Wikileaks Founder Jailed in London!

[Father Heathen]

To say it has "no meaning" is to completely fail to realize the significance of a new and interesting social phenomenon.

Ironic, too, that you start by saying it has no meaning but continue with a lengthy diatribe on what exactly you think it means.

People using the anonymity of the internet isn't some sort of new phenomenon, and to give it a name and to call it a group suggests that it's unified, organized and has set agendas and goals. It doesn't. It's just something sensationalized by the media. To give credit to "anonymous" is to give credit to every little turd who has posted images of REAL children being RAPED, images of real animals being brutalized and tortured, and who has stalked, harassed and tormented innocent people (often kids) just for ***** and giggles, etc. all under the banner of "anonymous". And 99% of the people who actually use that banner are just dumb kiddy trolls rather than any real hacker with a legitimate cause, and like I said most people who call themselves "anonymous" would call anyone with a conscience and shred of decency a "moralfag". That is what the moniker "anonymous" in the context of a group means to me, and it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that they're somehow some sort of champions for social justice. The credit goes to the individual hackers, not to every teeny bopper ever who considered themselves a part of "anonymous" just to be cool. It's like a junior high school social clique on the internet and little else. Go to 4chan, the birthplace and the heart and soul of this "anonymous" fad, and tell me if you can find a shred of intelligence, I dare you.

 

[Tiapan]

President Dmitry Medvedev's office told the Russian press that Assange should be a Nobel laureate.
i think he should become an American citizen and run for president on a platform of "transparent government". He would be a better choice than most of the more recent holders of that office. He should at least get the Times "man of the year award".
Go Julian, shooting the messenger, sure looks politically naive from here.

Cheers

 

[Alceste]

People using the anonymity of the internet isn't some sort of new phenomenon, and to give it a name and to call it a group suggests that it's unified, organized and has set agendas and goals. It doesn't. It's just something sensationalized by the media. To give credit to "anonymous" is to give credit to every little turd who has posted images of REAL children being RAPED, images of real animals being brutalized and tortured, and who has stalked, harassed and tormented innocent people (often kids) just for ***** and giggles, etc. all under the banner of "anonymous". And 99% of the people who actually use that banner are just dumb kiddy trolls rather than any real hacker with a legitimate cause, and like I said most people who call themselves "anonymous" would call anyone with a conscience and shred of decency a "moralfag". That is what the moniker "anonymous" in the context of a group means to me, and it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that they're somehow some sort of champions for social justice. The credit goes to the individual hackers, not to every teeny bopper ever who considered themselves a part of "anonymous" just to be cool. It's like a junior high school social clique on the internet and little else. Go to 4chan, the birthplace and the heart and soul of this "anonymous" fad, and tell me if you can find a shred of intelligence, I dare you.

It's a troll board. What exactly did you expect to find there? 90% of everything on there is only intended to annoy you. Sounds like it worked.

Anyway, with respect to the rest of your post:

I never implied Anonymous is organized, central or controlled. Nice straw man. Anonymous is not simply a phenomenon "sensationalized by the media", as you very well know. It's an unruly, anarchic, loosely affiliated mob of shameless **** disturbers who occasionally act together for a laugh, or to make a point, or (on the ugly side) to harass some poor soul on the internet. The media reports on their hijinks sometimes because it makes for an interesting story, that's all.

Edit: BTW, in this case it is in fact a 4Chan / Anonymous DoS attack that brought down these sites, and it was indeed because they object to the persecution of Assange and the censorship of his work. To deny people associated with 4Chan even did it just because you don't like teenagers is far more ridiculous than admiring them for it.

 

[Father Heathen]

lol, wow. taking things a little too defensive and personal, aren't we? Look, I just find the idea of painting a group known for stalking and harassing innocent people with the intention of ruining their lives, promoting child porn and animal cruelty, and who openly declare the ideas of ethics, justice and compassion to be mere frivolities as some sort of heroes undeniably silly. No one worth taking seriously would ever be associated with such a thing.

And don't think for a second I'm condemning wikileaks, it's founder, or the hacking done in it's favor. I just don't like the idea of "anonymous" being painted as some sort of noble cause.

And no, I don't like teenagers. I don't much care for children or adults, either.

 

[linwood]

The really funny thing is that the way our government is handling this situation shows absolutely clearly they have no clue what they`re doing.

You cannot stop content from spreading like a sentient virus once it`s been put out on the web.

If and when you do try to stop content once it`s on the web you only guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that the content in question will spread faster, farther, and more furiously than it would have if you just left it alone.

To be this clueless of the internet`s culture is a serious joke.

The more they pressure Assange and Wikileaks the more **** they`ll find themselves buried in.

I`m enjoying every wonderful minute of it.

 

[linwood]

l No one worth taking seriously would ever be associated with such a thing.

Are you kidding?

You can bet good money MasterCard,Visa and Paypal are taking them seriously.

Not to mention that Swiss bank, I haven`t even heard if they`re back online yet.

There are a couple Swedish police stations and at least one Swedish prosecutors office taking them seriously after the attacks on them.

Twitter was tripping over itself to explain away the rumor that it messed with @wikileaks account all day yesterday because Anonymous posted a single a threat over it.

Amazon techs are scrambling like little Christmas elves preparing for their turn right now.

Some of our biggest mega corporations are taking Anonymous very very seriously.

 

[Etritonakin]

Soooooo who is this guy, and, perhaps more importantly, how did he get this stuff???

Yes -I have been hiding under a rock, so to speak.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you kidding?

You can bet good money MasterCard,Visa and Paypal are taking them seriously.

Not to mention that Swiss bank, I haven`t even heard if they`re back online yet.

There are a couple Swedish police stations and at least one Swedish prosecutors office taking them seriously after the attacks on them.

Twitter was tripping over itself to explain away the rumor that it messed with @wikileaks account all day yesterday because Anonymous posted a single a threat over it.

Amazon techs are scrambling like little Christmas elves preparing for their turn right now.

Some of our biggest mega corporations are taking Anonymous very very seriously.

The individual hackers, yes. The whole of "anonymous" doesn't get that credit. I'm just not that impressed with the ability to distribute child porn and create horribly unfunny internet memes. If 4channers honestly wanted to make the world a better place they would start by killing themselves.

 

[linwood]

Couldn't that be considered illegal?

It's not the strongest encryption, but it's still pretty strong. Maybe if a cracker is motivated he'll do it (as in a hacker who does illegal things and such).

It may be.
Encrypted data and it`s accessibility isn`t an area I`m very knowledgable about so you may be correct about it`s legality.

It just doesn`t seem to me that it should be illegal considering the method of distribution.

 

[linwood]

The individual hackers, yes. The whole of "anonymous" doesn't get that credit.

I see your point FH.

 

[Father Heathen]

I see your point FH.

I mean anyone can say they're a part of "anonymous" and do anything and then claim responsibility on behalf of "anonymous" for it. While some individuals may have done some good deeds, it becomes tarnished when the credit is given to something that also encourages the production and distribution of child porn (you know, real children being raped. And you're labeled a "moralfag" if you condemn and oppose it. Which you don't want to be because it's totally uncool, bro.) The point I've been trying to get at is if you do something in the name of justice or whatever, why on earth would you want it associated with something like that?

 

[Requia]

To give credit to "anonymous" is to give credit to every little turd who has posted images of REAL children being RAPED

Anonymous has never, at any time, distributed child porn (unless you count that godawful japanese ****, which is drawings not photographs).

Terrorism, murder, hacking, fraud, harassment, yes. But there's always been zero tolerance for real kiddy fiddlers at Anon hangouts.

 

[Alceste]

The individual hackers, yes. The whole of "anonymous" doesn't get that credit. I'm just not that impressed with the ability to distribute child porn and create horribly unfunny internet memes. If 4channers honestly wanted to make the world a better place they would start by killing themselves.

There's no "hacking" involved in coordinating an LOIC attack. You just get over 9000 pimply faced, kiddie-porn uploading basement dwellers to download an app to generate an overwhelming number of requests to the target web server and get them all to press "fire" at the same time through twitter (or use the "hive mind" feature and do nothing), and the site goes down.

Somehow you're managing to give the people who participated in this event too little credit (for having any ideals) and too much (for having hacking skills) at the same time.

Here, have a press release.

 

[Alceste]

Soooooo who is this guy, and, perhaps more importantly, how did he get this stuff???

Yes -I have been hiding under a rock, so to speak.

Julian Assange is an Australian journalist who founded a website where whistle blowers can leak documents they feel to be in the public interest anonymously. In addition to writing articles about the content, Wikileaks also publishes the source material in its entirety for anyone who wants to fact check their articles.

Most of the whistle blowers who release information to wikileaks probably do it because the administrators do their utmost to protect the identity of their sources and ensure the information can be transmitted securely. Through sending documents anonymously, whistle blowers can get information into the public arena without risking their lives or jobs.

The diplomatic cables probably came from a 20 (ish) military intelligence officer named Bradley Manning, who was allegedly also responsible for the Afghan / Iraq war logs and a controversial video of US soldiers in a helicopter gunning down two journalists and a family with young children inside their van. Bradley Manning is in jail, having (again, allegedly) failed to protect his own identity by bragging to a stranger he met on Facebook who ratted him out to the Feds.

Any other questions? I've been following Wikileaks for a while, lover of documentary evidence, transparency and fact-based reporting that I am.

 

[Requia]

There's no "hacking" involved in coordinating an LOIC attack. You just get over 9000 pimply faced, kiddie-porn uploading basement dwellers to download an app to generate an overwhelming number of requests to the target web server and get them all to press "fire" at the same time through twitter (or use the "hive mind" feature and do nothing), and the site goes down.

Somehow you're managing to give the people who participated in this event too little credit (for having any ideals) and too much (for having hacking skills) at the same time.

Here, have a press release.

Not even 9000, the largest size the attacks reached was 1700. It helps if the target is totally and utterly unable to defend itself as well. (According to Panda Security, Mastercard and Visa both stayed down until after a new target was declared, Visa stayed down for some 12 hours after they weren't even a target anymore, something similar also likely happened to the Swiss bank, which was down for 36 hours).

If nothing else they've demonstrated that the banks need to be reevaluating cybersecurity at least as hard as the US gov. (But then, rumors are that the banks will be the next people to have their dirty laundry aired by wikileaks, so that's not too surprising).

 

[Alceste]

lol, wow. taking things a little too defensive and personal, aren't we?

Me? lol. I have nothing to do with them. No personal investment at all. I credit 4Chan for being the birthplace of numerous internet memes I get a great deal of enjoyment from but I don't go there because there are too many naked young breasts on display for my taste.

If this doesn't make up for at least one case of mischievous pizza bombardment, I don't know what would:

Look, I just find the idea of painting a group known for stalking and harassing innocent people with the intention of ruining their lives, promoting child porn and animal cruelty, and who openly declare the ideas of ethics, justice and compassion to be mere frivolities as some sort of heroes undeniably silly. No one worth taking seriously would ever be associated with such a thing.

Where are you getting your information? Sounds pretty scary. Must be the news. Right?

And don't think for a second I'm condemning wikileaks, it's founder, or the hacking done in it's favor. I just don't like the idea of "anonymous" being painted as some sort of noble cause.

I haven't painted them as anything. I simply acknowledged the fact (and it is a fact, like it or not) that they* brought down Visa, Mastercard, a Swedish bank and Paypal in protest for their persecution of Wikileaks.

I like that they did that, but there's nothing "noble" about Anonymous in and of itself. Interesting from a sociological point of view, but certainly not heroic.

(*by "they" I mean whatever ragtag group that pulled together to make this happen under the banners of Anonymous, Project Chanology and Operation Avenge Assange. Whether this group is the same group that offends you so deeply I have no idea - and neither do you).

And no, I don't like teenagers. I don't much care for children or adults, either.

Then we do have some common ground after all. :dan:

 

[Alceste]

Not even 9000, the largest size the attacks reached was 1700. It helps if the target is totally and utterly unable to defend itself as well. (According to Panda Security, Mastercard and Visa both stayed down until after a new target was declared, Visa stayed down for some 12 hours after they weren't even a target anymore, something similar also likely happened to the Swiss bank, which was down for 36 hours).

If nothing else they've demonstrated that the banks need to be reevaluating cybersecurity at least as hard as the US gov. (But then, rumors are that the banks will be the next people to have their dirty laundry aired by wikileaks, so that's not too surprising).

[youtube]v3LdkorCCjM[/youtube]

 

[Requia]

Can't get youtube today, what's in it?

 

[Alceste]

Can't get youtube today, what's in it?

Just a disjointed celebratory melody of rebellious internet joy.

 

[Father Heathen]

Me? lol. I have nothing to do with them. No personal investment at all. I credit 4Chan for being the birthplace of numerous internet memes I get a great deal of enjoyment from but I don't go there because there are too many naked young breasts on display for my taste.

I went there once when the site began to gain infamy and notoriety. What I saw was images of real child porn and animal cruelty. Surely you can understand why I might be slightly displeased by people who would produce, distribute, defend and encourage this sort of material, I hope (all claimed to be done by members of anonymous)? Am I really out of line for being upset by harm and suffering inflicted upon helpless children and animals?
Even if it were only underage girls desperately seeking attention from the worse possible crowd or horribly unfunny and annoying memes, that would still be enough reason to hate that place.

Where are you getting your information? Sounds pretty scary. Must be the news. Right?

From witnessing the words and actions of people claiming to be members of anonymous.

I haven't painted them as anything. I simply acknowledged the fact (and it is a fact, like it or not) that they* brought down Visa, Mastercard, a Swedish bank and Paypal in protest for their persecution of Wikileaks.

You know someone could beat and rape someone you know and love while videotaping it, then upload it where it is forever circulated on the internet for countless thousands to view your loved one's now immortalized bloodied and crying face for their amusement. And all they would have to do is claim that "anonymous delivers". There is no screening or criteria for "membership" and no rules that govern or dictate what actions are or aren't sanctioned. That's all I'm trying to say, anyone can to anything, making the moniker as a group meaningless. How could it be considered a group when most don't even have any sort of association with one another other than a name?

Whether this group is the same group that offends you so deeply I have no idea - and neither do you).

All it takes to be a member of anonymous is to claim to be a member of anonymous. That's what I meant when I said it was meaningless to give the group any credit. In fact I'll starting saying that I'm a member so I can bask in the glory and victory of those hack attacks.

Then we do have some common ground after all. :dan:

I hoped we had more common ground than that.