4 ms·

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 "pen

by 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".

by rilita 12y ago

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".