4 ms·

A mod on irc is not a mere bypasser. It is, to some extent, someone who maintains the network. If we assume that the network's sole purpose is to help anonymou

by Wilya 15y ago

A mod on irc is not a mere bypasser. It is, to some extent, someone who maintains the network. If we assume that the network's sole purpose is to help anonymous, she is, technically, supporting anonymous. I won't assume these (the problem is a bit more complex,of course). But that's the line of thought the FBI is following, and I can understand it. The woman in the article doesn't strike me as an obvious innocent.

slowpoke 15y ago
A mod on irc is not a mere bypasser. It is, to some extent, someone who maintains the network. No, just no. There's a fundamental difference between a channel and a network operator. The former has absolutely zero to do with network maintenance - it's simply someone who happens to have a specific flag (+o) set on a specific channel. A network operator (often called Opers) is someone who has - as the name implies - administrative privileges over the network or parts thereof. However, if we now follow the line of argument that a network operator should be held liable for the actions of his or her users, we're in the same boat as the people who claim that ISPs or other service providers should be held liable for the action of their users - which is ridiculous. she is, technically, supporting anonymous. In what way is that a crime? Anonymous is simply a decentralized, anarchistic and extremely loose collective of people who have chosen to affiliate themselves with it. You cannot hold people who affiliate themselves with it liable for the actions (legal or not) of others with the same affiliation. The problem is that no one in organizations like the FBI can even grasp the notion of a collective that does not rely on authority or centralization. It's like quantum physics are to a mere mortal - utterly incomprehensible.
- Wilya 15y ago
  It's a bit unclear from the article whether the woman is a channel moderator, an IRCop (her statements seem to imply so, or someone physically hosting the network. (The source of her problems seems to be the ips hosting the network). Besides, the question I would ask is "If an ISP's main purpose is hosting illegal activities, can we prosecute him ?" Regarding the decentralized nature of Anonymous, well, okay. What does that change ? If we consider that Anonymous is an organisation (does it need fixed members to be called an organisation ?) that uses illegal/questionable methods, supporting it (as an organisation, I'm not talking about people in it) is illegal. IANAL, but I suppose it could be seen as incitation or support to illegal behaviour. All those are claims, that can and most likely will be analyzed by a jury, and people who are better informed than us. My point was just that I think saying she is innocent from the beginning is a bit exaggerated. She did questionable things.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    It's a bit unclear from the article whether the woman is a channel moderator I only corrected the claim that moderators have any administrative privileges, unrelated to the case at hand. If we consider that Anonymous is an organisation Except it isn't, that was my point. Anonymous is more akin to something like a subculture. Do we prosecute everyone who considers himself, for example, a Punk, just because some other members of the Punk movement have done questionable things? and people who are better informed than us. And that is the problem. No one of the people who make decisions in these cases even understand Anonymous, how are they supposed to be "better informed" than us?

by Wilya 15y ago

slowpoke 15y ago

A mod on irc is not a mere bypasser. It is, to some extent, someone who maintains the network. No, just no. There's a fundamental difference between a channel and a network operator. The former has absolutely zero to do with network maintenance - it's simply someone who happens to have a specific flag (+o) set on a specific channel. A network operator (often called Opers) is someone who has - as the name implies - administrative privileges over the network or parts thereof. However, if we now follow the line of argument that a network operator should be held liable for the actions of his or her users, we're in the same boat as the people who claim that ISPs or other service providers should be held liable for the action of their users - which is ridiculous. she is, technically, supporting anonymous. In what way is that a crime? Anonymous is simply a decentralized, anarchistic and extremely loose collective of people who have chosen to affiliate themselves with it. You cannot hold people who affiliate themselves with it liable for the actions (legal or not) of others with the same affiliation. The problem is that no one in organizations like the FBI can even grasp the notion of a collective that does not rely on authority or centralization. It's like quantum physics are to a mere mortal - utterly incomprehensible.

Wilya 15y ago
It's a bit unclear from the article whether the woman is a channel moderator, an IRCop (her statements seem to imply so, or someone physically hosting the network. (The source of her problems seems to be the ips hosting the network). Besides, the question I would ask is "If an ISP's main purpose is hosting illegal activities, can we prosecute him ?" Regarding the decentralized nature of Anonymous, well, okay. What does that change ? If we consider that Anonymous is an organisation (does it need fixed members to be called an organisation ?) that uses illegal/questionable methods, supporting it (as an organisation, I'm not talking about people in it) is illegal. IANAL, but I suppose it could be seen as incitation or support to illegal behaviour. All those are claims, that can and most likely will be analyzed by a jury, and people who are better informed than us. My point was just that I think saying she is innocent from the beginning is a bit exaggerated. She did questionable things.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  It's a bit unclear from the article whether the woman is a channel moderator I only corrected the claim that moderators have any administrative privileges, unrelated to the case at hand. If we consider that Anonymous is an organisation Except it isn't, that was my point. Anonymous is more akin to something like a subculture. Do we prosecute everyone who considers himself, for example, a Punk, just because some other members of the Punk movement have done questionable things? and people who are better informed than us. And that is the problem. No one of the people who make decisions in these cases even understand Anonymous, how are they supposed to be "better informed" than us?