Poll: So where do you stand on Anonymous and why?

[creager91]

Wow this topic really grew a lot more than I expected. It seems like not everyone is aware that the WBC thing was faked BY the WBC for publicity.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It needs repeating here: Anon is not a group, and it has no goals. No one represents Anon, and no actions represent Anon. It only represents the core ideologies of the people behind the actions who have decided to use the term "Anonymous".

So they have no goals, yet they have core ideologies.
This scenario could exist, if they did not take action or go on extended campaigns against anyone they do not like which seems to be completely arbitrary.

Their original plan of sticking to "Internet Neutrality" is fine. They attack organizations who want to impose restrictions on the internet, because it would interrupt their operations.
It also paints them in a better light. Their actions are still patently illegal, no matter how ethical the cause.

But now they're attacking governmental agencies that have NOTHING to do with their campaign for net-neutrality, and therein lies the contradiction.

Now, I could even understand this behavior if not for a few points:
Why post videos that attribute their actions to their group if the group has no identity?
Why draw attention to the victims of their attacks if they have no goals?

Two probable explanations:
1) Anonymous is more coherent that people are saying, and they have an agenda (which they don't divulge entirely to the public for obvious reasons).
2) They're a bunch of hackers who are trying to draw attention to themselves to brag, but do so in such a way that minimizes the potential consquences of their actions.

 

[creager91]

It needs repeating here: Anon is not a group, and it has no goals. No one represents Anon, and no actions represent Anon. It only represents the core ideologies of the people behind the actions who have decided to use the term "Anonymous".

So they have no goals, yet they have core ideologies.
This scenario could exist, if they did not take action or go on extended campaigns against anyone they do not like which seems to be completely arbitrary.

Their original plan of sticking to "Internet Neutrality" is fine. They attack organizations who want to impose restrictions on the internet, because it would interrupt their operations.
It also paints them in a better light. Their actions are still patently illegal, no matter how ethical the cause.

But now they're attacking governmental agencies that have NOTHING to do with their campaign for net-neutrality, and therein lies the contradiction.

Now, I could even understand this behavior if not for a few points:
Why post videos that attribute their actions to their group if the group has no identity?
Why draw attention to the victims of their attacks if they have no goals?

Two probable explanations:
1) Anonymous is more coherent that people are saying, and they have an agenda (which they don't divulge entirely to the public for obvious reasons).
2) They're a bunch of hackers who are trying to draw attention to themselves to brag, but do so in such a way that minimizes the potential consquences of their actions.

A nice well put argument im curious to see the rebuttle

 

[Actual]

I also find them to be highly hypocritical. How can you fight for the freedom to access information, when you're keeping information about yourself a secret?

Hi, my name is John Doe, I live at 123 made Up Street. I wish to take a stand online against corruption, abuse of power, and suppression of information and human rights. ...oh I've been arrested, well that was short-lived.

Knowing my name is information no-one needs to know. When a government breaks the law and tries to hide it, that's information everyone should know, it's not hypocritical at all.

What makes that information everyone needs to know, and who says people need to know it? And why exactly does everyone need to know it? And why is it ok to post someones name, social security number, address, and phone number on the internet simply because they don't like said person(Aaron Barr), while at the same time, not revealing who they are?

Because they're hypocrites.

Aaron Barr is a criminal who was protected by the US government. Organising an immoral campaign of disinformation, blackmail of journalists and theft of private information which they were then planning to sell for a profit to American intelligence services. You seem to have strong opinions on the matter and that's a good thing but you should find out the facts before coming to conclusions. These are facts that Anon made available to everyone by posting the information online.

If he's not going to be tried for his crimes he should at least be publicly shamed for it, which Anon have taken a small step towards.

Criminals trying to punish criminals for committing crimes. We're right back to my first post here.

Aye, you're right it is technically hypocritical, well played, sir! But if committing a criminal, yet moral act is the only way to get anything close to justice I'm not going to fault a person for it. The law should exist to protect and serve it's people in a moral fashion, if it fails in that regard it needs to be ignored until it can be changed.

 

[Ice Car]

Uh, where's the poll?

Where I stand on Anonymous is all over the place. Some of their actions I agree with and support, but others are downright retarded and messed up, and lead me the other way.

Captcha = cornrows achavi. o.o

 

[Kroxile]

Anonymous is all that is holy in this day and age.

What most escapists don't understand is that anonymous and 4chan "anonymous" are two different entities altogether.

This is kind of what I was wondering, can you please elaborate on that?

Anonymous the hacker group is a group of guys with computer skills that support freedom of speech, first and foremost. They cause trouble for anyone they view to be against the notion that the internet is free and should stay free.

4chan Anonymous are a bunch of retards that range from stupid to trolls to sick to just downright perverse. They hang out on an imageboard and talk big but don't do jack due to not having any skills whatsoever.

 

[Deadman Walkin]

You do realize the irony in saying that a group of people hiding behind anonymity to commit crimes has spine, right?

Yes, but all hackers do. When they were being actually threatened by the FBI, they didn't shut everything down. That shows they aren't cowards.

 

[creager91]

I think it would just help if they had a spokesperson. Someone who doesn't do anything except read what hes supposed to read so that person doesn't have to worry about legal trouble, but if they arent very organized then that will never happen

 

[creager91]

Just saw this and thought it was interesting. Thoughts anyone?
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/03/18/ex-anonymous-hackers-plan-to-out-groups-members/