Anonymous Threatens Massive WikiLeaks-Style Exposure, Announced On Hacked Gov Site

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

LowDown said:

Mostly they turn them into tiny bits with drone launched missiles.

Anonymous seems to have a cavalier attitude about the "collateral damage" they might do. This means that a lot of innocent people will be hurt, and I can't go along with that.

Anonymous is naive to think that the NSA doesn't already know who and where they are. The second it becomes a national security issue, and therefore subject to them, it will be the end of Anonymous.

Click to expand...

Where do you think the NSA gets their people?

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

LowDown said:

Mostly they turn them into tiny bits with drone launched missiles.

Anonymous seems to have a cavalier attitude about the "collateral damage" they might do. This means that a lot of innocent people will be hurt, and I can't go along with that.

Anonymous is naive to think that the NSA doesn't already know who and where they are. The second it becomes a national security issue, and therefore subject to them, it will be the end of Anonymous.

Click to expand...

If the government knew, they wouldn't still be on the net. I wouldn't underestimate their intelligence. Sure they'll catch some but not all.

I don't care what collateral damage there is to exposing constitutional violations, war crimes, or any other atrocities. The only people who are responsible for those things are the ones who committed it, not exposed it.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Das Sozialist said:

That's how the majority of their 'Ops' are announced and most of the time they follow through.

Click to expand...

There haven't shut down Facebook yet. That was the one I was kind of secretly rooting for them on.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Paschendale said:

And maybe the government shouldn't be doing things that it would be embarrassed to admit in the first place.

Click to expand...

Everyone and every organisation that ever existed has something that could be made embarrassing if made public. Not that it matters - two wrongs don't make a right.

I bet if the government were being blackmailing in to passing legislation you disagreed with, you'd be agreeing with me. You're happy to support criminal scum if they're doing something you agree with (today).

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

HonestJoe said:

Everyone and every organisation that ever existed has something that could be made embarrassing if made public. Not that it matters - two wrongs don't make a right.

I bet if the government were being blackmailing in to passing legislation you disagreed with, you'd be agreeing with me. You're happy to support criminal scum if they're doing something you agree with (today).

Click to expand...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I just so happen to agree that the attacks on our constitutional right to trial and other such crimes by our government need to stop, which is why I wholeheartedly believe what they are doing is morally just.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

While I'm reading this thread, I can't help but think of this quote:

"One cannot possible be a terrorist if he stands by a just cause."


Guess we'll see where this goes.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

RabidAlpaca said:

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I just so happen to agree that the attacks on our constitutional right to trial and other such crimes by our government need to stop, which is why I wholeheartedly believe what they are doing is morally just.

Click to expand...

So anything goes as long as you get what they want? Maybe Anonymous should start paying bribes, kidnapping politicians families or blowing up buildings? After all, they'd still be your "freedom fighters".

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Jredbaron96 said:

While I'm reading this thread, I can't help but think of this quote:

"One cannot possible be a terrorist if he stands by a just cause."

Click to expand...

Pretty much all terrorists think they have a just cause - it's what drives them to such extreme actions. Sometimes, in principal, they do have a just cause. That doesn't stop them being terrorists and doesn't stop their terrorism being wrong.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

HonestJoe said:

Pretty much all terrorists think they have a just cause - it's what drives them to such extreme actions. Sometimes, in principal, they do have a just cause. That doesn't stop them being terrorists and doesn't stop their terrorism being wrong.

Click to expand...

Of course, but in the end it all levels to to the subjectivity of the cause and the terrorism associated with it.

I have no dog in this fight, but I remain curious as to how it will play out.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Its a game...until you get caught. Believe in your cause...hack away. Just dont be shocked when there are consequences to your actions. Funny how they claim Aaron Schwartz was 'killed'...'murdered'. No...Aaron Schwartz was 'caught' and he didnt think it was fair that their should be consequences, so he killed himself. Brad Manning was 'caught' and he doesnt like the consequences. Thats the gig...play the game, but dont be shocked when the other guys have people ALSO trained to play the game.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

HonestJoe said:

So anything goes as long as you get what they want? Maybe Anonymous should start paying bribes, kidnapping politicians families or blowing up buildings? After all, they'd still be your "freedom fighters".

Click to expand...

Exposing constitutional violations, war crimes, or other atrocities is not a violent act. You comparing it to one is beyond ridiculous. If you'd like to explain how it's even remotely similar, we'd all love to hear it.

VanceMack said:

Its a game...until you get caught. Believe in your cause...hack away. Just dont be shocked when there are consequences to your actions. Funny how they claim Aaron Schwartz was 'killed'...'murdered'. No...Aaron Schwartz was 'caught' and he didnt think it was fair that their should be consequences, so he killed himself. Brad Manning was 'caught' and he doesnt like the consequences. Thats the gig...play the game, but dont be shocked when the other guys have people ALSO trained to play the game.

Click to expand...

I agree, they do need to know what they're getting themselves into when they go to war like this, and I think they do. Aaron Schwartz however isn't even in the same ballpark as this. I do agree saying he was killed is ridiculous, but he certainly was unduly prosecuted and to an extreme degree. Although he did break into a broom closet, he allegedly had legal access to JSTOR, and JSTOR didn't even press charges. Threatening 20+ years in prison for such a thing is ridiculous.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Jredbaron96 said:

While I'm reading this thread, I can't help but think of this quote:

"One cannot possible be a terrorist if he stands by a just cause."


Guess we'll see where this goes.

Click to expand...

The problem is...individuals define 'just cause' just as they define "right or wrong". Individuals do not define the law.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

If our government would have been following the Constitution and stayed transparent....this wouldn't be an issue now would it?

Anonymous should release those files ASAP. We have the right to know what our government is doing. If they won't come out and say it than these guys should do it.

They are not terrorists as has been defined recently. They do not bring terror onto the populous. They bring terror to those who have committed wrongful acts against the people...aka the government. I find that to be fantastic. Hold their feet to the fire and let them burn in their own wrongdoings.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

HonestJoe said:

Pretty much all terrorists think they have a just cause - it's what drives them to such extreme actions. Sometimes, in principal, they do have a just cause. That doesn't stop them being terrorists and doesn't stop their terrorism being wrong.

Click to expand...

I really believe it an injustice to the victims of terrorism that the use of the word terrorist and terrorism is thrown about in such a cavalier manner.

A terrorist is a person or group of people who attack innocentmon-involved people and/or non-specific/involved locations to bring about a change in governmental or organizational policy.

A freedom fighter(s) is/are a person or group of people who attack specific and involved people and/ or locations to bring about a change in governmental or organizational policy.

If Anonymous were to hack the bank records and emails of individuals who have no involvement in governmental or economic decision making and spray them all over the web demanding resolutions be made that coincide with their agenda and that forfeiture to do so will result in more invasions of privacy on people who have no relation to the subject matter -- than you can call them terrorists.

If Anonymous -- like they've done -- hack into governmental and corporate websites, files, etc. etc. and individuals who are involved with the decision making of these governmental and economic policies and in doing so are demanding so sort of change as they'd like to see it, these individuals or groups of individuals must not be viewed as terrorists. They may be viewed as freedom fighters if you argree with their agenda or they can be considered hostiles. They aren't attacking the innocent they are attacking a specific target or groups of targets who directly can afffect the outcome they so desire.

That is the difference.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Anonymous is civil disobedience. Sure they should be prosecuted if caught, but it is hardly anything comparable to what China does to the US computer networks 24/7.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

RabidAlpaca said:

Exposing constitutional violations, war crimes, or other atrocities is not a violent act.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be, but since nobody seems to be doing that, I don't see the relevance. If Anonymous did have evidence of war crimes and atrocities but was sitting on that evidence for their own political ends, it would make their actions worse, not better. I suspect their information involves much more mundane, personal indiscretions though. It's still blackmail though and thus still a criminal act. Two wrongs don't make a right.

RabidAlpaca said:

You comparing it to one is beyond ridiculous. If you'd like to explain how it's even remotely similar, we'd all love to hear it.

Click to expand...

My point is that people are supporting, even promoting blackmail and cyber-attacks because they agree strongly with the stated cause. Nothing here suggests they wouldn't support the other means I suggested for the same cause.

Again, if some people were doing exactly the same thing but with the intention of pushing the policy in the opposite direction, all these supporters would be joining me in condemning these criminal acts. It's that hypocracy that I object to.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

ChezC3 said:

I really believe it an injustice to the victims of terrorism that the use of the word terrorist and terrorism is thrown about in such a cavalier manner.

A terrorist is a person or group of people who attack innocentmon-involved people and/or non-specific/involved locations to bring about a change in governmental or organizational policy.

A freedom fighter(s) is/are a person or group of people who attack specific and involved people and/ or locations to bring about a change in governmental or organizational policy.

Click to expand...

In my partial defence, I first used the phrase "practically terrorism" and others seem to have only picked up on the second word.

That said, I don't entirely agree with your definitions. Terrorism can still constitute an attack against government, politicians even soldiers (outside combat zones), not just "innocents". The key point in this context is that it is an attack or threat used to force a change in policy.

Freedom fighters are people fighting for freedom. They may commit terrorism or they may not. The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

What Anonymous in this case seem to be doing it stating that they have some damaging information and have threatened to release it if government doesn’t implement the policies they're demanding. They've not stated what the information is or who it entails though they have referred to "collateral damage", suggesting some "innocents" could be harmed by the release too.

To my mind, it is only the lack of actual physical threats that differentiates their actions from the literal definition of terrorism and, in context, I don't think the distinction is all that significant. That somewhat depends on the nature of the information of course.

To be honest, the word terrorism is something of a distraction here. The word blackmail most certainly does apply, that is most certainly a criminal act and whether you agree with the aims of the blackmail doesn't change that one jot.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

HonestJoe said:

It wouldn't be, but since nobody seems to be doing that, I don't see the relevance. If Anonymous did have evidence of war crimes and atrocities but was sitting on that evidence for their own political ends, it would make their actions worse, not better. I suspect their information involves much more mundane, personal indiscretions though. It's still blackmail though and thus still a criminal act. Two wrongs don't make a right.

My point is that people are supporting, even promoting blackmail and cyber-attacks because they agree strongly with the stated cause. Nothing here suggests they wouldn't support the other means I suggested for the same cause.

Again, if some people were doing exactly the same thing but with the intention of pushing the policy in the opposite direction, all these supporters would be joining me in condemning these criminal acts. It's that hypocracy that I object to.

Click to expand...

If they're pushing for something that a person doesn't agree with, of course they won't support it. You can't discount the REASONING behind something while you scoff at the means. The reasoning behind something is the most important part. If the US invaded a country, don't you think it would matter if we did it for oil, or if we did it to stop serious human rights violations? War is horrible regardless, but in one of those cases it just might be justified.

Wikileaks exposed war crimes, and I'm sure you were screaming the same terrorist BS you are now, right along with our politicians.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

VanceMack said:

The problem is...individuals define 'just cause' just as they define "right or wrong". Individuals do not define the law.

Click to expand...

Well of course. But as of right now, the law does not appear to be stopping them.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Jredbaron96 said:

Well of course. But as of right now, the law does not appear to be stopping them.

Click to expand...

As of now, they have talked a lot of ****. We'll see how it all plays out. I will be surprised (not upset...just surprised) if they have what they claim to have and manage to put it out without consequence. Even though they are I am sure a network of talented hackers, the government has got 'people' as well. So we'll see.

As for the law not stopping them...Assange, Schwartz, Manning...they might disagree with you a bit.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

VanceMack said:

As for the law not stopping them...Assange, Schwartz, Manning...they might disagree with you a bit.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But that's three out of thousands.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Jredbaron96 said:

Perhaps. But that's three out of thousands.

Click to expand...

1 responsible for Wikileaks, 1 responsible for Reddit, and one patsy responsible for delivering a buttload of materials. That aint so bad. And like I said...to date, Anonymous is a bunch of clowns running around in Guy Fawkes masks pretending to be relevant. Should they represent a 'real' threat to the US or any other government...Im betting the rules of engagement will change somewhat.

Not saying I approve or disapprove...just...it is what it is.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Samhain said:

Hackers are always cool........until they **** you over.

Click to expand...

I think its the whole 'vigilante justice' aspect that makes Anon appealing to a lot of people. Hackers who target innocent people were never cool.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

ChuckBerry said:

If they didn't style the announcement like the trailer of a movie I might take them more seriously. The music in the background was often louder than the speaker.

Until I see the goods I'm not impressed.

Click to expand...

Maybe they'll pull it off, maybe not. But they have a track record that proves they should be taken seriously.

Re: Constrictive Hacking!

Northern Light said:

It's kind of sad that we need hacktivists and wikileaks to force government transparency. Our governments should be more accountable by default.

Click to expand...

In the past it was guns and violence that forced transparency. I prefer this.