3 ms·
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 netwo
by 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 agoIt'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?