Anonymous announces "Operation: Fox Hunt"

[Wolfy]

Anonymous-Operation Fox Hunt:Anti Fox News Campaign

Because of what Fox News has done in the past, and how they are now attacking the Wall Street Protestors, Anonymous has announced that they will take down the Fox News Website and start a campaign of their own to chastise them.

I personally think Fox News has had this coming for a long time, but eh, that's just me. >_>

[Missy]

I don't really like either party...and I like Anonomous even less after this.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think I'll sit back and watch from a safe distance. One thing I expect out of this. The Fox Network's IT department just got more funding. :D

[Beguile's Mistress]

I don't care for either one of them.  It's going to be like watching two people you hate having a cat fight.

[Rinzler]

I'm just amazed that they managed to recruit Stephen Hawking for the voiceover!

[Oniya]

I'm just amazed that they managed to recruit Stephen Hawking for the voiceover!

Nah, they just hacked his voice software.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm amused and sad. I decided to go look up Stephen Hawking on Wikipedia...I punch in S-T-E-P-H into the search bar and it coughs up all the "Stephen ____" pages, arranged by (presumably) hits/popularity. Stephen Colbert is above Stephen Hawking (though both are below Stephen King).

[Izzie Aditi]

They managed to temporarily take down Mastercard, Visa and PayPal websites in late 2010, I have a feeling the Fox News website won't be that much of a hassle.

I know very little about Fox News myself since I live in Europe, it's all hearsay for me. However, all the big media outlets here are not covering the protests all that much. Apparently people have been protesting for weeks here -not near where I live, but in the country nonetheless- and it has hardly made the news. One would say an ongoing protest would get quite some coverage..

[Callie Del Noire]

Well I think that this has a good chance to grow beyond a single day strike. Do you HONESTLY like any of those mouth breather talking heads that work for Fox will keep their mouths shut? They're going to say something.. and like a troll flame war.. this will escalate.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So in order to protect the rights of people protesting and speaking out, Anonymous is going to silence someone else?  Seems to me Anonymous is run by some short sighted people.

[Callie Del Noire]

So in order to protect the rights of people protesting and speaking out, Anonymous is going to silence someone else?  Seems to me Anonymous is run by some short sighted people.

I think it's more of a 'putting their foot in' in their outlook. As in Fox (and it's owner Herr Rupert) need a good solid kicking.

[Oniya]

I have to admit, they do tend to be a bit on the 'knee-jerk' end of things.  There's a distinct lack of 'let's think this through', both here and with the proposed DDoS attack on the Wall Street servers.

[TheGlyphstone]

DDoSing Wall Street? Wouldn't that actually be legitimate cyber-terrorism? ???

[Oniya]

It would be - if they actually had a prayer of doing what they intended.  I vaguely remember that they were going to try, didn't hear anything else about it, and now that I go looking, it turns out that the NYSE barely noticed.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/technology/anonymous_nyse/index.htm

[Callie Del Noire]

It would be - if they actually had a prayer of doing what they intended.  I vaguely remember that they were going to try, didn't hear anything else about it, and now that I go looking, it turns out that the NYSE barely noticed.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/technology/anonymous_nyse/index.htm

Most likely because those who CAN do that woudln't want to. They dont' want to go to jail.

[Oniya]

Q.V. my posts on 'great power' and 'great responsibility' on the other thread about Anonymous.  ;D

In the context of the hacker/cracker community, the ones I respect more are the ones who don't feel obliged to show off how deep into the IC they can get.

[Wolfy]

>_> I personally thing that Fox News has had this coming for a LOOOOONG time...all you have to do is look back at their record of how many inaccuracies and false information they've put out there to support "The Right Wing" agenda and you can see why people don't like them.

[Florence]

So in order to protect the rights of people protesting and speaking out, Anonymous is going to silence someone else?  Seems to me Anonymous is run by some short sighted people.

That's not true, given that Anonymous isn't 'run' by anyone. People treat Anonymous like it's a traditional organization, which isn't true. There's no rank or leadership or orders or anything of the sort. It's a blanket term used by any gathering of like-minded individuals on the internet, particularly those who regular sites like 4chan or Encyclopedia Dramatica.

As for my opinion on the whole thing. I respect Fox News' right to spout their ignorant bs, and I also respect the people's right to tell them where they can cram them. When we cross the line into committing crimes, I have issue, but I do find it hard to be sympathetic to Fox News.

[RubySlippers]

Those that founded the United States commited crimes: High Treason, Open Rebellion, Murder and we consider in our nation the end justified.

If those in power now abuse this power they are upset a counterpoint is now out there that is no easy to ID and knock out and global. As I see this if they act rightly and don't suppress information and the free internet, they don't abuse their awesome power over their citizens and consumers they will not be a target.

I just think they are now sadly necessary when no other options work.

[TheGlyphstone]

But legally, mass media has no authority. They don't have any power except what modern culture gives them. So whatever drivel Fox (or CNN, or MSNBC) spouts, it's a problem with the citizens for paying attention, not a problem of the news networks abusing anything.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

There is always a leadership.  As human being we are social animals and as social animals there is a hierarchy that is established in any endeavor.  Anonymous has adopted a symbol (the man with the question mark for a head), a motto (We are Legion etc. etc.) and posts forth goals to be established.  While the position may be that these are separate groups just bearing the mantle of Anonymous, those same people are not exclusive of each other.  The skill set and culture is a small one that more than likely has various requirements to become part of and so closes itself off from the larger community.  This means that the same people are moving in this circle and so there is a leadership structure, even if unofficial.

Anonymous may enjoy hiding behind the name and banner, but there is a leadership structure.  Even if the leadership is as informal as a group of friends, there is still someone designing the ideas and establishing the goals and symbols to adopt.  Anonymous is honestly not random enough in its selection of targets to reflect a broad spectrum of ideologies and groups.  The same people are taking up the mantle of Anonymous even if the exact troops may change.

Their proposed attack on Fox News for calling the protesters names is simply wrong.  To deny someone else their freedom of speech just because there is disagreement is not upholding freedom of speech in the slightest.  Fox News talk shows have the ability to say as they want, just as we have the right to turn off those channels.  So long as they adhere to the ideals of journalism in their actual news casts then they are doing their jobs.  Fox News accuses other stations of publishing propaganda just as they accuse Fox of the same.  Fox News points out poor journalism and false reports just as others point out the mistakes of Fox.  Both sides go at each other.

The Occupy Wallstreet Protesters should denounce the activities of this group performed on their behalf.  Anonymous is only going to serve to bring more attention to the words of Fox, give them validity in the eyes of the public and possibly turn opinion against the Occupy Wallstreet movement.

[Jacqueline]

I think that the Anonymous structure is horizontal, but anyway blocking a website doesn't seem like a terrible crime, at least they're not hurting anyone. A different thing is if they steal or make profit of stolen information which I don't know if they do or don't.

[Oniya]

Voltaire once said 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

Anonymous's 'Operation Fox Hunt' says 'We don't agree with what you say, so we're going to overload your website so no-one can hear you.'

Who truly embodies freedom of information?

[Zakharra]

I think that the Anonymous structure is horizontal, but anyway blocking a website doesn't seem like a terrible crime, at least they're not hurting anyone. A different thing is if they steal or make profit of stolen information which I don't know if they do or don't.

What about blocking a bank site? Crashing a business's website? That can hurt the business when they cannot get online orders, process money or connect to people.  It might not hurt people directly, like a fist to the face or breaking a glass window, but it can hurt a business.


Slight topic change, I heard on the radio this morning that Anonymous is taking on several Mexican drug cartels after one of their members was kidnapped. They said they would start naming names and addresses of associates of the cartels and corrupt cops.  Can anyone confirm that? If it's true, this is a real  physical escalation that will leave people dead.

[Sabby]

My translation? "We're tired of you suppressing others and slandering them, that's why we're going to suppress and slander you"

[Will]

Voltaire once said 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

Anonymous's 'Operation Fox Hunt' says 'We don't agree with what you say, so we're going to overload your website so no-one can hear you.'

Who truly embodies freedom of information?

Considering it's Fox News, it's actually more like "What you say is legitimately untrue, so we're going to overload your website etc etc."

I'm not sure if it makes a practical difference, but it is a difference.

[Jacqueline]

What about blocking a bank site? Crashing a business's website? That can hurt the business when they cannot get online orders, process money or connect to people.  It might not hurt people directly, like a fist to the face or breaking a glass window, but it can hurt a business.


Slight topic change, I heard on the radio this morning that Anonymous is taking on several Mexican drug cartels after one of their members was kidnapped. They said they would start naming names and addresses of associates of the cartels and corrupt cops.  Can anyone confirm that? If it's true, this is a real  physical escalation that will leave people dead.

Yes, I can see how that would hurt a bussiness, another problem is that if they happened to have big losses they would just boot some innocent employers, not very fair.

[TheGlyphstone]

Considering it's Fox News, it's actually more like "What you say is legitimately untrue, so we're going to overload your website etc etc."

I'm not sure if it makes a practical difference, but it is a difference.

I don't have any love for Fox News, but that's a dangerous tack to take - freedom of speech in general and freedom of the press in particular is one of the cornerstones of our country, and not one we should be discarding lightly no matter how much we disagree with said press. Fox omits details, slants perspectives, and skews opinions to where what they report to their constituents can be almost unrecognizable from the actual story unless you know what it was already and can see the connections, but I imagine they're as circumspect as any major media source about giving outright fabrications. When "I don't like what you're saying" becomes "you're lying", that slope gets a lot more slippery.

Anonymous could be a force for...well, not Good, but at least Neutral, if that mass of people could be unified toward something constructive. But as long as they keep up with hacking attacks like this, it's increasingly easy for detractors to marginalize them as hooligans and cyber-criminals.

[Avis habilis]

... I imagine they're as circumspect as any major media source about giving outright fabrications....

As it so happens, they aren't. Not like they're the only ones, of course (cf. John Stossel & his campaign of lies against organic food). Not that I agree with simply muzzling them either - that sort of ingenuity would be much better devoted to providing fact-based rebuttals.

[Zakharra]

Yes, I can see how that would hurt a bussiness, another problem is that if they happened to have big losses they would just boot some innocent employers, not very fair.

Perhaps, but Anonymous's method wouldn't be exactly fair either by hurting legitimate business.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

How is Fox suppressing them though?  Fox News is a media outlet, not a government agency.  Honestly by Fox slandering them they are giving the Occupy Wall Street protesters media coverage.  Bad press is still press after all.

[Oniya]

What's the old saying?  'Say what you want, but make sure you spell my name right'?

[Callie Del Noire]

Fun Note.. the owner of Fox news owns something like 35 to 40% of the media outlets in NYC. Rupert Murdoch has an agenda and backs his corportate buddies quite well. You'll never see a bad thing about his buddies on Fox and considering most of the culprits behind the mortgage crisis are his buddies what do you expect?

News Corp, Fox and the rest of Murdoch's media outlets in New York were bought and paid for by his special interest dollars to congress. He's repeatedly gotten 'deals' with the FCC by congressional mandate.

[Vekseid]

I'm guessing that this will be another stupid LOIC drive.

As it so happens, they aren't. Not like they're the only ones, of course (cf. John Stossel & his campaign of lies against organic food). Not that I agree with simply muzzling them either - that sort of ingenuity would be much better devoted to providing fact-based rebuttals.

Rebutting a lie makes people more likely to believe a lie, not less. The best antidote is, really, to make people confront the lie itself. It's one thing to tell a homophobe that homosexuality is fine. It's completely another when someone they consider a good friend confronts them about their betrayal.

How is Fox suppressing them though?  Fox News is a media outlet, not a government agency.  Honestly by Fox slandering them they are giving the Occupy Wall Street protesters media coverage.  Bad press is still press after all.

It still takes several years for the population to tone out the media's message about a group or cause. Can OWS grow for six more years?

Fun Note.. the owner of Fox news owns something like 35 to 40% of the media outlets in NYC. Rupert Murdoch has an agenda and backs his corportate buddies quite well. You'll never see a bad thing about his buddies on Fox and considering most of the culprits behind the mortgage crisis are his buddies what do you expect?

News Corp, Fox and the rest of Murdoch's media outlets in New York were bought and paid for by his special interest dollars to congress. He's repeatedly gotten 'deals' with the FCC by congressional mandate.

Being fair to Fox for probably the first time on this site, you can say the same for Disney (ABC) and General Electric/Comcast (NBC). The closest thing to an independent outlet is CBS. NBC's more center-right leaning simply reflects their owners being more Reagan Republican than the modern incarnation of the GOP.

They also have a genuine interest in creating the impression of a division.

[Callie Del Noire]

Being fair to Fox for probably the first time on this site, you can say the same for Disney (ABC) and General Electric/Comcast (NBC). The closest thing to an independent outlet is CBS. NBC's more center-right leaning simply reflects their owners being more Reagan Republican than the modern incarnation of the GOP.

They also have a genuine interest in creating the impression of a division.

Actually Veks.. NO ONE else has as much media share as Murdoch. He is unique in that regard. Why do you think there has been NO coverage of his paper's hacking practices on this side of the pond or even an investigation to see if they'd done the same here in the US? He's got too many members of Congress and the Senate in his wallet.

[Oniya]

It still takes several years for the population to tone out the media's message about a group or cause. Can OWS grow for six more years?

They've made the cover of Time magazine.  That was both surprising and encouraging to me.

[Vekseid]

Actually Veks.. NO ONE else has as much media share as Murdoch. He is unique in that regard. Why do you think there has been NO coverage of his paper's hacking practices on this side of the pond or even an investigation to see if they'd done the same here in the US? He's got too many members of Congress and the Senate in his wallet.

There are only six major media organizations in the US. That in and of itself is the major problem.

Murdoch's influence is tremendous, but I think the reason they aren't going after Fox is not so much because of Murdoch's influence, but rather because their own activities would be looked into if they went into attack mode on this one. For the same reason they leaped to Fox's defense when Obama attacked Fox.

They've made the cover of Time magazine.  That was both surprising and encouraging to me.

I'm far more encouraged by the fact that traditional power is confused about how to react. That's usually a sign that traditional power either ends up giving concessions (big ones, like in the FDR era), or loses entirely.

[adeleturner]

I realize Fox has done a lot of terrible things, but the focus of the warning video is that they are striking against Fox for their criticism of the OWS protesters.  The threat is to interfere with their property and their freedom of speech because Anonymous doesn't like what they have to say.  When Fox comes back with an even more rabid fanbase because of this, and the flames of this ridiculous "culture war" get fanned even more, we'll know who to thank.  Or, rather, we won't know who to thank.

Using unforgivable means to accomplish an end that is just going to backfire on them?  Way to go.

[Oniya]

Out of curiosity - when exactly were they going to do this?  I find their videos to be very much tl;dr - and this from someone who considers an 800 page text book to be light reading.

Okay - Google helped me out.  It was supposed to be the fifth of November - and nothing noticeable happened on either Fox or Facebook.

Script-kiddies, I'm tellin' ya.

[TheVillain]

Personally, I'm side much more with Anonymous then Fox, because at least with Anonymous it's respectable-principles-taken-too-far-in-often-amusing-ways Evil while Fox is soul-crushing-conformity-and-selling-out-the-common-man-to-corporate-masters Evil.

That said, yeah- Script-Kiddies trying to whip something up that never happened anyway.

>Is an Anonymous.
>Didn't even hear about this until seeing this thread a few minutes ago.
>Blowing up vans for the lulz, according to Fox.
>Can be kept at bay with dogs, according to Fox.
>Has a Guy Fawkes Mask on my desk.

What? Like any of you know who I am beyond 'TheVillain'.

[Callie Del Noire]

I can relate to the Anon boys a lot more easily than I can the Minions of Blofeld..er.. Murdock.

[Rinzler]

On a side note, it seems both Alan Moore & David Lloyd are quietly happy that Vs Guy Fawkes mask has been taken up in such a rebellious fashion, though neither of them seem quite sure what Anonymous is all about (I heard somewhere that Alan Moore doesn't actually use the internetz): http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/08/04/v-for-vendetta-anonymous-david-lloyd/

BTW - V for Vendetta celebrates its 30th anniversary next year! Jeez, that make me feel old...

[TheGlyphstone]

Well, the Moore intervie quoted there is three years old, who knows what he thinks now.

though this bit made me lol:

In addition to spawning countless DIY art creations that are shared on forum sites such as 4Chan, Metafilter, Reddit and more, the V for Vendetta mask has also caught the attention of law enforcement officials such as the FBI.

Earlier this year, a 19-year-old girl, who once moderated an IRC chat room where people had discussed launching DDoS attacks against PayPal, was served a search warrant by the FBI early one morning in her parent's home. According to the girl, agents seized several electronic devices, including her computer and cellphone, but were also looking for a very specific item in an attempt to prove she was involved in criminal activity: a V for Vendetta mask. As she explained in an interview at Gawker:

    The agent in charge of my particular warrant actually asked me if I owned a Guy Fawkes mask. I told him no and then asked him if he was disappointed that he wouldn't have a picture of "a real live Anon's mask" to hang in his office. He actually said yes.

[Oniya]

I'd almost be tempted to order that FBI agent his very own.

[TheVillain]

I wouldn't be tempted, that implies I wouldn't do it in a heartbeat.

[Oniya]

I'd have to figure out how to make sure it arrived 'Anonymous'-ly.

;D