FBI Raids Texas Company in Hunt for Anonymous

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
... I worry slightly that a lot of people are mistaking Wikileaks for an impartial repository of information rather than a news source that also needs to be assessed. It also worries me that at this stage they could say anything and people would automatically believe it, not just be inclined to trust them, they would believe. That's not the sort of thing you should need to believe.
That's an interesting point - we take it for granted that Wikileaks is, in fact, passing on information without changing it, but there's no oversight to it. We know that they edit material they get - the infamous helicopter video for one was edited down to join the three main parts in a watchable time frame - but the editing itself puts a slant on the material.

Is that journalism (strong case for that - it's what paper do, after all), or is it sinister (the lack of oversight combined with anonymous, unverifiable information sources)? Honestly, though, if they did come out with something damaging that was a lie then their entire credibility would have been shot, so it would be in their best interests to at least report facts correctly. As for spin, every news source does that - Wikileaks can hardly be persecuted for doing it too.

The Lib Dems are an interesting case. A lot of their policies weren't really realistic but they didn't get a chance to reassess them before being asked to fulfil them. A lot of their policies were formulated to sound good and not assessed for feasibility since they seemed to be playing a long game. Last election they achieved a few seats and were looking to slowly expand, I don't believe they or their hardline followers were really prepared to enact their policies.
It's laughable that our political system allows a serious political party so say whatever the hell they like and not hold them accountable for it. I fully expect that if the Monster Raving Looney Party came to power that my sister's teddies would be allowed to vote; it's on their manifesto (amongst other things...). The point is, if you're going to sign a pledge that you're going to do something, there needs to be a system in place to make you accountable to it.

It's a sorry state that our politics are in when we can be outright lied to and then re-elect the bastrds (see Blair's long list of manifesto back-pedals, also including tuition fees -_-).

It's even worse that most people don't give a shit.
 

Kair

New member
Sep 14, 2008
674
0
0
Calbeck said:
Kair said:
If no one ever broke the law, the law would not be changed
Right, so obviously if enough people commit Murder One, the law will eventually change to make it legal.

There's a fine line between "civil disobedience for social change" and being a moron...such as with Assange aiding and abetting international espionage. Yeaaaah, I don't really think they're ever gonna change the law on that one.
"Civil disobedience for social change" is also breaking the law.

Nations have no right of privacy, they actually have no rights whatsoever. Only the individual has rights.

The conflict between governments and Wikileaks is only that, a conflict between factions. Wikileaks broadcasts truth, governments try to hide it to preserve the current state of things. Wikileaks is the faction that must win.
 
Nov 7, 2009
1,247
0
0
I hope they catch them. I don't really give a fuck either way, but it's always nice to see Anonymous' collective god complex be taken down a notch.

So, yeah, I guess I'm with the FBI on this one.

[sub][sub]Never thought I'd type that. D:[/sub][/sub]
 

KCL

New member
Jan 12, 2010
44
0
0
Haakong said:
Kinda easy to just say "youre wrong" without any form of proof, and then do a counter attack.
You would know, since that's exactly what you did in your first reply.

Haakong said:
So the legal system got nothing to do with the law? Thought its main purpose was seeing that a "case" got the outcome that shared the views of the law. Guess its not :D
Adjudication and law enforcement are separate branches of the criminal justice system. The courts are not part of law enforcement.

Haakong said:
And none of your "you are an illiterate" and nit-pickery about piracy
You would know, since that's exactly what you did in your first reply.

Haakong said:
changes the fact the law has acted very quickly to the anon "attacks", which I see as a sign.
Quickly compared to how they acted in the case of piracy, where they have no jurisdiction and therefore cannot act?

Haakong said:
That was the real debate here, and youve moved it to a field you got more expertise than me on to satisfy some pathetic alpha needs.
No, that wasn't the question at issue. You can tell because you didn't even mention it in your original post. Shall we revisit? Here:

Haakong said:
If they take out the "troops", who will risk being one? In the end the "leaders" will have to expose themselves, which they wont, since theyre cowards. Call it unfair to target the middle man, but the "troops" should know what risks theyre taking.
You claimed that arresting some of the attackers would scare the others away. That claim is patently absurd. History has proven over and over again that punishment is not a reliable deterrent, and in ideological cases, is no deterrent at all. That was the "real debate." Your whole line about law enforcement and piracy was so much irrelevant goalpost shifting.

Haakong said:
Guess there arent much debating value here, concidering you dont qoute everything I write
I've responded to every substantive claim you've made.

Haakong said:
and just choose the few things you can nitpick on. Wont bother reading your reply, but do write one to boost your ego or satisfy the masses.
It would be better if you didn't. You need to stop and think through what you've said, not go off on another irrelevant tangent.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Kair said:
Calbeck said:
Kair said:
If no one ever broke the law, the law would not be changed
Right, so obviously if enough people commit Murder One, the law will eventually change to make it legal.

There's a fine line between "civil disobedience for social change" and being a moron...such as with Assange aiding and abetting international espionage. Yeaaaah, I don't really think they're ever gonna change the law on that one.
"Civil disobedience for social change" is also breaking the law.

Nations have no right of privacy, they actually have no rights whatsoever. Only the individual has rights.

The conflict between governments and Wikileaks is only that, a conflict between factions. Wikileaks broadcasts truth, governments try to hide it to preserve the current state of things. Wikileaks is the faction that must win.
I disagree here because there is another equasion to this entire thing, and that is national security. The kind of information Wikileaks was displaying puts those individuals in danger, and also is going to hamper the function of the goverment.

There is no real doubt that nations need intlligence, counter-intelligence, and covert forces and agents. If you put everything out publically it's impossible to sneak up on someone without them knowing it. This applies to a great extent to things like diplomacy where your aiming to get an honest opinion about other players in the game from your own people, and depending on the situation that might not be flattering.

The safeguard here, at least in the USA, is pretty much that we vote for our officials and presumably vote the guys into office that we think can be most trusted with that kind of power, or will appoint trustworthy people (or those we will support) to various jobs.

Incidently, what makes Wikileaks a touchy subject is that a lot of the information it was releasing was designed to undermine the civilized world, playing into the hands of a lot of uncivilized or "rogue" nations. I find it very ironic to see Anonymous defending these guys because the groups they were undermining are the same ones who ultimatly ensure the existance of the enviroment which allows Anonymous to flourish. The methods by which nations like the USA might not be pleasant at all times, but that's simply how things are.

Fully transparent goverment can only exist in cases where ALL goverments are fully transparent, and the problem with Wikileaks is that it really can't do that. By "outing"
only one side (civilized nations, with fairly open policies which allow this kind of thing to happen) it gives the other side(s) an unfair advantage. Perhaps Wikileaks would be more defensible if it was able to out everyone simultaneously on all issues, but it can't do that, and that is one of the big reasons why it's a problem.

I'll also say that I do not think Anonymous is united on this one, since when you get down to it this is (as I said) them shooting themselves in the foot. This is why I think we've been sseing things like the DDOSing of 4chan and so on. It's a case where I think you have Anti-American elements in Anonymous, with that being a primary goal above and beyond general activism (as much as Anonymous can be called activists, given their non-Agenda), and other parts of the "organization".
 

Marowit

New member
Nov 7, 2006
1,271
0
0
njsykora said:
*grabs popcorn*

If the net is closing on Anonymous of all groups, this is going to go from a light poop rain to a full s***storm very quickly.
It will definitely be interesting that's for sure. We'll get to see how good Anonymous is at the Interw3bs, and how the Patriot Act clamps down on internet privacy (presumably if they are caught easily, the Patriot Act makes the internet pretty transparent).
 

spartan773

New member
Nov 18, 2009
520
0
0
Denamic said:
spartan773 said:
eesh... imagine a world under Anon's power... we'd all be forced to crack racist jokes every 3 seconds and probably lynch minorities.
It would be the other way around.
Rather than being forced to or banned from doing whatever, you'd be allowed to do stuff.
Forcing people to do stuff is the exact opposite of what anon wants.
That's why anon uses strong-arm tactics as revenge.
"A taste of their own medicine", as it were.
so basically anarchy?
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
Kair said:
"Civil disobedience for social change" is also breaking the law.
Hence why I said "There's a fine line between 'civil disobedience for social change' and being a moron".

Nations have no right of privacy, they actually have no rights whatsoever.
Tell it to the judge, kid.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Bek359 said:
I'd say Anonymous is about to learn that none of them are truly untraceable.
God I hope so. I really want to see anonymous go down. I believe that thier efforts are self-centered attempts to legitimize piracy, and that these efforts only serve to invalidate all legitimate attempts to try to preserve and extend freedom.
 

Kair

New member
Sep 14, 2008
674
0
0
Therumancer said:
Kair said:
Calbeck said:
Kair said:
If no one ever broke the law, the law would not be changed
Right, so obviously if enough people commit Murder One, the law will eventually change to make it legal.

There's a fine line between "civil disobedience for social change" and being a moron...such as with Assange aiding and abetting international espionage. Yeaaaah, I don't really think they're ever gonna change the law on that one.
"Civil disobedience for social change" is also breaking the law.

Nations have no right of privacy, they actually have no rights whatsoever. Only the individual has rights.

The conflict between governments and Wikileaks is only that, a conflict between factions. Wikileaks broadcasts truth, governments try to hide it to preserve the current state of things. Wikileaks is the faction that must win.
I disagree here because there is another equasion to this entire thing, and that is national security. The kind of information Wikileaks was displaying puts those individuals in danger, and also is going to hamper the function of the goverment.

There is no real doubt that nations need intlligence, counter-intelligence, and covert forces and agents. If you put everything out publically it's impossible to sneak up on someone without them knowing it. This applies to a great extent to things like diplomacy where your aiming to get an honest opinion about other players in the game from your own people, and depending on the situation that might not be flattering.

The safeguard here, at least in the USA, is pretty much that we vote for our officials and presumably vote the guys into office that we think can be most trusted with that kind of power, or will appoint trustworthy people (or those we will support) to various jobs.

Incidently, what makes Wikileaks a touchy subject is that a lot of the information it was releasing was designed to undermine the civilized world, playing into the hands of a lot of uncivilized or "rogue" nations. I find it very ironic to see Anonymous defending these guys because the groups they were undermining are the same ones who ultimatly ensure the existance of the enviroment which allows Anonymous to flourish. The methods by which nations like the USA might not be pleasant at all times, but that's simply how things are.

Fully transparent goverment can only exist in cases where ALL goverments are fully transparent, and the problem with Wikileaks is that it really can't do that. By "outing"
only one side (civilized nations, with fairly open policies which allow this kind of thing to happen) it gives the other side(s) an unfair advantage. Perhaps Wikileaks would be more defensible if it was able to out everyone simultaneously on all issues, but it can't do that, and that is one of the big reasons why it's a problem.

I'll also say that I do not think Anonymous is united on this one, since when you get down to it this is (as I said) them shooting themselves in the foot. This is why I think we've been sseing things like the DDOSing of 4chan and so on. It's a case where I think you have Anti-American elements in Anonymous, with that being a primary goal above and beyond general activism (as much as Anonymous can be called activists, given their non-Agenda), and other parts of the "organization".
As far as I know, Wikileaks released information on most states in the world, including North Korea and China. The fact that western nations operate just as covertly must be the reason why the information is so shocking.
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,153
0
0
Going after 'Anonymous' is such a pointless thing to do. People treat it like some sort of organization, with clear-cut goals and political objectives and established hierarchy. Something you can 'take down'. But really it's more like trying to take down Justin Bieber's fans. It's just a random collection of people predominantly made up of fourteen year olds who have nothing better to spend their time on.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
You cannot kill Anonymous. You may bring down a few members, but the more damage you do to it, the damage it will do to you. Leave it be and ignore it, and it may go away. They want attention more than anything else.
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
spartan773 said:
Denamic said:
spartan773 said:
eesh... imagine a world under Anon's power... we'd all be forced to crack racist jokes every 3 seconds and probably lynch minorities.
It would be the other way around.
Rather than being forced to or banned from doing whatever, you'd be allowed to do stuff.
Forcing people to do stuff is the exact opposite of what anon wants.
That's why anon uses strong-arm tactics as revenge.
"A taste of their own medicine", as it were.
so basically anarchy?
Not quite, but close enough.
 

spartan773

New member
Nov 18, 2009
520
0
0
Denamic said:
spartan773 said:
Denamic said:
spartan773 said:
eesh... imagine a world under Anon's power... we'd all be forced to crack racist jokes every 3 seconds and probably lynch minorities.
It would be the other way around.
Rather than being forced to or banned from doing whatever, you'd be allowed to do stuff.
Forcing people to do stuff is the exact opposite of what anon wants.
That's why anon uses strong-arm tactics as revenge.
"A taste of their own medicine", as it were.
so basically anarchy?
Not quite, but close enough.
there's a reason laws and regulations are in place, to keep a level of law and order, to prevent madness from breaking out.
 

brainslurper

New member
Aug 18, 2009
940
0
0
gamerguy473 said:
brainslurper said:
Bek359 said:
I'd say Anonymous is about to learn that none of them are truly untraceable.
about 200,000 computers participated in the DDOS attacks on paypal. they found 2 people. YES, they are untraceable. and about 199,000 of those computers were hijacked. if the fbi wanted to do this, it would have to invade thousands of innocent homes.
Or take out the 1000 people who infected them in the first place, then the 199,000 would have nothing to worry about.
Each individual computer is DDOSing externally from the software, so it can only be traced back to the computer. Maybe if they searched through the computer they could trace it through the cache but then the FBI is still invading hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples privacy.
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
spartan773 said:
there's a reason laws and regulations are in place, to keep a level of law and order, to prevent madness from breaking out.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
 

spartan773

New member
Nov 18, 2009
520
0
0
Denamic said:
spartan773 said:
there's a reason laws and regulations are in place, to keep a level of law and order, to prevent madness from breaking out.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Who said anything about giving up liberties. there's a difference between simple plain everyday security, and anarchism.

i wouldn't trust Anonymous with anything of mine, let alone letting them run me. I refuse to let them turn this entire world into an anarchist society.