6 ms·

I think personal attacks like that degrade whatever credibility they gain by fighting for the little guy. Granted people have been prank-ordering pizza's to oth

I think personal attacks like that degrade whatever credibility they gain by fighting for the little guy. Granted people have been prank-ordering pizza's to other people's houses since waaaaay before the Intarwebz, but I'm sure our generation of news-addicted alarmists will send up the flag saying this is why we should give away all of our privacy and freedoms so the government can protect us from bored teenagers.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
For me this isn't an issue of privacy as much as its an issue of decency. If they released the bank records of these executives and said "these guys are loaded so why are they suing some kid" I wouldn't have a problem with that. But once you graduate to involving their families you cross a line. The only thing that can be accomplished by releasing the names and addresses of someone's spouse and children is to put them in harms way. That harm might just be getting yelled at but it could be much worse. Which puts this act into the category of "threatening someone's family" As someone who agrees with Anonymous on the facts I would only support a small fine for violating someone's privacy. But for involving their family I would support and encourage local governments to send the members of this subsect to jail
- wmf 16y ago
  I don't agree with Anonymous's tactics, but look at it from their perspective: Corporate executives don't scare easily. What level of threat would convince Sony to change its policy?
  - Aaronontheweb 16y ago
    You're missing the point - trying to change a companies policies at the price of being decent human beings is worse than whatever offense Sony committed.
    - wmf 16y ago
      Good point; I didn't think of it that way. I never saw Anonymous as particularly honorable.
    - jongraehl 16y ago
      > worse than whatever offense Sony committed This gives the impression that you're making a claim about something you don't have much specific knowledge of. Or that you're absolutely sure that Sony is incapable of offenses larger than a certain magnitude.
  - Devilboy 16y ago
    Why is this comment being downvoted? He's not being rude or off topic or spammy. Are we dumping on people simply because we disagree with them now?
    - haploid 16y ago
      Well, yes, actually. For quite some time, in fact. I learned the other day that questioning the orthodoxy of the virtue of parenthood is disallowed on HN. Suggesting that having kids is anything other than an amazing accomplishment by capable, intelligent couples is heresy. I have not been on HN that long, but the claims that it is somehow a bastion of pure rational discussion that no other internet forum can reach, appear to be wrong.
  - saturn 16y ago
    > Corporate executives don't scare easily Hm, I deal/have dealt regularly with a number of HNWI in executive roles and I reckon they'd scare easily enough. Acting all tough in the conference room is one thing, getting phone calls at home is quite another. One is "the game", one is real life, completely different. They're not the spetsnaz. Speaking hypothetically and nonjudgementally - phone calls to the wife is an excellent tactic which would get you to the top of the mental agenda instantly in 99% of cases.
    - throwawayabcde 16y ago
      > phone calls to the wife is an excellent tactic which would get you to the top of the mental agenda instantly in 99% of cases. This is a truly disgusting suggestion. I don't have a word for the level of disgust it arouses in me. Also, if I was on the receiving end, it would serve only to harden me, and to become far, far more strident against you and the other kids who are pulling this crap. Would you really want to be facing an angry executive who has the budget to buy not just security and investigators, but also law enforcement, legislators, the media, and anything else that's required to discredit you, and ruin your entire life?
      - saturn 16y ago
        > This is a truly disgusting suggestion. Yeah I know. That's why I tried to qualify it. But speaking honestly, would it work? Yeah. > become far, far more strident against you it's not me OK? I was just trying to dispassionately speculate on what I thought would be effective.
        throwawayabcde 16y ago
        > would it work? Yeah. Do you really believe that somebody with access to incredible resources is going to get harassed at home and think "well, I should go easier on this fellow, since his internet friends are stalking me and harassing my wife"? Really? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. This is a horrible idea that can only go badly. Escalation against a well-armed enemy is an incredibly bad strategy. In fact, it's hard to think of a worse strategy.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- DanWeinreb 16y ago
  I totally agree about the families. That's way, way over the line. IANAL so I don't know whether there are actually laws being broken here, but there might be; freedom of speech in US law has exceptions for threats and putting people into harm and so on. The problem is that it may be hard to find out whom to prosecute; the name "Anonymous" is there for a reason. A lot of very bad things can be done behind a mask of anonymity, just as good things can be (c.f. Tor servers to help dissidents).
  - ahi 16y ago
    From my reading of the Ars article, the only thing illegal they did is the ordering of pizzas. Even the digging through his trash is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions. Is what they're doing right? I don't know, but actions have consequences.
    - darksaga 16y ago
      You might want to read up on the laws regarding digging through trash. If the trash is on your property - it's illegal. Even if its in your driveway waiting for pickup, it's still illegal to go through. Also, In most states dumpster diving at any business is considered a felony.
      - ahi 16y ago
        Citation needed. I tried to figure out which one of us is correct, or at least more correct and this is the best I could do: http://www.opsecprofessionals.org/articles/dumpsterdiving.html http://www.opsecprofessionals.org/articles/dumpsterdiving.ht... As always, depends on state and local ordnances. If you are on private property you can always get hit with trespass, but the actual trash picking is typically legal. Many licensed PIs make their living going through other people's trash. In short, buy a shredder.
        darksaga 16y ago
        You are correct in terms of state and local ordinances, and I did do some more research and came up with the landmark case of CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) where this very issue was argued before the Supreme Court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=486&invol=35 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&#3... It basically says if your trash is visible, you can't assume privacy of the contents. If it's inside your garage, then it's off limits. Interesting case nonetheless.
- tomelders 16y ago
  Sony wouldn't care if their legal proceedings ruined your families lives, directly or indirectly.
  - ascendant 16y ago
    This is a great point. They're currently devoting millions of dollars to ruining the life of GeoHot, but since they're doing it in a way that's sanctioned by politicians and lawyers, that's "alright".
    - hartror 16y ago
      GeoHot knowingly put himself in harms way, whether the law is just or not in this case his family is not being exposed to vilification and possible harm to their persons. Sony's executives are in a similar situation, through their actions, or actions they support (explicitly or implicitly) they have put themselves in the firing line of Anon. However going after innocent bystanders cannot be justified, on either side. Though I think it is a stretch to say Sony is going after GeoHot's family.
      - sudonim 16y ago
        I have a PS3. If I make modifications to it and talk about those modifications online, is that knowingly putting myself in harms way? Who owns my PS3? And what right does anyone else have to dictate what knowledge I share online about my PS3?
        hartror 16y ago
        Yes. It is knowingly putting yourself in harms way because you know what the law is, whether you agree with it or not. When you take an action as an adult you are accepting the possible consequences of that action. If you punch a mobster in the face and get shot for your trouble every one is going to say "Wow what a brave fellow, he knew what the risks were but he did it anyway". Just like in GeoHot's place he knew what he was doing had risks of getting himself sued or worse, but he chose to do it anyway because he disagreed with the law. You have missed my point however, I agree with the sentiment of what Anon is doing, just not the methods they are using.
mcantelon 16y ago
>I think personal attacks like that degrade whatever credibility they gain by fighting for the little guy. Sony is attempting to create discomfort for Geohot: Anon is returning in kind. It's not about PR.
Qz 16y ago
People say this every time Anonymous comes up, and guess what? They don't care. For the most part, the news media doesn't care either. Credibility is becoming an outmoded concept.
mbesto 16y ago
I'm on the fence here. One side of me says, I don't wish this type of personal abuse on anyone. The other side of me says that I don't wish anyone at the age of 21 to be dragged through a ridiculous legal battle that could potentially affect the rest of his life. (debt for life, out of school, jail?) Which is worse? Corporate greed or personal hacking attacks? Anon endorses the same techie progress that allows corporations like Sony, BoA, etc to reach it's mass market on the internet. Corporations like Sony embrace it's ability to use its mass market appeal (and therefore sales) to hire tons of lawyers to protect it's market. Gavels vs. Mice. Who ya got?

TomOfTTB 16y ago

For me this isn't an issue of privacy as much as its an issue of decency. If they released the bank records of these executives and said "these guys are loaded so why are they suing some kid" I wouldn't have a problem with that. But once you graduate to involving their families you cross a line. The only thing that can be accomplished by releasing the names and addresses of someone's spouse and children is to put them in harms way. That harm might just be getting yelled at but it could be much worse. Which puts this act into the category of "threatening someone's family" As someone who agrees with Anonymous on the facts I would only support a small fine for violating someone's privacy. But for involving their family I would support and encourage local governments to send the members of this subsect to jail

wmf 16y ago
I don't agree with Anonymous's tactics, but look at it from their perspective: Corporate executives don't scare easily. What level of threat would convince Sony to change its policy?
- Aaronontheweb 16y ago
  You're missing the point - trying to change a companies policies at the price of being decent human beings is worse than whatever offense Sony committed.
  - wmf 16y ago
    Good point; I didn't think of it that way. I never saw Anonymous as particularly honorable.
  - jongraehl 16y ago
    > worse than whatever offense Sony committed This gives the impression that you're making a claim about something you don't have much specific knowledge of. Or that you're absolutely sure that Sony is incapable of offenses larger than a certain magnitude.
- Devilboy 16y ago
  Why is this comment being downvoted? He's not being rude or off topic or spammy. Are we dumping on people simply because we disagree with them now?
  - haploid 16y ago
    Well, yes, actually. For quite some time, in fact. I learned the other day that questioning the orthodoxy of the virtue of parenthood is disallowed on HN. Suggesting that having kids is anything other than an amazing accomplishment by capable, intelligent couples is heresy. I have not been on HN that long, but the claims that it is somehow a bastion of pure rational discussion that no other internet forum can reach, appear to be wrong.
- saturn 16y ago
  > Corporate executives don't scare easily Hm, I deal/have dealt regularly with a number of HNWI in executive roles and I reckon they'd scare easily enough. Acting all tough in the conference room is one thing, getting phone calls at home is quite another. One is "the game", one is real life, completely different. They're not the spetsnaz. Speaking hypothetically and nonjudgementally - phone calls to the wife is an excellent tactic which would get you to the top of the mental agenda instantly in 99% of cases.
  - throwawayabcde 16y ago
    > phone calls to the wife is an excellent tactic which would get you to the top of the mental agenda instantly in 99% of cases. This is a truly disgusting suggestion. I don't have a word for the level of disgust it arouses in me. Also, if I was on the receiving end, it would serve only to harden me, and to become far, far more strident against you and the other kids who are pulling this crap. Would you really want to be facing an angry executive who has the budget to buy not just security and investigators, but also law enforcement, legislators, the media, and anything else that's required to discredit you, and ruin your entire life?
    - saturn 16y ago
      > This is a truly disgusting suggestion. Yeah I know. That's why I tried to qualify it. But speaking honestly, would it work? Yeah. > become far, far more strident against you it's not me OK? I was just trying to dispassionately speculate on what I thought would be effective.
      - throwawayabcde 16y ago
        > would it work? Yeah. Do you really believe that somebody with access to incredible resources is going to get harassed at home and think "well, I should go easier on this fellow, since his internet friends are stalking me and harassing my wife"? Really? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. This is a horrible idea that can only go badly. Escalation against a well-armed enemy is an incredibly bad strategy. In fact, it's hard to think of a worse strategy.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
DanWeinreb 16y ago
I totally agree about the families. That's way, way over the line. IANAL so I don't know whether there are actually laws being broken here, but there might be; freedom of speech in US law has exceptions for threats and putting people into harm and so on. The problem is that it may be hard to find out whom to prosecute; the name "Anonymous" is there for a reason. A lot of very bad things can be done behind a mask of anonymity, just as good things can be (c.f. Tor servers to help dissidents).
- ahi 16y ago
  From my reading of the Ars article, the only thing illegal they did is the ordering of pizzas. Even the digging through his trash is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions. Is what they're doing right? I don't know, but actions have consequences.
  - darksaga 16y ago
    You might want to read up on the laws regarding digging through trash. If the trash is on your property - it's illegal. Even if its in your driveway waiting for pickup, it's still illegal to go through. Also, In most states dumpster diving at any business is considered a felony.
    - ahi 16y ago
      Citation needed. I tried to figure out which one of us is correct, or at least more correct and this is the best I could do: http://www.opsecprofessionals.org/articles/dumpsterdiving.html http://www.opsecprofessionals.org/articles/dumpsterdiving.ht... As always, depends on state and local ordnances. If you are on private property you can always get hit with trespass, but the actual trash picking is typically legal. Many licensed PIs make their living going through other people's trash. In short, buy a shredder.
      - darksaga 16y ago
        You are correct in terms of state and local ordinances, and I did do some more research and came up with the landmark case of CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) where this very issue was argued before the Supreme Court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=486&invol=35 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&#3... It basically says if your trash is visible, you can't assume privacy of the contents. If it's inside your garage, then it's off limits. Interesting case nonetheless.
tomelders 16y ago
Sony wouldn't care if their legal proceedings ruined your families lives, directly or indirectly.
- ascendant 16y ago
  This is a great point. They're currently devoting millions of dollars to ruining the life of GeoHot, but since they're doing it in a way that's sanctioned by politicians and lawyers, that's "alright".
  - hartror 16y ago
    GeoHot knowingly put himself in harms way, whether the law is just or not in this case his family is not being exposed to vilification and possible harm to their persons. Sony's executives are in a similar situation, through their actions, or actions they support (explicitly or implicitly) they have put themselves in the firing line of Anon. However going after innocent bystanders cannot be justified, on either side. Though I think it is a stretch to say Sony is going after GeoHot's family.
    - sudonim 16y ago
      I have a PS3. If I make modifications to it and talk about those modifications online, is that knowingly putting myself in harms way? Who owns my PS3? And what right does anyone else have to dictate what knowledge I share online about my PS3?
      - hartror 16y ago
        Yes. It is knowingly putting yourself in harms way because you know what the law is, whether you agree with it or not. When you take an action as an adult you are accepting the possible consequences of that action. If you punch a mobster in the face and get shot for your trouble every one is going to say "Wow what a brave fellow, he knew what the risks were but he did it anyway". Just like in GeoHot's place he knew what he was doing had risks of getting himself sued or worse, but he chose to do it anyway because he disagreed with the law. You have missed my point however, I agree with the sentiment of what Anon is doing, just not the methods they are using.

mcantelon 16y ago

>I think personal attacks like that degrade whatever credibility they gain by fighting for the little guy. Sony is attempting to create discomfort for Geohot: Anon is returning in kind. It's not about PR.

Qz 16y ago

People say this every time Anonymous comes up, and guess what? They don't care. For the most part, the news media doesn't care either. Credibility is becoming an outmoded concept.

mbesto 16y ago

I'm on the fence here. One side of me says, I don't wish this type of personal abuse on anyone. The other side of me says that I don't wish anyone at the age of 21 to be dragged through a ridiculous legal battle that could potentially affect the rest of his life. (debt for life, out of school, jail?) Which is worse? Corporate greed or personal hacking attacks? Anon endorses the same techie progress that allows corporations like Sony, BoA, etc to reach it's mass market on the internet. Corporations like Sony embrace it's ability to use its mass market appeal (and therefore sales) to hire tons of lawyers to protect it's market. Gavels vs. Mice. Who ya got?