4 ms·

> 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. Act

by 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.
    - saturn 16y ago
      Well I think you're misjudging the character of these guys. Corporate execs are characterised by an intense self-interest and aversion to anything that will impact them personally. Decisions are not about what is right, they're about what makes them look good and does not have personal repercussions. It's a very amoral environment. Not that I'm trying to criticise or anything; it's just the nature of the game. That is why your typical corporate elite might have no issue with making a decision which wipes out 5,000 jobs at some unfortunate town. Not his problem. But is he going to help the company cheat on taxes or something, which will bring the FBI to his house? LOL! Absolutely not, not in a million years. Anonymous's actions are quite inspired. They want to put "actions that will get you personally in trouble with Anonymous" in the same category as "actions that will get you personally in trouble with the FBI". This is an excellent tactic if you're got the balls to show you're serious, and they clearly have. You can be absolutely sure that other execs are paying close attention and, unconsciously, their maps of allowable actions are being rewritten.
      - throwawayabcde 16y ago
        I don't think we could disagree more completely about basically everything.
- evilduck 16y ago
  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? I think that describes exactly why they're on the receiving end of such disgusting behavior. Geohotz is being ruined in that exact fashion. Sony execs can't be both terrible people and exempt from backlash at the same time.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawayabcde 16y ago
    I'm not saying they're exempt from backlash. I'm saying that it's incredibly foolish to engage in such personal backlash (harassing somebody's wife), because it simply cannot help the situation at all. Anon is escalating, turning Sony into the victim and turning themselves into a secondary target. That's stupid on so many levels that it's hard to count. I'm all for things that could help geohot. But I'm not going to suggest doing things that can only hurt him and his credibility, help sony and their public image, whilst annoying innocent bystanders. That's just stupidity on a stick.
    - saturn 16y ago
      Well, I disagree. I think that while in a grey area ethically it brings the question home in a very personal way; that's why they're doing it. Corporate execs are humans who have to come home to their wife and kids like anyone else. Perhaps there are some fanatical corporate warriors out there eager to put everything on the line to prove some kind of c-penis point but I sure haven't met them. I'm sure Anon envisage it going down like this (and IMO it is a reasonable supposition): exec: honey, i'm home! wife: oh darling, thank god you're home. those nasty men called me again! why are they doing this to us? exec: well, because they say we're violating free speech and harrassing innocent people wife: well are you? exec: well .. um, a bit wife: (glare)
      - throwawayabcde 16y ago

by saturn 16y ago

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.
  - saturn 16y ago
    Well I think you're misjudging the character of these guys. Corporate execs are characterised by an intense self-interest and aversion to anything that will impact them personally. Decisions are not about what is right, they're about what makes them look good and does not have personal repercussions. It's a very amoral environment. Not that I'm trying to criticise or anything; it's just the nature of the game. That is why your typical corporate elite might have no issue with making a decision which wipes out 5,000 jobs at some unfortunate town. Not his problem. But is he going to help the company cheat on taxes or something, which will bring the FBI to his house? LOL! Absolutely not, not in a million years. Anonymous's actions are quite inspired. They want to put "actions that will get you personally in trouble with Anonymous" in the same category as "actions that will get you personally in trouble with the FBI". This is an excellent tactic if you're got the balls to show you're serious, and they clearly have. You can be absolutely sure that other execs are paying close attention and, unconsciously, their maps of allowable actions are being rewritten.
    - throwawayabcde 16y ago
      I don't think we could disagree more completely about basically everything.
evilduck 16y ago
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? I think that describes exactly why they're on the receiving end of such disgusting behavior. Geohotz is being ruined in that exact fashion. Sony execs can't be both terrible people and exempt from backlash at the same time.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawayabcde 16y ago
  I'm not saying they're exempt from backlash. I'm saying that it's incredibly foolish to engage in such personal backlash (harassing somebody's wife), because it simply cannot help the situation at all. Anon is escalating, turning Sony into the victim and turning themselves into a secondary target. That's stupid on so many levels that it's hard to count. I'm all for things that could help geohot. But I'm not going to suggest doing things that can only hurt him and his credibility, help sony and their public image, whilst annoying innocent bystanders. That's just stupidity on a stick.
  - saturn 16y ago
    Well, I disagree. I think that while in a grey area ethically it brings the question home in a very personal way; that's why they're doing it. Corporate execs are humans who have to come home to their wife and kids like anyone else. Perhaps there are some fanatical corporate warriors out there eager to put everything on the line to prove some kind of c-penis point but I sure haven't met them. I'm sure Anon envisage it going down like this (and IMO it is a reasonable supposition): exec: honey, i'm home! wife: oh darling, thank god you're home. those nasty men called me again! why are they doing this to us? exec: well, because they say we're violating free speech and harrassing innocent people wife: well are you? exec: well .. um, a bit wife: (glare)
    - throwawayabcde 16y ago