Skip to main content

View Diary: 13 Anonymous Members Indicted On Federal Charges (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You completely avoided my point. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shifty18, erush1345, Hey338Too

    I quote from the paragraph immediately before the first excerpt you posted:

    Anonymous focused on websites that were either critical of WikiLeaks or had refused to process payments for WikiLeaks, among them MasterCard and Visa. The targets even included the Swedish prosecutor’s office, in connection with arrest warrants for sexual crimes issued for Assange.
    The sites named in that paragraph had absolutely nothing to do with (alleged) DDoS attacks against pirate websites.

    Thus, even if one accepts the validity of retaliatory attacks against the organizations that (allegedly) engaged in DDoS attacks against pirate websites (which I don't concede, by the way), why should those alleged attacks be in any way relevant to the question of whether or not Anonymous was justified in attacking the sites listed above?

    And if the (alleged) DDoS attacks against pirate websites aren't part of the justification for attacking those non-related sites, then on what basis are you making the argument that Anonymous's attacks on those non-related sites is justified to the point that they are "cyber-freedom fighters" who are being unjustly prosecuted by legal authorities?

    Finally, you failed to answer my question in the previous comment: What exactly do you think the response by the authorities to Anonymous's DDoS attacks should have been?

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:15:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tool

      Whether or not you'd like to concede the point is relevant to reality. The attacks have been going on for years regardless of the locality and quantum coherence of the electrons in your brain matter.

      You position is clearly opposed to the black bloc tactics of Anonymous. You either believe it is just to throw the rock at the tank or your don't; There are no rocks in cyberspace. There are, however, attack tool suites. But, if someone hits you with a stick. you will hit them back.

      No one seemed to be complaining when Anonymous hacked, illegally, the computer networks of the Tunisian government and help to expose the corruption therein. Nor, was the left complaining when Anonymous called for Days if Protest that where answered around the world in a youthful revival of leftism. You cannot have it both ways. Either hacking is wrong regardless of the target or hacktivsim has an extralegal place in this world.

      Those with the power and influence have always controlled the laws and regulations in this country and others. Civil disobedience has always had a place in the movement and hacktivism is just that. That shall continue, regardless of your likelihood to concede it when the wavefuntion of your thought collapses.

      Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

      by ShockandAwed on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:56:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Typo (0+ / 0-)
        Whether or not you'd like to concede the point is relevant to reality.
        Isn't.

        Moreover, you are attempting to extricate this one instance from the larger context of hacktivism and it is intellectually dishonest. Receiving punishment for doing what is right, standing up for the oppressed and abused, and, it should be noted, exactly what intelligence agencies do all the time, is wrong.

        If the establishment is out of control, then by what effective means do you suggest the people do about that? Should Julian Assange go to prison? Should Snowden? Should Manning? No. And neither should these cyber-freedom fighters.

        You asked what I thought should be done to them? My answer: The exact same thing done to the other side when they perform the exact same function for the copyright industry groups. Nothing. Silence. It is about equal justice for all; The sad joke of American society.

        But, that goes back to the fact that the groups in favor of the status quo have an institutional immunity from prosecution. While, the rest of America that speaks out(or acts up) lives in fear of the boot coming down on their necks.

        Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

        by ShockandAwed on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:30:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So now it's the law of the jungle? (0+ / 0-)
          You asked what I thought should be done to them? My answer: The exact same thing done to the other side when they perform the exact same function for the copyright industry groups. Nothing. Silence.
          So you're saying that anyone should be able to engage in a DDoS attack on anyone else, on any pretext, without prosecution or punishment? Because that's essentially the position you're laying down here. Anonymous is accountable to nobody. There are no checks on their power, no balances that force them to act only in just ways.

          You are suggesting that such a lack of accountability continue, that Anonymous be treated as "cyber-freedom fighters" who are above any kind of law or morality save those they make for themselves. That is not the basis for any kind of civil society.

          Are all website owners now to live in fear of upsetting Anonymous, no matter on how slight a pretext, because they could decide to DDoS their site, or engage in "ruin life tactics" against them?

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:13:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't try to couch it in "civil disobedience." (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bill W
        You position is clearly opposed to the black bloc tactics of Anonymous.
        Well, you're right about that. I have never supported the violence of black bloc tactics, whether online or in the real world.
        There are, however, attack tool suites. But, if someone hits you with a stick. you will hit them back.
        So it's the law of the jungle now? Is that all you think that humanity is, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

        You also are completely ignoring the fact that many of the people Anonymous attacked did not, in fact, hit them with a stick. Your "eye for an eye" construction might work for the organizations that (allegedly) engaged in DDoS attacks against pirate websites, but it does not work for the Swedish prosecutors who were doing nothing more than their jobs.

        You cannot have it both ways. Either hacking is wrong regardless of the target or hacktivsim has an extralegal place in this world.
        So you are saying that there are absolutely no qualitative differences of any kind between any two acts of hacking? All acts of "hacktivism" are the same, no matter their tactics, no matter their targets, no matter their purpose? If one accepts the hacking of oppressive regimes like that of Tunisia, one must also accept cyberattacks on a Swedish prosecutor who happens to issue a warrant for the arrest of someone the hackers support, or "ruin life tactics" used against people with absolutely no oversight and absolutely no accountability?

        That's certainly what it reads like—that there is no gray area. One must either accept each and every act of "hacktivism" as valid and justified, or vilify them all. If that is your position, it's a simplistic and childish one.

        Civil disobedience has always had a place in the movement and hacktivism is just that.
        If this were "civil disobedience," Anonymous would not be anonymous. They would follow the writings of Dr. King and engage in their acts of civil disobedience openly in the full light of day, with love, and freely accept the legal punishment for their acts as a means of bringing attention to the injustice being permitted by the law. Not one of their acts would be intended to result in the destruction or ruination of anyone's life, because that is completely counter to the spirit of nonviolent civil disobedience.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:09:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

          Civil disobedience is marching up to the lunch counter and demanding to be served.  As opposed to sneaking up to the store in the middle of the night, gluing the locks, and running away.
          It's the difference between the SCLC and the Army of God.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site