5 ms·

To those that detract anonymous as a sort of rabid crazy dog that charges into attack without aim... I think that is EXACTLY their intention, like the US gover

by speeder 13y ago

To those that detract anonymous as a sort of rabid crazy dog that charges into attack without aim... I think that is EXACTLY their intention, like the US government puts crazy pressure in Snowden as a "warning" to future whistle blowers, anons are using the same tactic against US government itself... If it works or not, I am yet to see, but I can agree with two things: One, it might make sense. Two, it is highly dangerous and might cause lots of unintended collateral damage.

bargl 13y ago
My worry is that I think it is premature to abandon our legal methods to fight back against government tyranny and the abuse of the constitution. I know that is exactly what Snowden has done (in some ways) but he also had restraint and wasn't attempting to harm the US. By engaging in war (which is what the administration will see this as) they could undercut all the work that other activists are doing. But like you I can see another possibility, one where this is necessary and the only way the US will get the message. But I feel it is more likely a option 2 Two, it is highly dangerous and might cause lots of unintended collateral damage.
- surge 13y ago
  Well, there were at least two guys from the NSA who blew the whistle before, the legal way, and it got them a whole heap of trouble and nothing came of it in the media. So far, going outside the law seems to be the only tactic that garners any attention.
  - dwild 13y ago
    Who are they?
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  If you look at the UK as a prime example, all hope of legally destroying the tyranny has been lost thanks to the various terrorism related laws that have been introduced. The same is true of the US as well now thanks to the ability to detain people on suspicion indefinitely. The legal system is beyond repair. Revolution has been destroyed too as the very act of promoting or discussing it is terrorism under law and people will just be locked up before they have a chance to express or organise. Our modern communication infrastructure supports this outcome. The best thing we now hope for is to survive in quiet obedience or await for a natural disaster to shift the balance.
  - ceol 13y ago
    Thank goodness all those oppressive dictatorships didn't know that they could outlaw revolution. Otherwise, everyone would have just sat around twiddling their thumbs because, "Well, it's illegal!" The fact of the matter is, no one other than a few crazies on the internet think the UK is a tyrannical state. If it really was, you would have unrest similar to actual dictatorships, like Syria and Libya. You wouldn't be able to type out your conspiracy theories, because the internet would be shut off.
    - Pwnguinz 13y ago
      False dichotomy. China is a de facto dictatorship (and a de juris Republic), however their citizens can still surf the internet and type out things (censored, for sure, but a far cry from 'shut off'). Do you really want society to collapse to the point of Syria or Lybia before you want the citizenry to stand up for themselves? Or is everyone just a tin-foil hatter until secret police starts wisking people away?
    - harrytuttle 13y ago
      People are arrested, charged and imprisoned in the UK for twitter and Facebook comments so you are wrong. This is just a comfortable dictatorship.
ihsw 13y ago
Highly dangerous and unintended collateral damage are hallmarks of terorrism, especially considering random violence is a staple of terror tactics. Anon are playing with fire, and the Obama administration is definitely going to be stepping up the cyber-security rhetoric to garner support for the spying programs.
- samstave 13y ago
  You mean like the drone attacks in Yemen? Also, this is the reason some believe the Anon attacks to be false-flag psyops in order to further the cyber-drive hardon the USG has. If NSA+Israel wrote Stux and Duqu, its not like they are some slouchers that are going to be humiliated by Anon... or are they?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - samstave 13y ago
      But that wasn't the point I was making. I was making the point that Anon could potentially be a puppet whos "attacks" against orgs like FEMA are used to push a stricter control of on-line-everything, and that the skills of those who wrote Stux/Duqu should be sufficiently high that they actually have no real threat to worry about from a group like Anon.
    - ihsw 13y ago
      Actually, my point about Obama's cyber-security build-up is that they will get those kinds of people to work on securing servers like random FEMA servers. I get the distinct impression that we're going to see a serious shift in the administration's attitude towards cyber-security, specifically a swooping change in direction from offense to defense.
mhurron 13y ago
You seem to be attributing leadership and direction to Anonymous. It doesn't work that way.
- rollo_tommasi 13y ago
  This is absurd. It's a human organization, not a school of fish. There are absolutely influential and directing personalities. That we don't know who they are doesn't mean they don't exist.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    It's not an human organization, it's just a moniker. A couple of random people can get together and do whatever they feel like and say they are Anonymous, and they are. There's no membership, no initiation, no rules, no passwords, no mandatory places of meaning, and no real common goals or principles. It's free-for-all.
  - yk 13y ago
    Anonymous is just a /b meme, suspended in thin air. And it makes no more sense to talk about anonymous as a group as it makes sense to talk about protesters as a single group, without specifying if you talk about the Syrian opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood or the local NIMBY initiative.
bitwize 13y ago
They attacked FEMA probably because it's a soft target: sclerotic with bureaucracy and probably not able to admin their own systems, let alone properly supervise a hurricane rescue op. If they had gone for the NSA itself they would have a) pissed it off; b) gotten party vans outside their homes.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by speeder 13y ago

bargl 13y ago

My worry is that I think it is premature to abandon our legal methods to fight back against government tyranny and the abuse of the constitution. I know that is exactly what Snowden has done (in some ways) but he also had restraint and wasn't attempting to harm the US. By engaging in war (which is what the administration will see this as) they could undercut all the work that other activists are doing. But like you I can see another possibility, one where this is necessary and the only way the US will get the message. But I feel it is more likely a option 2 Two, it is highly dangerous and might cause lots of unintended collateral damage.

surge 13y ago
Well, there were at least two guys from the NSA who blew the whistle before, the legal way, and it got them a whole heap of trouble and nothing came of it in the media. So far, going outside the law seems to be the only tactic that garners any attention.
- dwild 13y ago
  Who are they?
harrytuttle 13y ago
If you look at the UK as a prime example, all hope of legally destroying the tyranny has been lost thanks to the various terrorism related laws that have been introduced. The same is true of the US as well now thanks to the ability to detain people on suspicion indefinitely. The legal system is beyond repair. Revolution has been destroyed too as the very act of promoting or discussing it is terrorism under law and people will just be locked up before they have a chance to express or organise. Our modern communication infrastructure supports this outcome. The best thing we now hope for is to survive in quiet obedience or await for a natural disaster to shift the balance.
- ceol 13y ago
  Thank goodness all those oppressive dictatorships didn't know that they could outlaw revolution. Otherwise, everyone would have just sat around twiddling their thumbs because, "Well, it's illegal!" The fact of the matter is, no one other than a few crazies on the internet think the UK is a tyrannical state. If it really was, you would have unrest similar to actual dictatorships, like Syria and Libya. You wouldn't be able to type out your conspiracy theories, because the internet would be shut off.
  - Pwnguinz 13y ago
    False dichotomy. China is a de facto dictatorship (and a de juris Republic), however their citizens can still surf the internet and type out things (censored, for sure, but a far cry from 'shut off'). Do you really want society to collapse to the point of Syria or Lybia before you want the citizenry to stand up for themselves? Or is everyone just a tin-foil hatter until secret police starts wisking people away?
  - harrytuttle 13y ago
    People are arrested, charged and imprisoned in the UK for twitter and Facebook comments so you are wrong. This is just a comfortable dictatorship.

ihsw 13y ago

Highly dangerous and unintended collateral damage are hallmarks of terorrism, especially considering random violence is a staple of terror tactics. Anon are playing with fire, and the Obama administration is definitely going to be stepping up the cyber-security rhetoric to garner support for the spying programs.

samstave 13y ago
You mean like the drone attacks in Yemen? Also, this is the reason some believe the Anon attacks to be false-flag psyops in order to further the cyber-drive hardon the USG has. If NSA+Israel wrote Stux and Duqu, its not like they are some slouchers that are going to be humiliated by Anon... or are they?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - samstave 13y ago
    But that wasn't the point I was making. I was making the point that Anon could potentially be a puppet whos "attacks" against orgs like FEMA are used to push a stricter control of on-line-everything, and that the skills of those who wrote Stux/Duqu should be sufficiently high that they actually have no real threat to worry about from a group like Anon.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Actually, my point about Obama's cyber-security build-up is that they will get those kinds of people to work on securing servers like random FEMA servers. I get the distinct impression that we're going to see a serious shift in the administration's attitude towards cyber-security, specifically a swooping change in direction from offense to defense.

mhurron 13y ago

You seem to be attributing leadership and direction to Anonymous. It doesn't work that way.

rollo_tommasi 13y ago
This is absurd. It's a human organization, not a school of fish. There are absolutely influential and directing personalities. That we don't know who they are doesn't mean they don't exist.
- icebraining 13y ago
  It's not an human organization, it's just a moniker. A couple of random people can get together and do whatever they feel like and say they are Anonymous, and they are. There's no membership, no initiation, no rules, no passwords, no mandatory places of meaning, and no real common goals or principles. It's free-for-all.
- yk 13y ago
  Anonymous is just a /b meme, suspended in thin air. And it makes no more sense to talk about anonymous as a group as it makes sense to talk about protesters as a single group, without specifying if you talk about the Syrian opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood or the local NIMBY initiative.

bitwize 13y ago

They attacked FEMA probably because it's a soft target: sclerotic with bureaucracy and probably not able to admin their own systems, let alone properly supervise a hurricane rescue op. If they had gone for the NSA itself they would have a) pissed it off; b) gotten party vans outside their homes.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]