8 ms·

Jeremy was involved in a number of actual attacks together with other "members" of Anonymous. It may not seem like terrorism in the typical sense you think, bu

by rilita 12y ago

Jeremy was involved in a number of actual attacks together with other "members" of Anonymous. It may not seem like terrorism in the typical sense you think, but disrupting computer systems randomly and maliciously is a type of terrorism. I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider this particular individual a type of terrorist based on his actions. ( see other comments about his additional violent actions and suggestions ) If you think you can go around doing whatever you want with computers, and not have the government add you to a number of lists, then you are in some serious denial. An alternative example: I don't hack random people, nor do I advocate violence, but I recently purchased some aluminum powder and red iron oxide off the internet. If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous.

thissideup 12y ago
> If you think you can go around doing whatever you want with computers But the the government is entitled to do whatever it wants with computers why? > If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous. Maybe that's already the case. We don't even know how many lists of this nature exist let alone why people are put on them.
mcantelon 12y ago
>disrupting computer systems randomly and maliciously is a type of terrorism So hacking is equivalent to murdering people via bombs? Are protests that disrupt traffic also terrorism?
- rilita 12y ago
  You don't need to actually murder someone to be considered a terrorist, nor to actually effectually cause people to die. If you advise and encourage others to do so, to a strong degree, then you are just the leader of the terrorists rather than the foot person who actually blows himself up. This person has no respect for government, and maliciously and repeatedly breaks laws put in place to protect the citizens. Terrorism literally means to cause terror. People get pretty terrified when people steal and abuse all of their information. Also, hacking can and does cause death. Consider what happens if you hack into the computers at a drugstore and change the prescriptions to give people the wrong drugs. Terrorism?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I find your argument discerning, even terrifying. You are therefore a terrorist, right?
  - lazaroclapp 12y ago
    Sure, hacking could be used to kill civilians with the objective of causing mass terror to advance a political agenda. But until Mr. Hammond either attempts, incites or announces plans to take action with the objective of killing people, he is not a terrorist. If the term "terrorist" has any sensible definition other than "people who oppose us politically and who we don't like, and maybe do random criminal actions that are covered under more normal laws". If he only causes economic harm, I could be convinced that he can still be guilty of: destruction of property, computer fraud and perhaps sabotage. But terrorism?
- zamalek 12y ago
  > So hacking is equivalent to murdering people via bombs? Depending on what was hacked. Anonymous on occasion challenged the notion of "activism" and indirectly endangered human lives. The mastercard hack would have been quiet scary for people whose, on the day, lives depended on their card. Does that make them terrorists? No. It does place them into the exact gray area that they decided to act in, they are neither activist nor terrorist: rather something in-between. Does that justify putting Jeremy on the watchlist? Just like his actions, it's a gray area, there is no good answer. There is no right or wrong here, nor does there have to be. Anonymous's actions were often ignorant and dangerous: don't make yourself the same by blindly defending everything that they did. These are difficult questions, spend more time thinking about them before trying to answer them.
exo762 12y ago
You are out of your mind. You are equating pennies of damage done by Anonymous with terrorism, which involves killing people for instilling fear and reaching unpopular political goals.
- thissideup 12y ago
  This accurately describes many commenters in this thread and threads like it. Based on OP's description the US government is a terrorist organization.
- dang 12y ago
  > You are out of your mind. This comment would be better without that first sentence. Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone may be.
- rilita 12y ago
  Denial of service attacks can be very expensive in terms of monetary damage. That is the weakest form of behavior that Anonymous engages in. This is hardly "pennies of damage". Consider how angry you are reacting to me; then consider how angry you would be if someone zeroed out your bank account by hacking. Do you still think people who engage in malicious hacking should be allowed to do what they do without being added to some lists of people who should be dealt with?
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Criminals should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone wiped out my life savings, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them a terrorist to do that.
    - rilita 12y ago
      What is different from what just said versus the following? "Terrorists should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone is a terrorist, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them names to do that." All you are really doing is stating that criminals are not terrorists. The entire thread is arguing that the person in question is not a terrorist. The thing everyone is ignoring here is that what you call someone is irrelevant. I could call you a terrorist, and it won't matter at all. It's just my personal statement and opinion. All that matter is the consequences. What are the actual consequences of being added to the "terrorist watch list?" What I've always thought is that it means you cannot fly. Is there some other consequence?
tptacek 12y ago
It seems just as likely that Hammond was put on a watchlist over his affiliation with the extremist fringe of the Occupy movement than anything else.

by rilita 12y ago

thissideup 12y ago

> If you think you can go around doing whatever you want with computers But the the government is entitled to do whatever it wants with computers why? > If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous. Maybe that's already the case. We don't even know how many lists of this nature exist let alone why people are put on them.

mcantelon 12y ago

>disrupting computer systems randomly and maliciously is a type of terrorism So hacking is equivalent to murdering people via bombs? Are protests that disrupt traffic also terrorism?

rilita 12y ago
You don't need to actually murder someone to be considered a terrorist, nor to actually effectually cause people to die. If you advise and encourage others to do so, to a strong degree, then you are just the leader of the terrorists rather than the foot person who actually blows himself up. This person has no respect for government, and maliciously and repeatedly breaks laws put in place to protect the citizens. Terrorism literally means to cause terror. People get pretty terrified when people steal and abuse all of their information. Also, hacking can and does cause death. Consider what happens if you hack into the computers at a drugstore and change the prescriptions to give people the wrong drugs. Terrorism?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I find your argument discerning, even terrifying. You are therefore a terrorist, right?
- lazaroclapp 12y ago
  Sure, hacking could be used to kill civilians with the objective of causing mass terror to advance a political agenda. But until Mr. Hammond either attempts, incites or announces plans to take action with the objective of killing people, he is not a terrorist. If the term "terrorist" has any sensible definition other than "people who oppose us politically and who we don't like, and maybe do random criminal actions that are covered under more normal laws". If he only causes economic harm, I could be convinced that he can still be guilty of: destruction of property, computer fraud and perhaps sabotage. But terrorism?
zamalek 12y ago
> So hacking is equivalent to murdering people via bombs? Depending on what was hacked. Anonymous on occasion challenged the notion of "activism" and indirectly endangered human lives. The mastercard hack would have been quiet scary for people whose, on the day, lives depended on their card. Does that make them terrorists? No. It does place them into the exact gray area that they decided to act in, they are neither activist nor terrorist: rather something in-between. Does that justify putting Jeremy on the watchlist? Just like his actions, it's a gray area, there is no good answer. There is no right or wrong here, nor does there have to be. Anonymous's actions were often ignorant and dangerous: don't make yourself the same by blindly defending everything that they did. These are difficult questions, spend more time thinking about them before trying to answer them.

exo762 12y ago

You are out of your mind. You are equating pennies of damage done by Anonymous with terrorism, which involves killing people for instilling fear and reaching unpopular political goals.

thissideup 12y ago
This accurately describes many commenters in this thread and threads like it. Based on OP's description the US government is a terrorist organization.
dang 12y ago
> You are out of your mind. This comment would be better without that first sentence. Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone may be.
rilita 12y ago
Denial of service attacks can be very expensive in terms of monetary damage. That is the weakest form of behavior that Anonymous engages in. This is hardly "pennies of damage". Consider how angry you are reacting to me; then consider how angry you would be if someone zeroed out your bank account by hacking. Do you still think people who engage in malicious hacking should be allowed to do what they do without being added to some lists of people who should be dealt with?
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Criminals should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone wiped out my life savings, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them a terrorist to do that.
  - rilita 12y ago
    What is different from what just said versus the following? "Terrorists should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone is a terrorist, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them names to do that." All you are really doing is stating that criminals are not terrorists. The entire thread is arguing that the person in question is not a terrorist. The thing everyone is ignoring here is that what you call someone is irrelevant. I could call you a terrorist, and it won't matter at all. It's just my personal statement and opinion. All that matter is the consequences. What are the actual consequences of being added to the "terrorist watch list?" What I've always thought is that it means you cannot fly. Is there some other consequence?

tptacek 12y ago

It seems just as likely that Hammond was put on a watchlist over his affiliation with the extremist fringe of the Occupy movement than anything else.