3 ms·

I think you are wrong about one key point in your first paragraph. In fact, these kids are not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. By this I'm not

I think you are wrong about one key point in your first paragraph. In fact, these kids are not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. By this I'm not saying they're necessarily immature (some might be, some are certainly not), but some are jumping on the bandwagon because the bandwagon is both fun and packs just enough social justice to make the wrong-doing seem fair-game. That being said, I am certainly against what's happening to Wikileaks and Assange. As I heard someone say earlier in the week: if this thing was happening in China and he was exposing that regime, he'd be called a hero. Anon as an organism (no typo) is interesting. The fact that it is guided by the hive mind and not one in particular means it transfigures to good or bad depending on the general mood of the group. That is socially fascinating.

dedward 16y ago
If you had a botnet at your disposal, you did clear premedidated and pure WRONG regardless of whether or not we agree with who he used those stolen resources to attack. Getting the botnet itself was wrong.
- moe 16y ago
  Let's keep things in perspective, shall we? Yes, getting a botnet is "premedidated and pure WRONG". But, believe it or not, it is also today's equivalent of what would have been an elaborate phone prank in the 80s. The majority of these botnets are not run by organized criminals. They are run by adolescent nerds. I'd argue the same is true for the large majority of anyone involved with "Anonymous" in any shape and form. It's primarily a youth movement. So, like with any other prank, I'm all for giving those kids a slap on the wrist (note how I didn't say "prison sentence"). However, to me the more interesting question in all this is a completely different one: Why do some of the largest organizations on the internet fail to protect themselves against a moderate attack like this? It seems humiliating, to say the least, that a bunch of teenagers can take out Visa, Mastercard and Paypal at a whim. This could have been trivially prevented with technology and money. Thus, considering the impact it had, the first lawyer-word that crosses my mind is not "sue the kids". It's: Criminal neglience.

dedward 16y ago

If you had a botnet at your disposal, you did clear premedidated and pure WRONG regardless of whether or not we agree with who he used those stolen resources to attack. Getting the botnet itself was wrong.

moe 16y ago
Let's keep things in perspective, shall we? Yes, getting a botnet is "premedidated and pure WRONG". But, believe it or not, it is also today's equivalent of what would have been an elaborate phone prank in the 80s. The majority of these botnets are not run by organized criminals. They are run by adolescent nerds. I'd argue the same is true for the large majority of anyone involved with "Anonymous" in any shape and form. It's primarily a youth movement. So, like with any other prank, I'm all for giving those kids a slap on the wrist (note how I didn't say "prison sentence"). However, to me the more interesting question in all this is a completely different one: Why do some of the largest organizations on the internet fail to protect themselves against a moderate attack like this? It seems humiliating, to say the least, that a bunch of teenagers can take out Visa, Mastercard and Paypal at a whim. This could have been trivially prevented with technology and money. Thus, considering the impact it had, the first lawyer-word that crosses my mind is not "sue the kids". It's: Criminal neglience.