FBI Raids Texas Company in Hunt for Anonymous

[Helmutye]

Anonymous deserve to be jailed for this, not because of their idealism but because they lack the discipline to select an appropriate target. If the people who did this really believed in the cause they'd help support Wikileaks, not attack people supposedly 'used' to bring them don a notch.

For example. Someone is ordered by the Government to not trade with me. I can't ever buy my papers at their shop or work for them ever again. At least I think that's what happened, I've been screwing him on the terms of our contract for a while.

First off, the government should not be ordering somebody not to trade with you. That is not their place. They may establish general rules about how trade is to be conducted, but they should not be singling people out and putting pressure on businesses to abandon them. That is a giant leap beyond legitimate use of government power.

Do I:
1. Make alternative arrangements?

Wikileaks did make alternative arrangements, and each time they did the government shut them down, even going so far as to chase them into other countries (putting pressure on foreign governments to silence this one non-violent organization). Ultimately, the US government will not be happy until Wikileaks is gone--that much is obvious from their actions and the statements of government officials.

2. Protest through legitimate channels?

What is a legitimate channel? I don't know if you've realized this, but the ways that are considered "legitimate channels" are usually designed to be the slowest, least effective ways of bringing your grievances about. Remember during the BP spill, when we were told not to boycott BP gas stations because it wouldn't actually hurt BP? Exactly how were we supposed to protest them--what would have been a legitimate channel? It's the same with Paypal and Mastercard--the world is designed to insulate them from any sort of consumer backlash. "When justice is outlawed, the just must become outlaws."

3. Punch that guy in the face?

One of the most basic techniques of silencing/marginalizing somebody is to leave them no alternative to violence. Everybody agrees that violence should only be used as a last resort, so anybody who is acting violently is obviously radical and dangerous and should be ignored or imprisoned. But by not allowing people to make alternative arrangements, and by making the "legitimate channel" ineffective, you are left with no choice other than violence or simply giving up.

It's ironic that this article mentions the FBI, since this is one of the signature tactics of that particular government organization. Read about Operation COINTELPRO and you'll see. It's been done with the Civil Rights movement, it's been done to Native American activists, and now I think it's being done to Wikileaks and Anonymous.

 

[Warforger]

I'm always in favour of the authorities showing that they have a good handle on modern crime but can't really get behind them on this one.

The Paypal DDoS attacks were made in retaliation for the American government putting unlawful pressure on PayPal and other financial institutions and for those organisations bowing to the government pressure.

While two wrongs don't make a right are we really expecting a third wrong, arresting the leaders of the cyber attack, to make the whole sordid affair better?

Just a quick thing why is it called DDoS? Its Denial of Service right? So where does the extra D come from?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm always in favour of the authorities showing that they have a good handle on modern crime but can't really get behind them on this one.

The Paypal DDoS attacks were made in retaliation for the American government putting unlawful pressure on PayPal and other financial institutions and for those organisations bowing to the government pressure.

While two wrongs don't make a right are we really expecting a third wrong, arresting the leaders of the cyber attack, to make the whole sordid affair better?

If the first wrong was the reaction to Wikileaks revealing information, and the second wrong was Anonymous' response to said reaction then you would be correct.

An attempt to find people responsible for committing the second crime is hardly a wrong. Last time I checked, justice was rarely considered an evil.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

I wonder who Anonymous is anyway...

It's probably the person we least expect...

*smiles evilly*

 

[Atmos Duality]

Freedom fighters. Terrorists.
It's all relative in the eyes of the law.
More specifically, whose law.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm always in favour of the authorities showing that they have a good handle on modern crime but can't really get behind them on this one.

The Paypal DDoS attacks were made in retaliation for the American government putting unlawful pressure on PayPal and other financial institutions and for those organisations bowing to the government pressure.

While two wrongs don't make a right are we really expecting a third wrong, arresting the leaders of the cyber attack, to make the whole sordid affair better?

Just a quick thing why is it called DDoS? Its Denial of Service right? So where does the extra D come from?

It means Distributed. There are many reasons why one would distribute such an attack. First, it makes it more difficult to counter. If all the attacks come from a single source, it can readily be thwarted but when it comes from hundreds or thousands of sources defending against it is far more difficult. Plus, distributing the attack means one can achieve far greater effect. A massive service like Paypal would require a massive effort to bring low when it is fully capable of handling hundreds of thousands if not millions of requests and hour. It would be difficult to muster the resources to bring an effective DoS attack from a single source.

 

[asinann]

They did those attacks because they were letting the government force them to deny Wikileaks money to force the site to go down. Basically, they were protecting freedom of free speech.

You realise that that means:

'Anonymous attacked them because the Government forced them to do this.'

You can't 'let yourself be forced to' do anything. It's a contradiction. What that either means is that the companies decided to do that on their own OR that the Government forced them to do something against their will and now Anonymous is punishing them for being forced to do something.

The government told them, illegally mind you, to deny Wikileaks their money and they did. The government made them do it, but they didn't put up a fight.

Actually, nothing illegal about it. Under the Patriot act the government can have an individual's or companies assets frozen if they feel that the fund will be used to promote anti-government behavior or terrorism.

Not something that should be constitutional, but until someone challenges it in court, it's legal.

Fine, but it's still wrong and should be fought. Or do you want to become Soviet Union 2.0?

What, because the government can freeze assets of an entity that is attacking it? Because that's what Assange and Wikileaks did, they attacked the US government.

You're telling me that because it's a government it isn't allowed to defend itself against some putz that is paying someone to spy on it? That's what Assange is doing, he paying people to spy on the US government. He is also using the threat of releasing information he claims to have to try and stop anyone from stopping him. The man is lucky he hasn't been sniped already, but then again he probably already released everything he had.

He blocks out names? Whoop-dee-doo! Anyone with any knowledge of a situation will still know who said what and who knows what information. Lets say there's a meeting with 3 people in it, one is British, one is Italian and one is American. Now lets pretend that a document gets released that says that the third party thinks that the Brit and Italian are in the back room diddling each others children. Who is the third party? Well, the name is blacked out so you and I don't know his name, but the Brit and the Italian know who the hell it is. (note, the whole situation is hypothetical and being used to make a point, don't get all weepy.)

 

[Brad Shepard]

Heres what I think, if one of there 'members' gets cought, it could cause a heavy overcast of a shit storm very very quickley, we saw what happens to Gene Simmons when he just insulted them, what are these people going to do if one of there members get cought?

 

[someotherguy]

Won't catch em. Even then, Anonymous is made up of thousands, and they did it wrong if they could be traced.


Edit: Damn I never knew the escapist users hated anonymous so much.

Fun fact: You can generally predict if someone likes anonymous or not by their post count. above 1000? More than like a Yes. Below? Questionable but probably a no.

 

[callit4]

snip.

you think the open wireless connection they find if they find anything is annon? and btw umad

 

[Melancholy_Ocelot]

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?

 

[0986875533423]

Isn't the whole point of anonymous that any person anywhere can be a potential member at any time?

So shouldn't the US government just arrest EVERYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD and be done with?

 

[asinann]

They did those attacks because they were letting the government force them to deny Wikileaks money to force the site to go down. Basically, they were protecting freedom of free speech.

You realise that that means:

'Anonymous attacked them because the Government forced them to do this.'

You can't 'let yourself be forced to' do anything. It's a contradiction. What that either means is that the companies decided to do that on their own OR that the Government forced them to do something against their will and now Anonymous is punishing them for being forced to do something.

The government told them, illegally mind you, to deny Wikileaks their money and they did. The government made them do it, but they didn't put up a fight.

Actually, nothing illegal about it. Under the Patriot act the government can have an individual's or companies assets frozen if they feel that the fund will be used to promote anti-government behavior or terrorism.

Not something that should be constitutional, but until someone challenges it in court, it's legal.

Fine, but it's still wrong and should be fought. Or do you want to become Soviet Union 2.0?

What, because the government can freeze assets of an entity that is attacking it? Because that's what Assange and Wikileaks did, they attacked the US government.

You're telling me that because it's a government it isn't allowed to defend itself against some putz that is paying someone to spy on it? That's what Assange is doing, he paying people to spy on the US government. He is also using the threat of releasing information he claims to have to try and stop anyone from stopping him. The man is lucky he hasn't been sniped already, but then again he probably already released everything he had.

He blocks out names? Whoop-dee-doo! Anyone with any knowledge of a situation will still know who said what and who knows what information. Lets say there's a meeting with 3 people in it, one is British, one is Italian and one is American. Now lets pretend that a document gets released that says that the third party thinks that the Brit and Italian are in the back room diddling each others children. Who is the third party? Well, the name is blacked out so you and I don't know his name, but the Brit and the Italian know who the hell it is. (note, the whole situation is hypothetical and being used to make a point, don't get all weepy.)

So we just hide the truth from the people, right? Well, the Escapist is technically attacking america by allowing people to criticize it. So why not take it down? The news is attacking america because they talk about this stuff. Take em down and set up a government run news thing, right? Where does it stop?

Big difference between releasing secret information and talking trash. That and the whole criticizing of the US government has already been determined to be protected speech while releasing classified documents has repeatedly determined to not be protected speech. Spying and threatening = attacking. Talking trash =\= attacking, clear now?

 

[Yomandude]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.254156.9475908 was a very smart sentiment. I can't help but be reminded of George Orwell's 1984... except, you know, set 27 years after the book.
Also, I'm still amazed by how mature the Escapist can be when it comes to controversial topics. If this was released on Yahoo!, all the comments would be about how Julian Assange caused 9/11, or some crap fondue like that.
OT: I support freedom of the press, which is a big issue here, and I support the ninth amendment, which I believe comes into play here. If something's illegal, does that make it bad? No, of course not! Even though most illegal things ARE bad, it's not a causal chain. I'm not sure what my political opinion on the matter is, but I support Anonymous here, and look forward to seeing how the issue plays out.

Goodbye Anonymous......have fun with your boyfriend in prison. hee hee. These guys are idiots and anyone who supports them are just as retarded. Yes they find and deal with company secrets for the good of mankind. Fine. They uncover lies and show them to everyone online. Fine. An they may even track down criminals. Excellent. But i for one think they are a bunch of arseholes that do it to boost there egos and not for the good of the people. They also chased an stalked innocent people who, yes, may be a pain to listen to on youtube. But does that warrant chasing them, finding their phone, email and postal address and telling people to spam them hate mail? You will find they are a bunch or nerds who got know attention in school and who's only power is to bully people through the internet because they are a bunch of cowards.

Uh........ no. Anonymous is not one person, it's not ten, it's not a hundred or a thousand. Anonymous is legion, and a legion is not composed of clones of the exact same person. Unless, of course, it's the clone trooper legion. Not all Anony- Anonymu- Anonymi? Not all Anonymi watch loli and stalk people.

 

[Daverson]

Good riddance I say.

Anonymous don't represent any kind of freedom, they represent a very serious threat to freedom in fact. Glaze over the facts all you want, they're pretty much the embodiment of mob rule.

 

[Melancholy_Ocelot]

I'd just like to point out that the Department of Justice has confirmed that posting these documents is NOT illegal unless it endangers US agents. (a law that will most likely be changed)

WikiLeaks =\= illegal.

Also, there is no physical evidence in these rape charges, only circumstantial.