Security Firm CEO Quits Due to Anonymous Attack

[MrGalactus]

Score 1 for the good guys.

Since when was Anonymous the good guys?

The media paints them as the bad guys, (and some of them are just trolls looking for things to get away with) but the orgaisation itself fights against corruption and injustice non-violently.

 

[Sovvolf]

Score 1 for the good guys.

Since when was Anonymous the good guys?

The media paints them as the bad guys, (and some of them are just trolls looking for things to get away with) but the orgaisation itself fights against corruption and injustice non-violently.

Yeah... By destroying peoples lives in the process. I don't understand why people are rooting for them here, they are cyber terrorists who bring down anyone who bring down anyone who questions them. This fellow they brought down seemed like scum but Anonymous are no better really. They are both the bad guys. However, I imagine I'll get slammed down for this by everyone on the escapist or even the internet as people like this are held in high regard.

Here they attacked someone morally questionable however what about when they attacked Mckay Hatch for the no cussing club. What was he doing that was so horrible? He started a club over the internet against cussing... Whose that harming? What did he get? all his info leaked online and then received threatening phone calls and a shit load of hate mail. Our good guys ladies and gentlemen.

I agree they've done some good things in the past and they still do some helpful things here and there but they also seem like complete jerks.

 

[GLo Jones]

it appears I'm out of the loop. What did this guy do that was so bad/pissed off Anonymous? To wind up costing a guy his job seems a little extreme. Whatever he did, I'm sure there could have been a more peaceful arrangement.

This link says it all [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/how-one-security-firm-tracked-anonymousand-paid-a-heavy-price.ars].

He deserved what he got, I have no sympathy.

 

[MrGalactus]

Score 1 for the good guys.

Since when was Anonymous the good guys?

The media paints them as the bad guys, (and some of them are just trolls looking for things to get away with) but the orgaisation itself fights against corruption and injustice non-violently.

You call it corruption and injustice I call it necessity.

Then I call you immoral. How is greed necessity? Corporate bosses line their own pockets at your expense, and block public from the truth all the while. There is never any necessity in evil.

Yeah... By destroying peoples lives in the process. I don't understand why people are rooting for them here, they are cyber terrorists who bring down anyone who bring down anyone who questions them. This fellow they brought down seemed like scum but Anonymous are no better really. They are both the bad guys. However, I imagine I'll get slammed down for this by everyone on the escapist or even the internet as people like this are held in high regard.

Here they attacked someone morally questionable however what about when they attacked Mckay Hatch for the no cussing club. What was he doing that was so horrible? He started a club over the internet against cussing... Whose that harming? What did he get? all his info leaked online and then received threatening phone calls and a shit load of hate mail. Our good guys ladies and gentlemen.

I agree they've done some good things in the past and they still do some helpful things here and there but they also seem like complete jerks.

Yeah, sometimes they are wrong. They support free speech, but when they are retaliated against in a hostile way, they sometimes go on the offensive and take it far too far, which happens all too often, unfortunately. They're only human, though. I don't support them all the way %100, not by a long shot, but they're the best we've got for now.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

BTW, "Cyberterrorist", possible the silliest term I've heard in 40 years.

Running a few extra windows does not raise you from a "hacker" to a "CYBERTERRORIST".

Unless they have their own theme that follows them around, they're not even a proper hacker. They're a delinquent.

 

[i7omahawki]

He was trying to bring down wikileaks and anonymous I consider that pretty damn moral.

Calling morally correct the action of trying to bring down Wikileaks, one of the few journalistic 'institutions' with the balls to bring the truth out to people, is, frankly, beyond ignorant. They expose corruption and abuse. These are not the people you want (or should want) to quit.

All wikileaks gave us was a brief insight on things we already knew about. What do you think will happen after that? Do you really think that any government is going open up to their citizens because of this? All they?ll do is just clamp down on information harder than before.

So how does that make WikiLeaks bad?


As for Anon, they're quite obviously bad. They're jerks, completely so, and they don't mind taking down anyone that they want.

What is impressive though, is that they abide by the code they have, despite being anonymous. They don't need to be moral, or reputable, because they are hidden. And considering that they could do a great deal worse than supporting the Middle East during the revolutions and supporting free speech. They seem a lot less corrupt than corporations or governments, even if they are unpredictable and reckless.

I consider it an experiment into the question of the Ring of Gyges, and Anon come off surprisingly well considering many alternatives. (They didn't murder Barr and marry his wife )

 

[Jumplion]

Actually, yeah, there was! Bruce Schneier helpfully listed these on his site: posts [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-to-security-firm-working-with-fbi-youve-angered-the-hive.ars] on the topic from ArsTechnica.

Guy's in deep with a group whose idea of a business model is to dig up dirt and use it no matter how accurate it is, commit acts of character assassination and false flag operations on civilians both American and foreign, violate the Constitution and then try sell themselves as the James Bond version of MI6 to the first sucker with fat pockets.

Seriously, when a member of your company can openly contemplate impersonating a high school classmate of someone in order to scare them into buying your product and not IMMEDIATELY get slapped down for it, you have no soul. Corporations often fit the DSM-IV's listing for psychopathy but this one seemed to strive for it.

Alright then I take back (most) of what I said. I'm still a pansy who thinks everyone should be nice to each other, but, eh, whatever, most of my faith in humanity should have been long gone by now.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Doesn't he know Anons biggest weakness? cats Boxy cake Should have gone with:

Seriously though he forgot the Golden Rule: Don't mess with trolls as they make a hobby out of wrecking your life.

 

[Dudemeister]

Excellent, these corporate bosses should realise that if they do something that is morally questionable that there are consequences.

He was trying to bring down wikileaks and anonymous I consider that pretty damn moral.

And I consider that to be unjust censorship. Pretty damn immoral.
Also, running a smear campaign against an independent journalist at the whim of the Bank of America is a pretty damn evil thing to do no matter what you think of Anonymous.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Score 1 for the good guys.

Since when was Anonymous the good guys?

Fine, score one for the morally grey anti-heroes.

I think they prefer the alignment Chaotic Neutral.

Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Good and Evil come second to their need to be free, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. They invariably resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of personal goals. A Chaotic Neutral character may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.

Sound familiar?

 

[The Rockerfly]

Excellent, these corporate bosses should realise that if they do something that is morally questionable that there are consequences.

He was trying to bring down wikileaks and anonymous I consider that pretty damn moral.

So you think getting rid of your freedom of information and people fighting for your online rights is a bad thing?

Wikileaks is just showing people the truth and information no newspaper or website could show without being harassed by the government

 

[Kavonde]

Knowing that Barr is a fellow gamer does make me a little sad that his life was ruined by Anonymous.

Don't worry, I'm sure his severance pay should let him maintain his subscription for awhile.

 

[Kavonde]

Excellent, these corporate bosses should realise that if they do something that is morally questionable that there are consequences.

He was trying to bring down wikileaks and anonymous I consider that pretty damn moral.

So you think getting rid of your freedom of information and people fighting for your online rights is a bad thing?

Wikileaks is just showing people the truth and information no newspaper or website could show without being harassed by the government

Or their parent corporations.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

It should be obvious poking a hornet's nest is not smart. This is the fallout.

Posting his Social Security Number online is going just a step too far don't you think?

Some idiots MIGHT send you hate mail at home

A couple of losers might call you at home and ream you out

Every idiot/scam artist/creep with a scam in his head would LOVE to get his hands on that Social Insurance Number... He can get some BAD Identity fraud going on in life.

Attack him, but do not ruin his life.