FBI Raids Texas Company in Hunt for Anonymous

[Dogstile]

Only a matter of time until those angry teens are put in jail! And anonymous will end forever!

Please tell me that was a joke or sarcasm. If not, I am kind of worried. Do you honestly think Anon is like 4 teens in their basement? No, their DDoS attacks take hundreds or thousands to pull off. 98% will never be found as they are probably working through many proxies or off unsecured wireless networks.

No, I'm not. Those 98% will be caught if it relates to a computer it can be tracked.

Libraries.

I'm not kidding. I can go to a library, plug in a memory stick, and ddos away. I will never be caught.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Only a matter of time until those angry teens are put in jail! And anonymous will end forever!

Please tell me that was a joke or sarcasm. If not, I am kind of worried. Do you honestly think Anon is like 4 teens in their basement? No, their DDoS attacks take hundreds or thousands to pull off. 98% will never be found as they are probably working through many proxies or off unsecured wireless networks.

No, I'm not. Those 98% will be caught if it relates to a computer it can be tracked.

Libraries.

I'm not kidding. I can go to a library, plug in a memory stick, and ddos away. I will never be caught.

Libraries have security cameras and each computer data base storage has exact times of everything you do

 

[Dogstile]

Only a matter of time until those angry teens are put in jail! And anonymous will end forever!

Please tell me that was a joke or sarcasm. If not, I am kind of worried. Do you honestly think Anon is like 4 teens in their basement? No, their DDoS attacks take hundreds or thousands to pull off. 98% will never be found as they are probably working through many proxies or off unsecured wireless networks.

No, I'm not. Those 98% will be caught if it relates to a computer it can be tracked.

Libraries.

I'm not kidding. I can go to a library, plug in a memory stick, and ddos away. I will never be caught.

Libraries have security cameras and each computer data base storage has exact times of everything you do

I have a hat, a big jacket and big baggy jeans. I wear gloves, tie my hair back, and throw all my clothes away after the DDOS.

Good luck government. Enjoy trying to find me based on "long hair". They wouldn't even have a gender.

 

[Dudemeister]

So much for the anonymity of "Anonymous".

Three cheers for the FBI and their bureaucratic crusade against freedom.

would you rather anonymous grow out of control and get so sucked up in its own power that it will eventually take over our governments? (i really think that if one controls the internet, they can control the world)
well hell no, this should teach those little cunts a lesson.
don't
fuck
with the government.

LOL.
You actually think Anonymous has the power to take control of a government?
There's no way any one person or group could 'control' the internet anyway. The internet is a bunch of separate servers and computers linked via a network, that's all, there's no way to control the whole internet.

Plus, they didn't 'fuck with the government' anyway. I don't agree with Ddos'ing private companies but at the same time, it's not fair for the government to have put pressure on Paypal to deny service to a private citizen who hasn't even broken any laws.

 

[Daverson]

And over 100 before someone noted the mob rule connection. We absolutely cannot have a true democracy and true freedom, those ideals are for the birds. Mob rule is all fine and dandy until you wind up a part of the minority.

Only for someone who doesn't recognise the distinction between liberty and licence...

It's all good and fine to say "I should be free to do what I want", and that's about as far as anonymous go on the matter. They don't care about other people's freedom, only their own.

They're the sort of people who think they should be free to fire a machine gun wildly in a public space, without caring about the freedom of the people there not to be shot.

As for democracy... I don't believe I mentioned it. Can't say I'm particularly in favour of the idea either. Now, some kind of technocracy on the other hand...

 

[Avatar Roku]

There is little if anything illegal about WikiLeaks.

A Federally funded reactionary security force, judicially exempt from the 4th amendment and answerable to no elected official on the other hand... I digress.

A DDoS attack creates no true damage, only disruption. The same as a giant protest outside of a bank.

I can still donate to the American Nazi Party and the KKK through Pay Pal, and HAVE donated to WikiLeaks. If Fox News and CNN hosts are considered "Journalists," then by that standard what is WikiLeaks?

"Judicially exempt from the 4th amendment"...ok, I don't know a whole lot about the FBI, but I do know some about the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the 4th amendment specifically allows for exceptions (i.e, warrants) when there is probable cause, right? I'd say there definitely is probable cause here, so where is the unconstitutionality?

Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?

This entire thread is populated by people who don't -know- what the hell an anonymous group actually means, even if it's in the goddamn name.

And yet, they all have rather well defined opinions on what whatever their interpretation of this group is. Classy.

An anonymous group, by definition, can be ANYTHING. Random people out of nowhere can bomb a hospital or do bank robberies and claim to be anonymous. There's nothing stopping this. Anyone can do anything under the name "anonymous," and that's the entire point.

Talking about "anonymous" as if it were a specific group of people is wrong. I mean, maybe 80% of this thread is anonymous "members?" Who knows? Certainly nobody will say anything that directly links them to this public image, which is obvious.

Be fair, here. It should be obvious that we're (or at least, most of us are) simply saying "Anons", in this case to refer to the specific anons behind this attack, since there is not other short way of referring to them.

Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?

Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.

Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.

And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.

This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.

Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.

Paypal and Visa had a choice to maintain their fair services to wikileaks or to cave in to unreasonable demands from a government that overstepped its bounds. They deserved those DDoS attacks as a reminder that we shouldn't just cave in.

"Overstepped its bounds". Not at all. There are laws in place, such as The Patriot Act, that specifically allow that. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of the Patriot Act until the heat death of the universe (and, for the record, I'm against it), but the fact remains that this law is on the books and has been for years. They're using authority they've had for quite a while.

It's like a criminal organization and the cops.
If the cops demand that you can no longer sell guns to a group of people, and you do it, how does it make it right if that group comes and breaks your legs and burns down your store for complying with the authorities?

If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:

You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.

An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".

Sorta, except that instead of not being allowed to sell to people who look Middle Eastern, they're not allowed to sell to one specific person who is known for being a criminal.

 

[Danpascooch]

So much for the anonymity of "Anonymous".

Three cheers for the FBI and their bureaucratic crusade against freedom.

Don't hold your breath guys, they didn't exactly find them yet.

 

[Danpascooch]

There is little if anything illegal about WikiLeaks.

A Federally funded reactionary security force, judicially exempt from the 4th amendment and answerable to no elected official on the other hand... I digress.

A DDoS attack creates no true damage, only disruption. The same as a giant protest outside of a bank.

I can still donate to the American Nazi Party and the KKK through Pay Pal, and HAVE donated to WikiLeaks. If Fox News and CNN hosts are considered "Journalists," then by that standard what is WikiLeaks?

"Judicially exempt from the 4th amendment"...ok, I don't know a whole lot about the FBI, but I do know some about the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the 4th amendment specifically allows for exceptions (i.e, warrants) when there is probable cause, right? I'd say there definitely is probable cause here, so where is the unconstitutionality?

Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?

This entire thread is populated by people who don't -know- what the hell an anonymous group actually means, even if it's in the goddamn name.

And yet, they all have rather well defined opinions on what whatever their interpretation of this group is. Classy.

An anonymous group, by definition, can be ANYTHING. Random people out of nowhere can bomb a hospital or do bank robberies and claim to be anonymous. There's nothing stopping this. Anyone can do anything under the name "anonymous," and that's the entire point.

Talking about "anonymous" as if it were a specific group of people is wrong. I mean, maybe 80% of this thread is anonymous "members?" Who knows? Certainly nobody will say anything that directly links them to this public image, which is obvious.

Be fair, here. It should be obvious that we're (or at least, most of us are) simply saying "Anons", in this case to refer to the specific anons behind this attack, since there is not other short way of referring to them.

Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?

Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.

Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.

And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.

This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.

Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.

Paypal and Visa had a choice to maintain their fair services to wikileaks or to cave in to unreasonable demands from a government that overstepped its bounds. They deserved those DDoS attacks as a reminder that we shouldn't just cave in.

"Overstepped its bounds". Not at all. There are laws in place, such as The Patriot Act, that specifically allow that. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of the Patriot Act until the heat death of the universe (and, for the record, I'm against it), but the fact remains that this law is on the books and has been for years. They're using authority they've had for quite a while.

It's like a criminal organization and the cops.
If the cops demand that you can no longer sell guns to a group of people, and you do it, how does it make it right if that group comes and breaks your legs and burns down your store for complying with the authorities?

If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:

You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.

An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".

Sorta, except that instead of not being allowed to sell to people who look Middle Eastern, they're not allowed to sell to one specific person who is known for being a criminal.

I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't say "You have 4th amendment rights unless they have probable cause to break them" The exceptions are a LITTLE more specific that that for Christs sake! And what the government is doing does not fall under any of the exempt conditions.

 

[Danpascooch]

Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?

Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.

Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.

And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.

This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.

Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.

I'm all for the government keeping secrets when it HAS TO.

What's the most controversial thing Wikileaks has released about the US lately? The fact that we have UN Ambassadors fucking CREDIT CARD NUMBERS and other grossly innapropriate personal information on file.

That shouldn't be a secret, because it shouldn't be happening, and the people of the US can't hold the government that represents them responsible unless they know what they're doing. We are supposed to have a government by the people and for the people, how the fuck is that supposed to work if we don't know what they're doing?

It's not anarchy, it's limits and control, and apparently our government that is SUPPOSED to be OUR voice is afraid of being held accountable by the people it's supposed to be serving enough to pressure companies to treat Wikileaks worse than the fucking KKK!

It's absurd.

 

[Danpascooch]

Only a matter of time until those angry teens are put in jail! And anonymous will end forever!

Please tell me that was a joke or sarcasm. If not, I am kind of worried. Do you honestly think Anon is like 4 teens in their basement? No, their DDoS attacks take hundreds or thousands to pull off. 98% will never be found as they are probably working through many proxies or off unsecured wireless networks.

No, I'm not. Those 98% will be caught if it relates to a computer it can be tracked.

Libraries.

I'm not kidding. I can go to a library, plug in a memory stick, and ddos away. I will never be caught.

Libraries have security cameras and each computer data base storage has exact times of everything you do

Really? All Libraries have security cameras covering each computer? Because if they are just at the entrance, or in certain spots, they would have NO IDEA who in the library did it.

And yes, the computer knows what was done, but not necessarily WHO did it. With a bootable CD you don't need to give ANY personal information whatsoever. Combine that with gloves to avoid fingerprints and BAM! Untraceable.

It's naive to think most things cannot be traced, but it is probably more naive to think EVERYTHING can be traces.

 

[Avatar Roku]

There is little if anything illegal about WikiLeaks.

A Federally funded reactionary security force, judicially exempt from the 4th amendment and answerable to no elected official on the other hand... I digress.

A DDoS attack creates no true damage, only disruption. The same as a giant protest outside of a bank.

I can still donate to the American Nazi Party and the KKK through Pay Pal, and HAVE donated to WikiLeaks. If Fox News and CNN hosts are considered "Journalists," then by that standard what is WikiLeaks?

"Judicially exempt from the 4th amendment"...ok, I don't know a whole lot about the FBI, but I do know some about the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the 4th amendment specifically allows for exceptions (i.e, warrants) when there is probable cause, right? I'd say there definitely is probable cause here, so where is the unconstitutionality?

Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?

This entire thread is populated by people who don't -know- what the hell an anonymous group actually means, even if it's in the goddamn name.

And yet, they all have rather well defined opinions on what whatever their interpretation of this group is. Classy.

An anonymous group, by definition, can be ANYTHING. Random people out of nowhere can bomb a hospital or do bank robberies and claim to be anonymous. There's nothing stopping this. Anyone can do anything under the name "anonymous," and that's the entire point.

Talking about "anonymous" as if it were a specific group of people is wrong. I mean, maybe 80% of this thread is anonymous "members?" Who knows? Certainly nobody will say anything that directly links them to this public image, which is obvious.

Be fair, here. It should be obvious that we're (or at least, most of us are) simply saying "Anons", in this case to refer to the specific anons behind this attack, since there is not other short way of referring to them.

Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?

Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.

Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.

And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.

This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.

Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.

Paypal and Visa had a choice to maintain their fair services to wikileaks or to cave in to unreasonable demands from a government that overstepped its bounds. They deserved those DDoS attacks as a reminder that we shouldn't just cave in.

"Overstepped its bounds". Not at all. There are laws in place, such as The Patriot Act, that specifically allow that. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of the Patriot Act until the heat death of the universe (and, for the record, I'm against it), but the fact remains that this law is on the books and has been for years. They're using authority they've had for quite a while.

It's like a criminal organization and the cops.
If the cops demand that you can no longer sell guns to a group of people, and you do it, how does it make it right if that group comes and breaks your legs and burns down your store for complying with the authorities?

If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:

You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.

An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".

Sorta, except that instead of not being allowed to sell to people who look Middle Eastern, they're not allowed to sell to one specific person who is known for being a criminal.

I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't say "You have 4th amendment rights unless they have probable cause to break them" The exceptions are a LITTLE more specific that that for Christs sake! And what the government is doing does not fall under any of the exempt conditions.

Ah, well now I'm glad I couched my statement in "I don't know much about the FBI". I assumed they still needed to get a warrant, my bad.

 

[Danpascooch]

So much for the anonymity of "Anonymous".

Three cheers for the FBI and their bureaucratic crusade against freedom.

would you rather anonymous grow out of control and get so sucked up in its own power that it will eventually take over our governments? (i really think that if one controls the internet, they can control the world)
well hell no, this should teach those little cunts a lesson.
don't
fuck
with the government.

Take over the government? Are you HIGH or something?

Anonymous has about as high a chance of taking over the government as SQUIRRELS do.

Stop being so paranoid, and people SHOULD fuck with the government when it's not doing its job (which is to represent the people, and stay WITHIN THE POWER IT IS GIVEN!)

Plus, they didn't even "fuck with the government" they fucked with Paypal.

 

[Danpascooch]

There is little if anything illegal about WikiLeaks.

A Federally funded reactionary security force, judicially exempt from the 4th amendment and answerable to no elected official on the other hand... I digress.

A DDoS attack creates no true damage, only disruption. The same as a giant protest outside of a bank.

I can still donate to the American Nazi Party and the KKK through Pay Pal, and HAVE donated to WikiLeaks. If Fox News and CNN hosts are considered "Journalists," then by that standard what is WikiLeaks?

"Judicially exempt from the 4th amendment"...ok, I don't know a whole lot about the FBI, but I do know some about the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the 4th amendment specifically allows for exceptions (i.e, warrants) when there is probable cause, right? I'd say there definitely is probable cause here, so where is the unconstitutionality?

Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?

This entire thread is populated by people who don't -know- what the hell an anonymous group actually means, even if it's in the goddamn name.

And yet, they all have rather well defined opinions on what whatever their interpretation of this group is. Classy.

An anonymous group, by definition, can be ANYTHING. Random people out of nowhere can bomb a hospital or do bank robberies and claim to be anonymous. There's nothing stopping this. Anyone can do anything under the name "anonymous," and that's the entire point.

Talking about "anonymous" as if it were a specific group of people is wrong. I mean, maybe 80% of this thread is anonymous "members?" Who knows? Certainly nobody will say anything that directly links them to this public image, which is obvious.

Be fair, here. It should be obvious that we're (or at least, most of us are) simply saying "Anons", in this case to refer to the specific anons behind this attack, since there is not other short way of referring to them.

Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?

Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.

Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.

And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.

This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.

Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.

Paypal and Visa had a choice to maintain their fair services to wikileaks or to cave in to unreasonable demands from a government that overstepped its bounds. They deserved those DDoS attacks as a reminder that we shouldn't just cave in.

"Overstepped its bounds". Not at all. There are laws in place, such as The Patriot Act, that specifically allow that. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of the Patriot Act until the heat death of the universe (and, for the record, I'm against it), but the fact remains that this law is on the books and has been for years. They're using authority they've had for quite a while.

It's like a criminal organization and the cops.
If the cops demand that you can no longer sell guns to a group of people, and you do it, how does it make it right if that group comes and breaks your legs and burns down your store for complying with the authorities?

If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:

You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.

An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".

Sorta, except that instead of not being allowed to sell to people who look Middle Eastern, they're not allowed to sell to one specific person who is known for being a criminal.

I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't say "You have 4th amendment rights unless they have probable cause to break them" The exceptions are a LITTLE more specific that that for Christs sake! And what the government is doing does not fall under any of the exempt conditions.

Ah, well now I'm glad I couched my statement in "I don't know much about the FBI". I assumed they still needed to get a warrant, my bad.

They DO still need to get a warrant, that's the problem, nothing in the article says they got one.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Only a matter of time until those angry teens are put in jail! And anonymous will end forever!

Please tell me that was a joke or sarcasm. If not, I am kind of worried. Do you honestly think Anon is like 4 teens in their basement? No, their DDoS attacks take hundreds or thousands to pull off. 98% will never be found as they are probably working through many proxies or off unsecured wireless networks.

No, I'm not. Those 98% will be caught if it relates to a computer it can be tracked.

Libraries.

I'm not kidding. I can go to a library, plug in a memory stick, and ddos away. I will never be caught.

Libraries have security cameras and each computer data base storage has exact times of everything you do

Really? All Libraries have security cameras covering each computer? Because if they are just at the entrance, or in certain spots, they would have NO IDEA who in the library did it.

And yes, the computer knows what was done, but not necessarily WHO did it. With a bootable CD you don't need to give ANY personal information whatsoever. Combine that with gloves to avoid fingerprints and BAM! Untraceable.

It's naive to think most things cannot be traced, but it is probably more naive to think EVERYTHING can be traces.

It's also naive to underestimate the resources and technology the FBI has.

 

[Avatar Roku]

There is little if anything illegal about WikiLeaks.

A Federally funded reactionary security force, judicially exempt from the 4th amendment and answerable to no elected official on the other hand... I digress.

A DDoS attack creates no true damage, only disruption. The same as a giant protest outside of a bank.

I can still donate to the American Nazi Party and the KKK through Pay Pal, and HAVE donated to WikiLeaks. If Fox News and CNN hosts are considered "Journalists," then by that standard what is WikiLeaks?

"Judicially exempt from the 4th amendment"...ok, I don't know a whole lot about the FBI, but I do know some about the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the 4th amendment specifically allows for exceptions (i.e, warrants) when there is probable cause, right? I'd say there definitely is probable cause here, so where is the unconstitutionality?

Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?

This entire thread is populated by people who don't -know- what the hell an anonymous group actually means, even if it's in the goddamn name.

And yet, they all have rather well defined opinions on what whatever their interpretation of this group is. Classy.

An anonymous group, by definition, can be ANYTHING. Random people out of nowhere can bomb a hospital or do bank robberies and claim to be anonymous. There's nothing stopping this. Anyone can do anything under the name "anonymous," and that's the entire point.

Talking about "anonymous" as if it were a specific group of people is wrong. I mean, maybe 80% of this thread is anonymous "members?" Who knows? Certainly nobody will say anything that directly links them to this public image, which is obvious.

Be fair, here. It should be obvious that we're (or at least, most of us are) simply saying "Anons", in this case to refer to the specific anons behind this attack, since there is not other short way of referring to them.

Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?

Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.

Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.

And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.

This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.

Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.

Paypal and Visa had a choice to maintain their fair services to wikileaks or to cave in to unreasonable demands from a government that overstepped its bounds. They deserved those DDoS attacks as a reminder that we shouldn't just cave in.

"Overstepped its bounds". Not at all. There are laws in place, such as The Patriot Act, that specifically allow that. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of the Patriot Act until the heat death of the universe (and, for the record, I'm against it), but the fact remains that this law is on the books and has been for years. They're using authority they've had for quite a while.

It's like a criminal organization and the cops.
If the cops demand that you can no longer sell guns to a group of people, and you do it, how does it make it right if that group comes and breaks your legs and burns down your store for complying with the authorities?

If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:

You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.

An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".

Sorta, except that instead of not being allowed to sell to people who look Middle Eastern, they're not allowed to sell to one specific person who is known for being a criminal.

I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't say "You have 4th amendment rights unless they have probable cause to break them" The exceptions are a LITTLE more specific that that for Christs sake! And what the government is doing does not fall under any of the exempt conditions.

Ah, well now I'm glad I couched my statement in "I don't know much about the FBI". I assumed they still needed to get a warrant, my bad.

They DO still need to get a warrant, that's the problem, nothing in the article says they got one.

...I'd think that's sort of assumed, isn't it? Can you imagine the legal shitstorm if they didn't get one? And there's literally no reason for them not to, you think they can't find a judge who agrees with them?

 

[Mercsenary]

Well time for Anonymous to invest in some controlled explosives.

1. Host/Coordinate Attack
2. ???
3. Burn the machine.
4. Disappear.

WHY HELLO THERE FBI WATCHLIST.

 

[Nouw]

Anonymous Vs FBI.

Well I hope at least one teen gets put behind bars. Good progress guys!

 

[Dfskelleton]

For some reason, the picture made me think of Agent Mulder and the anonymous emblem guy (The guy in the suit with the "Picture unavalible" face) having a showdown or something.

OT: I hope the cops do find them and put them all in different cells with extremely muscular groups of all the minorities they've ripped on, who will proceed to pummel them into a pulp. Computer hacking skills will get you nowhere in prison.

 

[Dfskelleton]

So much for the anonymity of "Anonymous".

Three cheers for the FBI and their bureaucratic crusade against freedom.

would you rather anonymous grow out of control and get so sucked up in its own power that it will eventually take over our governments? (i really think that if one controls the internet, they can control the world)
well hell no, this should teach those little cunts a lesson.
don't
fuck
with the government.

Take over the government? Are you HIGH or something?

Anonymous has about as high a chance of taking over the government as SQUIRRELS do.

Stop being so paranoid, and people SHOULD fuck with the government when it's not doing its job (which is to represent the people, and stay WITHIN THE POWER IT IS GIVEN!)

Plus, they didn't even "fuck with the government" they fucked with Paypal.

Squirrels would be a pretty awesome government.

 

[Bon_Clay]

Lol @ people comparing a DDoS to terrorism. It isn't the online equivalent of blowing up a building, its more like a bunch of people having a sit-in protest right by the front door blocking anyone from entering for a while. And there is no terror involved, its not terrorism. Not saying it should be legal, but anything that the US government doesn't like isn't automatically terrorism.

The fact is if you put pressure on companies to help push your agenda on a debatable subject, people who disagree are going to do something to get their opinion heard. If you can still donate money to the KKK why not wikileaks?