4 ms·

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 un

by 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?
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      In War soldiers do not get the same benefits as civilians accused of a crime and we keep insisting we are at war with "terror". While I think that in most cases terrorists should be treated like any other murderer, classifying someone as a "terrorist" has very real effects on what rights they have. In the extreme example we have intentionally killed American citizens without trial or any sort of imminent threat (one of whom had not done anything significant) and justified it because they were "terrorists".
tptacek 12y ago
Terrorism seems to be uniformly violent, but it is not always murderous. Extreme property damage is a tool of terrorism as well. But hacking is virtually never violent, and Stratfor wasn't an exception to that. We may be jumping to conclusions when we suggest that Hammond's inclusion on a watchlist means that the FBI views Anonymous as a terrorist group. What he did with Anonymous is surely what got their attention, but his other affiliations seem like a more likely grounds for being added to a list of people to flag.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Throwing paint on some old racist's books (at a book signing) and knocking their dinner to the floor is terrorism? Sure, it's worse to throw paint/ink than a pie at them, but it's not terrorism. Maybe nuisance-ism.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    They didn't just throw paint. Someone left in an ambulance. And what does "old racist" have to do with anything? People who attack women getting abortions believe they're acting to prevent actual murders. We don't consider the substance of their positions when we rightfully send them to prison for doing that. You don't get to bust up a restaurant and attack a senior citizen because you don't like what he has to say. The antidote to bad speech is more speech, not violence.
    - harry8 12y ago
      Assault is assault. There's a law that covers it. It doesn't consider whether the victim is someone you like or not. It doesn't consider whether the perpetrator is someone you like or not. Secret terrorist lists are a genuine WTF for common assault which occurs and is dealt with many thousand times a week in the justice system. Are you paid to advance such obvious crap? Are you posting against what you believe to try and stir up action? Are you trying to curry favour and get government contracts? It just doesn't make a lot of sense play the apologist so badly.

by 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?
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    In War soldiers do not get the same benefits as civilians accused of a crime and we keep insisting we are at war with "terror". While I think that in most cases terrorists should be treated like any other murderer, classifying someone as a "terrorist" has very real effects on what rights they have. In the extreme example we have intentionally killed American citizens without trial or any sort of imminent threat (one of whom had not done anything significant) and justified it because they were "terrorists".

tptacek 12y ago

Terrorism seems to be uniformly violent, but it is not always murderous. Extreme property damage is a tool of terrorism as well. But hacking is virtually never violent, and Stratfor wasn't an exception to that. We may be jumping to conclusions when we suggest that Hammond's inclusion on a watchlist means that the FBI views Anonymous as a terrorist group. What he did with Anonymous is surely what got their attention, but his other affiliations seem like a more likely grounds for being added to a list of people to flag.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Throwing paint on some old racist's books (at a book signing) and knocking their dinner to the floor is terrorism? Sure, it's worse to throw paint/ink than a pie at them, but it's not terrorism. Maybe nuisance-ism.
- tptacek 12y ago
  They didn't just throw paint. Someone left in an ambulance. And what does "old racist" have to do with anything? People who attack women getting abortions believe they're acting to prevent actual murders. We don't consider the substance of their positions when we rightfully send them to prison for doing that. You don't get to bust up a restaurant and attack a senior citizen because you don't like what he has to say. The antidote to bad speech is more speech, not violence.
  - harry8 12y ago
    Assault is assault. There's a law that covers it. It doesn't consider whether the victim is someone you like or not. It doesn't consider whether the perpetrator is someone you like or not. Secret terrorist lists are a genuine WTF for common assault which occurs and is dealt with many thousand times a week in the justice system. Are you paid to advance such obvious crap? Are you posting against what you believe to try and stir up action? Are you trying to curry favour and get government contracts? It just doesn't make a lot of sense play the apologist so badly.