Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, their message is less valid when they use the tactics that they do.

Posting the user information from Sony customers was a gakky thing to do.

This is, of course, @Daedalus
So what you're saying is "The ends justify the means"?

You're on a very slippery slope there. The vast majority of their "causes" have never actually been any "good". Their methods are at best underhanded, and at worst blackmail.

I know, I know. Mainstream media bad, Anonymous good.

You want to know why it's so easy for the media to vilify Anonymous? Because Anonymous HAS NO ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OR CONTROL OVER ITS OWN 'MEMBERS'.

They have no goals. They have no viewpoint, they have no morality, they have no justification other than "because we felt like it". To act as if they're some kind of great driving force driving discussion of causes is to demean anyone who actually has strove to champion a cause.

Wolfun wrote:Anonymous aren't a group, more like a selection of groups.

People just use them as a scapegoat, but I know plenty of anons that don't do anything massively lawbreaking.

No. Anonymous is a title people use to justify their actions. It's why they're such a fantastic scapegoat.

Anyone can claim "I'm with Anonymous" when in reality they have no clue what the feth Anonymous is. It's like the "I support our soldiers" bumper stickers you see. In many cases, people bought them at the height of patriotic frenzy.

But since then, they've done buttkiss to actually support our soldiers.

Monster Rain wrote:Yes, their message is less valid when they use the tactics that they do.

Posting the user information from Sony customers was a criminal thing to do.

Corrected your typo.

I think it would be fair to say that it was both gakky and criminal.

Sure. But does that mean that the Fed HASN'T done the things Anonymous is screaming about at the moment? Is Goldman Sachs innocent? As far as the "media bad" fad I seem to be bandwagoning on, fair enough. However, doesn't it bug you though that they're not even touching anon's claims? Doesn't that seem a little odd? They just argue from authority saying "anon bad". I would think true journalism would be chomping at the bit to tear that apart. Hell, if its 100 percent bs, then you could argue that anonymous is bad AND incorrect. That puts every nail in the coffin right there. Why not?

daedalus wrote:Sure. But does that mean that the Fed HASN'T done the things Anonymous is screaming about at the moment? Is Goldman Sachs innocent?

OK, and?

You don't respond to someone doing something wrong by doing the wrong thing yourself.

That's what you don't seem to be getting. There's legal ways for them to go about the same thing, the difference is that they actively choose not to in most cases.

daedalus wrote:Sure. But does that mean that the Fed HASN'T done the things Anonymous is screaming about at the moment? Is Goldman Sachs innocent? As far as the "media bad" fad I seem to be bandwagoning on, fair enough. However, doesn't it bug you though that they're not even touching anon's claims? Doesn't that seem a little odd? They just argue from authority saying "anon bad". I would think true journalism would be chomping at the bit to tear that apart. Hell, if its 100 percent bs, then you could argue that anonymous is bad AND incorrect. That puts every nail in the coffin right there. Why not?

And what is really cool is none of that has ing all to do with anonymous and what it does.

Kanluwen wrote:they've done buttkiss

I think you mean "bupkis"

biccat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:they've done buttkiss

I think you mean "bupkis"

No. I in fact mean buttkiss. As in they've done nothing but kiss butt in regards to causes.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

What did they do to Rocky's dog?

Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.

They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.

I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"

Wow I am shocked just shocked you support identity theft, fraud, and a dozen other crimes. Shocked, just shocked.

Its ashame they don't crack DAKKA and post all your personal information on the internet so that the Nigerian Prince and his epic crew can get to know you better.

spankers being spankers.

Pointless little Interweb Warriors desperate to appear cool and street and hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for 'highlighting stuff that has to be highlighted' etc..

Well, when it comes to hacking a public network and distributing the stolen information, it's a bit like me setting out to prove your model of car isn't hammer proof, by fething your car over with a hammer, then expecting you to be pissed off with the manufacturer for not making it completely hammer proof, rather than me, and my conscious decision to feth your car with a hammer....

Frazzled wrote:

And what is really cool is none of that has ing all to do with anonymous and what it does.

Anonymous is a label, not a specific group of people. The specific group of people calling themselves anonymous that the op was talking about were the ones who made that YouTube video. Long as we are assigning "human" characteristics to anonymous, lets ultimately just consider it schitzophrenic. It certainly shows the symptoms. Now, can you really judge morality of a schitzophrenic? I don't think so. Their actions are too erratic and seemingly inconsistent with any particular goal.

daedalus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

And what is really cool is none of that has ing all to do with anonymous and what it does.

Anonymous is a label, not a specific group of people. The specific group of people calling themselves anonymous that the op was talking about were the ones who made that YouTube video. Long as we are assigning "human" characteristics to anonymous, lets ultimately just consider it schitzophrenic. It certainly shows the symptoms. Now, can you really judge morality of a schitzophrenic? I don't think so. Their actions are too erratic and seemingly inconsistent with any particular goal.

No. You don't get to say that it's a case of it being "schitzophrenic" or some kind of mental illness.
It's a case of they have no impulse control because their mothers didn't ever say "No sweetie don't do that", and they don't care that their actions have consequences.

daedalus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

And what is really cool is none of that has ing all to do with anonymous and what it does.

Anonymous is a label, not a specific group of people. The specific group of people calling themselves anonymous that the op was talking about were the ones who made that YouTube video. Long as we are assigning "human" characteristics to anonymous, lets ultimately just consider it schitzophrenic. It certainly shows the symptoms. Now, can you really judge morality of a schitzophrenic? I don't think so. Their actions are too erratic and seemingly inconsistent with any particular goal.

Sure I can. Schizosd can be criminals too. You just need less ropes when you hang them off the bridge.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Pointless little Interweb Warriors desperate to appear cool and street and hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for 'highlighting stuff that has to be highlighted' etc..

Well, when it comes to hacking a public network and distributing the stolen information, it's a bit like me setting out to prove your model of car isn't hammer proof, by fething your car over with a hammer, then expecting you to be pissed off with the manufacturer for not making it completely hammer proof, rather than me, and my conscious decision to feth your car with a hammer....

Street? Europe must have a different meaning for this term than I do. As far as you example goes, I don't think it works. Far as the government sites go, I own it, as much as everyone else who pays their taxes. I'd rather idealists crack them exposing flaws than the Chinese.

As far as the Sony stuff, well, I'm not affected and you can't prove that was the same anonymous. I honestly have a hard time caring. I do know that any company that doesn't store data like passwords one way hashed deserves the worst coming to you.

So my other point, or rather comparisson, are you seriously telling me you would pat them on the back when their next attack feths you over?

Karon wrote:Good people doing good things. Many claim to be Anonymous, but aren't, this is why they are untraceable. They are Legion, anyone can be Anonymous, nobody is Anonymous, while everyone is Anonymous.

They go after a lot of terrible things that need to be shut down like Scientology.

I seriously lol'd at the "Hacking is illegal, so Hacking is bad"

Why do people get in to such a rage about scientology? To me it seems pretty much like the 1500s Catholic Chur-oh. Everything is wrong with scientology.

And I also laughed at the illegal=bad thing. So a politician says it's wrong, so it's wrong?

Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.

They're the real life Alpha Legion. The difference here of course is that whilst Alpharius does have a central goal, Anonymous seems to do things more for I beleive it's called 'the lulz'. I am not paticularly pro or against them, in fact their goals are sometimes my own, but I will not confess to having any great love for them.

Also, the idea of 'tracking' them seems laughable.

TrollPie wrote:
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.

And that's the big issue.

They're not really a "group of people with lots of differing beliefs". They're a shield for people to hide behind when doing illegal activities and claiming some kind of moral high ground.

Mr Mystery wrote:So my other point, or rather comparisson, are you seriously telling me you would pat them on the back when their next attack feths you over?

No then he would be mad, irate even.

Off a bridge I tell you, after they are tarred and feathered.

Kanluwen wrote:

TrollPie wrote:
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.

And that's the big issue.

They're not really a "group of people with lots of differing beliefs". They're a shield for people to hide behind when doing illegal activities and claiming some kind of moral high ground.

Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.

TrollPie wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

TrollPie wrote:
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.

And that's the big issue.

They're not really a "group of people with lots of differing beliefs". They're a shield for people to hide behind when doing illegal activities and claiming some kind of moral high ground.

Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.

I dunno about you, but I'm the sort of person that, when part of an organisation, wouldn't think twice about resigning my position should the group endorse activities I do not approve of. Like, you know, massive breach of data privacy, just to show off their tiny little todgers online.

TrollPie wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

TrollPie wrote:
Anyways, they're a group of people with no real leader and no real cause. What they do is actually what X teenager from X does, not some kind of massive KGB assassin conspiracy. In short, they aren't anything but a group of people with lots of differing beliefs.

And that's the big issue.

They're not really a "group of people with lots of differing beliefs". They're a shield for people to hide behind when doing illegal activities and claiming some kind of moral high ground.

Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.

Then exterminate them as a group?

TrollPie wrote:Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.

So they're only a group in so far as they're classed together. Gotcha.

When most people say group, the mean the meaning: A number of people who work together or share certain beliefs.

I probably would be mad then were that to be the case. At the group of people calling themselves anonymous who did that. Not at the people who call themselves anonymous who are doing all the work against the government. Your posts seem to imply that you assume anonymous to all be meeting at a VFW hall under a big club banner. I believe the anonymous who dis the Sony thing has never had anything to do with the 'good' (not my word) anonymous. Chances are the Sony thing was a handful of people who took advantage of the situation and used the title as misdirection and are laughing about the confusion even today. Assume I took the name Frazzled and posted at warseer and et cetera, espousing such notions as legality does not equal morality and that gunslinging Texan justice was bad. Would you accuse this Frazzled of being a sissy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:

TrollPie wrote:Again, they're a group of people. They don't do everything together and they aren't lead by everyone. Some people will hide behind it as you said, and some people will use it because they actually have a message they're trying to spread.

So they're only a group in so far as they're classed together. Gotcha.

When most people say group, the mean the meaning: A number of people who work together or share certain beliefs.

Consider the south park episode about NAMBLA. It two (or more) groups of people sharing the same name.

No, I'd expect this Frazzled to make it clear that the other Frazzled is sod all to do with him, and is abusing his good name.

Not just hide behind anonymity like a big girls blouse.

Mr Mystery wrote:No, I'd expect this Frazzled to make it clear that the other Frazzled is sod all to do with him, and is abusing his good name.

Not just hide behind anonymity like a big girls blouse.

Indeed. The problem with it is that, since there's no requirement or accountability for membership nor any leadership, there IS no different group. You're making a distinction that doesn't exist, Daedalus, because there is no difference by their own admission(or lack there of).

Mr Mystery wrote:No, I'd expect this Frazzled to make it clear that the other Frazzled is sod all to do with him, and is abusing his good name.

Not just hide behind anonymity like a big girls blouse.

You'd quickly be able to tell because one Frazzled would be found chasing kids off his lawn with a shotgun, while another one appeared on a TV clip report fo the only person to ever be eaten by wiener dogs. Angry yard Frazzled would be pleased.

Put it this way, a newspaper once hassled my family, because somebody with a name very similar to mine, murdered his Dad, who had a very similar name to my own.

And yes, I put them straight as quickly as I could.

This is true btw.