Anonymous: Operation Last Resort

[Sabby]

I've been aware of these events, but I haven't been keeping up as much, seeing as how I'm not American. And considering all that information goes through a hyperbole strainer before it reaches me, I have no idea if this 'lack of due process' is as bad or worse then it sounds. It's been a curiosity, but nothing more. I'm also aware of how bloody hit or miss Anonymous can be, and how damn good they are with their videos >.< they range from chilling to inspirational, but usually both, and this ones a doozy.

Anonymous Operation Last Resort

I was curious what Elliquiys thoughts were, since the video is inherently biased and I don't know the issues well enough to make an informed choice.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Anonymous has always hidden behind the presumption that they are not an organized structure, but rather a group of various computer savvy citizens of various nations that are concerned.  Essentially a vigilante group that has loose connections to one another, thereby shedding responsibility and hold a convenient excuse to get out of public outcry.  This video blatantly states that Anonymous has a Council that was convened and also has various organizations within its umbrella, thereby making Anonymous not a bunch of rogue hackers but a shadowy institution.  Ironic that Anonymous then points a finger at a government for operating in the shadows when they blatantly parade that they operate unknown.  As a body Anonymous is attempting to force their agenda and force compliance to their agenda through threats of leaking sensitive information and possible violence.  This makes Anonymous a high-tech terrorist group that wants the United States Department of Justice, along with several other groups, to operate in a way to their liking. 

Anonymous has stepped over the line.

[Sabby]

Throwing the word 'terrorist' out there doesn't invalidate the grievance. As I understand it, wasn't your country founded by 'terrorists?' :P

I was, however, unaware of the contradictions you brought up, and those are all worthy of criticism. But is their grievance with the Justice Department valid? I don't find the means to achieving their goal to be 'crossing a line'. Vigilanteism is only frowned upon because of the lack of oversight/rules, making it very easy to abuse, but when the actual system that is supposed to work does not, do you have anywhere at all to go that isn't vigilanteism?

That was a serious question by the way. I'm really asking what a citizen should do when their country becomes visibly corrupt.

[Oniya]

Frankly, where-ever Anonymous is concerned, I go out to the local Outdoor Outfitters and pick up a case of those salt licks they set out for deer.  If they've actually done half of the 'big jobs' they've claimed, I'd be surprised.  As for convening a 'council' - I'm betting it was a stack of pizzas from the local take out joint, a 24 pack of beer, and half the night spent deciding who was going to get which fancy title.  The other half was spent dealing cards (Probably these) and arguing about the rules.

[Chris Brady]

And do you know how the U.S. Government is going to do?  Institute greater 'security' measures and raise taxes to pay it off.  And what's MOST of Americans going to do?  Roll over and go back to sleep.  Because few people want to take responsibility.  It's always someone elses problem.

SO in the end it's flash and thunder and the world carries on.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The foundations of the United States of America were built with unconventional tactics of a smaller force against a much larger armed force.  Yet at the end of the day the United States fashioned a governmental body and attempted negotiation with a foreign power.  Their settlement was then made utilizing military forces.  So no, the United States was not founded by terrorists but by generals and political figures.  Could some of the tactics be construed and interpreted as terrorism, certainly.  Would their acts of terrorism be the foundations of a country, no.  Making a personal shot at my country and its foundation does not remove the fact that Anonymous is attempting to exercise control over a country through intimidation.

Their grievance with the Justice Department is valid, but so are many other grievances that lead to the policies Anonymous wants to have taken down.  A lot of the policies mentioned are controversial such as mandatory sentencing.  Mandatory sentencing was put into place to prevent a corrupt judge from giving one person 1 year for a crime and someone else 50, which did happen.  The act used to convict Aaron Swartz and threaten him with jail time was passed in 1984, so Anonymous is a little late to the party there.  Were Anonymous so concerned with Aaron Swartz’s arrest and conviction their tactics might have been appreciated before his death, not after.  More than likely they are using his high publicized death and status to push their own agenda forward.  The man had thirteen counts filed against him, which are thirteen separate felony convictions pending.  He was going to face a great deal of jail time.  He made a choice and he made a stand, but he was going to suffer the penalty for doing so.  The event was highly public; the Justice Department couldn’t just let a blatant show of violating the law slide.

As for whether this threat is real, I seriously doubt this.  Any person with a basic understanding of social movement and the thought process of a government will recognize the United States cannot respond to their demands favorably.  Doing so makes the United States appear weak and the Justice Department seem open to manipulation to any yahoo with a computer.  Anonymous has essentially made themselves a reason for the government to increase prosecution against hackers, to toughen sentencing against those that disperse information and lock down the internet.  Were I writing a conspiracy novel, this video would be a ploy by the government to create a strawman threat.  The video has all the hallmarks of a fear mongering video, which incidentally is what Anonymous accused Fox of doing. 

I do agree with Oniya that this is largely a farce.  Anonymous threatened Fox not too long ago and nothing happened.  Hacking the Justice Department would be a far greater feat and would carry quite a bit more consequences. 

As for what should citizens do, they are doing it all over the world.  Protests and forming activist groups have effected real change for people.  Certainly things are not pretty and they are not quick, but no lasting change is ever going to come fast. 

[Sabby]

Making a personal shot at my country and its foundation does not remove the fact that Anonymous is attempting to exercise control over a country through intimidation.

Wait, huh? o.O I never made a personal shot at America... I was asking a legitimate question. Were the founding fathers branded as Terrorists by England? At the very least, they were rebels who fought against what they saw as an injustice. Anonymous is doing the same. It's the outcome that will dictate how history views either of them. That statement doesn't carry any personal opinions towards either group, so I don't see how any offense could be taken at all, unless it were at the simple use of the word terrorist.

Edit:

Were I writing a conspiracy novel, this video would be a ploy by the government to create a strawman threat.  The video has all the hallmarks of a fear mongering video, which incidentally is what Anonymous accused Fox of doing. 

Reading the comments, you're not the only one to think so.

[Vanity Evolved]

Making a personal shot at my country and its foundation does not remove the fact that Anonymous is attempting to exercise control over a country through intimidation.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Oniya]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

“The victors invariably write the history to their own advantage.” –Jean-Luc Picard

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't see any particular reason to doubt that they were behind the cyberattack or have planned others. What results it will yield is harder to say, but it's also worth noting that everything they say in the first third of that video about the deterioration of the American justice system -- which can find time to persecute Aaron Swartz but hasn't the guts to prosecute the criminal authors of the financial crash -- is quite correct.

I just wish they wouldn't borrow their aesthetic sensibilities from Michael Bay. That video would have been much more effective without the "rousing" music in the background.

[Sabby]

My point was that the word terrorist means using fear as a weapon. It has no inherent baring on what the Terrorist is fighting for/against, and so the fight itself is what matters.

Batman is a Terrorist. But we love Batman because he fights a good fight. I personally think he's wasting energy with his tactics, but I don't hate Batman, even though he is a Terrorist. If The Joker were to kill Batman, in 100 years time Batman would just be 'that Terrorist scum who held Gotham in the grip of fear because he was a schizophrenic psychopath'.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Honestly I think Michael Bay would have done a better job.  The movie clips were a bit much.

[Vanity Evolved]

“The victors invariably write the history to their own advantage.” –Jean-Luc Picard

That, too. :3

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The British were not afraid of the colonies, quite the opposite in fact.  What was happening was considered a rebellion and was to be put down as one.  No threat was made to destroy citizens of London or to bomb non-strategic, civilian targets in England.  At no time did the British Empire believe they would be overthrown, destroyed or truly harmed by this rebellion.  The British Empire would lose face and they would lose the colonies.  There is a difference between rebellion and terrorism.  Anonymous is not conducting a rebellion as they seek to manipulate an existing government to their way of thinking through intimidation.

As for calling a terrorist a freedom fighter, I do not think that is appropriate.  The targets a terrorist picks out have no strategic value other than to inflict fear and terror on the public.  Civilian targets, peace keeping missions and the like are of no strategic importance.  If you want to call those that attack Red Cross personnel freedom fighters than be my guest. 

[Sabby]

As for calling a terrorist a freedom fighter, I do not think that is appropriate.  The targets a terrorist picks out have no strategic value other than to inflict fear and terror on the public.

What makes you say that? Terrorism is a weapon, not a method. Granted, some methods are more imployed then others, but that doesn't mean all instances of terrorism are the same. Anonymous is threatening an information leak if standards and practices within the Justice Department are not reviewed and then reinforced. Whether or not you agree with the tactics employed, to say they are the same as bombing civilian establishments is flat out wrong.

If things really are as bad as the video claims they are, then I agree with Anonymous, they should be reviewed. If they have concrete examples of Constitutional rights being violated, they absolutely should bring it to light. The methods they are using, however... I don't like them, but I'd love to hear a better alternative. Seriously, I do want to o.o will conventional lobbying have a better effect?

[Cyrano Johnson]

here is a difference between rebellion and terrorism.

Actually, there is rarely a difference in the language of the people being rebelled against. Americans are accustomed to encountering Washington and Adams and the rest through respectful, sepia-toned documentaries, but the opinions of the crown and Loyalists of the day was that they were traitors trying to illegally usurp authority through intimidation and violence over what amounted to trivialities of the taxation code. If the British had won, this likely would be history's view of them. This is the point Sabby is trying to get at.

As for calling a terrorist a freedom fighter, I do not think that is appropriate.

Whether or not you think it's appropriate, the tactical use of "terrorist" in one context and "freedom fighter" in another is quite common. Whether the armed wing of the ANC in South Africa were "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" largely depended on whether the person speaking thought apartheid was legitimate or illegitimate; likewise with the IRA in Northern Ireland. It's also a fallacy to believe that you can dismiss all "terrorism" as being directed against strategically irrelevant targets; it is perfectly possible to use supposedly "terrorist" tactics of asymmetrical warfare to force concessions from an enemy (take it away, Gary Brecher).

[Vanity Evolved]

What makes you say that? Terrorism is a weapon, not a method. Granted, some methods are more imployed then others, but that doesn't mean all instances of terrorism are the same. Anonymous is threatening an information leak if standards and practices within the Justice Department are not reviewed and then reinforced. Whether or not you agree with the tactics employed, to say they are the same as bombing civilian establishments is flat out wrong.

If things really are as bad as the video claims they are, then I agree with Anonymous, they should be reviewed. If they have concrete examples of Constitutional rights being violated, they absolutely should bring it to light. The methods they are using, however... I don't like them, but I'd love to hear a better alternative. Seriously, I do want to o.o will conventional lobbying have a better effect?

This. 'Terrorist' and 'Rebel' are not words that denote a type of person; both can apply to the same thing. It's not a game of D&D, where you choose to take levels in Terrorist or Rebel, which represent different methods. Rebellion can, and often does, use terror tactics. Terrorists are often rebelling against something. I'd also love to know where you get this idea that terrorism involves killing people at random, or 'bombing non-strategic targets'. Terrorism is getting something you want - change, resources, whatever - through the instillation of terror. Remember Die Hard? They use the threat of killing hostages to get what they want, to scare the authorities into giving them what they want. Because they're thieves, robbers, whatever you want to call them, it doesn't stop them being terrorists.

The word is completely objective. To one person, a man blowing himself up on another is a valiant warrior, fighting for freedom against the injustices that another nation is instilling on them. Of course, the other nation makes sure to call them cowardly terrorists who want to hurt you. When one guy jumps another from behind, one side describes it as a 'decisive strike' or 'pre-emptive assault'. The victim describes it as 'ambush', 'cowardly assault from behind' and all other manner of things.

It's the natural way things work. Once upon a time, Americans were the rebels who shot people in the back and developed a style of warfare around sneak attack, in-and-out assaults and terror - keep killing guys and destroying stuff until England found the war too costly to make it worth the effort and give up. Now, other people doing the same are branded as terrorists. One man's freedom fighter...

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay.. I've been following the Swartz suicide for a while. I read the articles when the prosecutor tried to put him in a cage and wall him up forever for basically what was a small time felony. If he hadn't used a computer to do it, they'd have plead him down to something like a year or two.. most likely probation, with possible restrictions to the materials he used to get at.

I find some very interesting points from this video over others.. that this one at least holds that some things MUST and SHOULD be kept private. There are a lot of valid points in the speech. Prosecutorial immunity has made for a very wild and out of control crop of charges. You have DAs refusing to accept evidence that runs counter to what they want to happen (like the video footage in the Lacrosse Team that proved his theory of the 'crime' wasn't valid) and cases where kids necking and sexting are threatened with the sex offenders list.

Accountability is a two way street. Some level of Prosecutorial Immunity is needed.. but conversely accountability is needed. There is a lot of 'Agenda Politics' being used by DAs that supercedes enforcing the law. The computer crime laws are badly written, and far too easy to enforce with dictatorial authoritiy. Simply typing in a modified URL is 'technically' a violation of of the law if you approach it with an aggressive enough outlook. There are a LOT of issues with the computer fraud and crime laws on the books, they are dictatorial, fear inspired and far out of scope with comparable crimes in the 'real world'.

If you stole something like 100 grand worth a material, even if the company up valued it into the millions, the average layman would be very upset at the thought of an unsentenced person being locked up for 3 years while the set up for trial dragged out. Without means to communicate with the world, or a bail hearing.

Yet it was okay because Kevin Mitnick was a 'super hacker' who could hack NORAD by whistling into a phone.

When he basically stole about 100 grand (or even less) in proprietary materials. Most of which he did by TALKING to people.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

"Throwing the word 'terrorist' out there doesn't invalidate the grievance. As I understand it, wasn't your country founded by 'terrorists?'  "

No, what Sabby was trying to do was take a cheap shot at me for being an American.  The statement above could have ended after the first sentence and his point made.  Instead he felt necessary to continue with the equivalent of “well your such and such is an alcoholic.”  That is a cheap shot in most circles of debate that I have participated with on and off the internet.  The second sentence had no purpose in this debate aside from taking a jab at someone he knows is an American. 

I also expect no reverence for the founders of the country where I live.  I do expect some common courtesy from another person on Elliquiy, such as keeping the personal attacks to a minimum.  As I can not make a post in the P&R thread without having Sabby and Vanity double team me, I will simply step aside.  I no longer expect this forum section of Elliquiy to show me any respect or simple courtesy.

[Zeitgeist]

Thing is in their hubris they very likely revealed enough about themselves in that video clip for the FBI to develop or solidify their profile, leading to their eventual arrest. Look how they found Bin Laden with little more than a fart in the the wind for a clue. The 1980s movie War Games and theme of "Do you want to play a game?" likely marks then in the range of 40-50 years old. We know they are computer savvy, I'm sure there is a ton more details the amateur I am, cannot think of. The style and verbiage of the manifesto too I am sure could offer clues.

By releasing this they very well may have signed their own arrest warrant. Deep down inside they want to be caught.

[Sabby]

What are you talking about? I was agreeing with you. You brought up valid points on the video I hadn't considered before.

No one is ganging up on you, no one has insulted you, personally or in any other fashion, and I have not made a 'cheap shot at you for being American'. That confuses me to no end. I've reread my post several times, and there is no accidental or intentional insult in my words. If you saw any, please show me.

Instead he felt necessary to continue with the equivalent of “well your such and such is an alcoholic.”  That is a cheap shot in most circles of debate that I have participated with on and off the internet.  The second sentence had no purpose in this debate aside from taking a jab at someone he knows is an American

Please show me where I said anything like this.

And Zeitgeist, this is the problem with groups structured like this. It's hard to tell when they are even there, since all we have to go on is the 'feel' of the information/action. Anonymous is supposed to be a cell to cell kind of arrangement, making it difficult to dismantle, so really, anyone could mimic the style of the videos and sabotage them. Which is exactly what some people suspect. Though I personally think between 'FBI faking an ANON video' and 'ANON making a slightly off video', the latter is the more likely.

[Cyrano Johnson]

No, what Sabby was trying to do was take a cheap shot at me for being an American.

This doesn't look true to me at all. And even if the initial statement admitted of misunderstanding, I notice he has clarified it repeatedly. Surely part of common courtesy is reading other posters' motives with some degree of charity?

[Vanity Evolved]

"Throwing the word 'terrorist' out there doesn't invalidate the grievance. As I understand it, wasn't your country founded by 'terrorists?'  "

No, what Sabby was trying to do was take a cheap shot at me for being an American.  The statement above could have ended after the first sentence and his point made.  Instead he felt necessary to continue with the equivalent of “well your such and such is an alcoholic.”  That is a cheap shot in most circles of debate that I have participated with on and off the internet.  The second sentence had no purpose in this debate aside from taking a jab at someone he knows is an American. 

I also expect no reverence for the founders of the country where I live.  I do expect some common courtesy from another person on Elliquiy, such as keeping the personal attacks to a minimum.  As I can not make a post in the P&R thread without having Sabby and Vanity double team me, I will simply step aside.  I no longer expect this forum section of Elliquiy to show me any respect or simple courtesy.

Yeah. Sabs wasn't making a personal attack on you; he was simply pointing out the logic in that using the word 'terrorist' to invalidate something someone has done also means that it invalidates the work of other major movements, such as America's seperation from the British. He was not saying 'Terror tactics were used during the seperation, therefore, every American is a terrorist and should be offended by this'.

[Callie Del Noire]

Let me simply say this in response to the US bashing.. the justice system in SEVERAL 'free' nations need some serious issues on computer crimes. There is enough overhyped paranoia out there for the folks @ Anonymous to work a long ling time.

Illegal detentions, out of spec harsh sentences and so on.

Of course I think the US is one of the worse on this and copyright issues. What gets me is basically everything that Swartz was hounded for.. is now OPEN DOMAIN. The group that he 'stole' from basically openly distributed all those academic documents just a few days before his suicide.

[Trieste]

Is the justice system imperfect? You bet your sweet ass it is.

Is the solution to sit behind a computer and use Windows Movie Maker to intone threats and rattle chains? I don't fucking well think so.

Reform almost always comes from within - from the blood, sweat, and tears of people who are working inside the system every day. All of the public outcries in the world don't mean a thing unless someone knowledgeable and capable steps up to carry out those reforms.

Their talk of collateral damage and 'oh, we appreciate that the little people are still idealistic' says to me essentially that they plan on, and will attempt, indiscriminate damage. It doesn't matter if someone is working to try to further the same goals as they are - since they are part of the justice system, that person is collateral damage. That pisses me off, and yeah, I do take that kinda personally.

If they were half as talented as they claimed, they could do a hell of a lot of good working constructively toward their stated goals. This particular video and the mentality that it represents is bullshit.