39 ms·

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.

by sigzero 16y ago

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.
Starmonkey 16y ago
Tell that to the US Government. "After Anonymous imposed some very minimal cyber disruptions on Paypal, Master Card and Amazon, the DOJ flamboyantly vowed to arrest the culprits, and several individuals were just arrested as part of those attacks. But weeks earlier, a far more damaging and serious cyber-attack was launched at WikiLeaks, knocking them offline. Those attacks were sophisticated and dangerous. Whoever did that was quite likely part of either a government agency or a large private entity acting at its behest. Yet the DOJ has never announced any investigation into those attacks or vowed to apprehend the culprits, and it's impossible to imagine that ever happening. Why? Because crimes carried out that serve the Government's agenda and target its opponents are permitted and even encouraged; cyber-attacks are "crimes" only when undertaken by those whom the Government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the Government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them. Whoever launched those cyber attacks at WikiLeaks (whether government or private actors) had no more legal right to do so than Anonymous, but only the latter will be prosecuted." http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11...

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.

by 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.

Starmonkey 16y ago

Tell that to the US Government. "After Anonymous imposed some very minimal cyber disruptions on Paypal, Master Card and Amazon, the DOJ flamboyantly vowed to arrest the culprits, and several individuals were just arrested as part of those attacks. But weeks earlier, a far more damaging and serious cyber-attack was launched at WikiLeaks, knocking them offline. Those attacks were sophisticated and dangerous. Whoever did that was quite likely part of either a government agency or a large private entity acting at its behest. Yet the DOJ has never announced any investigation into those attacks or vowed to apprehend the culprits, and it's impossible to imagine that ever happening. Why? Because crimes carried out that serve the Government's agenda and target its opponents are permitted and even encouraged; cyber-attacks are "crimes" only when undertaken by those whom the Government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the Government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them. Whoever launched those cyber attacks at WikiLeaks (whether government or private actors) had no more legal right to do so than Anonymous, but only the latter will be prosecuted." http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11...