4 ms·

Define mob? It's ok for the government to imprison people. But when I do it it's called kidnapping. Edit: Just to clarify, I agree if you mean mob as in an act

by Charuru 16y ago

Define mob? It's ok for the government to imprison people. But when I do it it's called kidnapping. Edit: Just to clarify, I agree if you mean mob as in an actual mob. However you're replying to a parent who's talking about government, so that led me to think you're implying government is some form of a mob. A representative government with powers endowed to them by the people and working within the limits of a codified legal system is very different from a mob.

sgrove 16y ago
I took it that the OP was referring to Anonymous as a mob... which is essentially one of the big draws of huge mobs - their anonymity. Although I'm intrigued by the whole drama unfolding, I don't know that we can say there's justice/liberty in what the mob does if when one person did the same thing we'd say otherwise.
- jerf 16y ago
  Yes. It makes me very uncomfortable when the fact that "Anonymous" is committing some fairly serious crimes is apparently just glossed over because hey, we didn't like the target, so thumbs up! It also makes me uncomfortable that I'm a bit nervous posting this point. This is not progress. This is not good. This is mob rule. We should be fighting this, not applauding it.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - sigzero 16y ago
      Um no. What they did was illegal. When you stoop to that level you aren't any better than the people your are trying to give the lesson to.
      - sage_joch 16y ago
        You shouldn't confuse legality with morality. Pointing out that something is illegal is not a very compelling argument that it's wrong. Imagine how ridiculous it would sound to chastise the Egyptians for breaking their curfew.
        sudonim 16y ago
        Said more succinctly than my comment.
        trotsky 16y ago
        So you're saying intimidation, harassment and restricting speech is morally OK as long as it's loosely tied to an issue that you personally agree with?
        pyre 16y ago
        How are they restricting speech? Anonymous released the information that he was supposed to release to the FBI anyways...
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        People have been whining about how the DDOS is restricting the speech of MasterCard, not realizing that it has nothing to do with speech, and everything to do with adding an economic incentive to do the right thing. While it also may be 'restricting speech' (corporate personhood has come a long way...) that's a side effect, not the reasoning or purpose.
      - sudonim 16y ago
        I'm not sure that being "better" is what they are going for. In one corner you have wikileaks, and anonymous challenging the state and a security firm, showing their cards against their will. In the other corner you have the government and a corporation trying to eliminate sources of criticism and dissent. Wikileaks and Anonymous have won this round it seems, but when you have a battle on this scale that touches the very foundations of our government -- the very organism that determines what is legal and illegal, it seems that the normal rules just don't apply.
  - trotsky 16y ago
    I don't really disagree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean by glossed over. It sounds like you'd like the journalist here to be condemning the actors or tsk-tsk-ing about the whole episode. But the lack of that isn't Anon getting a free pass, it's just how most neutral reporting is done. When you read a feature on a violent gang, or organized crime, or a serial killer generally you'll see a lot of matter of fact type of reporting, with the editorializing left up to the reader. It's not different here just because it's a mob. And surely they're not getting a pass on the actual legal repercussions. The FBI took dozens of doors over the earlier DDOS's - I'm sure that they are quite keen at rolling up this incident into what is likely a very well staffed task force.
    - jerf 16y ago
      Glossed over by us on this site and the Internet at large, not the press. I have no problem with the reporting. It bothers me that 30 comments in I appear to be the only person who even has concerns.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    See my replies here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2203359 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2203359 . The gist is that people don't really endorse Anonymous's actions, but the actions are unsurprising and generally uninteresting. The interesting part is the psychology and behavior of HBG[F] and its executives, specifically Aaron Barr, so that's what everyone is talking about. The silence shouldn't be taken as an unspoken endorsement of script kiddies.
  - pyre 16y ago
    - An issue that you're not addressing well is that it's hard for a single person to DDOS, but it's a lot easier if you can get a group of people to run LOIC (i.e. the group's power draws from numbers). - A group of people that decide to do something is not necessarily a mob. - Anonymous is just a description for a set of people. The set of people most likely to participate in these raids. The entirety of Anonymous doesn't participate in each and every raid. Just the raids that they have the time, and motivation to do. If you can describe Anonymous as a mob, then you can also extrapolate that to the entire population of the planet. The entire planet of a group of people where sometimes some people decide to form a group and do things based on common interests.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    From your moral high horse can you see what the correct action to take is? More useless voting between two parties who take near identical actions? Anonymous did what their target did. It was no more legal or illegal. If you want to punish them fine, but make sure you punish both criminals equally. As we see in Egypt, fighting within the laws (which are just a list of rules made up by people in control) doesn't always give you the option to win.

by Charuru 16y ago

sgrove 16y ago

I took it that the OP was referring to Anonymous as a mob... which is essentially one of the big draws of huge mobs - their anonymity. Although I'm intrigued by the whole drama unfolding, I don't know that we can say there's justice/liberty in what the mob does if when one person did the same thing we'd say otherwise.

jerf 16y ago
Yes. It makes me very uncomfortable when the fact that "Anonymous" is committing some fairly serious crimes is apparently just glossed over because hey, we didn't like the target, so thumbs up! It also makes me uncomfortable that I'm a bit nervous posting this point. This is not progress. This is not good. This is mob rule. We should be fighting this, not applauding it.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - sigzero 16y ago
    Um no. What they did was illegal. When you stoop to that level you aren't any better than the people your are trying to give the lesson to.
    - sage_joch 16y ago
      You shouldn't confuse legality with morality. Pointing out that something is illegal is not a very compelling argument that it's wrong. Imagine how ridiculous it would sound to chastise the Egyptians for breaking their curfew.
      - sudonim 16y ago
        Said more succinctly than my comment.
      - trotsky 16y ago
        So you're saying intimidation, harassment and restricting speech is morally OK as long as it's loosely tied to an issue that you personally agree with?
        pyre 16y ago
        How are they restricting speech? Anonymous released the information that he was supposed to release to the FBI anyways...
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        People have been whining about how the DDOS is restricting the speech of MasterCard, not realizing that it has nothing to do with speech, and everything to do with adding an economic incentive to do the right thing. While it also may be 'restricting speech' (corporate personhood has come a long way...) that's a side effect, not the reasoning or purpose.
    - sudonim 16y ago
      I'm not sure that being "better" is what they are going for. In one corner you have wikileaks, and anonymous challenging the state and a security firm, showing their cards against their will. In the other corner you have the government and a corporation trying to eliminate sources of criticism and dissent. Wikileaks and Anonymous have won this round it seems, but when you have a battle on this scale that touches the very foundations of our government -- the very organism that determines what is legal and illegal, it seems that the normal rules just don't apply.
- trotsky 16y ago
  I don't really disagree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean by glossed over. It sounds like you'd like the journalist here to be condemning the actors or tsk-tsk-ing about the whole episode. But the lack of that isn't Anon getting a free pass, it's just how most neutral reporting is done. When you read a feature on a violent gang, or organized crime, or a serial killer generally you'll see a lot of matter of fact type of reporting, with the editorializing left up to the reader. It's not different here just because it's a mob. And surely they're not getting a pass on the actual legal repercussions. The FBI took dozens of doors over the earlier DDOS's - I'm sure that they are quite keen at rolling up this incident into what is likely a very well staffed task force.
  - jerf 16y ago
    Glossed over by us on this site and the Internet at large, not the press. I have no problem with the reporting. It bothers me that 30 comments in I appear to be the only person who even has concerns.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  See my replies here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2203359 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2203359 . The gist is that people don't really endorse Anonymous's actions, but the actions are unsurprising and generally uninteresting. The interesting part is the psychology and behavior of HBG[F] and its executives, specifically Aaron Barr, so that's what everyone is talking about. The silence shouldn't be taken as an unspoken endorsement of script kiddies.
- pyre 16y ago
  - An issue that you're not addressing well is that it's hard for a single person to DDOS, but it's a lot easier if you can get a group of people to run LOIC (i.e. the group's power draws from numbers). - A group of people that decide to do something is not necessarily a mob. - Anonymous is just a description for a set of people. The set of people most likely to participate in these raids. The entirety of Anonymous doesn't participate in each and every raid. Just the raids that they have the time, and motivation to do. If you can describe Anonymous as a mob, then you can also extrapolate that to the entire population of the planet. The entire planet of a group of people where sometimes some people decide to form a group and do things based on common interests.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  From your moral high horse can you see what the correct action to take is? More useless voting between two parties who take near identical actions? Anonymous did what their target did. It was no more legal or illegal. If you want to punish them fine, but make sure you punish both criminals equally. As we see in Egypt, fighting within the laws (which are just a list of rules made up by people in control) doesn't always give you the option to win.