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.

[Callie Del Noire]

True.. but unfortunately they aren't going away.

I wish that someone less radical would step forward to speak about these issues. Prosecutors do have too much power. They are hammering folks with MASSIVE sentences and dring folks like Swartz to suicide because it lets them to move forward politically.

My brother met Mike Nifong after the Duke Lacrosse team scandal started. He came home and told my mom that he thought the guy was pushing things to make points in the area politically. Later he was there when the Bar association yanked his law license and he said that as a former Assistant DA he hoped it sent a message to others.

I hope in the end the Prosecutor that hounded Swartz gets his/her license pulled as well. It is unbelievable that he was threatened with DECADES for was a fraud count rather than a massive criminal offense.

[Kythia]

I'm not from the US, so I might be wrong here.  But is it not judges who decide sentences not prosecutors?  What I mean is that surely Bob the Prosecutor can threaten anything he likes, he still has to prove it before a judge and jury and then the actual punishment isn't up to him anyway.  Basically, aren't prosecutor threats kinda empty posturing?

Not to say they can't be intimidating, sure, particularly perhaps to someone with issues with depression.  But, ultimately, aren't they just blowing hot air?

As I say, not from the US so may have misunderstood the situation there.  It was a real quesiton not, I promise, any attempt to make an argument either way on the topic.

[Oniya]

By choosing what charges to prosecute, a prosecutor can have some influence over what sentences are on the table.  Assault carries one range of sentences, but attempted homicide carries another.  Manslaughter has a lower range than first degree murder.  Another technique is to 'over charge', also known as 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks', where the prosecutor comes up with every conceivable worst-case charge and argues it, sometimes even insinuating that the charges might be served consecutively.  (For example, the prosecutor might say 'We have you on Charge A, which is 5 years, and with this, we have you on Charge B, which is 3 years.  That's 8 years you're looking at, buddy!')

In the end, however, the jury decides what charges were proven, the judge bases the sentence on that, and charges are frequently served concurrently (i.e., with a 5 year sentence for Charge A and a 3 year sentence for Charge B, the convicted serves out the 3 years of B, and then has only 2 years left to serve for the remainder of A, instead of 5+3=8 years if they were consecutive.)

[Callie Del Noire]

Not to mention they can play fast and loose with a LOT of things they disclose. Got a witness whose statements don't match your theory of the crime? Don't disclose her. Don't have a match for the DNA found at the scene. Simply leave it out of what you're bringing to the table (That was one of the things Nifong did to the Lacross team players.. and is part of what got him disbarred)

[Oniya]

I was trying to stick to the things that weren't ethics violations.  ;)

[Callie Del Noire]

I was trying to stick to the things that weren't ethics violations.  ;)

I would say that these were procedural points, except for specifically Nifong's lying about discussing the evidence. Once he committed perjury, that became a whole different bag of (ethical) worms. He hadn't done anything ethically wrong up to the point about the DNA evidence till he lied under oath to the Judge about it.

Now his statements to the public via various media outlets were ethically iffy at best from day one.

The problem is.. a LOT of evidence that the prosecution has.. doesn't get shown unless the prosecutor plays fair or is compelled by the defense to do so.

[Oniya]

Withholding evidence that points to the innocence of the defendant is - I want to say it's a 'Brady violation'?  Something like that.  I know that my favorite legal sources were all over Nifong for withholding.

Edit:  Score a point for the StoreHouse!  It comes from the Supreme Court case Brady v. MD

[Callie Del Noire]

Withholding evidence that points to the innocence of the defendant is - I want to say it's a 'Brady violation'?  Something like that.  I know that my favorite legal sources were all over Nifong for withholding.

Edit:  Score a point for the StoreHouse!  It comes from the Supreme Court case Brady v. MD

My brother said something like it was 'iffy' on procedural grounds..and he was 'toast' in ethical waters right off the bat.

[Trieste]

The thing is that ethics is huge in the justice system right now. I feel it most keenly because of things like the Massachusetts chemist who did stupid stuff at her lab, but I know that ethics violations have been on peoples' minds lately in other parts of the area. It means that people are more likely to take a look at that.

For instance, right now many lab personnel are also bonded officers of the court at my state department of forensic sciences, in part because it's a pay bump. There is a push - from the inside, not from some dolt making videos and rattling sabers - to separate law enforcement labs from the police force because there have been several ethics violations that stemmed from the lab personnel feeling like they were 'part of the law enforcement team' and that they needed to get the 'right' answers for law enforcement. Forensic labs shouldn't be buddy-buddy with pretty much anyone else in the justice system because we're supposed to be impartial. They train us to be essentially an extension of the evidence. We're not character witnesses or anything of the sort - we're supposed to give numbers and observations, and let the lawyers argue about what those things might mean in the context of the case.

Currently many forensics labs receive things like details of the case and other information that is more than just the context of where the evidence being submitted was found. There is also a giant push for that to stop - and the push is, once again, internal rather than things like this video.

In essence, yeah, some of us still believe very strongly in the values that are supposed to be espoused by the justice system, but it's not like we sit back and let people trample over them. I'm not going to just sit by at my lab bench if I notice someone next to me compromising chain of custody, or taking off their own shoe and swabbing it, then adding that to evidence. (Or something, that's mainly a goofy example off the top of my head.) I'm going to go to my super and let them know - and if that evidence goes to trial, you bet your ass that I - or any other responsible lab worker - am going to be contacting counsel for the defense. To some people, that is seen as crossing the thin blue line. But as far as responsible individuals are concerned, it's as much a part of our job as testifying for the prosecution.

The forensics community is very sensitive about ethics violations, and I think it wouldn't be a terrible thing if other aspects of the justice system picked up that attitude, because one of the best ways to change peoples' behavior is to make them ashamed of it in front of their colleagues and peers.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Reform almost always comes from within - from the blood, sweat, and tears of people who are working inside the system every day.

This is naive, I think. Apartheid would still be intact if the ANC and umKhonto we Sizwe had placidly waited for the Boers to "reform from within." Likewise the British Raj in India if Gandhi had followed that tack, or segregation in the States if America's civil rights movement had waited around for the KKK to "reform itself from within."

Systems are designed to co-opt people to their way of thinking, and are very efficient at it. "Reform from within" very rarely works on its own, just like "self-policing" by any system very rarely works, for this reason; real reform usually comes from direct action by outside forces that cannot be ignored or avoided. Once you're embedded in a system, the interests of its higher-ups become your interests unless you'd like to become disembedded again right quick. Reform-minded people can persist within the cracks of a system, and can aid reform or gentle that system's worst tendencies in quietist ways, but outside forces are usually needed to call attention to its excesses and to confront it, and it's from that that real impetus for reform comes.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I wish that someone less radical would step forward to speak about these issues. Prosecutors do have too much power. They are hammering folks with MASSIVE sentences and dring folks like Swartz to suicide because it lets them to move forward politically.

Less radical people speak about them all the time. Trouble is, less radical people are easy to ignore, as they rarely go beyond speaking.

[Trieste]

This is naive, I think. Apartheid would still be intact if the ANC and umKhonto we Sizwe had placidly waited for the Boers to "reform from within." Likewise the British Raj in India if Gandhi had followed that tack, or segregation in the States if America's civil rights movement had waited around for the KKK to "reform itself from within."

Systems are designed to co-opt people to their way of thinking, and are very efficient at it. "Reform from within" very rarely works on its own, just like "self-policing" by any system very rarely works, for this reason; real reform usually comes from direct action by outside forces that cannot be ignored or avoided. Once you're embedded in a system, the interests of its higher-ups become your interests unless you'd like to become disembedded again right quick. Reform-minded people can persist within the cracks of a system, and can aid reform or gentle that system's worst tendencies in quietist ways, but outside forces are usually needed to call attention to its excesses and to confront it, and it's from that that real impetus for reform comes.

I think you're confusing 'reform' with 'revolution' here. They are two very different things, and revolution was not what I was talking about. :)

[Kythia]

This is naive, I think. Apartheid would still be intact if the ANC and umKhonto we Sizwe had placidly waited for the Boers to "reform from within." Likewise the British Raj in India if Gandhi had followed that tack, or segregation in the States if America's civil rights movement had waited around for the KKK to "reform itself from within."

Gandhi was a leader in the Indian Congress, Civil Rights were passed by the US congress/government.  Don't know much about the ANC, so skipping that bit.  I'd argue that all of these were very very much within.  It's not like any external power stepped in - France (to pick a country at random) didn't force us to Quit India, Paraguay (ditto) didn't end segregation.  I think you're drawing your boundaries of within and without far too narrowly there, to be honest.

What Trieste is saying (I think - apologies if I've misread you Trieste) is that there are factions within the broader law enforcement community looking for reform just as there were factions within British India looking for reform and factions within the US looking for reform.  You seem to be focusing purely on the "wrong doing" group and ignoring the context in which they sit.  Anonymous, and others like them, are the equivalent of France and Paraguay in my examples - outside of the context.  Not the equivalent of the British Empire or the KKK - part of the system to be reformed.

[Trieste]

What Trieste is saying (I think - apologies if I've misread you Trieste) is that there are factions within the broader law enforcement community looking for reform [...]

Pretty much. *nods* Thank you.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I think you're confusing 'reform' with 'revolution' here. They are two very different things, and revolution was not what I was talking about. :)

Actually, they're not, really. Revolution is just what happens when reform by all other means is blocked. None of the examples I've cited were "revolutions" strictly speaking; they're just all examples of reform that was prompted by direct confrontation of an establishment by the people outside it.

I'd argue that all of these were very very much within.

Well, they weren't, though. The Indian National Congress wasn't "within" the establishment of the British Raj; it was very much outside it, a purely theoretical government-in-exile until it beat the British Raj and forced it to go away. The ANC wasn't in any sense "within" the apartheid establishment; it demanded that establishment's dismantlement, and eventually succeeded. The civil rights movement for the most wasn't "within" the American political establishment of its day, with the exception of Thurgood Marshall*; it was very much outside of it and hated by it, or at the very least regarded as an annoyance. Nobody in Washington wanted to deal with the problems it was tackling until the movement itself successfully forced them to the front of the public agenda... all while being attacked as "radicals" and "revolutionaries" for doing so, incidentally, in terms very familiar to the epithets Anonymous attracts.

* Thurgood Marshall is a fair example of reform from within, and of the importance of the Supreme Court. He's also an example of its limitations; the entire reason he's more than a footnote in history is that there was a broad-based civil rights movement to push the agenda and lend weight to his arguments and work on the bench. Like I said, there can very well be well-intentioned persons or factions in an establishment. That simply does not mean that everybody else ought to be sitting back and waiting for "reform from within" to work. Societies and political (or judicial) establishments do not work that way.

[Trieste]

Actually, they're not, really. Revolution is just what happens when reform by all other means is blocked. None of the examples I've cited were "revolutions" strictly speaking; they're just all examples of reform that was prompted by direct confrontation of an establishment by the people outside it.

Um, sure, we can agree to disagree on that.

[Kythia]

I think calling the INC a "purely theoretical government" is an unsustainable stretch.  Even before the '35 Government of India act they were a potent political force.  After that they were the major local political force, equal to the Princes.  A "purely theoretical government" to me sounds like the TIbetan Government-in-exile - one with no say over its country.  Apologies if thats not the intent you meant to give those words, thats how I read them though.

And that's emphatically not the case for the INC.  They had power since '38 (IIRC) and Gandhi was a kingmaker there, to a great extent.  Bose wouldn't have got his first term without Gandhi's support.  He was part of the political establishment.  And the political establishment - even post the passing of the '35 act - was inextricably tied to Britain.  Britain retained primacy.  He was part of the British Raj as a major political figure who lived in British India.

Ditto - although as I say I know less about them - for the ANC.  I can't understand how you can claim that they weren't in the apartheid system.  They were almost entirely created by the apartheid system.  Being opposed to a system doesn't make you not part of it.  It's like, errrrr, it's like claiming that a political activist for Romney isn't part of the US political system just because the people he wants in power aren't and are doing things he dislikes.

EDIT:  Better yet - just noticed your location - its like claiming Quebecois seperatists aren't part of Canada's political landscape because they don't want to be part of it.

EDIT AGAIN:  But meh.  I seem to have somehow become involved in an argument I don't massively care about.  And that's forced me to neglect to say that I do admire your passion and willingness to talk through these issues, which is rude on my part and I apologise.  Not everyone takes an interest or stand in politics - I'm as guilty of it as anyone - and a side issue to the main topic is poor repayment for that.  I've said pretyt much everything I have to say and if I haven't convinced you then I doubt I'm capable of doing so.  I kinda suspect you're in roughly the same position?  If not then hit me with your best shot (fire away) and I'll certainly read it and let you know if you do convince me, but likely won't reply as I'd just be rephrasing stuff I've already said which has already not worked once.  Definition of madness and so on.

I think this is the first time we've talked?  If so, Hi - I'm Kythia.  Always nice to meet someone new (to me) on E.  If not I apologise for not remembering the last time.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Kythia, I feel like you're playing at semantics a bit:

I think calling the INC a "purely theoretical government" is an unsustainable stretch.  Even before the '35 Government of India act they were a potent political force.  After that they were the major local political force, equal to the Princes.  A "purely theoretical government" to me sounds like the TIbetan Government-in-exile - one with no say over its country. 

Being a "potent political force" is not the same thing as being a government. Being a government means you have the power, by enforceable law, to govern things. The INC as a party did not have this in India until it defeated the British Raj to obtain independence and the power to govern as a part of independence, largely the achievement of Gandhi and Satyagraha. To say it was "part of the establishment" of the British Raj is basically just empty semantics. It held no meaningful power or leverage within the halls of the British Raj; its power derived from its appeal to the Indian masses who lived outside (but still subject to) that establishment.  (To say it became the establishment as the British Raj was leaving is correct but also looks suspiciously like an attempt to change the subject from what I was obviously talking about. It's just false to claim they got the Raj to the point of yielding to independence from "within the establishment.")

Ditto - although as I say I know less about them - for the ANC.  I can't understand how you can claim that they weren't in the apartheid system. 

Very easily: they literally weren't. The apartheid system hated and feared them, reviled them as Communists and "terrorists", imprisoned their leaders (a major part of the ANC leadership forged their ties and strategies as cellmates at Robben Island). The ANC for its part boycotted the neutered "reforms" attempted by the apartheid system vis. South African Parliament, and it never sat in Parliament while apartheid was in force. Mandela began negotiating for the transition from a cell. (This is "fighting from within" in the sense that yes, he was fighting from prison; but again, that's just meaningless, evasive semantics, just like the claim that the apartheid system "created" them. The apartheid system necessitated opposition, but that has nothing to do with that opposition being "within." Mandela and his confederates were not an accredited part of the Afrikaner political establishment ruling the country, which is what "within" would mean as Trieste is using it.)

You know who was meant to "reform apartheid from within," by the way? That was Mangosuthu Buthelezi, leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, who started out his career as an ally of the ANC. He became a chief in the apartheid Bantustan system, and in the end it didn't work: Buthelezi eventually became such a creature of apartheid, so dependent on his chiefly benefits as conferred by it as the leader of a "Bantustan," that as apartheid began to collapse he was willing to connive at mass murder to forestall the inevitable. Inkatha Freedom Party assets were frequently seen being transported by police buses -- the activities of the so-called "Third Force" of dead-ender police and intelligence agency interests -- to attack ANC rallies in violence that wound up killing some forty thousand people before apartheid was finally defeated.

Something to think about when you hear the words "reform from within."

[Cyrano Johnson]

EDIT:  Better yet - just noticed your location - its like claiming Quebecois seperatists aren't part of Canada's political landscape because they don't want to be part of it.

More semantics. Separatists can be "part of the political landscape" without being part of the establishment. Those are different things.

(In point of fact, though, the PQ has effectively played out as a separatist movement, and its demise as such probably can be traced to its decision to participate in and thus legitimate federal politics.)

[Kythia]

Rats.  I was just editing my post as you wrote that and it didn't come up with a new post warning thingie.  I'm just posting this to point out my second edit on the above in case you didn't notice it - it not being there when you read it and all.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Heh. It's nice meeting you, too! Thanks for the discussion. Even in disagreement, it's always a good thing to be forced to revisit the reasons for one's beliefs and see if they still hold up.

[Trieste]

More semantics. Separatists can be "part of the political landscape" without being part of the establishment. Those are different things.

... how is it that you can split that particular hair, but everyone else is playing semantics? There is a point at which dismissing something as 'semantics' because you're using a word interchangeably with another word which has a different definition becomes disingenuous. There is a point at which it stops being semantics and starts being, you know, vocabulary. I feel like you're accusing others of doing something while you're doing the same thing.

[Cyrano Johnson]

... how is it that you can split that particular hair, but everyone else is playing semantics?

On account of if those separatists actually aren't part of the establishment, it is hardly "splitting a hair." I think the rest of that comment, and my comments on the ANC and INC examples Kythia brought up, should make that pretty clear.

EDIT: Put it another way. If someone came up to you and told you that the Crips and Bloods are "part of America's judiciary," and you told them this was factually untrue, and they said, "well, they're part of the 'judicial landscape' and that's the same thing, how come you're 'splitting hairs'?" -- what would you tell that person?

[Trieste]

Okay, so going back to what I was saying, you're essentially making these comparisons in support of the video in the original post? I'm trying to see the connection, here.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I'm trying to see the connection, here.

The connection is that regardless of one's opinion of Anonymous in particular, your contention that "reform almost always happens from within" is just false.

[Trieste]

The connection is that regardless of one's opinion of Anonymous in particular, your contention that "reform almost always happens from within" is just false.

And then you were disagreed with - and then your examples were refuted - but you're sort of handwaving those away with "oh, semantics".

So separatists work within the political structure but are not part of the establishment - not semantics.

Revolution is not equal to reform - semantics.

Please elaborate.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Trieste, I'll be honest: if citing actual facts somehow counts for you as "handwaving" and mere disagreement counts for you as "refutation," I just don't think you're engaging the conversation in good faith.

So separatists work within the political structure but are not part of the establishment - not semantics.

It would also be nice if you'd take the trouble not to misquote and distort what I've said.

[Callie Del Noire]

Almost all separatist movements have segments that work within the system. The degree of success and integration are differing.  Basque groups on both sides of the French/Spanish border have folks within the system trying to get a Basque homeland though most of the actions/activity are by outside groups. No group, how 'outside' the establishment truly exists outside it. There is some level of interaction. It's not always diplomatic or a set order of detente but it exists.

I hate to say it but no group exists outside the system totally. Even if they are simply assaulting it without any discourse at all, they are interacting with it.

[Cyrano Johnson]

There is some level of interaction. It's not always diplomatic or a set order of detente but it exists.

Of course there is "some level of interaction." This just doesn't make every variant of reform an example of "reform from within."

[Chris Brady]

More semantics. Separatists can be "part of the political landscape" without being part of the establishment. Those are different things.

(In point of fact, though, the PQ has effectively played out as a separatist movement, and its demise as such probably can be traced to its decision to participate in and thus legitimate federal politics.)

Actually, no.  It's played out because most of the old PQ guard are outnumbered by the immigrants, and will continue to be, as long as Canada doesn't turn into Switzerland (or at least I think it's Switzerland, where the only 'citizens' are those born in the country, and they're the only ones who can vote.  IF I'm remembering correctly, which I may not.)  In other words, they're played out because no one wants to leave Canada.  Hell, even they don't, when they sit down and try to figure out what they'd need to do.

(A couple of instances come to mind.  Like wanting to keep 'their' Canadian Military gear should they separate.  And keeping the Canadian Dollar as their 'national' currency after they leave.  Among others, more laughable notions.)

What it comes down to it is that no good change happens because of fear tactics.  And what this group of hackers claiming to be Anonymous is doing is fear tactics.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Chris, you're right that I'm oversimplifying somewhat in re: the PQ. Insiderness and outsiderness are of course not sole determining factors, it also helps if people actually want what your movement is selling. ("Sovereignty association" has always been a bit of a joke.)

I don't know that your conclusion follows, though. That's a separate question.

[Callie Del Noire]

Of course there is "some level of interaction." This just doesn't make every variant of reform an example of "reform from within."

True.. and even the issues that you brought up have some 'internal elements'. South Africa wasn't a complete divide, otherwise the reforms that occurred would have never happened and the change over from Apartheid to what they have today would have been done with bullets..not ballots.

It is, in my opinion and to me.. reflected in the changes I've seen in countries like Northern Ireland and South Africa and East Germany, infinitely better for some sort of political system reform than change at rifle point.

To proclaim that the system isn't fixable at all is to refute/refuse to consider options that could avoid loss of life.

Does the US Governent do things I disagree with. Of course. Do they do questionable acts overseas such as drone strikes.. yes. Could these actions be construed as terrorism.. possibly.

Consider this... would you trust many of the groups on most Western nations Terror lists..considering they typically suppress their own folks (I don't see the US running around shooting 16 year old girls in the head or lopping off the arms of minorities ), or engage in actions that are highly confrontational. I don't see the US, UK or anyone else promising dozens of virgins in the next life.. or forcing someone into a bomb vest.

I could tell stories of what people I met in the Gulf had done/seen/experienced or coworkers who had talked with family over there.

It would distract from this thread though. Simply put, it is better in effort, cost of lives and strain to work within the system than outside it.

No system is perfect, and a good system has a healthy critical-selfawareness of itself. We aren't as healthy as we should be.. but we aren't as bad as some. And internal reform has fixed systems a LOT worse than ours.

Malcolm X once gave a speech about the 'Ballot and the Bullet'. I read it, and just finished rereading it. It's long.. blunt and looking over the tide of the civil rights reforms he never got to see.. a bit weird. There is a chilling resonance in the things he rails against.  Social inequality.. politicians that represent small groups over their entire electorate, communities disenfranchised with little to no internal control things. It is chililng to see such things five decades later. Names and groups have changed.. but the issues haven't.

But he's right.. a Ballot is our bullet.. and when we use them together, even when we don't agree with each other totally.. it can do a lot of damage.

[Cyrano Johnson]

True.. and even the issues that you brought up have some 'internal elements'. South Africa wasn't a complete divide, otherwise the reforms that occurred would have never happened and the change over from Apartheid to what they have today would have been done with bullets..not ballots.

Well, like I said there can be people of goodwill -- or relative absence of ill-will -- within an establishment. (Even in the depths of apartheid, for example, the South African justice system, given the supremely Orwellian task of pretending apartheid was fair and fact-based, was not completely corrupt*. There were lies it would not buy and facts it would not or could not cover up.) The only really non-negotiable bone of contention in the South African case was apartheid; take it off the table and nobody really had any other problem with South Africa's system of government, which was an establishment to which the people otherwise wanted access.

Be that as it may, the apartheid establishment would never have reformed itself out of existence "from within." It killed and tortured tens of thousands of people trying to stay in power. It was external forces -- the ANC and other anti-apartheid groups first of all, and the economic realities of international pariah status which the ANC had worked to bring about second of all -- that forced it to the bargaining table. It's also correct that what kept it there, and kept full civil war from breaking out, was that the ANC's demands were actually reasonable, humane and required the establishment to reform itself, not to completely self-immolate; this was the important distinction between the ANC and "one settler, one bullet" Pan-Africanist Congress. As I said, 'internal' factors can play a part; that has nothing to do with whether all meaningful reform "happens from within." That external forces demand change does not mean they have to be demanding the destruction of every part of an establishment.

Relevant: note that Anonymous' acts -- assess their likely outcomes as you will -- are explicitly in the way of demanding reform and the return of the American justice system to its ideals, not the complete tearing-down of the American justice system.

(* edited. Thanks Oniya!)

[Oniya]

(Even in the depths of apartheid, for example, the South African justice system, given the supremely Orwellian task of pretending apartheid was fair and fact-based, was not completely venial. There were lies it would not buy and facts it would not or could not cover up.)

Wouldn't that be 'at least partially venial'?  It sounds as if there were some redeeming factors there.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Wouldn't that be 'at least partially venial'?  It sounds as if there were some redeeming factors there.

Whoops. "Venal," I meant, not venial. It was not entirely corrupt.

[Callie Del Noire]

Relevant: note that Anonymous' acts -- assess their likely outcomes as you will -- are explicitly in the way of demanding reform and the return of the American justice system to its ideals, not the complete tearing-down of the American justice system.

In this video. The problem with a group like Anon.. is there are many groups within the structure..and as time goes on.. you'll see the more radical come forward. A LOT of ill will was generated with the flurry of issues around Julian Assange. (Me, if I was the DoJ/DoS.. I'd declare him persona non grata and agree to not pursue extradition. Then watch his support wilt as he finds NEW reasons not to come out of that embassy)

Thing is.. even the cases you cite.. might have been spurred by external issues.. it was internal reform that fixed them. Ballots..not bullets.

I wish that we could get someone to step up and push the reform. I'm hoping folks will continue to pay attention to the issues that drove Aaron Swartz to suicide, but I fear that it won't. It would have been better, for him AND the reform movement, had he lived. With the release of the documents he was charged with 'stealing' to the public domain would have undercut the case and I figure that a certain prosecutor would be regretting life soon enough.

[Trieste]

Trieste, I'll be honest: if citing actual facts somehow counts for you as "handwaving" and mere disagreement counts for you as "refutation," I just don't think you're engaging the conversation in good faith.

It would also be nice if you'd take the trouble not to misquote and distort what I've said.

I was summarizing my understanding of what you have been arguing. You are free to correct me, of course.

And Kythia stated facts that ran counter to your stated conclusions, which is pretty much the definition of refuting said conclusion. Um. Further, this:

The connection is that regardless of one's opinion of Anonymous in particular, your contention that "reform almost always happens from within" is just false.

... is certainly stated as a fact, but it is an opinion. The support you have provided for that opinion was countered already, for example here:

Civil Rights were passed by the US congress/government.

... which you kind of ignored. I won't guess as to why.

Your disagreement about Gandhi proves that yes, there are other instances and other exceptions, but that would be why I specified "almost always comes from within".

I can't think of a rule that doesn't have exceptions, but those exceptions do not invalidate the rule, is what I'm saying here.

And - it also kind of supports the statement that reform =/= revolution, especially when you're talking about the refinement of a section of government without completely overthrowing it, rather than overthrowing an entire government (and probably keeping parts of the old apparatus in your new government anyway, but that's a debate for another thread).

As far as good faith goes, I'm affording good faith that your arguments have some sort of logical framework behind them and that you're not just arguing to argue, so that would be incorrect, also.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Ballots..not bullets.

If you mean nonviolent reform is preferable, I agree with you. But the difference between ballots and bullets is not that ballots are "internal" reform. If someone demands that, say, a city's police department reform its practices because it's acquired a reputation for abuse of authority and police brutality, and the department resists but is eventually compelled to act by public action campaigns, the arraignment of crooked officers, and by the voting-out of politicians who sheltered bad elements in law enforcement, that outcome doesn't mean that the department in question "reformed from within." It means it was forced, by means of the ballot and public pressure, to reform from without.

(There is something I can think of as at least close to really functional "reform from within," however, which is "whistle-blowing," often a powerful method of embarrassing and reforming institutions. A whistle-blower is by definition someone who has given up on "reforming from within," but is still an insider who can expose the relevant establishment's misdeeds to public scrutiny, leveraging external media, public opinion, and institutions in their favor. The RCMP in Canada is on the verge of imploding via multiple whistle-blowers. If there's a flaw in Anonymous' gambit here, it's that most "whistle-blowers" gain credibility, and sympathy, by their intimate knowledge of the subject matter and the enormity of what they're sacrificing to oppose activities they disagree with. Anonymous is effectively threatening to "blow the whistle" from outside, which I'm not nearly as sure can be effective. But I might be wrong about that.)

[Cyrano Johnson]

I was summarizing my understanding of what you have been arguing. You are free to correct me, of course.

And you are free to actually read my posts and object specifically to something you disagree with. The exchange with Kythia contained a fairly detailed discussion of facts and context, enough for you to engage constructively with. You can still go back and do so at any time, and I will respond. What you can't do is impress me with continued avoidance of specifics, distortions of out-of-context points, and attempts to "summarize" my position as handwaving.

(EDIT: So, just for example: don't keep trying to tell me I somehow "ignored" the point about the US government passing civil rights legislation when that's something I explicitly addressed in a subsequent post and said they addressed it because the civil rights movement put it on the public agenda, not because they wanted to. It's a better use of both our time if you respond to what I've actually said.)

(FURTHER EDIT:

Your disagreement about Gandhi proves that yes, there are other instances and other exceptions, but that would be why I specified "almost always comes from within".

The bigger picture beyond three examples is worth talking about, but I'm afraid the burden of proof for "almost always" is rather on you.

I'll grant you that history does afford some spectacular examples of "reform from within": when confronted by a competing system that is better at accumulating money, power or prestige, human institutions do occasionally manage to drive successfully for internal reform, since more money, power or prestige is generally something the whole hierarchy wants. Hence the Meiji Restoration in Japan, the Counter-Reformation in the Catholic Church, the transformation of Communist-ruled China into something decidedly un-Communist.

But I can't multiply those example indefinitely. I can do so, or come close to doing so, with example of failed attempts to reform-from-within (ranging from pre-revolutionary France to the Tsarist Russia -- and then the Soviet Union -- to Qing Dynasty China to virtually all attempts in American history to have the corporation "police itself," and beyond). So, is that just a function of most of anything sucking, including internal reform attempts?

(FINAL EDIT: I was going to let this particular example in the above pass, but since Trieste has since seen fit to PM me about how all they've been seeking is clarification, I'll discuss it here:

And Kythia stated facts that ran counter to your stated conclusions, which is pretty much the definition of refuting said conclusion.

Actually that's not what "refuting" means. "Refuting" means that one person proves another person wrong by providing a better interpretation of the facts. It doesn't mean just disagreeing with them. That you actually don't know this creates problems for your attempts to talk about who has "refuted" whom.

I would be doing this part by PM, Trieste, but of course after PM-ing me with a nasty tirade about how I supposedly "hold discussion in contempt," you blocked any reply. Which, protip, is the sort of behaviour that actually sort of undermines an attempt to sound off on who "holds discussion in contempt." Whether you accept it or not, I did attempt to have an actual conversation with you. Too bad.

[Callie Del Noire]

If you mean nonviolent reform is preferable, I agree with you. But the difference between ballots and bullets is not that ballots are "internal" reform. If someone demands that, say, a city's police department reform its practices because it's acquired a reputation for abuse of authority and police brutality, and the department resists but is eventually compelled to act by public action campaigns, the arraignment of crooked officers, and by the voting-out of politicians who sheltered bad elements in law enforcement, that outcome doesn't mean that the department in question "reformed from within." It means it was forced, by means of the ballot and public pressure, to reform from without.

(There is something I can think of as at least close to really functional "reform from within," however, which is "whistle-blowing," often a powerful method of embarrassing and reforming institutions. A whistle-blower is by definition someone who has given up on "reforming from within," but is still an insider who can expose the relevant establishment's misdeeds to public scrutiny, leveraging external media, public opinion, and institutions in their favor. The RCMP in Canada is on the verge of imploding via multiple whistle-blowers. If there's a flaw in Anonymous' gambit here, it's that most "whistle-blowers" gain credibility, and sympathy, by their intimate knowledge of the subject matter and the enormity of what they're sacrificing to oppose activities they disagree with. Anonymous is effectively threatening to "blow the whistle" from outside, which I'm not nearly as sure can be effective. But I might be wrong about that.)

The problem is down here.. in the US.. 'Whistle Blower' protections took a LOT of hits in the Bush II years. We had a lot of them rolled back and undone. The Tea Party continues to push for 'less regulation' and part of the ones that take the hits are the whistle blower protections. We've lost quite a bit in the last 12 years and look to lose more.

The first thing, in my opinion, is to have the public stop being ruled by fear. 9/11 was a MASSIVE shock to the system. Terrorism in the US is a rare thing. You can name the number of incidents on a hand or maybe two.. whereas when I lived in Ireland.. we heard/saw/got missed by some often.

I don't respect some of the things the UK does in the pursuit of justice, but I do respect that they aren't ruled by fear like we've been.  We've lost a LOT of freedoms in the last 12 years thanks to 'homeland protection' and 'justified sacrifice'.

It's crap. I said it when atrocities like the Patriot Act were passed, I said it when they were renewed and I will continue to say it till they are rolled back and our civil liberties are restored.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I can only agree with that, Callie.

[Shjade]

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.

...what? I'm in my 20's and I liked Wargames. I thought they put too much of the movie in there because the reference was immediately obvious; it just made their clip unnecessarily lengthy having that whole finale with the computer in there.

But that's Anonymous: they do love their verbose drama.

The points raised are valid. I don't expect this to accomplish anything related to them.

[Zeitgeist]

...what? I'm in my 20's and I liked Wargames. I thought they put too much of the movie in there because the reference was immediately obvious; it just made their clip unnecessarily lengthy having that whole finale with the computer in there.

But that's Anonymous: they do love their verbose drama.

The points raised are valid. I don't expect this to accomplish anything related to them.

Granted. It's just one small piece of the pie that with other clues and references a profile could be assembled. I concede younger generations could certainly be aware of and like 'War Games'. Just saying.

Like the Una bomber released his manifesto which led not long thereafter his capture, the more information so-called Anonymous releases like this the more likely they are to be pegged.

As to the validity of their points and cause, I'm not especially curious enough to ponder. At first blush it all smells like Grandma's basement-Linux kernel-Conspiracy mumbo jumbo to me.

[Chris Brady]

It's been a few weeks...   Aaaaaaaaaaaand nothing.  No great movement, no reform, just everyone truckin' along like nothing happened.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Chris, were you expecting the government to suddenly topple or something? You do realize it takes more than a couple of weeks for things like this to play out?

Operation: Last Resort appears to be ongoing.

As to Anonymous and the various parties who choose to castigate what they're doing, the Oklahoma Daily is talking sense.

[Trieste]

It's been a few weeks...   Aaaaaaaaaaaand nothing.  No great movement, no reform, just everyone truckin' along like nothing happened.

An acquaintance who is more in touch with these things than I am has mentioned, when I brought it up with him, that there is no chatter from confirmed Anonymous sources about this, and that the video is more than likely a copycat.

I expect more truckin', personally.

[Monfang]

Getting back on subject.

Why doesn't Anonymous do something useful? Hacking Twitter accounts? Making threats against the Government that is trying to deal with a growing security problem with hostile nations launching cyber attacks to steal private property from not only US corporations but the US Government's military and economic secrets, basically putting our entire nation at risk on all fronts, and is looking for any solution that would stop it all together doesn't need a domestic threat that can be perceived as a terrorist threat that might make them pull the trigger on something bad. (Think SOPA was bad?)

Is there a problem with many of the laws written for an era past? Yes, aside from the Constitution, they need to be worked on. Does scaring people work? No, what does work (and we saw this with SOPA) is education. US Representatives and Senators were happy to put this in place to 'protect private citizens and corporations' which sounds like a great thing! But then the people and organizations they represent called them up and educated them on why this is bad and many of them changed their votes. Changing the opinions of those in power or just changing those in power is what drives the US Government.

The Founding Fathers built the government so that the People may put in people who will represent them and if they fail, the People can try to convince them to change or remove them from power. It was not built so a micro-minority faction of a subculture can dictate what they can or can't do at the end of a figurative gun.

Anonymous is usually called a 'hack'-tivist group. I heard them called a terrorist organization and maybe that's closer, but not a right fit ether as they haven't done the first part of the title: 'terror'. No one is honestly scared of these people. They might be worried about having their company secrets (like Coke's secret formula or the Wopper's secret sauce) leaked for their competitors to steal. But aside from that, they are more of a nusence like a bunch of neighborhood brats. And frankly, it is just going to take them egging the wrong person's house to get them in real trouble.

I really wish they did something useful. Hacking into real terrorist organizations and getting secrets for the US government. Breaking into China's internet wall and helping to connect their citizens to the outside world. Helping North Koreans get out of their country and into freedom. Or just protecting the US from cyber attacks that seek to hurt us and they would be hailed as heroes! Yet they make threats and protect criminals behind the shadows while accusing others of doing the same.

[Rhapsody]

I haven't followed a good deal of this thread, but I will say something about Anonymous. They are very hit or miss with me.

Something like the USDoJ, miss.

Something like WBC or the shitstorm in Steubenville, I have to give them kudos. Especially with the rape case, because when a whole town, including the local LEOs and judges and various sundry authority figures is involved with the cover-up, where can you turn?

[Monfang]

I haven't followed a good deal of this thread, but I will say something about Anonymous. They are very hit or miss with me.

Something like the USDoJ, miss.

Something like WBC or the shitstorm in Steubenville, I have to give them kudos. Especially with the rape case, because when a whole town, including the local LEOs and judges and various sundry authority figures is involved with the cover-up, where can you turn?

I am amazed. I had honestly thought they did nothing. Why can't they do this more often?

[Rhapsody]

I am amazed. I had honestly thought they did nothing. Why can't they do this more often?

Nobody wants to talk about Steubenville, because it's absolutely horrifying. People first off don't want to think that their daughters or sisters or nieces or wives can be dragged from party to party to be raped while they were out cold, and they don't want to think their sons and brothers and nephews are callous and sociopathic enough to do it. Then they don't want to think that they'd be involved in a blanket of silence around the whole affair, because good, decent people don't do that. So it's easier to just not talk about it, forget it happened, hope it goes away.

This is why we need groups like Anonymous. This might never have come to light if not for them. I'm not saying everything they do is beneficial, not by a long shot. But in a few particular instances, they're quite necessary.

[Monfang]

Nobody wants to talk about Steubenville, because it's absolutely horrifying. People first off don't want to think that their daughters or sisters or nieces or wives can be dragged from party to party to be raped while they were out cold, and they don't want to think their sons and brothers and nephews are callous and sociopathic enough to do it. Then they don't want to think that they'd be involved in a blanket of silence around the whole affair, because good, decent people don't do that. So it's easier to just not talk about it, forget it happened, hope it goes away.

This is why we need groups like Anonymous. This might never have come to light if not for them. I'm not saying everything they do is beneficial, not by a long shot. But in a few particular instances, they're quite necessary.

I might have heard of this some time ago. It was a girl who was drugged and carried around, right? People saying that she looked almost dead yet they did nothing.

If wouldn't be so bad if they did things like finding this out, as I said. But they go from superheroes to supervillians faster than most comic book heroes.

[Rhapsody]

I might have heard of this some time ago. It was a girl who was drugged and carried around, right? People saying that she looked almost dead yet they did nothing.

If wouldn't be so bad if they did things like finding this out, as I said. But they go from superheroes to supervillians faster than most comic book heroes.

Yes, it was.

I think their main problem is their anonymity. Without a central tenet to direct them, they pull as much stuff that gets them nothing but hate as they do stuff that people can get behind.

[Monfang]

Yes, it was.

I think their main problem is their anonymity. Without a central tenet to direct them, they pull as much stuff that gets them nothing but hate as they do stuff that people can get behind.

They have no one to hold them accountable, you mean! Same thing as most places online. No rules when it comes to ethics or such and people turn into such horrible things.

I should know, happened to me once or twice.

[Rhapsody]

They have no one to hold them accountable, you mean! Same thing as most places online. No rules when it comes to ethics or such and people turn into such horrible things.

I should know, happened to me once or twice.

No, what I meant was they have no guiding directive beyond: "whatever the fuck you like". If they said, "We're going to expose rape cover ups" or "we're going to combat hate speech like the WBC" and they were an actual organization with a chain of command (for lack of a better term) and used their anonymity to facilitate these goals, that would be one thing. But they're a disparate, disconnected, disjointed loosely-affiliated group with wildly varying goals and motives.

They have the potential to be an incredible beneficial force, but they're too disorganized to put it to good, steady, reliable use.

[Trieste]

Their lack of oversight and opinion of themselves as saviors is essentially the large part of my unhappiness with them.

[Chris Brady]

Their lack of oversight and opinion of themselves as saviors is essentially the large part of my unhappiness with them.

This.  And I have a sneaking suspicion that they aren't even a group of people, rather Anon is a banner taken up by anyone who thinks they're going to make a statement about...  Something.

[Monfang]

This.  And I have a sneaking suspicion that they aren't even a group of people, rather Anon is a banner taken up by anyone who thinks they're going to make a statement about...  Something.

So they are more of a brand than anything else? One that can be taken up by anyone so that they can associate themselves with them? That's worse than them actually planning as any nutcase with some knowledge of computers can do horrible things in their name.

[Trieste]

So they are more of a brand than anything else? One that can be taken up by anyone so that they can associate themselves with them? That's worse than them actually planning as any nutcase with some knowledge of computers can do horrible things in their name.

Are you ... asking, or stating an opinion? Both? Neither?

[Monfang]

Are you ... asking, or stating an opinion? Both? Neither?

Firs two were questions, last was an opinion if he first two were true.

[Oniya]

Well, the problem with saying you're 'Anonymous' is that there's no way for anyone (including the people that want to use Anonymous for good things) to prove otherwise without dropping the actual anonymity of Anonymous.  The do-gooders have no way to disassociate themselves from the script-kiddies and outright bullies who use their anonymity (small 'a') as a way to avoid acting responsibly.

[Monfang]

Well, the problem with saying you're 'Anonymous' is that there's no way for anyone (including the people that want to use Anonymous for good things) to prove otherwise without dropping the actual anonymity of Anonymous.  The do-gooders have no way to disassociate themselves from the script-kiddies and outright bullies who use their anonymity (small 'a') as a way to avoid acting responsibly.

IT sounds like a self-destructive system.

[Oniya]

Not entirely off-topic, but does anyone here remember the movie 'Sneakers'?  The team there vaguely reminds me of what Anonymous would like to be.  The difference being that the team there wasn't out for self-aggrandizement, just getting the right thing done.  If, instead of making ominous proclamations, the do-gooders were simply dropping the information that they claim they have in the laps of the people who couldn't ignore it (after going through 7 proxies, of course ;D), they'd probably get a bit more respect, and more actual stuff done.

[Ephiral]

For the record: I've followed Anonymous fairly closely, out of a kind of morbid fascination. I've got massive issues with vigilanteism, which is what it is at the core, but I find seeing how it actually works in the modern age interesting. That said, it appears to me that there is an informal core network of members, who may come and go depending on interest in an individual op. Outside of that, there appear to be minor associates and hangers-on, and complete outsiders who just want to use the name. (This is not a statement of definitive fact, just my analysis based on what I've seen them produce and do.)

Last Resort looks like the last category. There were no announcements at all via the usual newsfeeds/sites (usually they're timed more or less simultaneously with the video and Twitter debuts), and frankly, the video looks only superficially and sounds nothing at all like previous Anon media. I'm calling this a definite fake.

As for their own views of themselves... I think Oniya has hit the nail on the head, really. Personally, I'd have way less issue with them if they stopped treating police like the plague.