3 ms·

Anon isn't doing anything to hurt the people who work for those companies. Those people are paid to handle exactly these kinds of attacks, so if anything Anon

by Qz 16y ago

Anon isn't doing anything to hurt the people who work for those companies. Those people are paid to handle exactly these kinds of attacks, so if anything Anon is just making sure they're actually earning their paycheck. The fact that there are only two choices and both are shitty is just a symptom of the fact that we are at a transition point in the relationship between government/business/everyone else.

stcredzero 16y ago
...we are at a transition point in the relationship between government/business/everyone else. This transition point is called "history." Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
- Qz 16y ago
  Of course it's just history, but you can't deny that there are points of inflection with regards to certain aspects, rather than interminable gradual change.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Yes, but inflection points like the one we're witnessing now are sprinkled all through the past.
    - Qz 16y ago
      Then I think we're in agreement -- I wasn't trying to say that there was anything particularly special about this one, just that we're in one.
Aaronontheweb 16y ago
This is wishful thinking at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst - you're thinking of just the IT people; what about the vendors who depend on MasterCard and can't process payments that they need in order to make payroll? Should we just shrug and say "oh well - at least we're getting internet justice?"
- Qz 16y ago
  It's Visa and Mastercard's responsibility to make sure their system is secure, that's what vendors pay them for.
  - Aaronontheweb 16y ago
    You're being intellectually dishonest, and you're not fooling anyone. This doesn't absolve Anonymous of any responsibility for that they're doing.
    - Qz 16y ago
      What they're doing is both simultaneously petty and upstanding. The idea that they shouldn't do it because a vendor might not make payroll, because a sysadmin can't handle a DDoS attack on a major credit card system is absurd. Armored cars are armored for a reason. Major money networks should be armored as well, and if they're not, its the money networks responsibility if it happens, same as its the armored car companies responsibility if the car gets robbed. Also, don't confuse fault with responsibility -- they are not the same thing. edit: typo

by Qz 16y ago

stcredzero 16y ago

...we are at a transition point in the relationship between government/business/everyone else. This transition point is called "history." Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Qz 16y ago
Of course it's just history, but you can't deny that there are points of inflection with regards to certain aspects, rather than interminable gradual change.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Yes, but inflection points like the one we're witnessing now are sprinkled all through the past.
  - Qz 16y ago
    Then I think we're in agreement -- I wasn't trying to say that there was anything particularly special about this one, just that we're in one.

Aaronontheweb 16y ago

This is wishful thinking at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst - you're thinking of just the IT people; what about the vendors who depend on MasterCard and can't process payments that they need in order to make payroll? Should we just shrug and say "oh well - at least we're getting internet justice?"

Qz 16y ago
It's Visa and Mastercard's responsibility to make sure their system is secure, that's what vendors pay them for.
- Aaronontheweb 16y ago
  You're being intellectually dishonest, and you're not fooling anyone. This doesn't absolve Anonymous of any responsibility for that they're doing.
  - Qz 16y ago
    What they're doing is both simultaneously petty and upstanding. The idea that they shouldn't do it because a vendor might not make payroll, because a sysadmin can't handle a DDoS attack on a major credit card system is absurd. Armored cars are armored for a reason. Major money networks should be armored as well, and if they're not, its the money networks responsibility if it happens, same as its the armored car companies responsibility if the car gets robbed. Also, don't confuse fault with responsibility -- they are not the same thing. edit: typo