Anonymous Shuts Down Westboro Site
http://www.itproportal.com/2011/02/25/anonymous-retaliates-against-baptist-church-provocation/
Quite a funny story if you ask me. Anonymous is still going strong too, apparently (sorry to go on a tangent) they are hacking government websites of cruel regimes.
Regardless, a little bit of humour to throw into the mix of things that are going on right now.
Originally posted by inimalist
it makes them no more threatening that anarchist dynamite throwers in the late nineteenth century, which is, not effective, and so good at causing media ruckus that they will almost certainly cause state backlash disproportionate to anything they have done.
Nah. They are called anon for a reason: so easy that even a 14-year-old can do it. They just have to "do it" right. They freely share with each other how to "evade" the system with multiple proxies and those proxies "wipe" their data once a day.
So, by the time the investigation begins, almost all the proxies have wiped their data. After a few days, when an investigation begins, it's too late to catch them. Only the idiots that participate in "anon" get caught.
Where as the backlash been against the commnity? I see individual cases, but no major 'busts.' You know?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. They are called anon for a reason: so easy that even a 14-year-old can do it. They just have to "do it" right. They freely share with each other how to "evade" the system with multiple proxies and those proxies "wipe" their data once a day.
as evidenced by the Anonymous attacks in the wake of the Assange arrest: The FBI/CIA can find you if you are behind a proxy. I don't know if it is through normal police work or cyber know-how, but they can. iirc, one of those arrested was traced through their proxy
Originally posted by dadudemon
So, by the time the investigation begins, almost all the proxies have wiped their data. After a few days, when an investigation begins, it's too late to catch them. Only the idiots that participate in "anon" get caught.
its acutally worse if we can't catch them. A group of hackers that gets media attention for attacking religion are not going to do much in favor of net nutrality. An organized group that specifically only targets issues of internet censorhip? probably has a better face for the public, which, as you and i both know, is ignorant of anything computer related (not that Im any better or anything)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Where as the backlash been against the commnity? I see individual cases, but no major 'busts.' You know?
WBC and scientology probably arent high profile enough targets. I guess where the comparison to ninteenth century anarchists falls apart is the fact that anonymous isnt going against heads of state.
thats right, of how disorganized and non-relevant anonymous is falls apart because anonymous is too disorganized and attacks too non-relevant targets /lol. I actually did lol for a second
Originally posted by inimalist
as evidenced by the Anonymous attacks in the wake of the Assange arrest: The FBI/CIA can find you if you are behind a proxy. I don't know if it is through normal police work or cyber know-how, but they can. iirc, one of those arrested was traced through their proxy
Well, I'd like to believe I covered that already:
"They just have to "do it" right. They freely share with each other how to "evade" the system with multiple proxies and those proxies "wipe" their data once a day...
Only the idiots that participate in "anon" get caught.
...
I see individual cases, but no major 'busts.'"
It certainly doesn't help that the young man bragged about it on the inner-tubes and the authorities, wanting to not look totally incompetant, HAD to arrest someone...so why not a retarded, naive, kid?
Originally posted by inimalist
its acutally worse if we can't catch them. A group of hackers that gets media attention for attacking religion are not going to do much in favor of net nutrality. An organized group that specifically only targets issues of internet censorhip? probably has a better face for the public, which, as you and i both know, is ignorant of anything computer related (not that Im any better or anything)
I see child pronz as being close to 1000 times more high-profile and much damaging to true net neutrality...it's very hard for any reasonible person to argue for net neutrality in the face of such a morally detestable element.
Originally posted by inimalist
WBC and scientology probably arent high profile enough targets. I guess where the comparison to ninteenth century anarchists falls apart is the fact that anonymous isnt going against heads of state.thats right, of how disorganized and non-relevant anonymous is falls apart because anonymous is too disorganized and attacks too non-relevant targets /lol. I actually did lol for a second
lol
I lol'd at you lol'ing at that.
I'm with dadudemon on this. The ringleaders, such as they are, are basically immune to retaliation and computing is modular enough that they can spread a good portion of that immunity to thousands of people with very little effort.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I see child pronz as being close to 1000 times more high-profile and much damaging to true net neutrality...it's very hard for any reasonible person to argue for net neutrality in the face of such a morally detestable element.
I was about to say "I don't see why that would be." but then I looked at wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be a perfect consensus on what net neutrality exactly means. I'd always been of the impression that it was purely about preventing tiered service, not completely eliminating censorship.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was about to say "I don't see why that would be." but then I looked at wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be a perfect consensus on what net neutrality exactly means. I'd always been of the impression that it was purely about preventing tiered service, not completely eliminating censorship.
I'm "old" school and it only means, to me, that ISPs are to NOT interfere with the data being bused by their systems: as long as the customer paid, they turn a blind eye to the traffic and neither actively monitor it nor prevent or allow specific types of traffic: allow all.
It has expanded to include government, as of late, due to various censorship thingies.
Originally, from what I know, it was ISPs blocking traffic to allow for "higher premium" traffic to get through...which stemmed from competitors' traffic being bused on an ISPs network. It's what happens when your content provider is also your data provider: net neutrality goes out the window as the data provider will obviously have a business interest (as they should) in prioritizing their premium content and/or their business partners' premium content. That's ethically wrong...but not necessarily legally wrong.
maybe net neutrality was the wrong term, what I am saying though, is that small, soft targets like churches are going to cause more backlash than they are worth. Might individual members of anonymous get away without getting caught, sure. Does this change the fact that the logical end result of their action is going to be more invasive policing of the internet?
I'll post this, its an hour long, but it talks about the French Anarchists, and I think the comparison is apt. They had all of these loosely affiliated individuals who would carry out this "propoganda of the deed", not really causing that much danger or change in their societies, but creating a situation where the state overreacted and, essentially, layed the groundwork for a lot of the modern police state. At the very least, the professors last point, about how the reaction of the state is always disproportionate and draconian, is extremely relevant: without some larger goal or motivation, Anonymous actually risks losing their ability to be anonymous.
the point about pedophiles is 100% wrong though. sure, I'm happy they get arrested, but the vast majority of child porn cases never pierce mainstream media coverage, or get a quick summary on local news. Anonymous sends a hoax letter to WBC and it gets picked up. It is this media image itself that will kill anonymous faster than anything. After Assange, anything Anonymous does gets headlines. To the public, it makes them seem much more powerful and dangerous than they really are. its that paranoia that will make people willing to sacrifice internet privacy such that they might be safe, much, again, like the anarchists or terrorists of modern time.
Anonymous hacks the church during a live broadcast. Near the end.
ok, ya, I'm not saying we are going to become China because Anonymous messes up the web site of some churches, but we've already seen the government step in to try and shut down torrent hosting sites through both legislation and direct connections with corporations.
And no, I also don't think Anonymous is the specific group that is going to cause this. Frankly, the way the media attached the title "former hacker" to Assange probably did more damage so far as making people think hackers are a dangerous and "plotting" group than does Anonymous.
maybe my point is more like: If someone is going to risk government backlash, make it worthwhile.