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.Skullkid4187 said:
FBI Raids Texas Company in Hunt for Anonymous
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
No, I'm not. Those 98% will be caught if it relates to a computer it can be tracked.Omnific One said:
See, if you hide behind a proxy during a DDoS raid, you'll just flood the proxy server, not the intended target. That means you cannot do an attack truly anonymously. The only thing protecting you is that there are others participating as well. So I'm not really surprised that anybody managed to track them down, but I am surprised why it took so damn long...
well i partially hate them because i see their truth. they're not some bloody hero, they're trolls through and through. I only support their cause against scientology, but my own reason is my dislike of every single organized religion under the sun.Corwynt said:
huh, I just came back from watching public enemies at a mates/
OP: I do think that anonymous are in the wrong here, taking down a news channel's website for a few hours is one thing, to do the same to two major banking companies and the FBI's website is another. I'm not sure if I agree with the whole Wikileaks, I think he should have thought more about the consequences of what would happen when the things he was selling went global. Although do think the rape charge is a farce.
OP: I do think that anonymous are in the wrong here, taking down a news channel's website for a few hours is one thing, to do the same to two major banking companies and the FBI's website is another. I'm not sure if I agree with the whole Wikileaks, I think he should have thought more about the consequences of what would happen when the things he was selling went global. Although do think the rape charge is a farce.
"Unsecured wireless networks."Skullkid4187 said:
So, basically no. Some kid with a powerful laptop could sit outside Starbucks and launch part of a DDoS attack. Or use a neighbor's network.
Also, proxies get pretty messy.
It kinda pisses me off how the response you people have to this, and the negative reaction you have is, "THEY'RE NOT MAKING A SERIOUS POLITICAL STATEMENT ABOUT AN ACT OF GOVERNMENT THEY DISAGREE WITH BECAUSE THEY'RE AN OFFSHOOT OF 4CHAN HERP DERP". You shouldn't discount a message just because it comes from a group based in a message board that you don't like. It seems to me that if it were a group other than Annonymous that the FBI were going after, not as many people would be cheering.
That's probably accurate. I think they went too far, but people are cheering far too much about this.Sutter Cane said:
Not that I really support anonymous but there are just too many of them and they're not all in the same country. I doubt that they'll ever manage to get them all. Even if they do, new angry teens will come and do the exact same thing.Skullkid4187 said:
I think the FBI knows this and so they'll only catch a few of them and try to scare the other ones. The worst case would be, that the FBI catches some people who aren't involved in this at all.
I think it's kinda funny the US slaps Russia on the wrist for Mikhail Khodorkovsky and all the hooplah about his sentence being politically motivated, but as soon as another person gets a sentence that is also likely politically motivated that has a large effect on the US. . .oh lawdy it's on.
Regardless of whether or not Anon was 'justified,' they still did attack a business, preventing them from doing their business. Doesn't matter what the cause was, it's still something that should be punished from a legal standpoint. I can't blame the FBI for going after them.
Man, I wonder how much further this whole thing will snowball.
Regardless of whether or not Anon was 'justified,' they still did attack a business, preventing them from doing their business. Doesn't matter what the cause was, it's still something that should be punished from a legal standpoint. I can't blame the FBI for going after them.
Man, I wonder how much further this whole thing will snowball.
I'm actually amazed that the FBI thinks that they'll be able to catch anyone with some fucking trace. Seriously, is it not obvious to assume that anon will just lead them on some infinite duck chase, going all over the world because "we've almost got them this time, for srs."
Why the hell is everyone blaming the goverment for "where is our freedom and liberty?" for persuing cyber attackers? Is this the freedom to commit illegal crimes? Yeah they're not going to protect that very well I don't think.
"Trying to arrest me for raping those children? You're violating my freeedom!"
"Trying to arrest me for raping those children? You're violating my freeedom!"
*facepalm* This thing turned into is anonymous right or wrong thing way to fast. Did everyone else overlook the fact they were give IP addresses of IRC hosts that anonymous members use. Congratulations. You may find out who was hosting the room some of them were using but were does that lead you?
What do you think the chances are that they actually got it right? That they raided a company does not mean that they were not way off course.
I think we are witnessing the death of the US as a country that supports freedom. Despite their flaws, Wikileaks and Anonymous represent freedom and are each good tests of just how free we are--they are abrasive, not particularly pleasant, and they act against those in power, yes, but it's easy to give someone freedom of speech if you agree with what they're saying. The true test of how highly we value free speech comes when we have to defend the right of one we DISAGREE with.
Wikileaks is an organization that many people disagree with. But disagreement does not mean you should use force to close them down. People can condemn them all they want, and try to convince other people why they are bad and should not be trusted. I disagree with anti-abortion activists, Lyndon LaRouche people, and with Neonazis, but I still think all of these groups have the right to gather, speak their minds, and express themselves in accordance with the First Amendment.
But the forceful, authoritarian way the US government has come down on Wikileaks shows just how little they care about our freedom. And the cooperation they got from big corporations shows just how little difference there is between government and big business interests.
And the heat Anonymous is likely to take from their raids on the Paypal site is ridiculous. If they catch anybody they are probably going to try to treat them as terrorists (because that's what they do with anyone who opposes them). But the way I see it, those DDOS attacks were like an internet equivalent of a sit-in--protest by interference. Civil Rights activists in the 50's and 60's went into white-only restaurants (which was a violation of the law at the time) and got in the way of normal service. They forced people to acknowledge them by interfering with their normal daily lives. How is what Anonymous did to Paypal any different?
Now, I won't condone the theft and posting of peoples' credit card numbers (which Anonymous did with Mastercard)--that is private information. What a lot of people don't understand in regards to Anonymous and Wikileaks is that there is a difference between Private information and Public information. People try to drum up fear about Wikileaks by saying things like "you wouldn't want your private, embarrassing secrets posted on the internet--that's what Wikileaks does! So, look the other way while we crush them!" But Wikileaks isn't really posting private information (at least not very much, and the private info that has gone up is not what is generating the craziness). Government information--even the most highly classified, secret information--is public information. It is owned by the tax payer/voters. The government is not a person. Publishing its secrets is NOT like publishing a person's social security number or bizarre sexual behavior. There is a categorical difference between government information--which belongs to the voters and should only be kept from us for the most important of reasons--and the personal information of private citizens.
The US government needs to be reminded that it serves us, the taxpayer/voters. It exists solely to help us and protect us, and exists solely at our convenience. The power it wields is not its own--it belongs to the people. The government simply wields it on our behalf. It's job is to protect our freedoms, whether that is our freedom from dying at the hands of a foreign power or whether it is our freedom to express unpopular ideas. It is wrong to think of the government as an entity independent of the people--it is ours! Wikileaks and Anonymous--regardless of their faults and regardless of whether you think their stated purposes are worthy--have forced the government to tip its hand and show just how badly it is failing at its job of protecting the freedoms of the US citizens (true, Assange is Australian, and therefore the government does not have to protect his freedom to post the leaks, but because so many Americans support Wikileaks and desire continued access the government should be preserving the right of US citizens to read and access Wikileaks as a source of information). It is high time we put our government back in its place!
Wikileaks is an organization that many people disagree with. But disagreement does not mean you should use force to close them down. People can condemn them all they want, and try to convince other people why they are bad and should not be trusted. I disagree with anti-abortion activists, Lyndon LaRouche people, and with Neonazis, but I still think all of these groups have the right to gather, speak their minds, and express themselves in accordance with the First Amendment.
But the forceful, authoritarian way the US government has come down on Wikileaks shows just how little they care about our freedom. And the cooperation they got from big corporations shows just how little difference there is between government and big business interests.
And the heat Anonymous is likely to take from their raids on the Paypal site is ridiculous. If they catch anybody they are probably going to try to treat them as terrorists (because that's what they do with anyone who opposes them). But the way I see it, those DDOS attacks were like an internet equivalent of a sit-in--protest by interference. Civil Rights activists in the 50's and 60's went into white-only restaurants (which was a violation of the law at the time) and got in the way of normal service. They forced people to acknowledge them by interfering with their normal daily lives. How is what Anonymous did to Paypal any different?
Now, I won't condone the theft and posting of peoples' credit card numbers (which Anonymous did with Mastercard)--that is private information. What a lot of people don't understand in regards to Anonymous and Wikileaks is that there is a difference between Private information and Public information. People try to drum up fear about Wikileaks by saying things like "you wouldn't want your private, embarrassing secrets posted on the internet--that's what Wikileaks does! So, look the other way while we crush them!" But Wikileaks isn't really posting private information (at least not very much, and the private info that has gone up is not what is generating the craziness). Government information--even the most highly classified, secret information--is public information. It is owned by the tax payer/voters. The government is not a person. Publishing its secrets is NOT like publishing a person's social security number or bizarre sexual behavior. There is a categorical difference between government information--which belongs to the voters and should only be kept from us for the most important of reasons--and the personal information of private citizens.
The US government needs to be reminded that it serves us, the taxpayer/voters. It exists solely to help us and protect us, and exists solely at our convenience. The power it wields is not its own--it belongs to the people. The government simply wields it on our behalf. It's job is to protect our freedoms, whether that is our freedom from dying at the hands of a foreign power or whether it is our freedom to express unpopular ideas. It is wrong to think of the government as an entity independent of the people--it is ours! Wikileaks and Anonymous--regardless of their faults and regardless of whether you think their stated purposes are worthy--have forced the government to tip its hand and show just how badly it is failing at its job of protecting the freedoms of the US citizens (true, Assange is Australian, and therefore the government does not have to protect his freedom to post the leaks, but because so many Americans support Wikileaks and desire continued access the government should be preserving the right of US citizens to read and access Wikileaks as a source of information). It is high time we put our government back in its place!
