Angles On Anonymous

The most successful trolls by FredFredrickson · 2010-12-10 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

The most successful part of their trolling is that major news outlets still don't understand the joke. They're anonymous. They're not a group. You could just as easily say "bunches of people who have never met"

--
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex

Re:The most successful trolls by DurendalMac · 2010-12-10 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

The second most successful part of their trolling is convincing people that they're actually some kind of hacker group when 99% (at least) are nothing more than skiddies with no empathy and a healthy dose of misogyny.
Re:The most successful trolls by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-10 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

They have a healthy dose of hating women? Do you mean a health dose of misanthropy? Or maybe Anonymous just hates women, I don't know. I'm too scared to be anonymous.
Re:The most successful trolls by robthebloke · 2010-12-10 06:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I dunno, I'm getting very tired of the continual 'news' regarding anonymous on the bbc website. It's typically involves some random 'source' who is apparently affiliated with anon, who hasn't been involved with any of anon's activities, doesn't speak for them, but feels compelled to spout some non-newsworthy opinions. It's not news. It's just 15 year olds on 4chan. Enough already.
Re:The most successful trolls by clone52431 · 2010-12-10 06:04 · Score: 5, Funny

No, I’m guessing he did mean misogyny. He apparently hasn’t figured out that it’s mostly for show, just like the racism and hatred of furries.
I take that back, the hatred of furries is real.

--
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:The most successful trolls by clone52431 · 2010-12-10 06:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not news. It's just 15 year olds on 4chan. Enough already.
They’re feeding the trolls. It’s hilarious. Laugh.

--
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:The most successful trolls by 0100010001010011 · 2010-12-10 06:07 · Score: 4, Funny

XKCD. They need to watch out who they troll though. It could backfire.
Re:The most successful trolls by erroneus · 2010-12-10 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Charisma? Seriously? No. They are all just a bunch of like-minded people. Teens especially have a need to rebel in some way or another. It's all part of creating a sense of identity for themselves and all quite typical. It doesn't take charisma to "convince" a kid to take a firecracker and put it in a mail box. All you have to do is give them a firecracker and say "hey! put it in a mailbox!" Same thing here. Now if the same person said, "hey, firecrackers in mail boxes is wrong, don't do it!" you would probably see even MORE firecrackers in mail boxes. You get what I'm saying?
Re:The most successful trolls by SuricouRaven · 2010-12-10 06:28 · Score: 2

It's standard journalistic procedure to seek a representative. In this case, they desperatly try, but there just isn't a true representative. So they go for the best they can find.
Re:The most successful trolls by sycodon · 2010-12-10 06:30 · Score: 2

No, they are more like the Earth First people:
Loosely affiliated, no central control or organization. But prone to random acts of violence in the name of their twisted philosophy.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:The most successful trolls by callmebill · 2010-12-10 06:32 · Score: 2

Did you say "yoots"?
Re:The most successful trolls by Agent0013 · 2010-12-10 06:35 · Score: 2

That indicates a central intelligence with charisma. It may be a group intelligence, but there's something there that is irresistable to disillusioned youths.
That is like saying when a site gets slashdotted, there is a central intelligence with charisma behind it. It's just a bunch of people who want to jump on the bandwagon and cause trouble for something they think is a good cause.

--

-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Re:The most successful trolls by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2010-12-10 06:39 · Score: 5, Funny

We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I.
A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy.
I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand.
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.
We've known each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it
And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.
(Ooh, give you up) (Ooh, give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give
(Give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give (Give you up)
We've know each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it
I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:The most successful trolls by secretcurse · 2010-12-10 06:57 · Score: 2

You pay for news?
If he's British he does. The BBC is funded by British taxpayers. Also, I wish the BBC would give us Yanks the option of paying some portion of the TV tax to get access to the BBC One player...

--
I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
Re:The most successful trolls by hesiod · 2010-12-10 07:45 · Score: 4, Informative

There is no infighting for one thing, and those who participate have common, predictable goals and means.
You really don't understand Anonymous at all if you think that.
Re:The most successful trolls by The+Clockwork+Troll · 2010-12-10 08:46 · Score: 5, Funny

There is actually a way to do it. It was the subject of a previous Slashdot article.

--

There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
Re:The most successful trolls by GoneAwry · 2010-12-10 09:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

A group of people, young as they might be, who willingly download LOIC, willingly give control over to a hive mind, willingly put themselves at risk for arrest, all for combating censorship and governmental corruption that they feel strongly about, and you're saying that this is a group that's 99% children with no empathy? Disregard Payback - what about when they hit affiliates of the RIAA? Or the corruption of Scientology? Hal Turner? Gene Simmons, who suggested that if people downloaded some mp3s, that they should have their livelihoods taken from them? I mean, yeah sure, I'll agree that there's probably a lot of people/kids that go along with it without really understanding the implications (as is shown in a lot of the stupid shit that's undertaken, like trolling various forums or CWC or Habbo), but I'd hazard that a large portion of Anonymous is likely cognizant of what they're doing, and are being driven by personal values and intelligence as well as mass appeal. Your suggestion is biased; I can tell from some of the exaggerations and from having seen quite a few people upset with 4chan in my life.
Re:The most successful trolls by hesiod · 2010-12-10 10:39 · Score: 2

What am I missing?
Those people are a subsection of "anonymous", and do not represent the whole. Most in anonymous are not taking part in the DDoSes, and many disagree with the attacks. So to say anonymous have "common, predictable goals and means", and that there is no infighting is simply incorrect.
Re:The most successful trolls by PopeRatzo · 2010-12-11 03:20 · Score: 2

The second most successful part of their trolling is convincing people that they're actually some kind of hacker group when 99% (at least) are nothing more than skiddies with no empathy and a healthy dose of misogyny.
You know, I'm starting to tire of this macho attitude regarding "hacker groups" and who qualifies.
First, I give these "skiddies" a lot of credit for deciding that actually trying to do something, however misguided, about a worldwide political situation was more important that discovering some new way to defeat some protection scheme. While the "real" hackers are busy showing off their mad skillz to each other, the members of anonymous are trying to influence events outside of their basements.
Second, the heroic notion of a "hacker" is so 1990s. If you're some thirty- or forty-something and you still consider yourself a "hacker", it might be time to lose a few pounds, take a shower and go forth into the world and meet some people.
Third, that you're still believing there is some internet pecking order with hackers at the top and ordinary users at the bottom may be the most pitiful thing of all. It might be time to realize the world has moved on.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! by eldavojohn · 2010-12-10 05:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Or they'll DDoS you.

Who laugh? Hmmm? Who was it? Speak up so you can be added to the list. We'll see to it that your internet connection never functions right again.

I heard that if you post something bad on Slashdot, CmdrTaco hands over your IP address to Anonymous -- where do you think all the GNAA/Goatse trolls went?

Did somebody just sneeze? That's a DDoS. Who laughed when the witnessed testified that Assange has a smaller than average penis? That's a DDoS. If you're replying to this post? Oh, boy, you better believe that's a DDoS. In fact, if you're reading this right now let's just say there's not a lot you can do to stop from being DDoS'd by Anonymous for trying to find out more information about that particular group %*&#$^#%@#$ no carrier

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! by DigitalSorceress · 2010-12-10 06:20 · Score: 2

The first rule of Anonymous club is "you don't talk about Anonymous club".
The second rule of Anonymous club is that you don't talk... oops sorry the second rule of Anonymous club is "No Smoking"
The thir....^%&$*NO CARRIER

--

The Digital Sorceress

Very easy explanation by oic0 · 2010-12-10 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bored people looking for a little excitement and a cause. Not a bad cause really, if nothing else it has brought attention to the fact that these companies bent under the governments will and cut off funding to wikileaks even though our government hasn't figured out anything to charge them with yet.

Re:Very easy explanation by DurendalMac · 2010-12-10 06:00 · Score: 2

Good idea, crappy implementation. All this does to the public perception of Wikileaks and their supports is make them look like a bunch of hackers and deviant cybercrooks. It won't make a damned difference in the long run.

I've always found it sadly ironic that Anonymous, who very much wants to keep online anonymity alive, is doing more than almost anyone to destroy it. Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Way to go, idiots!
Re:Very easy explanation by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-12-10 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Way to go, idiots!
Politicians don't need reasons to clamp down on the internet, they are going to do it either way. Just like they have with airline security, it's gotten worse over the years despite nothing happening after 9/11.
Their antics are at least trying to bring about some change or awareness before the internet gets clamped down. Think about it, some script kiddie in junior high has contributed more to the world situation these past few months than you might ever in your life. If you think they are idiots, why don't you try and stop them for ruining things for you?
Re:Very easy explanation by Chakra5 · 2010-12-10 06:37 · Score: 2

So they bent to government pressure...when exactly did PayPal sign on to be revolutionaries. The key to living free is letting people (and thus their businesses) go their own way. This is not an act of freedom no matter how high the ideal, rather an act of repression because they don't agree with someones politics. You can shout at them, you can call them names and boycott them all you want. that's freedome of speech, but the second you impede them from their own freedoms, you are out of bounds as they have broken no law. And until their are boots in the street, we are still a country of laws. The culprit is the US government. That is the valid target that I see in this context.

--
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
Re:Very easy explanation by DurendalMac · 2010-12-10 06:43 · Score: 2

And you want to help? Want to make a difference? Work to get more mirrors of Wikileaks up. Keep the information out there and make sure that new info has a place to go. What you can do is show these organizations that their attempts to shut down Wikileaks will not succeed. DDoSing is nothing more than a revenge tactic. It solves NOTHING.
Re:Very easy explanation by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-12-10 06:59 · Score: 2

If they were smart, they'd try to go after the servers that are actually used for transferring financial data. Which, of course, would be highly illegal and a grave threat to our liberty and our way of life, and I'd never, ever advocate that sort of thing.
Maybe you just figured out WHY they went for the webserver and not the transaction servers.
They're not as dumb as you think they are.
Re:Very easy explanation by Tom · 2010-12-10 09:35 · Score: 2

Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Way to go, idiots!
As if.
Politicians make up reasons if you don't give them some. It really doesn't make a difference. What do you suggest instead? Bending over and taking it like a man?

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Very easy explanation by Almahtar · 2010-12-10 17:04 · Score: 2

Taking down visa.com did two important things, in my opinion:

1. It sent the message "We saw what you did."
2. It drew massive attention in the media. NPR (National Public Radio) had covered the wikileaks situation only sparsely before, but I've heard about it at least a few times a day now.

We do not hate women. by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2010-12-10 06:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Now, TITS or GTFO.

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?

If no one is in charge by geekoid · 2010-12-10 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

then how can you official say no one is in charge?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:If no one is in charge by Rysc · 2010-12-10 07:19 · Score: 5, Informative

This is a fair question and hard to answer in a way that is convincing. I know no one is in charge because I know who anonymous is. Explaining the back story (and thus the joke) takes a lot of ink; you kind of had to be there. All I can say, briefly, is "Trust me," which is not going to be convincing to you.
There *are* some clueless people who are trying to be "Anonymous the group", which I call captial-A Anonymous because this is what reporters have insisted on saying since the Scientology raid. That was a bad raid, because even though it was funny it brought in too much attention by supporters who were not in on the joke. Ever since then, and just before then with the Fox News piece on "Anonymous", reporters trying to cover this have been saying "Anonymous" like it's an organization or group of some kind. If you were anonymous at the time, even if not participating in the raids, it would have been obvious how silly this was. Actually, a lot of fun was had making fun of this mistake. A lot of fun is still being had.
Some anonymous are definitely out to be activists and like trying to incite the mob for their personal agendas, but mostly they are not successful. The mob will react when it is interesting to do so.
By now, thanks to reporting, there are people out there who want to "join" the "Anonymous protest group." I assure you that 99.99% of these people are ineffectual and are not involved in any actual site takedowns. Some who try are like the guy who got arrested. Arrests like that won't stop the DDoSes because they're just picking off the fringe hangers-on.
The thing to keep in mind is that anonymous is a name, not a plural, or it is a description of a characteristic. Anonymous is no more a group than "Youth" is a group; yes, it's a group in the sense that it's a classification, but in no other way. A bunch of kids in a schoolyard may represent Youth in a certain sense, but they do not speak for Youth. In a similar way many are anonymous and many groups of anonymous exist, but no one speaks for anonymous. More accurately no one speaks *directly* for anonymous; anonymous tends to make his opinions known in the form of memes--not image macros or catch phrases, but ideas that appear without apparent direction in the minds of many different people and spread through word of mouth. You can get a broad sense of what anonymous thinks and feels from the aggregation of a lot of things. These thoughts and feelings are by necessity few and/or general, and they may not be universal to every anonymous. It's just that, on the whole, anonymous tends to agree. Quintessential example: furries are bad.

--
I want my Cowboyneal
Re:If no one is in charge by jack2000 · 2010-12-10 11:21 · Score: 2

Oh the usual, mostly image boards, forums ,instant chat(irc based and otherwise).
Sometimes flayers are made to advertise a raid.
Since the death of /i/ (the invasion board, it changed three major image boards before dissolving in hiatus) most major image boards shun threads inciting raids. Such threads are clamped down on by site moderators.
Of course there are image boards with positive attitude about invasions, indeed there are entire sites dedicated to this. ( Their effectiveness is another thing )
Re:If no one is in charge by agrif · 2010-12-10 14:54 · Score: 2

Your description is good, so I'll attempt to ride your coattails and tack on my own. It's not an original idea, but I think it's a good one.
Anonymous is a Stand Alone Complex, or a group of copycats with no original. Or, a sort of similar thinking (and action) caused by a confluence of similar media and the rapid exchange of ideas (such as over the internet). Particularly (from above link):

A Stand Alone Complex can be compared to the emergent copycat behavior that often occurs after incidents such as serial murders or terrorist attacks. An incident catches the public's attention and certain types of people "get on the bandwagon", so to speak. It is particularly apparent when the incident appears to be the result of well-known political or religious beliefs, but it can also occur in response to intense media attention. For example, a mere fire, no matter the number of deaths, is just a garden variety tragedy. However, if the right kind of people begin to believe it was arson, caused by deliberate action, the threat that more arsons will be committed increases drastically.
What separates the Stand Alone Complex from normal copycat behavior is that there is no real originator of the copied action, but merely a rumor or an illusion that supposedly performed the copied action. There may be real people who are labeled as the originator, but in reality, no one started the original behavior. And in Stand Alone Complex, the facade just has to exist in the minds of the public. In other words, a potential copycat just has to believe the copied behavior happened from an originator-when it really did not. The result is an epidemic of copied behavior having a net effect of purpose. One could say that the Stand Alone Complex is mass hysteria over nothing-yet causing an overall change in social structure.

The Sixteen Year Old that Was Caught... by RobotRunAmok · 2010-12-10 06:18 · Score: 2

...was their oldest member. They're like a bunch of chipmunks without an Alvin.

Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and by unity100 · 2010-12-10 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

What you have done, on your part, really ? at least, these people are implementing a good idea, with a crappy implementation. that's something there. nothing on your side to show for it yet ?

--
Read radical news here

Re:Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and by unity100 · 2010-12-10 06:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

A) It does absolutely nothing to help Wikileaks. It's just a revenge tactic. The decisions have been made.
it does.

paypal was at frist blabbering about 'tos violation' regarding wikileaks cut-off. after what anonymous did, they have come up saying that they did it due to political pressure.

other companies will probably follow suit or take similar routes to unload responsibility. this will put the blame where it lies.

this, if anything, is much more important in that it will make it clear that censorship is being attempted by politicians.

--
Read radical news here

Who is Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-10 06:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anonymous is everyone you depend on. They're the people who do your laundry and cook your food and serve your dinner. They make your bed. They guard you while you're asleep. They drive the ambulances. They direct your call. They are cooks and taxi drivers and they know everything about you. They process your insurance claims and credit card charges. They control every part of your life. "They are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday they'll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but they won't. And they're just learning this fact."

Re:Who is Anonymous? by Dachannien · 2010-12-10 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, I'm pretty sure 99% are unemployed college students, with the other 1% having dropped out of college to write DDoS scripts.
In other words, 1% evil, 99% hot gas.
Re:Who is Anonymous? by Bucky24 · 2010-12-10 10:24 · Score: 2

I agree. If the person who does my laundry knew how to do this kind of stuff they wouldn't be doing my laundry.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Who is Anonymous? by Facegarden · 2010-12-10 11:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anonymous is everyone you depend on. They're the people who do your laundry and cook your food and serve your dinner. They make your bed. They guard you while you're asleep. They drive the ambulances. They direct your call. They are cooks and taxi drivers and they know everything about you. They process your insurance claims and credit card charges. They control every part of your life.
"They are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday they'll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but they won't. And they're just learning this fact."
While poetic, that's not very true (I realize you probably know this, but I feel like I should chime in). Yes, I know that's just an interesting quote from Fight Club, but its not accurate for 4chan's anon. 4Chan's anon is mostly just fat teenage boys. And some older people. But mostly fat teenage boys. Although anon is no one in particular, it tends to be the people that have jack shit else to do other than spend time on 4chan. So they don't guard anyone, or drive ambulances, or direct your call. Though they will run your raids in WOW, or x-ray some picture you got off of facebook of a girl you want to see naked.
I wish it was as poetic as Fight Club, but it's just not.
-Taylor

--
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?

Not this s**t again by TideX · 2010-12-10 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am so sick of hearing about /b/. Its not that I'm against wikileaks or julian assange, I'm all for freedom of speech and transparent government. I'm against how everyone misuses the name Anonymous constantly. They are not the only board on 4chan for gods sake. Every time the media focuses on them it makes the rest of us look like idiots. For the record pretty much every other board on 4chan is against this nonsense. Anonymous is not a terrorist organization, its just a name nothing more. Anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask doesn't know the first damn thing about freedom and just follows the trend of his fellow /b/tards and its been this way since project chanology. Conformism and ignorance is the very thing were against. Theres no reason why they do it except maybe for some false sense of righteousness. They disgrace our name and our website. Call them /b/tards, terrorists, idiots, but not Anonymous. That name belongs to us and were sick of being grouped with them.

Re:Not this s**t again by Xaedalus · 2010-12-10 06:51 · Score: 2

The problem is, Anonymous is falling victim to a mis-applied "No True Scotsman". I get what you're saying, but the very nature of Anonymous allows the /b/tards to come in and co-opt it, ultimately becoming Anonymous in the process and rendering your defense moot.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Re:Not this s**t again by Opportunist · 2010-12-10 12:22 · Score: 2

You know, just yesterday I came to a very sad realization: That they're not really that different from the religious loonies that blow up abortion clinics. No, wait, well, they are. But the motivation is the same: Boredom, the feeling of emptiness in their life and finally finding something "righteous" to fight for.
The difference is that the average /b/tard isn't too religious to begin with, so the whole "fighting for the will of God" thing doesn't really fit well with his set of believes. But aside of that, the motivation works out. In both cases we're dealing with people who don't have any real problems in their life. There's no goal to achieve, nothing to really to aspire to, yet the driving motivation to do something "right", to make some impact, to change the world, to be heard and to be able to say "I did that".
Some blow up abortion clinics. Some DDoS webpages.
Personally, I prefer the latter. Mostly because I'm not really the religious type and because I ... I think sanctioning acts that might be illegal is illegal itself in my country, so I better stop here.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Unified beliefs by Darkness404 · 2010-12-10 06:28 · Score: 2

I think that the one thing that really unites the majority of the internet culture is open access of information. And because of that, the internet as a whole likes the fact that the government's "dirty little secrets" are now out in the open. Despite there being a wide range of political viewpoints ranging from communist, to libertarian, to socialist, to anarchist and everywhere in between, much of the internet can agree that open access to information is an essential thing to have.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.

Re:Unified beliefs by Optali · 2010-12-10 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

What 'dirty little secrets' exactly? That the French prez is a swollen toad ? That there may be or may no be nukes on Dutch territory? One thing I have to admit: Assange is the biggest scammer since Madoff, or maybe even bigger.

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Re:Unified beliefs by he-sk · 2010-12-10 07:10 · Score: 4, Informative

It's one thing to suspect government duplicity, it's another to see it written in black on white.
As an example, I am sickened how the German authorities caved to US pressure with regards to El-Masri's abduction by the CIA while calling for a "thorough investigation" publicly.
Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,733860,00.html

--
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Re:Unified beliefs by Mister+Whirly · 2010-12-10 07:17 · Score: 2

You do realize that less than 1% of the 250,000 cables in WikiLeaks possession have been released to the public so far, right? I am certain there is more damaging information in them than what US diplomats think of foreign leaders. Wikilekas isn't going to release the juiciest ones first - they have to build the excitement.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:Unified beliefs by HeckRuler · 2010-12-10 07:33 · Score: 5, Informative

-USA taxpayers paid a private defense contractor to buy Afghan cops a boy sex toy. Apparently it's a pre-taliban tradition.
-Our diplomates were instructed to get the U.N. leader Ban Ki-Moons biometrics, passwords, and encryption keys.
-We've pushed our own IP laws onto Spain

But holy cow, you may just want to take your pick of anything on the wiki page. There's plenty there. Most of it is, yeah, stupid things like candid descriptions by diplomats. But some of is examples of people in power abusing said power.
Re:Unified beliefs by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-12-10 08:56 · Score: 2

What I hate about the Wikileaks thing is that most of the headlines is stuff that isn't surprising at all and a lot of it has made it to the mainstream media as it happened

[Citation Needed]
No, seriously, plenty of this stuff makes it to the news and is promptly dismissed as being based on flimsy or no evidence.
We all "know" a lot of this stuff, but now wikileaks has provided the Citations Needed for anyone to verify the claims.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Unified beliefs by MrKaos · 2010-12-10 14:27 · Score: 2

-USA taxpayers paid a private defense contractor to buy Afghan cops a boy sex toy. Apparently it's a pre-taliban tradition.
Lets be call this what this particularly wrong tradition what it is. Whilst I don't know the exact spelling it's called "batca bazzi" - which apparently translates to "to be with the boy" or "to have the boy" - in other word to have sex with boys.
This Afgan tradition of the warlords and other power elites is no more than a form of institutionalised paedophilia and is one of the sickest forms of repeated rape of a child. I really don't want to know what sort of mental gymnastics these sick motherfuckers go through to justify this sort of behaviour all I know is it's wrong. This stands as the case in point about the Afgan vs Iraq war and I just wish that the worlds resources were focused on fixing Afganistan. This one issue illustrates the epitome of the brutality and ignorance that occurs in Afganistan and highlights why actions that expose dirty laundry like this must be supported.
I think - if anything - Wikileaks makes democracy stronger and Anonymous enforcement of it demonstrates the undercurrent of fury that exists in the world over these type of in-justices.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

And the winners are: Governments and businesses by get_your_guns · 2010-12-10 06:29 · Score: 2

All these skiddies are doing is providing fodder to the politicians to enforce more internet control. The governments will get more in bed with every internet hub and access point in their respective countries to monitor all traffic and block encrypted traffic (that they don't have the keys for) and traffic that looks like a hacking or DDoS attack. We will all be paying higher taxes and higher access charges to use what was the open internet. Don't get me wrong, I think the release of these docs is warranted but I don't think the hacking going on right now is doing anyone any good. What good is this going to do for internet users? And this is the problem, the juveniles doing what they think is hacking is just making things worse for the one thing they rely upon, open access.

Angels on Anonymous by BenihanaX · 2010-12-10 06:34 · Score: 2

Am I the only one that misread the title as "Angels on Anonymous?"

LOIC by thisNameNotTaken · 2010-12-10 06:47 · Score: 2

DOWNLOAD: loic.sourceforge.net

Works OK.

Re:Download LOIC ? hahahahaha by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-12-10 06:57 · Score: 2

You managed to cause 5 requests in the course of about 5 seconds, whereas LOIC can do that tenfold.

Israel.... by mrops · 2010-12-10 07:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Maybe a bit off topic, but still related to wikileaks,

Notice how there is nothing incriminating about Israel in these leaks...

Turns out Israel struck a deal with Wikileaks.. brilliant. Wonder if US could have done the same.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-struck-a-deal-with-israel-over-cable-leaks/

Re:Israel.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-10 11:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

... you're joking.
1) that same site is also convinced wikileaks is IN ITS ENTIRETY a usa plot to police the internet. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/10/wikileaks-a-big-dangerous-us-government-con-job/ - money graf: "The Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Con Job which will likely be used to police the Internet."
2) it's a 9/11 truther site.
3) the only source they have which actually suggests assange struck a deal with israel is "syriatruth.info" - very unbiased, i'm sure.
modded informative. good work, /.

Re:Democracy? by Paracelcus · 2010-12-10 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Democracy" what country are you from?
In the good `ol USofA we have:
Sham elections
Faux news
The largest prison population in the world
The highest infant mortality rate in the "developed" world (right up there near the top worldwide)
The shortest life expectancy in the "developed" world (right down there near the bottom worldwide)
The worst/most expensive educational system by far (outside of Haiti/Afghanistan)

"Democracy" Who among us voted for the patriot act? Or enhanced screening, Or Tax free billionaires? Or crumbling roads/bridges? Or the endless farce of the Washington crowd pig fucking us over and over again?

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd

Re:Download LOIC ? hahahahaha by VortexCortex · 2010-12-10 08:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

You managed to cause 5 requests in the course of about 5 seconds, whereas LOIC can do that tenfold.

50 requests in the course of about 5 seconds? That's 10 requests a second... a puny (and false) figure.

Meh, just hold ctrl while clicking the links to those sites as fast as possible.

Then, click: Bookmarks > Bookmark all tabs.

Then use the "Open all in tabs" option multiple times. Then right click the tab bar and select: "Reload all Tabs". I can easily use Firefox to generate hundreds of requests per second; This is still very small amount of traffic.

My hardware can send more than 1 packet per 10 milliseconds, but we'll go with that nice round number.

A true DDoS attack works by sending spoofed SYN packets to many servers while including the target IP as the spoofed "origin" IP. Then, one machine can cause many hundreds of machines to send the target "syn-ack" packets. One attacker is distributing the denial of service flood attack, hence the name: DDoS.

When an "ack" packet is not received, the TCP protocol states that multiple "syn-ack" packets should be sent -- one spoofed "syn" and we generate 5 or more "syn-ack" packets. Spoof a hundred TCP syn packets a second and you easily generate 500 or more distributed packets per second. 100 spoofed packets per second to 2000 different IPs in a rolling list, remember, one syn gets you 5 syn-acks from that host, spoof a few syns, move to the next.

Get a large number of machines to do this type of DDoS attack and it can generate an order of magnitude more traffic than just the network itself can produce... very devastating, much more so than reloading browser pages. 50 machines can produce 25,000 packets per second directed at one IP.

Re:Convicted for "posession" ? by droopus · 2010-12-10 09:02 · Score: 3, Informative

They can quite easily hit you with a federal conspiracy charge. Your IP on a list of "downloaders of LOIC" is plenty for a search warrant. A creative examination of your hard drive will come up with enough "suspicious material" to convince a grand jury. (Free lunch and $8 per diem is plenty to convince a grand jury.)

So, ok, you then claim you did nothing. The AUSA says "we do not believe you. We think you are an OP in Anonymous and are charging you with violation of 18 USC 1030 How's twenty years sound, hm?"

And conspiracy is so tangential, that anyone can be accused of it for pretty much anything. For example, I say to you "Hey dude! How about a free pound of coke!" You jokingly say something like "LOL sure dude, bring a big straw." And we both laugh it off. But you're neighbor overhears and calls the cops/DEA.You just conspired to buy a pound of cocaine. And you'd lose in court, like 97% of fed trial defendants. But I digress. This is the conspiracy section of the federal hacking law: .....
Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is—
(1)

(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; ....

Now, the AUSA says to you "ok, you have two choices. Go to trial, and I will beat you and you will absolutely do at least fifteen years. Or sign this admission of responsibility, plead guilty to this minor count and do five. Your choice."

Many people say "I'll fight!!" Almost all of them will reconsider that as they pass year 12 at Fort Dix.

--
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."

Re:Democracy? by Duradin · 2010-12-10 09:49 · Score: 2

""Democracy" Who among us voted for the patriot act?"

Did you vote for anyone that voted for it? If so, then you did vote for the patriot act.

"Or crumbling roads/bridges?" If you voted for someone running on a "no new taxes" platform that would save you some money it was likely that you voted for crumbling roads/bridges.

Re:Convicted for "posession" ? by Shimbo · 2010-12-10 10:11 · Score: 2

How can "simply downloading the software" earn a conviction? This software (LOIC) seems to have been developed for legitimate uses for testing networks.

You need criminal intent:

"A person is guilty of an offence if he obtains any article with a view to its being supplied for use to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3." (Computer Misuse Act 1990)

62 of 383 comments (clear)