to acquire it. Why? There was no other way it was going to happen. You can't often play the game according to someone else's rules and expect to win. Corporations own the legal system, the government is the legal system, and so there's information you will never get by the direct route.
The US government in particular is bordering on despotic at this point in time. No, our freedoms aren't exceptionally limited, but ever since 9/11 things have only become more restricted. Just look at what's been happening in our airports; we're suffering a loss of dignity and efficiency for security measures which do nothing except give us the illusion of safety. If we don't want things to go any further we need Anon and Wikileaks.
I have described the state of Americas backwards democracy that anons and Assange are trying to provide a balance to.Dana22 said:
Exactly, it's quite obvious Anonymous aren't stupid enough to fall trick to some fake emails.SnootyEnglishman said:
Well, Anonymous have been pulling off incredible things, and considering they've unleashed some form of conspiracy to the world, I'm praying that they get some more of it uncovered.
I'm happy to operate on the Internet if it is policed by an impossible-to-crush organisation like Anonymous. The idea of a faceless police force defending internet law massively appeals to me.
I'm sorry, but the one thing about all of this where I say "Eh, something seems bullshitty here..." is when I see things like
"... released 60,000 documents/emails/etc."
Who the frak sat there and read 60 THOUSAND documents to quantify that they are implicit evidence? Or are we simply taking their word for it that it was 60k? Why would there even be 60,000 emails/documents or whatever being sent about a "secret" plot?
It all doesn't add up to me. I've worked in the field securing company servers and such for large institutions. I've never seen 600 emails for a LEGITIMATE project, surely none that had any real relevance, let alone 60,000!
If ANYTHING, I'd wager the bulk of those emails go something like this:
"Tom,
BOA called about Project Bwahahahaha. Something about needing more oil for his evil mustache. Call him back at 666-555-0911. Also, don't forget tomorrow is your day to drive for the carpool.
Thanks,
Phock Tard."
How would they even find out about something like this? It seems to me to be too convenient and is geared to make Anonymous look like cyber GODS from which no one is "safe."
If that is the case, instead of worrying about what our GOVERNMENTS are doing with their corrupt power behind our backs, shouldn't we also begin having some concern about a rogue organization with such power? What is to stop someone within an organization like Anonymous or Wikileaks from gaining information and selling it to less than friendly parties to endanger other nations? People are fallible, and worse, are greedy... how do we know someone from within Wikileaks won't get their hands on something like the U.S.'s defense plans, codes, strategies, etc and sell it to some dictator like Kim Jong Il? What, are we supposed to take them at their "word?" Trust them that such a thing would NEVER happen?
I'm sure the leaks within these companies and within the U.S. government that gave Wikileaks these documents to begin with were initially trusted to not "release or reveal" any of these secrets, and yet they did.
We are entering dangerous ground here. No group or organization of people that aren't selected or elected to their positions freely by the PEOPLE should hold such power. Governments are one thing... rebellious little groups of idealistic whistle-blowing thieves are another thing altogether.
Anonymous and Wikileaks think they are making the world a better, safer place through their work.
I believe they are making it far more frightening... and dangerous.
"... released 60,000 documents/emails/etc."
Who the frak sat there and read 60 THOUSAND documents to quantify that they are implicit evidence? Or are we simply taking their word for it that it was 60k? Why would there even be 60,000 emails/documents or whatever being sent about a "secret" plot?
It all doesn't add up to me. I've worked in the field securing company servers and such for large institutions. I've never seen 600 emails for a LEGITIMATE project, surely none that had any real relevance, let alone 60,000!
If ANYTHING, I'd wager the bulk of those emails go something like this:
"Tom,
BOA called about Project Bwahahahaha. Something about needing more oil for his evil mustache. Call him back at 666-555-0911. Also, don't forget tomorrow is your day to drive for the carpool.
Thanks,
Phock Tard."
How would they even find out about something like this? It seems to me to be too convenient and is geared to make Anonymous look like cyber GODS from which no one is "safe."
If that is the case, instead of worrying about what our GOVERNMENTS are doing with their corrupt power behind our backs, shouldn't we also begin having some concern about a rogue organization with such power? What is to stop someone within an organization like Anonymous or Wikileaks from gaining information and selling it to less than friendly parties to endanger other nations? People are fallible, and worse, are greedy... how do we know someone from within Wikileaks won't get their hands on something like the U.S.'s defense plans, codes, strategies, etc and sell it to some dictator like Kim Jong Il? What, are we supposed to take them at their "word?" Trust them that such a thing would NEVER happen?
I'm sure the leaks within these companies and within the U.S. government that gave Wikileaks these documents to begin with were initially trusted to not "release or reveal" any of these secrets, and yet they did.
We are entering dangerous ground here. No group or organization of people that aren't selected or elected to their positions freely by the PEOPLE should hold such power. Governments are one thing... rebellious little groups of idealistic whistle-blowing thieves are another thing altogether.
Anonymous and Wikileaks think they are making the world a better, safer place through their work.
I believe they are making it far more frightening... and dangerous.