Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have no desire to gain support from people that believe this about wikileaks.HyenaThePirate said:
That's good, because I have no desire to GIVE support to people who can't read and properly comprehend someone's complete statement. The point of my statement, in its entirety was that instead of recognizing that Anonymous and Wikileaks have that appearance to what I feel is a majority of common lay people and perhaps engaging in efforts to change this appearance through decisive action, everyone I've seen simply prefers to make excuses for it or flat-out to ignore it.AnonOperations said:
That attitude of "if you are not with us, you by default, must be against us" isn't going to get Wikileaks very far. In fact, in the long run, without popular opinion behind them, they risk becoming a target for the government, corporations, and even rogue entities with an axe to grind or something to prove. Worse, if the very people wikileaks and anonymous claim to want to help decide to believe what the corporations and governments say about them being a destructive, negative force of immature children hellbent on causing mayhem, its going to make it incredibly hard for them to operate with impunity. People will ignore the questionable methods the government will use, the laws they will pass in order to support their crusade, and they will turn this into a valiant quest to quash a dangerous hacking organization full of what they will describe as anarchist, identity thieves, and pedophiles.
Don't believe me? Take a look around at the various "opinions" about Anonymous and Wikileaks right now. The average person isnt reading gaming forums, they are reading the CNN and Fox News websites. And thus, they are being swayed even now as we speak. This is why you stated that they went to leakspin after the whole DDOS of Mastercard situation... because the negative spin from the media painted Anonymous and Wikileaks as people who have little disregard for normal, hard-working blue collar folks who just want to pay their bills and keep their private information private. Did you notice how immediately after that, the subject of Net Neutrality instantly came back up again? Did you notice how nobody cried about it this time?
Wikileaks and Anonymous may be attempting to do the noble thing, but the reality is most people right now probably aren't seeing it that way. Removing our own sense of arrogance about what educated people should or shouldn't be aware of, we should recognize that these nobly intended actions were spun and turned into an warning of a threat about how wikileaks might get access to your private banking and medical information and display it on a whim.
We're talking about people who are masters of FEAR.
And FEAR = $$$.
$$$ makes the world go round.
Those news channels have had interviews with Assange that addresses the ad hominem attacks on wikileaks like you have mentioned. Have you seen them? They are easily available on youtube.HyenaThePirate said:
It sounds like you're talking about the mainstream medias propaganda machine here. Declaring America at war before they started, stating that they have WMD's and replaying 9/11 for months on end. Wikileaks operates on donations and has taken a lot of risks and made some powerful enemies. And you're trying to say that everything they do is self serving? They are working towards a more transparent Government.HyenaThePirate said:
The goal of the DDoS attacks was to draw media attention to what these companies did to wikileaks. The operation was successful. After it started to drag on, many other tactics to support wikileaks were implemented.
In both cases I think you've misinterpreted the results. I don't think the average person saw any of this as Wikileaks being a victim. Instead, I would wager that the majority of people who looked at those stories saw:AnonOperations said:
1. Assange, the guy who stands as a figurehead of an organization that is stealing and releasing secrets that may or may not be placing people or nations in jeopardy, crying about how all of a sudden he is being unfairly persecuted, as if he should be elevated to the level of being a modern day hero. Outside of a few internet forums, the majority of people I have ever heard talk about him consider him somewhere between being a traitor, a terrorist, and a primadonna demagogue. Or at worse, a wannabe celebrity.
2. These people didn't see Anonymous' actions against mastercard and visa or Barr as a defensive action, but rather a complete disregard for order. They view it as chaotic "aggressive violence" against potentially innocent (from a certain perspective) party, and that this was done willingly and with little concern for public safety or privacy.
3. At the very least look at both groups as a major source of annoyance. Anyone trying to log into Mastercard during that DDOS attack didn't think "Oh, that's those guys getting even with evil mastercard and paypal for caving in to Government pressure over that wikileaks issue." No, what they probably thought is "Why the hell can't I get to my banking information? What's that? Wikileaks is attacking mastercard? Aren't they the ones that release secret, private stolen documents to the world? OMG!! What if they get my personal information?! What if they steal my money?! OMG is my identity safe?! Someone should do something! The GOVERNMENT should do something!"
If you think that any of those three things are not the overall public opinion of Anonymous or wikileaks, then there is a serious disconnect that needs to be quickly resolved before things get beyond a point of no return. Because once cemented in the minds of the people, it's going to be hard as hell to sway public opinion back in their favor.
Fair point but this is not all about media attention and what the average person thinks. That is not the focus here.
The funny part is the people who think anonymous is doing something good. "Showing how thin the walls are that protect us" I saw in there. How many of their supporters would like their own walls taken down? (accounts hacked)
Also what happens when you antagonize the government, not through appeal, but through attack? They crack down. Have you ever in your life heard a public discussion go like this: "Sure these guys are criminals, but I respect their viewpoint."? Or is it far more likely to go like this: "The unchecked harm they can do is a problem. We need to control the channels they use"
Think about the big picture.
Also what happens when you antagonize the government, not through appeal, but through attack? They crack down. Have you ever in your life heard a public discussion go like this: "Sure these guys are criminals, but I respect their viewpoint."? Or is it far more likely to go like this: "The unchecked harm they can do is a problem. We need to control the channels they use"
Think about the big picture.
Then what IS the focus? Aren't anonymous and wikileaks professedly doing all of this FOR the average person? To provide a freer world of truth and information and whatnot?AnonOperations said:
If you are not doing this for what the average person thinks, then we are back at them doing it for their own selfish reasons.
Freedom hoisted upon people that don't want it or need it isn't really freedom at all. Instead of a blessing, it becomes a curse.
Anonymous does not do it for fame, money or attention. People don't hear about the extent of what anonymous does. Things like developing software for Tunisians to get around censorship and stop their own Governments password phishing scripts. Faxing Egyptians ways to get back online and so on.HyenaThePirate said:
Then why do we keep hearing about it? If anonymous didn't do it for the fame, money, or attention, then they would truly be living up to their namesake and be completely "anonymous."AnonOperations said:
Instead, it seems the moment they do anything, the interwebz are deluged with articles and posts like "Anonymous straightens out Leaning Tower of Pisa... Italians pissed!"
I mean, if WE know that Anonymous gave Tunisians software to get around censorship, then so does the Tunisian government. Which means they'll be taking steps to acquire said software and make even tighter restrictions... so in the long run wouldn't that be more harmful than Tunisians than helpful?
Many people find anonymous to be fascinating. Quite simply, you hear about it because people want to hear about. No one really knows anons developed that software, it wasn't reported on. Anons also help summarize and spread the wikileaks cables. It is completely unnecessary to use the anonymous name when doing this, so they don't.HyenaThePirate said:
Is it just me, but are these guys the real life Boondock saints? They literally take somebody's life, but don't kill them. Good thing they target the unjust. Even though I haven't done anything wrong, I am still scared shitless about an Anon attack.
BTW, can anyone confirm their intentions to take out WBC?
BTW, can anyone confirm their intentions to take out WBC?
Anonymous is not an organization, as stated many times. Its an ideology, a belief, not a true "gang". Saying something like that is saying Republicans should just hire Democrats instead of running against them in elections. They are clearly opposing forces that clearly are NOT motivated by monetary gain, but motivated to continue there nemesis relationship because they want to support and represent there views.Sennz0r said:
What a lot of people don't realize is that the major website of anon, 4chan, doesn't keep user data serverside. Once a thread goes too far back (and it will do so at an extremely fast rate most of the time) it disappears and all user data disappears with it. Then if you check an individuals history, all it will tell you is that they were on, say, thread 110294857. There is no record of that thread anywhere on the internet. Trying to view it will simply yield 404 errors. Even if there is a screenshot of it, it won't show any user data other than maybe an assumed username (If they didn't just leave it as anonymous) and a post time.
EDIT- I didn't realize that this was thread necromancy. Sorry.
EDIT- I didn't realize that this was thread necromancy. Sorry.
I see this ending with a number of them getting caught, the FBI basically telling them "Jail time, or you can work with us, catch the others, and be part of the FBI from now on and have all your crimes pardoned."
I may not be super knowledgeable on how the government works, but I see this happening. The FBI would be the type to exploit this highly valuable resource they've been chasing for so long. At least, I'd hope so. Not hiring them would be stupid.
I may not be super knowledgeable on how the government works, but I see this happening. The FBI would be the type to exploit this highly valuable resource they've been chasing for so long. At least, I'd hope so. Not hiring them would be stupid.
i highly doubt the fbi will propose a deal with these guys. they had their egos bruised many times before. and as everyone knows, logic is beaten by pride. if they go all-out to catch as many anonymous as possible, they will make a big deal about it.Dragonborne88 said:
almost as big as catching real terrorists, i say.
they will post news, pics, hate-spewing speeches at anon containing terms like "freedom" "terrorists will not prevail", "the righteous way", "democracy", "protecting our nation" etc etc. you know,the kind of speech a villain gives in movies to seem sympathetic, but you know they are evil despite this.
that's kinda how i see the fbi. not that anonymous is better. i kinda fear them and always been careful about my internet info BECAUSE people like them exist who can hack em if they want to. but at the same time, i support them if they do something to piss off an important american agency.
this will probably end badly, but i think it was worth it to see one of those black suits eat their sparkly sunglasses.