Anonymous: Not the lamb but the lion.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I know everyone has heard of anonymous and I'm very interested in their ideas.  Peaceful protest.  Spreading knowledge.  Fighting for our freedoms.  I definitely believe that we need to have a revolution.  Things are getting out of hand.  I was wondering what all of you think about all of this. 

[Callie Del Noire]

I know everyone has heard of anonymous and I'm very interested in their ideas.  Peaceful protest.  Spreading knowledge.  Fighting for our freedoms.  I definitely believe that we need to have a revolution.  Things are getting out of hand.  I was wondering what all of you think about all of this.

I agree with some of their outlooks .. but their methods do their cause more harm than good. What happens to the folks who are not involved but could be financially harmed by their actions?

Not many as yet, but they are escalating and sooner or later they could .. oh.. delete a listing of accounts that could hurt someone that doesn't deserve it.

That being said.. I salute their peaceful, if delightfully annoying, Scientology protests. :D

Keep those up guys. :D

[Brandon]

I like their ideals and there is no question that they have the power to do great good in the world but sometimes I do have an issue with the way they go about their business. Of course the "for the lulz" part always concerns me since its a principle thats hard to pin down (humor being subjective)

[Asuras]

The ideals of Anonymous are legitimate and respectable. I may not agree with all of them but they're legitimate and respectable.

But DDoS attacks (and other hackery) are criminal. Maybe not quite as criminal as burglary and arson but I can't understand how someone could defend these tactics. Even if the goals are legitimate.

[Brandon]

That is an intersting point. Such hacking attempts tend to get widely reported on which makes them effective for getting their point across. What legitimate means would be as or more effective for anonymous' beliefs?

[Oniya]

Anonymous sometimes manages to hit the 'right' target (Scientology!) and does a boat-load of good.
Anonymous sometimes manages to hit the 'wrong' target (some random person who looks like someone else in a heinous YouTube video) and does a boat-load of harm.

With great power comes great responsibility.

[Asuras]

That is an intersting point. Such hacking attempts tend to get widely reported on which makes them effective for getting their point across. What legitimate means would be as or more effective for anonymous' beliefs?

I don't know if any legitimate means would be more effective.

Hacking makes an impact, mainly because of the hugeness of it. A protest in lower Manhattan doesn't (see the Occupy Wall Street thread).

The main thing is this - hacking will destroy how it exists. Hacking exists because you can find ways to do it anonymously, perhaps in increasingly complicated ways. The more successful hacking is (and LulzSec was quite successful), the more people will follow.

One day, there will be the 9/11 of the internet in which somebody - probably not Anonymous - will steal a few billion dollars from a bank and maybe away with it because you can't reliably trace where things came from when some truly sophisticated hackers are in it. The basic protocols allow anonymity. Everybody with a bank account will demand the government to protect them, and the only way to do that is to make every transaction traceable. And that day will be the end of the internet as we know it. Anonymous.

[itsbeenfun2000]

I have no problem with their beliefs, everyone is allowed to have them. However, what right do they have saying their beliefs are better then others? Who gives them the authority to impose their will on others simply because they can? This makes them no better then the people or establishments that they attack.

[Jude]

Anonymous is a bunch of unaccountable children wrecking havoc on organized systems that they disagree with.  That is the extent of their "beliefs."  All of their actions are negative, but sometimes people feel they're justified since they often act against other entities that are also negative, but they're not heroes.  They don't have some high-minded moral code, and even if they did, it's not anywhere near the moral code that you believe in.  They're part of the "information wants to be free" crowd that is completely divorced from reality and rooted wholly in the internet mentality of anonymity excusing personal atrocity.

[Missy]

I don't know as much about them as some folk might, but I think in the end they will likely become an example, not unlike the Masons, of how secret societies are ultimately destructive to the cause of liberty.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that we will see things go a bit beyond what they've done as others use their ID as a way to deflect suspicion. And be honest about it, they are too unstructured to be a cohesive group. Any group of black hat hackers could go 'woot we're Anon.. fear us' as a way to do something without fear.

[Roxy Rocket]

(removed for now)

[Beguile's Mistress]

Their beliefs and their ideals are admirable but any person or group who decides to go after others because the way the do business had better be as pure as the driven snow with their behavior.

Hypocrites live in glass houses and need to beware of the stones they throw being tossed back in their direction.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think it's kind of funny that they are very selective in how things are perceived in their outlook. I mean.. Julian Assange has shown things other than outright honesty in his releases. He is completely unimpressed by the implications of his past actions, such as the release of names of sources and locations in the messages he released last year. Several times it's been asserted that he might be responsible for the deal of tribal leaders or such. He cared only for the perception of his reputation when it came out that he hadn't given the money he said to his source's defense fund.

They (Anonymous) jumped on his 'data must be free' outlook and took out their ire at any of the 'corporate overlords' who refused to support Wikileaks. At the same time that Assange was showing that he would go after those same banks and companies without consideration of the consequences of his actions.

I doubt that attacking BoA, Amazon and such did much to incite to back up Wikileaks and did more to isolate the site.

[Kaoru]

They are a much needed force in this world. I strongly believe that. There are things that make me uncomfortable about them, but that is part and parcel with what they represent, which I think is that information should be free. In every form. If there is a force or forces trying to suppress and control the web, of course there needs to be a force to balance it out. I only wish that they could find more effective and targeted ways of striking back. Just like it has been mentioned multiple times, many times there is collateral damage in their attacks. It is unfortunate, but until there is a more effective way of fighting, that is the way it is going to be.

If there exists oppression and regulation, there must also exist resistance. I believe that.

[Zakharra]

 Not all information should be free. There's many types that should be kept secret.  This issue cannot be all one way or another and Anon, I think will do more harm in the long run (especially to themselves), than good if they do not organize better.. That's not to say they couldn't do a lot of damage as an organized group either.

Just like it has been mentioned multiple times, many times there is collateral damage in their attacks. It is unfortunate, but until there is a more effective way of fighting, that is the way it is going to be.

'Sir. Civilians were killed  the attack, but we completely defeated the enemy.' 
'Good job. It's a shame civilians died, but wiping out the enemy is worth the collateral damage.'
'Yes sir.'


That line of yours I quoted is a dangerous line.  It skirts very very close to the philosophy of 'The ends justify the means'

[SentinelDreams]

It is good that "lulzsec" (a seemingly juvenile off-branch of Anonymous) have been contained. Anon still pays lip service to them but the "kids are back in the box". I wonder if it's because the media was turning against their exposure of innocents in a so-called "cause"?

The problem is that Anon is now a mish-mash of warring tribes. They expose law-enforcement officers, who do no set policy, and claim they do it because they do not like the law they are enforcing (immigration is a classic example)

The fact they expose the names of those only doing their job, let alone their partners and children, is a a direct result of the absorption of the "hoodie" element of juveniles. They are now down to news-releases (on twitter) thanks to law-enforcement tracking the kids. 

It's wiki leaks all over again. You get this data, well done, and you release it and governments cringe....but, guess what? Nothing changes. That's why young minds implode and in-fight. Those of us who know history know that the "government" always wins every battle, no matter who you oppose and bring down.

[Tsenta]

From what I've observed, many of the "Anonymous" attacks seem to be random or fit individual wants/needs more than the needs of many. Whether it be violence on the internet, or violence in real life. Violence is violence, among some of these Anon attacks people have been attacked.  Not in person perhaps but still attacked, whether it be this "vigilante" group taking someone's personal info and making it public for all to see. Or the same group crashing servers in protest to lawsuits. Still acts of violence, just because someone didn't get hurt physically doesn't mean the act is any less violent.

Now while I'm all for people having their rights, I'm also supportive of the idea of a government that can still keep control.  Take away the control and what do we get? Chaos. Just because rights are promised to us, it does NOT mean everyone should have them. The right to own weapons for example, not everyone should own a firearm. All I'm sayin'. :P

[Kaoru]

Nobody is dying here zakharra. A lost account is about the worst thing that can happen, and that can be rectified. A lost life can not be rectified.

While it is not right to have that collateral damage, it is relatively minor. Extremely minor when you compare it to the life lost in war. Im not saying they are perfect.... but god forbid net neutrality falls, I would take a bit of comfort if anon decides to fight back. We dont have somebody to represent us at all. The political system is broken, so politicians and the government which are supposed to represent us do not, and while I may not approve of all that they do, think of it this way: you live in a governmentless, leaderless country, and people kill each other, steal, etc... although a vigilante group may not be a good answer for keeping the peace and bringing accountability, it is better than nothing. Would you prefer to walk down the street fearing random thugs who have no accountability, or would you like the bit of security that a vigilante group may offer, even if they arent regulated and are a bit scary on their own?

The internet and freedom of information need a guardian. While a better guardian would indeed be better, there is no better guardian at the moment.

[Oniya]

Some information doesn't need to be free.  I know people who have restraining orders against violent exes.  They have taken great pains to make sure that their information is guarded.  If that information was made 'free' by someone - whether the intent was malicious or not - a life could very well be lost.

[Kaoru]

I dont want to offend, but I think that should be handled a different way. I dont want to go off topic either, and ill let you have the last word if you want, but that needs to be handled differently. Hiding your information because somebody has it out for you is not the way to go about it. It may unfortunately be simply the way it is today, but that is what the police are for. You shouldnt have to feel threatened. That is how the justice system and policing is supposed to be set up.

[Torch]

Some information doesn't need to be free.  I know people who have restraining orders against violent exes.  They have taken great pains to make sure that their information is guarded.  If that information was made 'free' by someone - whether the intent was malicious or not - a life could very well be lost.

Anonymous took it upon themselves to "out" the officer who was videotaped using pepper spray on OWS protesters, including publishing names, phone numbers and addresses of his family members and listing where his children attend school.

This is not what I would call "minor collateral damage", especially if the privacy of a child of mine was so egregiously violated.

[Kaoru]

My last post is still valid. In this situation, our opinions are based on different premises, and can no longer be resolved.

[Kaoru]

Not to say I am right or wrong, or you are right or wrong. Its just a very basic difference of thought.

[Oniya]

I dont want to offend, but I think that should be handled a different way. I dont want to go off topic either, and ill let you have the last word if you want, but that needs to be handled differently. Hiding your information because somebody has it out for you is not the way to go about it. It may unfortunately be simply the way it is today, but that is what the police are for. You shouldnt have to feel threatened. That is how the justice system and policing is supposed to be set up.

Just to be clear, I'm not offended, and it would be nice if things were set up the way they are 'supposed to be'.  When I say that these people have taken these actions, I am taking into account their use of police and the justice system.  The justice system is limited in many ways - sentencing guidelines are one of them.  The sentence for assault - even attempted homicide - is not going to be life without parole.  You get that kind of sentence when you succeed.  The victim has to consider their safety after the assailant has served their sentence.  Some people do that by changing their names, or otherwise concealing who they are and where they are.

There are, unfortunately, people out there who have an obsessive nature.  It would be nice if we could believe that handing someone a restraining order would be the end of it, have a nice life, but it's actually often a trigger for escalation.