Is Hacktivism OK?/Should we applaud or rebuke Anonymous's hacktivism efforts?

[#HBC | Mac]

Over the last year, hacking has come to the forefront of public knowledge as Anonymous, Lulzsec and other groups began to publicize their hacking endeavors. Though Anonymous has been active for quite a while, the effect of hacktivism started becoming press-worthy and apparent when members of Anonymous launched ddos attacks against Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard, Visa and the Swiss bank PostFinance, for various anti-wikileaks actions (such as closing down Wikileaks' accounts with various banks, freezing assets and disallowing payments/donations to be made to such accounts.) This marked the beginning of a plethora of widely publicized hacking attacks.

Since then, Anonymous has launched various initiatives against different organizations that they believe are immoral or unethical. The group Lulzsec spun off from Anonymous earlier this year, and started releasing various payload containing data they obtained in attacks on a number of corpoations and organizations. Together, the two groups have unleashed various attacks against a plethora of high-ranking corporations, including AOL, ATAT, the Arizona Police Department, FOX, a number of affiliates to the FBI, various components of the CIA, multiple subsidiaries of SONY, The Sun, News of The World, and many more.

They have unearthed information revealing that HBGary, a technology security company, has been working with US Justice Department and influential companies such as Bank of America on various projects to remove to cause damage to Wikileaks. It was revealed that they working on a rootkit (malware) for windows computers that would have been nearly impossible to detect or remove. It was also revealed that HBGary was contracted by the US Government to develop astroturfing software which, according to wikipedia, "would create an "army" of multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues [such as Wikileaks". This software could also scan for people with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like and then have the "fake" profiles attempt to discredit those "real" people." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary)''

Recently, the US government released an official statement dictating that cyber attacks against the US (and their affiliated organizations) would be observed as a declaration of war against the US and that they would respond accordingly. (both the decentralized Anonymous group and Lulzsec have hacked various government web components in order to call the US's bluff).

Recently, Lulzsec and Anonymous joined forces again to create operation #AntiSec, an initiative against corrupt organizations and governments. Read their Press Release below. The latest attack for #AntiSec has been against NATO, apparently they were able to obtain a gb of information. Lulzsec also recently attacked sites belonging to News of the World and claim to have obtained a number of emails that they say would have a profound impact on the judicial hearings going on right now about the Murdoch scandal.

The US Government and NATO have both made statements declaring these groups to be public threats or terrorists.

There is too much information to really cover in this post, so I suggest that you read further on your own:

Wikipedia pages: Anonymous, Lulzsec, Operation AntiSec

Press Releases: Joint Statement by LulzSec and Anonymous, Operation AntiSec, Lulzsec Manifesto, Anonymous's response to NATO

Twitter Accounts: @AnonymousIRC, @Lulzsec

Other:
LulSecurity's official website. Shows every release they made so far including information on each hack they've committed.

(There is still much more information out there, if anyone has more sites and webpages I can put here that provides information on the various hacking collectives in a succinct and unbiased manner, please post them and I will update the front page)

It is clear that cyber attacks and hacktivism has become a large part of today's society and have real world effects. Public opinion on the actions of Anonymous and Lulzsec and other hacker collectives have been divided.

Some say that these groups consist of 'script kiddies' or ignorant young people who don't understand the consequences of their actions and will just find themselves in jail. They argue that the actions perpetuated by such groups will result in giving the US reasons to further censor the internet and can only have a negative impact. Others complain that such hacks are only hurting the people as a whole, making our country more susceptible to foreign threats.

Others believe differently. They argue that such hacktivism is shedding light on corrupt government and corporation practices. By getting media coverage, these hacker collectives bring various discussions and issues to the public knowledge. They believe that something needs to be done to stop corruption in influential organizations. Some people in the cyber-security field applaud Lulzsec/Anonymous for showing how insecure many cyber institutions are and in result will force people to start to care about securing their websites in order to protect users' data.

What do you think?

 

[Battlecow]

I'm not against vigilante justice on principle, but come on. These people are absolute d*cks. Wikileaks? Really? That's the cause you're gonna pick? There's nothing laudable about their efforts, and the only reason anyone even pays attention is because the majority of the public still has these odd, romantic '90s views of "teh H4><0rz" or whatever.

They're not "brilliant." They're not "controversial." They're really just a bunch of kids with too much internet access and too little parenting. They throw temper tantrums when someone tries to get in the way of their theft or child pornography. What "corruption" have they uncovered? What have they contributed to any discussion beyond the ever-present and unbelievably annoying high-school anarchist viewpoint?

 

[eschemat]

Hacktivism on principle is not good or bad. In the case of LulzSec, it's bad, but Anonymous is good. Unfortunately I don't have much time right now, but LulzSec did pointless hacking, whereas hacking on behalf of Wikileaks is on principle making our world more free.

I think that hacktivism is the most justifiable when they hack into corrupt governments like the Chinese though.

 

[A1lion835]

LulzSec, Anonymous, and other groups would like their image to be something like that of the Internet's Robinhood. I think the stated cause -- to reveal corruption, promote transparency, etc. in government -- isn't something we should be against. But I have trouble seeing how stealing people's credit card information, passwords, and Sony accounts has anything to do with it.

 

[Alacion]

While the things Anonymous and other hacktivists do have good intentions, their execution is totally unacceptable. There are better ways to get attention and have things addressed.

Take for example, the situation with Sony. What did Sony's hacking really accomplish? All it did was generate annoyance for the PSN users who could not access it. Did Sony change the way they conduct business with their stakeholders? I certainly haven't seen any changes.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad the 14 or so Anonymous members got arrested recently. This hacking business causes more damage than good.

 

[eschemat]

Let me give some examples of what Anonymous has done that has been good.

DDoS attack on Hal Turner, a white supremacist who openly put his beliefs of supremacy, which is a bad thing, as we can see in Rwanda where it started a civil war on ethnic grounds.

They caught Chris Forcand and reported him to police. Chris Forcand is child molester.

A DDoS attack on the Australian government who was planning on censoring some pornographies, which is disputable but it got the idea of Anonymous across.

DDoS on Zimbabwe for censoring WikiLeaks files.

There are much more that you can read up on, but on principle, hacktivism is like regular civil disobedience and on principle, we should deem it OK if we deem civil disobedience right on principle. The question is whether or not civil disobedience is right.

 

[A1lion835]

DDoS attack on Hal Turner, a white supremacist who openly put his beliefs of supremacy, which is a bad thing, as we can see in Rwanda where it started a civil war on ethnic grounds.

What I have to say isn't entirely on-topic, and I do agree with the rest of your post. Attacking him just because he's a white supremacist isn't justified. Is he a jerk? Hell yes. Does he deserve to get punched for being an arrogant ****? Likely. But it's not illegal to be an *******, nor should it be. Even if your ******* ideology causes wars, you still have a right to that ideology. Violating other people's rights is a no-no, but a person shouldn't be directly punished just because they're not a nice person.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I'm all for the message behind the 'hacktivism' (exposing corruption, promoting freedom, etc) but some stuff has been taken too far, and I feel like some of the attacks are based more on the collective ideals of the group as opposed to the idea of defending freedoms. Look at the WBC and Hal Turner DDoS attacks by Anonymous, for example. While I firmly support that those people are ****ing idiots and I would personally drop kick all of them in the face if I saw them, I feel like these attacks take away from what 'credibility' these groups do have. While they may be admirable causes, they don't stick with the central ideas of the group (in Anonymous' case) and that just sort of irks me, regardless of how I feel about the victims of the attacks in the cases I mentioned.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

They're not "brilliant." They're not "controversial." They're really just a bunch of kids with too much internet access and too little parenting. They throw temper tantrums when someone tries to get in the way of their theft or child pornography.

Please try not to over generalize. If you're gonna make statements such as 'they're a bunch of kids with too much internet access...' or 'They throw temper tantrums when someone tries to get in the way of their theft or child pornography' please have something to back that up. Making colorful general statements that have no merit doesn't help your case.

What "corruption" have they uncovered? What have they contributed to any discussion beyond the ever-present and unbelievably annoying high-school anarchist viewpoint?

If you fully read my first post, I give an example of what Anonymous's hacking efforts have uncovered. See here:

They have unearthed information revealing that HBGary, a technology security company, has been working with US Justice Department and influential companies such as Bank of America on various projects to remove to cause damage to Wikileaks. It was revealed that they working on a rootkit (malware) for windows computers that would have been nearly impossible to detect or remove. It was also revealed that HBGary was contracted by the US Government to develop astroturfing software which, according to wikipedia, "would create an "army" of multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues [such as Wikileaks". This software could also scan for people with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like and then have the "fake" profiles attempt to discredit those "real" people." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary)''

At the very minimum this shows that the US. government isn't above creating malware and infecting their own populaces's computers with it or making fake accounts on social networks to distort how the public views certain issues. This shows that the US government will readily use disinformation against the people in the US to further their agenda. When you combine that with the media and news corporations not properly reporting the facts and instead sensationalizing trivial issues you can see how that can be a problem. If hbgary wasn't doing anything wrong, why did the US government (as weel other high ranking corporations) distance themselves from HBGary?

Hacktivism on principle is not good or bad. In the case of LulzSec, it's bad, but Anonymous is good. Unfortunately I don't have much time right now, but LulzSec did pointless hacking, whereas hacking on behalf of Wikileaks is on principle making our world more free.

I think that hacktivism is the most justifiable when they hack into corrupt governments like the Chinese though.

I agree with you that when comparing Lulzsec and Anonymous, Lulzsec has done hacking that wasn't really about hactivism but more about creating chaos. I therefore appreciate Anonymous's efforts much more than Lulzsec's. However that may change now that Lulzsec is standing behind the AntiSec movement, and does seem to have an agenda. Apparently (or so I hear) the point of Lulzsec was to bring even more publicity to anonymous's efforts (or at the very least that's what happened at the end).

On another unrelated tangent. Many high ranking individuals in the cyber security industry applaud Lulzsec for showing the world just how insecure our cyber systems are. Lulzsec and Anonymous aren't the only hackers out there. There are many others who hack into places, find valueable data, and then leave without trace. The data they obtain is then sold on the black market, to competing companies or even nations. This is much worse than what Lulzsec is doing, and atleast they are showing people how easily systems can be compromised.

LulzSec, Anonymous, and other groups would like their image to be something like that of the Internet's Robinhood. I think the stated cause -- to reveal corruption, promote transparency, etc. in government -- isn't something we should be against. But I have trouble seeing how stealing people's credit card information, passwords, and Sony accounts has anything to do with it.

This is more Lulzsec's doing which I talk about earlier in this post. It's not hacktivism and not really the topic of conversation. I agree with you however. When you look at some of the things Anonymous has done, and some of the causes they are behind, they do seem to be promoting their ideals. (Some other people have touched on what they done, and i talk about it earlier in my post)

You raise a good point though, that brings up an issue I have with the two groups. I believe that in order to properly show people the ideals you stand for, and what corruption you're trying to expose, you shouldn't connect yourself with others (lulzsec) that just seem to be in it for chaos. If they do this, people may question where their nobility is if there are actions that they are linked to that doesn't further there cause. Pretty much exactly what you were saying. If Anonymous wasn't connected to Lulzsec it wouldn't make people believe that all they are doing is stealing people's private information and publishing it on the internet. The actions of one affect how people perceive actions of the others or the group as a whole.

While the things Anonymous and other hacktivists do have good intentions, their execution is totally unacceptable. There are better ways to get attention and have things addressed.

Take for example, the situation with Sony. What did Sony's hacking really accomplish? All it did was generate annoyance for the PSN users who could not access it. Did Sony change the way they conduct business with their stakeholders? I certainly haven't seen any changes.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad the 14 or so Anonymous members got arrested recently. This hacking business causes more damage than good.

Again, this is more Lulzsec's territory. People have brought up examples (and I have as well earlier in this post) about how Anonymous's actions have had noble causes and some issues they have been able to unearth by hacking.

When you say 'there are better ways to get attention and have things addressed' are you saying you believe that general hacktivism is bad, or just specifically these things related to the sony situation (and similar)? What are some of the ways you would suggest 'to get attention and have things addressed'?

Let me give some examples of what Anonymous has done that has been good.

DDoS attack on Hal Turner, a white supremacist who openly put his beliefs of supremacy, which is a bad thing, as we can see in Rwanda where it started a civil war on ethnic grounds.

They caught Chris Forcand and reported him to police. Chris Forcand is child molester.

A DDoS attack on the Australian government who was planning on censoring some pornographies, which is disputable but it got the idea of Anonymous across.

DDoS on Zimbabwe for censoring WikiLeaks files.

There are much more that you can read up on, but on principle, hacktivism is like regular civil disobedience and on principle, we should deem it OK if we deem civil disobedience right on principle. The question is whether or not civil disobedience is right.

Valid examples. I agree that hacktivism is ok. The internet and the technological advancement of our people as a whole just gave us another venue to promote our activism efforts. Now that old methods of activism are starting to be less and less effective and useful, people need to seek a new way to promote their ideals.

I'm all for the message behind the 'hacktivism' (exposing corruption, promoting freedom, etc) but some stuff has been taken too far, and I feel like some of the attacks are based more on the collective ideals of the group as opposed to the idea of defending freedoms. Look at the WBC and Hal Turner DDoS attacks by Anonymous, for example. While I firmly support that those people are ****ing idiots and I would personally drop kick all of them in the face if I saw them, I feel like these attacks take away from what 'credibility' these groups do have. While they may be admirable causes, they don't stick with the central ideas of the group (in Anonymous' case) and that just sort of irks me, regardless of how I feel about the victims of the attacks in the cases I mentioned.

The whole thing really is subjective though isn't it? Even though may try to align themselves with what may be good for the people, it's still their opinion. Of course they must go with the collective ideals of the group. Take a look at MLK. Promoting black freedom wasn't something that the general populace wanted or would stand behind. But it was his opinion that it was right, and that us as a people need equality for all races in order to stay on the proper path. The people in the civil rights movement, did things that spoke only to their own 'collective ideals of the group' but it was right. So I can't say that I agree with you that there is an issue in them fighting for what they believe in.

 

[Battlecow]

Please try not to over generalize. If you're gonna make statements such as 'they're a bunch of kids with too much internet access...' or 'They throw temper tantrums when someone tries to get in the way of their theft or child pornography' please have something to back that up. Making colorful general statements that have no merit doesn't help your case.


If you fully read my first post, I give an example of what Anonymous's hacking efforts have uncovered. See here:

We're all familiar with the culture Anonymous springs from. It's hard to "pin down" who exactly is involved, but the one thing we do know is that their members are drawn from 4chan, encyclopedia dramatica, etc. Basically, the places where they do and say horrible, awful things hoping for a reaction. Are you suggesting that these people are public-spirited good citizens? Guys you'd like to go have a beer with? Because I was under the impression that they were mostly products of a culture where **** and child molestation are drooled over. They're not doing anything genuinely useful; their attacks are mainly perpetrated on who they're pissed off on at the moment. Would you give me power of life and death over anyone I didn't like? No? Then why are you in favor of allowing ANONYMOUS people from the cesspools of internet culture power over anyone and everyone who they decide deserves punishment?

We do have rule of law in the US, you know.

I did read your first post. They caught one child molester. They're like 1/100 of a Chris Hansen. Would they like a cookie?

Other than that- it's all Wikileaks. Defending Wikileaks from HBGary, etc., etc.

Now, this isn't an argument about wikileaks, but I fail to see the difference between the dirty tricks that people tried to use to discredit wikileaks and the dirty tricks Anonymous used to discredit the discreditors. They both used illegal means to accomplish what they thought was "right." Personally, I dislike wikileaks. I think that those who support it have a tremendously simplistic view of politics. But I wouldn't try to subvert it using illegal or amoral means. What gives Anonymous the right?

 

[blazedaces]

We're all familiar with the culture Anonymous springs from. It's hard to "pin down" who exactly is involved, but the one thing we do know is that their members are drawn from 4chan, encyclopedia dramatica, etc. Basically, the places where they do and say horrible, awful things hoping for a reaction. Are you suggesting that these people are public-spirited good citizens? Guys you'd like to go have a beer with? Because I was under the impression that they were mostly products of a culture where **** and child molestation are drooled over. They're not doing anything genuinely useful; their attacks are mainly perpetrated on who they're pissed off on at the moment. Would you give me power of life and death over anyone I didn't like? No? Then why are you in favor of allowing ANONYMOUS people from the cesspools of internet culture power over anyone and everyone who they decide deserves punishment?

Empty generalizations with absolutely no evidence to back it up...

We do have rule of law in the US, you know.

I did read your first post. They caught one child molester. They're like 1/100 of a Chris Hansen. Would they like a cookie?

Other than that- it's all Wikileaks. Defending Wikileaks from HBGary, etc., etc.

Now, this isn't an argument about wikileaks, but I fail to see the difference between the dirty tricks that people tried to use to discredit wikileaks and the dirty tricks Anonymous used to discredit the discreditors. They both used illegal means to accomplish what they thought was "right." Personally, I dislike wikileaks. I think that those who support it have a tremendously simplistic view of politics. But I wouldn't try to subvert it using illegal or amoral means. What gives Anonymous the right?

The truth? You call it "dirty tricks" but the difference is that those trying to discredit wikileaks are lying and discrediting the discreditors is as simple as revealing the truth.

-blazed

 

[#HBC | Mac]

We're all familiar with the culture Anonymous springs from. It's hard to "pin down" who exactly is involved, but the one thing we do know is that their members are drawn from 4chan, encyclopedia dramatica, etc. Basically, the places where they do and say horrible, awful things hoping for a reaction. Are you suggesting that these people are public-spirited good citizens? Guys you'd like to go have a beer with? Because I was under the impression that they were mostly products of a culture where **** and child molestation are drooled over.

Right because of course anyone who went on 4chan was obsessed with **** and child molestation.

Irregardless, why are you judging anonymous based on the character of some of it's members. Firstly, like blazedaces says, you're making overgeneralizations with nothing to back up these statements. Have you ever had a conversation with people in anonymous. Secondly, shouldn't we be judging Anonymous based on their actions and the causes they support?

They're not doing anything genuinely useful;

Define useful.

I would say revealing some of the thing HBGary was a part of was useful. It provides clear evidence that the US government isn't above massive disinformation campaigns and are willing to install malware on their own people's computers.

I would say catching Chris Forcand, a child molester, was useful. (But this doesn't make sense though, why would Anonymous, a group who is (according to you) made up of people who enjoy **** and child pornography, report a child molester to the police?

I would say helping in the initiative to create mirrors of the Wikileaks site was useful.

Do you not agree that any of these things were useful?

And these are only some of the most concrete things that they have done. There are many people who would argue that they have been useful in a plethora of other ways.

their attacks are mainly perpetrated on who they're pissed off on at the moment. Would you give me power of life and death over anyone I didn't like? No? Then why are you in favor of allowing ANONYMOUS people from the cesspools of internet culture power over anyone and everyone who they decide deserves punishment?

Like I discussed before in my response to SOLID. Of course they are going to target those that they are pissed off at. They will of course target the people who are against what they are trying to achieve. How is that any different than other forms of activism?

Regarding the bolded:
What? I don't see how you made the connection between allowing you to kill someone you didn't like and Anonymous trying to evoke change through their hacktivism.

Firstly, I'm not giving anyone the power to do anything. If you are trying to ask me whether I would be ok with you killing someone you didn't like since it seems like I am ok with Anonymous doing what they are doing. You're missing the main component. Hacktivism is activism because it has a cause. I don't look down upon Anonymous because they are fighting for a cause. If you killed someone cuz you didn't like them, that wouldn't be activism.

Anyways, that question was ********, there has to be some logical fallacy(ies) in that specific argument.

We do have rule of law in the US, you know.

So are you saying that we should blindly follow all laws in the US? Are you saying that activists in the past who broke rules to fight for some of the key ideals we take for granted today were wrong because they broke the rules?

I did read your first post. They caught one child molester. They're like 1/100 of a Chris Hansen. Would they like a cookie?

Other than that- it's all Wikileaks. Defending Wikileaks from HBGary, etc., etc.

Now, this isn't an argument about wikileaks, but I fail to see the difference between the dirty tricks that people tried to use to discredit wikileaks and the dirty tricks Anonymous used to discredit the discreditors. They both used illegal means to accomplish what they thought was "right." Personally, I dislike wikileaks. I think that those who support it have a tremendously simplistic view of politics. But I wouldn't try to subvert it using illegal or amoral means. What gives Anonymous the right?

Why do you feel the need to trivialize the accomplishment of catching a child molester? Is it not something that is still worthy of praise?

On wikileaks: Anonymous's actions weren't only to discredit the discreditors. They supported Wikileaks and helped the information that Wikileaks released stay readily available online. They retaliated against the unfair closing of Wikileaks' donation outlets through various banks/organizations (such as paypal). These actions taken by our government may have been illegal (it is being determined in a court of law through Wikileaks' suit).

Regarding the bolded: this is exactly what our government has done. What gives them the right? Shouldn't we hold the US government to a higher standard then a decentralized collective of hackers?

sidenote: I would love to hear why you don't approve of Wikileaks, but I guess that's another argument for a different thread maybe.

 

[Battlecow]

Right because of course anyone who went on 4chan was obsessed with **** and child molestation.

Give me a break. Of course they are, and you know it as well as I do.

Irregardless, why are you judging anonymous based on the character of some of it's members. Firstly, like blazedaces says, you're making overgeneralizations with nothing to back up these statements. Have you ever had a conversation with people in anonymous. Secondly, shouldn't we be judging Anonymous based on their actions and the causes they support?

Your arguments will have a better chance of convincing me or forcing concessions out of me if they're proofread at least a little bit first. I'm biased like that; sorry.

Anyways, Anonymous' motives are quite important, because they tell us who exactly is judging us anonymously. We're being judged, it turns out, by capricious and spiteful perverts. If Anonymous were composed of retired federal judges, I'd be more inclined to allow their shenanigans.

You can't deny, surely, that Anonymous' members spring largely from 4chan? That their methods and ideologies are somewhat affected by 4chan memes and so forth? And that this home base of theirs is also possibly the least wholesome and respectable place on the internet?

Define useful.

I would say revealing some of the thing HBGary was a part of was useful. It provides clear evidence that the US government isn't above massive disinformation campaigns and are willing to install malware on their own people's computers.

I would say catching Chris Forcand, a child molester, was useful. (But this doesn't make sense though, why would Anonymous, a group who is (according to you) made up of people who enjoy **** and child pornography, report a child molester to the police?

I would say helping in the initiative to create mirrors of the Wikileaks site was useful.

Do you not agree that any of these things were useful?

And these are only some of the most concrete things that they have done. There are many people who would argue that they have been useful in a plethora of other ways.

I've already outlined my argument- they defended wikileaks against HBGary, because they like wikileaks. How did they seek to discredit HBGary? Illegal means. What did they find out? That HBGary used illegal means to try to discredit wikileaks. Now, if I adopted your morality but kept my distaste for wikileaks, I'd say that HBGary did the right thing. As it is, however, I see both of them as equally in the wrong.

Yes, they caught Chris Forcand. That's useful, but insignificant. One potential criminal brought to justice? Please. They did it on a whim, because they saw a chance and thought it fit with their V-for-Vendetta image.

As for the "installing malware on their own people's computers"- you've got your facts mixed up. The Air Force requested said software in order to use it in Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of the Hearts and Minds campaign over there. There's a war on, and the people that said software converted might have been the young potential suicide bombers who would've killed US servicemen. I think that, when used as it was obviously intended to be used, it would have fulfilled an admirable, if someone sneaky, goal.

So no. None of those things were significantly useful on the level of the global crimes anonymous has committed and may commit. And I'd be interested to hear about this plethora of useful actions, because I was under the impression that juvenile mischief was more the order of things with Anonymous.

Like I discussed before in my response to SOLID. Of course they are going to target those that they are pissed off at. They will of course target the people who are against what they are trying to achieve. How is that any different than other forms of activism?

Their goals aren't clear. They're attacking whimsically and with impunity. Other forms of activism involve standing for what you believe in. Other activists are willing to go to jail for their cause, and to take responsibility for their actions. Anonymous is doing whatever they want, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Regarding the bolded:
What? I don't see how you made the connection between allowing you to kill someone you didn't like and Anonymous trying to evoke change through their hacktivism.

We're both breaking the law to do what we think is right. If you don't punish Anonymous, why are you punishing me? What if the people I killed totally deserved it, in your eyes?

Firstly, I'm not giving anyone the power to do anything. If you are trying to ask me whether I would be ok with you killing someone you didn't like since it seems like I am ok with Anonymous doing what they are doing. You're missing the main component. Hacktivism is activism because it has a cause. I don't look down upon Anonymous because they are fighting for a cause. If you killed someone cuz you didn't like them, that wouldn't be activism.

Anonymous' "cause" seems to be "Inconvenience anyone who's largely disliked by the internet culture."

Anyways, that question was ********, there has to be some logical fallacy(ies) in that specific argument.

Point them out or STFU.

So are you saying that we should blindly follow all laws in the US? Are you saying that activists in the past who broke rules to fight for some of the key ideals we take for granted today were wrong because they broke the rules?

The activists whom I support took responsibility for their actions, and were respectable people. No, we shouldn't blindly follow the law. But anonymous is so thoroughly untrustworthy that I don't want them acting without consequence.

Why do you feel the need to trivialize the accomplishment of catching a child molester? Is it not something that is still worthy of praise?

A potential child molestor. Like I said, they did it on a whim, for image's sake.

On wikileaks: Anonymous's actions weren't only to discredit the discreditors. They supported Wikileaks and helped the information that Wikileaks released stay readily available online. They retaliated against the unfair closing of Wikileaks' donation outlets through various banks/organizations (such as paypal). These actions taken by our government may have been illegal (it is being determined in a court of law through Wikileaks' suit).

Yeah. They defended wikileaks in a number of illegal ways. If the corporations in question tried to shut down Wikileaks in illegal ways, both sides deserve a rap on the knuckles. Otherwise, you have to argue that Anonymous is only justified if wikileaks is in fact a worthy organization, and I would say that it isn't.

Regarding the bolded: this is exactly what our government has done. What gives them the right? Shouldn't we hold the US government to a higher standard then a decentralized collective of hackers?

HBGary is not part of the Federal government. They are a corporation that acted badly. If parts of the government acted badly as well, there should be reprisals. But there should be equal reprisals for Anonymous, because they committed the same crimes, and being a decentralized collective of hackers shouldn't mean that you're above the law.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Basically, the places where they do and say horrible, awful things hoping for a reaction.

Not all the time. 4chan has an exceedingly bad reputation when it really isn't that bad. It doesn't show a "different culture", it shows the culture that all of us hide behind our backs because a lot of people are afraid to admit things on any place that isn't anonymous.

Are you suggesting that these people are public-spirited good citizens? Guys you'd like to go have a beer with? Because I was under the impression that they were mostly products of a culture where **** and child molestation are drooled over.

Again, more generalisations. Some Anonymous members, regardless of their occasionally immoral actions, are rather intelligent people. Being able to break into the CIA takes skill, you know. Not "bored anarchist teenagers".

They're not doing anything genuinely useful; their attacks are mainly perpetrated on who they're pissed off on at the moment. Would you give me power of life and death over anyone I didn't like? No? Then why are you in favor of allowing ANONYMOUS people from the cesspools of internet culture power over anyone and everyone who they decide deserves punishment?

Again, you're generalising without you realising that you're doing so.

We do have rule of law in the US, you know.

Okay, yet again, you've successfully made me cringe. Stop bringing in your whole and faithful 'murrica into arguments. It doesn't make you win.

What gives Anonymous the right?

Freedom of speech? I don't know. Thought your constitutions said something about that.


Basically, Anonymous is a Robin Hood with a sardonic touch to them. We should not applaud all of their efforts in pissing people off and ruining websites.
However, we should applaud them in the sense that they at least fight for what they believe true. It's cheesy as a Croque Monsieur, but it's true.
Along with that, they expose certain flaws in systems, thus that makes room for improvement.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I don't see how whether or not 4chan is respectable matters in this conversation. Hacktivist efforts that may have found roots there aren't automatically tossed aside simply because we don't like the people there. That's like saying that anything Australia ever tries to do is not legitimate because Australia was filled with criminals back in the day.

What gives anonymous the right?

What gives any activist the right?

What gave Malcolm X the right to retaliate when black people were being completely terrorized in the south?

 

[AltF4]

I don't think you can lump together all hacktivist activity together and ask if it's justified or not. It's a really diverse crowd. I think that you can clearly find examples of people going too far, even for valid goals. But most of it isn't. Condemn individuals and individual actions when they cause undue harm.

Anonymous isn't a group, nor an organization. It's not even an "it" you can speak of as a singular entity. So it doesn't make sense to talk about whether Anonymous is justified or not. Anonymous is a broad group of people with similar mindsets and similar goals.

It's rather like referring to "The peace movement" during the 60's and 70's. There was no single leader of the peace movement. There was no hierarchy, no central meetings. They were a large group of people with the same mindset and goals. Some people in the peace movement were only involved for a single weekend. Some spent years tirelessly working for peace.

But they differed on the methods by a lot. Many (most) anti-war activists were nonviolent protesters. But some weren't.

Anonymous, lulzsec, and (to a high degree) WikiLeaks are all part of a growing Internet Freedom movement. A group of young technically skilled individuals who want to use technology to build a more free world. And we don't take lightly old world tactics to take that freedom away.

 

[Battlecow]

Again, more generalisations. Some Anonymous members, regardless of their occasionally immoral actions, are rather intelligent people. Being able to break into the CIA takes skill, you know. Not "bored anarchist teenagers".

http://xkcd.com/932/

Freedom of speech? I don't know. Thought your constitutions said something about that.

Freedom of speech laws don't cover what Anonymous does, lol. That's why they're crimes, Einstein.

I don't see how whether or not 4chan is respectable matters in this conversation. Hacktivist efforts that may have found roots there aren't automatically tossed aside simply because we don't like the people there. That's like saying that anything Australia ever tries to do is not legitimate because Australia was filled with criminals back in the day.

The analogy is flawed; I'm saying that the people hacktivisming are the same guys who do the terribleness on 4chan.

What gives any activist the right?

What gave Malcolm X the right to retaliate when black people were being completely terrorized in the south?

Um... Nothing? He was wrong? MLK was right about that whole deal?

I don't think you can lump together all hacktivist activity together and ask if it's justified or not. It's a really diverse crowd. I think that you can clearly find examples of people going too far, even for valid goals. But most of it isn't. Condemn individuals and individual actions when they cause undue harm.

Anonymous isn't a group, nor an organization. It's not even an "it" you can speak of as a singular entity. So it doesn't make sense to talk about whether Anonymous is justified or not. Anonymous is a broad group of people with similar mindsets and similar goals.

It's rather like referring to "The peace movement" during the 60's and 70's. There was no single leader of the peace movement. There was no hierarchy, no central meetings. They were a large group of people with the same mindset and goals. Some people in the peace movement were only involved for a single weekend. Some spent years tirelessly working for peace.

But they differed on the methods by a lot. Many (most) anti-war activists were nonviolent protesters. But some weren't.

Anonymous, lulzsec, and (to a high degree) WikiLeaks are all part of a growing Internet Freedom movement. A group of young technically skilled individuals who want to use technology to build a more free world. And we don't take lightly old world tactics to take that freedom away.

This makes sense. You're right. Case-by-case it is.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I don't think you can lump together all hacktivist activity together and ask if it's justified or not. It's a really diverse crowd. I think that you can clearly find examples of people going too far, even for valid goals. But most of it isn't. Condemn individuals and individual actions when they cause undue harm.

Anonymous isn't a group, nor an organization. It's not even an "it" you can speak of as a singular entity. So it doesn't make sense to talk about whether Anonymous is justified or not. Anonymous is a broad group of people with similar mindsets and similar goals.

It's rather like referring to "The peace movement" during the 60's and 70's. There was no single leader of the peace movement. There was no hierarchy, no central meetings. They were a large group of people with the same mindset and goals. Some people in the peace movement were only involved for a single weekend. Some spent years tirelessly working for peace.

But they differed on the methods by a lot. Many (most) anti-war activists were nonviolent protesters. But some weren't.

Anonymous, lulzsec, and (to a high degree) WikiLeaks are all part of a growing Internet Freedom movement. A group of young technically skilled individuals who want to use technology to build a more free world. And we don't take lightly old world tactics to take that freedom away.

I pretty much agree with all of this. The very idea that anonymous is decentralized shows that its more of a movement of a particular mindset that some of these people share. Hacktivism is showing up in various shapes and forms and most of it is supporting ideals relating to having an open and free internet, and in extension, world.

I like the analogy to the 60-70s peace movement. Hopefully, todays current activist efforts will actually bring about the change that people hoped to achieve during the peace movement.

The analogy is flawed; I'm saying that the people hacktivisming are the same guys who do the terribleness on 4chan.

But how do you know this? Back this up. Oh wait, you can't.

Um... Nothing? He was wrong? MLK was right about that whole deal?

Yea but in order for MLK's message to have the impact that it had on the terrorized black community in the south, they needed to be presented with the more extreme alternative. Some say that MLK wouldn't have succeeded if it wasn't for Malcolm X and the black power movement

 

[Battlecow]

But how do you know this? Back this up. Oh wait, you can't.

You're right. It's impossible to prove that members of Anonymous are also part of the mainstream 4chan culture I'm talking about. But out of curiosity- do you really disagree?

Yea but in order for MLK's message to have the impact that it had on the terrorized black community in the south, they needed to be presented with the more extreme alternative. Some say that MLK wouldn't have succeeded if it wasn't for Malcolm X and the black power movement

Who the **** says that? Look, I had radical socialists teaching me history all through high school (sigh). Not even they said that Malcolm X was what allowed King to win the day. Are you saying that the amount of Bat**** crazy (i.e. "extremism") Mr. X had was what made the black southerners pick King instead? Think about that- is it really the example you want to follow?

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I don't think it matters honestly.

Also, I got that sentiment from here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...-no-idea-what-Martin-Luther-King-actually-did

 

[-Jumpman-]

You're right. It's impossible to prove that members of Anonymous are also part of the mainstream 4chan culture I'm talking about. But out of curiosity- do you really disagree?

Doesn't matter if he disagrees, can you back it up?

 

[Jim Morrison]

It's rather like referring to "The peace movement" during the 60's and 70's. There was no single leader of the peace movement. There was no hierarchy, no central meetings. They were a large group of people with the same mindset and goals. Some people in the peace movement were only involved for a single weekend. Some spent years tirelessly working for peace.

But they differed on the methods by a lot. Many (most) anti-war activists were nonviolent protesters. But some weren't.

Anonymous, lulzsec, and (to a high degree) WikiLeaks are all part of a growing Internet Freedom movement. A group of young technically skilled individuals who want to use technology to build a more free world. And we don't take lightly old world tactics to take that freedom away.

For me, AltF4 hit the nail on the head here. The link to the peace movement is a very sensible one. We basically do the same thing, "fight the establishment", but through a different means. The fact that people try their best to stop the movement only makes the movement do more radical things to not be stopped that easily.

The thing I do not support, however, is when innocent people, completely uninvolved with this are the victims, for example, stealing credit card information. I still fully believe that this is a crime.