I am sympathetic to the side of 'Anonymous' because the only way to stop them is to destroy the freedom of the internet.
To me the statement 'Information wants to be free' isn't the statement it appears to be. It is a statement of policy and intent, not of literal fact.
It is not a true statement because I actually believe that every piece of data in the world literally should be available in the public domain, it is a true statement because the only way to achieve the alternative is to lock down and destroy a world of freedom and information that I have come to love with an abiding passion.
Successfully solving the problem of securing private government data from anonymous release over the internet requires that the internet as it exists now be destroyed.
Stopping me from freely copying music that exists on my computer requires that full control of my computer be unavailable to me.
Successfully solving the problem of ensuring centralised and secure online identification of individuals to stop online libel destroys the freedom of anonymous political dissent and organization.
I am deeply sympathetic to the political ideals of 'Anonymous' not because they are always right but because the nobody else in any position of authority or power appears to even recognise the problem.
Effectively, I am sympathetic to 'Anonymous' because there is no way for me not to be without also being against the freedoms that make them possible.
"The next day, February 6, the attacks turned serious, and Barr realized the extent of what Anonymous had done to him and to his company, which was currently in negotiations to sell itself to a pair of interested buyers."
My guess is (and I haven't read the emails, or any non-public information), Barr was hoping for a massive amount of (positive) publicity, followed by the inevitable rich rewards of a much higher buying price. What better way to get this publicity than to take on the current Public CyberEnemy #1, aka Anonymous?
Makes you wonder what kind of security company has such a sophomoric SQL exploit on their website + someone in a power position who claims to be able to locate and identify the actual owners of a social network profile solely by guess.
The only thing that irks me is: If his methods were so off, then how did he have the Facebook profile of 'CommanderX' to be able to have the conversation in the logs? Did he determine that through his methods, or was that a proxy profile that CommanderX uses that is not hidden (i.e. freely given)? Just something that doesn't seem to fit with the idea that his methods were not able to identify anyone associated w/ Anonymous.
Anonymous could provide a lot of red meat for Wikileaks if they tried, I think. Or would that not be a leak anymore but a theft? Anonbreaks - Wikileaks in overdrive.
There's a lot of misunderstanding of what Anonymous is.
adrianwaj is Anonymous if you so chose. You could release a Word Document with "Aaron Barr" in the author field declaring a war on Egg McMuffins and sign it Anonymous. You probably would get no traction and be ignored...
Or a week later you might read about a bunch of 16 year olds throwing Egg McMuffins to the Elephant at the Bronx Zoo wearing woody wood pecker masks while singing Christina Aguilera's version of the national anthem.
There is no "Anonymous" in the sense of a coherent group. There are only specific acts that received enough interest to garner outside attention.
When you say "If they tried" you are missing the point. You could try.
I know some commenters support Anonymous because they would rather have that kind of chaos than government clamping down even further on the internet, and I agree.
But I think it's a false choice. Certainly we can acknowledge the mob that's Anonymous is a phenomenon that is not in our best interests. Surely we can acknowledge that having to choose between censorship and crime is a false choice, right? I don't have to choose between supporting the government in buying a new fire truck and letting my house burn down, do I?
>I don't have to choose between supporting the government in buying a new fire truck and letting my house burn down, do I?
I don't see how this choice is analogous. Anon has yet to threaten my interests, at least to any degree that would concern me. However, they have been a thorn in the side of those who have threatened my interest to a greater degree. This kind of battle is part of a healthy society.
I think democracy is rooted in the ability for a group of citizens to bring significant and disruptive challenges to institutionalized powers. Democracy is a social agreement in which all remains well as long as fairness more or less prevails. Currently, Anon seems a reasonable check.
Also, IMO crime is not something that shouldn't happen. It is just something that should carry risk and consequence. At times, crime should be committed. The protesters in Egypt are committing a crime. In some real ways, economic for one, their actions are disruptive and hurtful. But, they had to weigh the consequences and come to a decision.
The interesting bit is that these "security" companies actually work with various government agencies and get tons of taxpayer money. Most politicians are clueless about what computer security means and have even less of a clue about cyber terrorism so companies like HBGary continue to proliferate even though they offer absolutely nothing for public well being.
[+] [-] bandushrew|15 years ago|reply
To me the statement 'Information wants to be free' isn't the statement it appears to be. It is a statement of policy and intent, not of literal fact.
It is not a true statement because I actually believe that every piece of data in the world literally should be available in the public domain, it is a true statement because the only way to achieve the alternative is to lock down and destroy a world of freedom and information that I have come to love with an abiding passion.
Successfully solving the problem of securing private government data from anonymous release over the internet requires that the internet as it exists now be destroyed.
Stopping me from freely copying music that exists on my computer requires that full control of my computer be unavailable to me.
Successfully solving the problem of ensuring centralised and secure online identification of individuals to stop online libel destroys the freedom of anonymous political dissent and organization.
I am deeply sympathetic to the political ideals of 'Anonymous' not because they are always right but because the nobody else in any position of authority or power appears to even recognise the problem.
Effectively, I am sympathetic to 'Anonymous' because there is no way for me not to be without also being against the freedoms that make them possible.
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
Oops.
[+] [-] ajays|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philthy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hysterix|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmaunder|15 years ago|reply
..especially if you're not above them in the food chain.
[+] [-] fleitz|15 years ago|reply
- Thomas Jefferson
[+] [-] jerf|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amadiver|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianwaj|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] parfe|15 years ago|reply
adrianwaj is Anonymous if you so chose. You could release a Word Document with "Aaron Barr" in the author field declaring a war on Egg McMuffins and sign it Anonymous. You probably would get no traction and be ignored...
Or a week later you might read about a bunch of 16 year olds throwing Egg McMuffins to the Elephant at the Bronx Zoo wearing woody wood pecker masks while singing Christina Aguilera's version of the national anthem.
There is no "Anonymous" in the sense of a coherent group. There are only specific acts that received enough interest to garner outside attention.
When you say "If they tried" you are missing the point. You could try.
[+] [-] marshray|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steveklabnik|15 years ago|reply
> While #Wikileaks seem to have some problems: #Anonleaks will be launching very soon. To start it will release 27000 mails of [email protected]
- @anonymousirc
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|15 years ago|reply
But I think it's a false choice. Certainly we can acknowledge the mob that's Anonymous is a phenomenon that is not in our best interests. Surely we can acknowledge that having to choose between censorship and crime is a false choice, right? I don't have to choose between supporting the government in buying a new fire truck and letting my house burn down, do I?
[+] [-] markkat|15 years ago|reply
I don't see how this choice is analogous. Anon has yet to threaten my interests, at least to any degree that would concern me. However, they have been a thorn in the side of those who have threatened my interest to a greater degree. This kind of battle is part of a healthy society.
I think democracy is rooted in the ability for a group of citizens to bring significant and disruptive challenges to institutionalized powers. Democracy is a social agreement in which all remains well as long as fairness more or less prevails. Currently, Anon seems a reasonable check.
Also, IMO crime is not something that shouldn't happen. It is just something that should carry risk and consequence. At times, crime should be committed. The protesters in Egypt are committing a crime. In some real ways, economic for one, their actions are disruptive and hurtful. But, they had to weigh the consequences and come to a decision.
[+] [-] bandushrew|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddkrone|15 years ago|reply