Anonymous Organizes Global Protests For WikiLeaks

pafein writes "Internet collective Anonymous launched a global protest for January 15 in support of beleaguered WikiLeaks. Anonymous has a history of defending Internet freedom, beginning with Project Chanology against the Church of Scientology. The group gained recent attention for itself with DDOS attacks on Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and the government of Tunisia."

Comments

War

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. They are organizing their army for the war against nation-states.

Re:War

[durrr]

I guess that a tiny nation or region(say a small island somewhere) targeted by a sufficiently massive ddos could be more or less entirely locked out from the internet for the duration, with rather noticeable economic consequences.

I didn't launch anything

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a coward.

Re:I didn't launch anything

[Anonymous Coward]

I launched it!
And stop logging in as me.
I'm changing the password right now.

Re:I didn't launch anything

[f.ardelian]

Oddly, there are very few "Anonymous Coward" comments in reply to such a story. Did Slashdot kick Anonymous out? Why?

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

These snotty 4chan teens might think they're tough but what'll happen when they get arrested? They'll start crying for the mummy who they say doesn't understand them.

Re:Hmmm

[Seumas]

Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something. More, I always get a kick out of how we say things like "Americans are too fat and lazy and content with their sports teams and iced coffees to bother ever standing up to their government or taking real action beyond singing songs while standing in a circle with rhyming picket signs", but the truth is that if you or I voiced any dissent against our government or even took some sort of action and were given the hell of a boot, we'd be bawling like little bitches, too.

We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.

That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.

Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).

Re:Hmmm

[jank1887]

"sidearms in our heads"

I think you're doing it wrong...

Re:Hmmm

[Dcnjoe60]

We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.

WWII was 70 years ago. People in the US today are a lot different than back then. I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle. Even in their elections, the driving theme is are you better off today than you were four years ago, when the real question is where to we need to be tomorrow.

That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.

Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).

Anonymous is winning small battles in what they are doing, but ultimately will lose the war in whatever their perceived purpose is. The more they attack business interests, the more there will be laws enacted to crack down on actions like theirs. Before long, they will be labeled cyber terrorists with all of the negative government attention that will bring.

It's good to stand up for what you believe. It's even better to choose your fights carefully. Otherwise, you are really just being irresponsible because the consequences set in motion by indiscriminate action affect a lot more people than than the ones that signed on for your cause.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't 4chan's doing.

There are at least two large groups who use the "Anonymous" name - the 4chan /b/tards, and the whyweprotest (anti-scientology) website. It's not cool on 4chan to have anything to do with the "moralfag" protests, i.e. anything for the greater good of humanity.

That makes it easy to figure out who is responsible for what nowadays. This protest is obviously from the anti-scientology Anonymous faction. 4chan would be much more interested in spamming Youtube with Justin Bieber porn.

Re:Hmmm

[Moryath]

Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something.

The second line right there is your problem. When the "something" that is being done is counterproductive, you are not helping.

No matter how justified we are in our principles and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose.

OK, side note first: would you people PLEASE learn to fucking spell already? Thank you.

As to the "something to lose"? Very good point. By comparative amount, the risk-to-reward ratio for protesters in the "golden age" of the "civil rights era" was far greater. The right to vote, the right to an equal seat at the table, being fought for by people who were already poor in terms of material wealth. If they went to jail, well, they went to jail. They had a network to ensure their families were taken care of, and they had a network to ensure they could get back on their feet when they left jail.

Compare to today. Look at the lives ruined by corrupt prosecutor Johnny Sutton in Texas who would rather go after border agents rather than a known drug smuggler and salesman who got shot while illegally in the country, running from arrest, and pointing a gun back at the border patrol. These guys had their lives completely ruined for doing what they were trained to do in the line of duty, because of corruption in the US government and a prosecutor and corrupt Bush administration that wanted to play favorites to the drug cartels from Mexico...

Re:Hmmm

[peragrin]

If push can to shove and someone like hitler really did appear the response now would be the same as it was then. ignore it until they directly threatened us, and then mobilize in ways never before seen in warfare.

American's don't care about Afghanistan because it doesn't affect the average american. If you go for all out TOTAL War then you would be in for a surprise at just how not lazy American's can be when pushed hard enough. The thing is even Vietnam wasn't a Total war.

American's are lazy because they can be. We don't have to work hard. Just hard enough to maintain what is. When What is no longer exists we will moan and cry and then build it again.

Re:Hmmm

[jimicus]

Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.

It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it isn't laziness: Did you ever thing that maybe Wikileaks isn't getting a lot of support from the public because the public isn't that excited about lots of classified documents being leaked on the internet?

Re:Hmmm

[Seumas]

I think my point flew over your head.

People say things about how if they had been alive when the Nazi party was taking over Germany, they "would have done something". In reality, if you or I or anyone else who talk big about how much we'd stand up to oppression and violation of liberties and just plain "wrongness" would do no such thing if we stepped back in time.

If we were on the street and saw some brown shirts hauling a jewish family out of their home, making them get on their knees, and putting a gun to their head, you know what we'd do? We'd shut our fucking mouths and look the other way, because we don't want to be next.

My point with that given example was that we do an awful lot of talking about how we should stand up to injustice and fight on principal to retain those ideals that we've lived on for a couple hundred years (and of which many are now considered general "human rights" by the UN, even) . . . but none of us would ever be willing to take the risk of doing anything about it. Except maybe putting a bumper sticker on our cars, a little button on our websites, and if we're really "rebels", going out and standing outside a building with signs . . . on sticks!

Re:Hmmm

[Seumas]

Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something.

The second line right there is your problem. When the "something" that is being done is counterproductive, you are not helping.

Promoting protests around the world is counter-productive? It's about the most rudimentary form of protest.

DDoS attacks may certainly be petty and even juvenile (though I do believe it's known that our own government commits them or would), but you use what tools you have in your reach, I guess. Certainly brings attention to your cause (sometimes negative, here, I guess -- sometimes not so negative, when against Scientology). At any rate, I didn't see any mention of DDoS on January 15th. The page I saw linked to in this submission just showed videos of people protesting on the streets, which is still legal.

. . . Though not sure if it's still legal to wear masks while protesting. Certainly not in all states.

. . . And with the caveat that you may need to be restricted to conducting your protest in a barbed-wire chain-link "free speech cage".

Wikileaks isn't even necessarily the most worthwhile reason to get oneself rousted. There are plenty of things which either individually or cumulatively should have rousted more than "meh, that sucks" from the collective population, by now . . .

Re:Hmmm

[sa1lnr]

but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess.

You weren't forty years ago.

http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=vietnam+war+protests&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=iRUrTc-uD6qAhAe7zszcCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CGYQsAQwBg&biw=1345&bih=930

Re:Hmmm

[Seumas]

You're right, it's just Wikileaks. Every other violation (suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind, among many others) has been met with such active and significant response by the informed and caring American public. It's just this one isolated incident of Wikileaks where Americans said "you know, I usually put it all on the line to defend our liberties, but I'm gonna take a break today".

We're all part of a government that commits heinous violations on its own people and - often - even worse violations on others. As long as we have Starbucks, Jersey Shore, Facebook, and our mini-vans, we're content to permit it. Neigh, even to justify and defend it.

Re:Hmmm

[Xelios]

Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game.

This is called maturity. I didn't realize this when I was young. I thought a big part of maturity was caring enough and having the will to change things for the better. Boy was I wrong. We all like to pretend it's not like this, but the truth is you're considered mature when you've given in to the status quo. You've accepted the world for what it is, realized there's not a damn thing you can do about it and decided to just try to make the best of it for yourself and your family.

It's sad really. I think we could all do with a little more of those 'immature' rebellious tendencies we had when we were going through "that phase" as teenagers. But without millions of others standing by your side, ready to do the same, you just end up making life difficult for yourself.

Re:Hmmm

[Dcnjoe60]

Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.

I know my history, what about you? Yes, the US sat out the first two years -- their own version of the Prime Directive, however, the next three and a half years, they made a major push in Europe that did change the outcome of the war.

It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.

And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe.

Re:Hmmm

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually, I think we are very much in agreement and I would mod you up, if I had any mod points left.

Re:Hmmm

[tnk1]

Also, it should be pointed out that even while the US gov't was technically neutral, we were doing what we could to support the UK with things like Lend-Lease and deals like leasing otherwise useless UK bases in return for (admittedly old) destroyers. While, yes, technically the Germans were eligible for our material under some of the schemes, we knew they couldn't actually take advantage of it because the Royal Navy totally controlled use of the seas around Europe for the entire war.

Although I am sure that the people of Britain were brave enough to resist the Germans all by themselves, having the US propping them up from the sidelines certainly helped.

Re:Hmmm

[danbert8]

I disagree. Giving into the status quo is not maturity. Knowing the consequences of your actions is maturity. Most people end up giving into the status quo because of the severe consequences of standing up for your rights. Many mature people stand up for rights, but only if they know they can handle the consequences.

On an aside note: our government is NOT mature. If they do realize the consequences of their actions, they are all assholes (on another aside note, they could still be assholes if they don't know the consequences).

Re:Hmmm

[TheRaven64]

And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe.

Not necessarily. Germany wasn't really in a position to invade the UK. The Russian army would not have invaded as quickly without Germany being tied up on two fronts, but once Russian industry was on a war footing they'd have kept sending men and tanks at Germany until the won or ran out (and they had a lot of men that they considered expendable at that point).

The US involvement definitely shortened the war, probably by at least two years, but its biggest effect was to ensure that the Russian advance stopped after they got to Germany. Without the US intervention, it's a lot more likely that people in Europe would be speaking Russian than German. It's also quite likely that the USA would then have gone on to lose the Cold War.

Re:Hmmm

[DesScorp]

Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.

As they should have. Why should they have declared war on Axis powers until they were attacked? For "freedom and democracy"? Isn't that neo-con thinking? It never ceases to amaze me that many of the same people that criticize neocons for their doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy across the world also criticize the US for not jumping right into WWII in 1939.

We tried that, actually, just a couple of decades before. Woodrow Wilson committed this country to war with Germany in 1917. He was looking for a reason to get us in it, and finally got it when the Germans sank the Lusitania (which, yes Virginia, was carrying arms and ammo bound for the British, a violation of our neutrality policy). People were so disillusioned about "saving the world for democracy" precisely because we saw we were snookered in WWI.

So, have we got that straight? Bush was wrong for war with Saddam, but no no no, Wilson didn't send US troops to fight in what was basically a European pissing match over empires. It was making the world safe for democracy.

Re:Hmmm

[Ihmhi]

Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.

I wish "not our business" was still our policy today.

Police action to correct human rights violations at the request of the UN? Yes.

Goin' around bustin' up countries because they're communist or they have a dictator? No.

If it's not our business, it's not our goddamned business.

Re:Hmmm

[JockTroll]

"Torches and sidearms in our heads"... Hmm, you've sure got a lot of empty space there, loserboy.

Re:Hmmm

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

You're right, it's just Wikileaks. Every other violation (suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind, among many others)
You do realize in just about every war time scenario, habeas corpus is suspended and most people don't seem to mind. But yeah, the sky is falling.

Re:Hmmm

[captain_dope_pants]

"Neigh, even to justify and defend it."

Whinny posts lines like that I have just have to reply.

Re:Hmmm

[hairyfeet]

I'm sorry, but I gotta call bullshit. You see if you would have studied your history you'd know that Hitler was ALREADY fucked long before a single American put boots on the ground. look up his "planning" around Operation Barbarossa and you'll see that by Stalingrad he was ALREADY fucked, and fucked HARD. He split his forces into THREE groups after having to stop several time for the supplies to catch up (fuckup #1) and sent the majority south after the oilfields with NO rest (fuckup #2) while at the same time sending a weakened Sixth Panzer after Stalingrad (fuckup 3 and you're out!) .

If you look at the man's plans he was basically boned with no help from the Americans by Stalingrad. His having to stop several times telegraphed his EXACT plan, which allowed Stalin to move the vital tank and warplane factories (which I would argue the combination of the rugged T-34 which could be argued was the best all around tank of the war backed up by the Katyusha which was cheap to manufacture AND devastating and having the Germans unable to mount an armored offensive thanks to the IL-2 sealed Hitler's fate in the east) left Hitler with NO WAY to stop Stalin's war production, and the weakening of his forces by splitting left him unable to secure the oil fields while at the same time leaving his northern flank exposed.

If the USA stayed out of the war in Europe the only changes would most likely be that Hitler might have taken England (which even then would have been doubtful as the "cash and carry" would have still allowed England to use the USA for manufacturing) but would have still fallen ultimately to Stalin. The USSR simply had plenty of raw materials with which to work, much of which was out of Hitler's reach, and a VERY large populace with a fanatical hatred of Germans (and rightly so) with which to wage total war. Read some of the books out there on Stalingrad and Barbarossa or even watch the excellent BBC "The World at War: Stalingrad" to see that Hitler's "strategy" in the east was one critical blunder after another.

The USA could have never set a single boot on the grounds of Europe and simply kept selling to the allies and I doubt anything would have come out differently, and this is coming from an American that had multiple family members fight in WWII in Europe. The simple fact is reading his communiques and plans Hitler bet everything on Russia being another France and Stalin proved him DEAD wrong. Hell the man didn't even have adequate winter gear for his troops! He was SO fucked!

Re:Hmmm

[dkleinsc]

Oh, I believe GP on that though, it's straight from the horse's mouth!

Re:Hmmm

[jav1231]

But when we did get involved we kicked his a$$. Which shows even a procrastinating American can kick the crap out of a highly motivated and prepared jackass.

Re:Hmmm

[dthx1138]

The fact that there have been two massive power shifts in Congress in the last 4 years seems to contradict your opinion that all Americans are apathetic.

Maybe the truth is that most Americans don't support a lot of what Wikileaks is doing, or how they do it.

Re:Hmmm

[Dcnjoe60]

  The USA could have never set a single boot on the grounds of Europe and simply kept selling to the allies and I doubt anything would have come out differently, and this is coming from an American that had multiple family members fight in WWII in Europe. The simple fact is reading his communiques and plans Hitler bet everything on Russia being another France and Stalin proved him DEAD wrong. Hell the man didn't even have adequate winter gear for his troops! He was SO fucked!

Your "doubt" does not mean diddly squat as to how anything in the war would have turned out. You are free to believe that the US had no impact and if your only source of that believe is how misguided Hitler was, then so be it.

Bin Laden is pretty misguided, too, and yet his minions continue to fight on his behalf. Hitler, misguided as he might have been, still had troops and a war machine in Europe. They sure seemed pretty intent on fighting a war.

Japan's leaders were misguided, too. Even after their leaders new the war was lost, their soldiers continued to fight to the death.

Everyone I knew/know in the military will tell you time and time again, that battles are won or lost in the trenches, many times in spite of their general's f*ck'd up plans.

You, sir, do a disservice to the many Americans who gave their lives and limbs fighting a foreign war on a foreign soil.

Re:Hmmm

[das3cr]

Don't forget to see where a lot of Russia's war material came from. A lot of it had a Made in USA stamp on it. If it wasn't for that they may have been speaking german too. But to say that our but its biggest effect was to ensure that the Russian advance stopped after they got to Germany ... is leaving a great big ole WTF going through my head.

Re:Hmmm

[servognome]

The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.

No they basically said, "We'll give the Allies guns while we build our military and get the right political climate to enter the war."
Cash & Carry, Lend-Lease, peacetime draft, etc. all show the US was anything but a disinterested party prior to Pearl Harbor.

Re:Hmmm

[Wyatt Earp]

I guess where you missed the United States shipping millions of tons of raw materials and weapons to the United Kingdom and Commonwealth from September 1939 to June 1941, then come July 1941 the United States shipped millions of tons of raw materials and weapons to the United Kingdom, Commonwealth, Free Dutch, Free Norway Free French and Soviet Union every year till the fall of 1945.

No, the United States didn't sit back and say "meh, not our business", the United States took a side and started building up the military from the summer of '39 on. In the spring of 1941, even before the invasion of Russia, the United States repealed the Neutrality Act and started to openly coordinate with the United Kingdom.

The United States took over the occupation of Iceland on 16 June 1941 and occupied the country completely by 12 July 1941, well before Japan attacked.

Had the US declared war in September 1939 what would the 17th largest Army have accomplished? Nothing, the US needed time to build up the military and in the meantime they patrolled the western the Atlantic

Re:Hmmm

[oliverthered]

The extream right have political parties in Europe still, the far right run many countries. Anyone who's slightly to the left gets the standard hate language used by the right because they know they have no argument other than hate and fear that they can use over people.

Re:Hmmm

[eulernet]

there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.

No, the war was won by the Soviet Union, not by the US.
Germans gladly surrendered to the US army, because they were terrorized to be captured by russian's army.
Check the casualties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

So, in today's Europe, we'd all speak russian, not german.

Re:Hmmm

[GameboyRMH]

LOL "massive power shifts" XD

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe doin' it right? Did we learn nothing from Mr. Cobb?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It should also be pointed out that the Germans wouldn't have done as well as they did without American support. Henry Ford, GM, Standard Oil. We supplied both sides. If only we had supported the UK after the war as much as we did Japan and Germany. Then we'd all be driving great looking and well made automobiles made in England.

Re:Hmmm

[Lordnerdzrool]

The war would have played out differently had the US and European allies not been present though.

I hate seeing this argument and not seeing at least a little further attempt at critical thinking. What is lost in numbers is the fact that because Operation Overlord was mostly fought in the West/South and the Russian campaign fought in the North/East, Germany had two complete fronts to fight. Pretending for a second that Germany and Italy decide to not fulfill their side of the defensive pact with Japan after Japan attacks the United States, and neither Germany nor Italy of them declare war on the US, this would mean Germany would only really be fighting one major front in Europe. Germany would have continued to win Africa and the Middle East, and all the resources those areas hold, and only be fighting Russians and small resistance from Britain. Germany very well could have won the war with the Soviets had the United States not assisted them in the European and African fronts because Soviets lacked resources of their own to win it. As someone stated earlier, as it was, most steel used by the Soviets during the war was from the United States.

Same can be said if, somehow, the Soviets never entered the war. It's likely that the Germans could have redistributed their forces to better protect African and Middle-eastern expansions. Those expansions and the oil, raw materials, etc. that came with it would have aided them in the fight against a single Normandy battlefront, perhaps squashing the allied push.

Re:Hmmm

[WML MUNSON]

If we were on the street and saw some brown shirts hauling a jewish family out of their home, making them get on their knees, and putting a gun to their head, you know what we'd do? We'd shut our fucking mouths and look the other way, because we don't want to be next.

Speak for yourself. Some of us own firearms.

Re:Hmmm

[SETIGuy]

You're right, it's just Wikileaks. Every other violation (suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind, among many others) You do realize in just about every war time scenario, habeas corpus is suspended and most people don't seem to mind. But yeah, the sky is falling.

The problem is that this isn't a war time scenario.

Re:Hmmm

[MakinBacon]

WWII was 70 years ago. People in the US today are a lot different than back then. I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle.

Are you kidding? We invaded Iraq because we thought it might be a threat even though the president produced no real evidence. Zombie Hitler doesn't stand a chance.

Re:Hmmm

[anomaly256]

What I want to know is, what happens when all 2.5 million of them are arrested... and extradited to the US on taxpayer dollars with every embassy in the world screaming foul at America stealing their children. That'd could fun to watch I think

Re:Hmmm

[shutdown -p now]

GP didn't say that "US had no impact" on the war. He did (correctly) note that your claim that "major push in Europe that did change the outcome of the war" is incorrect.

Germany would have lost with or without US involvement in Europe, that much is certain. Did US have an impact? Sure, the casualties would be way higher for the Allies (esp. Soviets) otherwise. But that's about it.

Re:Hmmm

[shutdown -p now]

So, have we got that straight? Bush was wrong for war with Saddam

You mean Bush Sr or Jr? The former you could meaningfully compare with WW2 - a military operation against a country which has invaded its neighbors. And, last I checked, no-one disputes the necessity and legality of Desert Storm. But the more recent affair in Iraq would be more like attacking Germany 10 years after Soviets kick them out of Poland.

Re:Hmmm

[Datamonstar]

You have to think more subtly than that. A more realistic response would be for the organization to be infiltrated secretly, the leadership identified, and those few people would be the ones take from their homes in the middle of the night. After that, you'd have to be pretty ballsy to stay around trying to flush out the rat and, recover and start all over again.

Re:Hmmm

[hairyfeet]

Hey nice straw man you built there, please ignore the match ...WHOOSH! Where did I say they had NO impact? show me the quote please? Because frankly you are just looking to build straw men to knock down. I said that cash and carry DID help keep Britain afloat, and I would be happy to point out the Studebaker trucks we gave the USSR under lend lease freed up vital production while making an excellent platform for "Stalin's organs".

What I did say was No American need to have laid a single boot upon European soil and the war would have ended exactly the same because Hitler made one giant blunder after another which made war in the east unwinnable by Stalingrad. Now does that mean those boots on the ground had no effect? of course not, those boots on the ground saved countless Soviet lives and cut down the length of the war by probably 3 years.

But that does not change the fact that Hitler had lost the war by Stalingrad not in the least little bit. When you look at the losses and remaining troops after Stalingrad only a fool or a zealot would argue Hitler could have turned it around and won in the east. His northern flank was shattered, his southern flank suffered irreplaceable losses, and the elite Sixth Panzer that tore through France was nothing but a shell of its former self and would NEVER regain even half of its former strength.

So I'd say if ANYONE is doing a disservice it is YOU sir, by pretending those million plus Soviets would have died in vain if it wasn't for the Americans riding in on the white horse. As long as the USA kept the supplies of machines and raw materials going through the straight the USSR would have still won just as the weapons and supplies to Britain would have still kept it from falling even if not a single American boot touched that ground. It would have cost more lives yes, it would have probably gone on another two years at least. but don't delude yourself Hitler had NO chance of holding on to the east after Stalingrad. but don't take MY word for it, open up a history book or any site on WWII and look at the battles between Stalingrad and the USA landings for yourself. What you will see is Hitler falling back, falling back, losing more and more men and material he simply couldn't replace. The war was over, the only question was how long would it take.

Re:Hmmm

[BlackBloq]

People NEVER change . Don't be ignorant. Only situations change.

Re:Hmmm

[Dcnjoe60]

Hey nice straw man you built there, please ignore the match ...WHOOSH! Where did I say they had NO impact? show me the quote please?

Your own words:

If the USA stayed out of the war in Europe the only changes would most likely be that Hitler might have taken England (which even then would have been doubtful as the "cash and carry" would have still allowed England to use the USA for manufacturing) but would have still fallen ultimately to Stalin

My mistake was saying "no" impact. A more accurate word, based on your comment would have been "minimal" or "insignificant" impact.

The war was over, the only question was how long would it take.

So the war was over in '41. To bad nobody told the rest of the world. Seems like a lot of people died in vain fighting a war that was over. Especially all those Americans, Canadians, etc. who arrived after it was already finished!

Whether Hitler had a chance of winning or not is the real strawman argument as it has nothing to do with any of this. The whole thread was about whether or not Americans, today, had the wherewithal to make the sacrifices for a cause, like against Hitler, as they did during WWII. That sacrifice also includes those who did not go to Europe, but were in the US dealing with shortages and rationing all for a war cause.

You have turned that original thread into your own thread regarding the impact that the America had in the war in Europe.

Nothing that you have posted, however, regarding Hitler or the US involvement in Europe or the Russians or anything else, is related to that or the OP. So before you accuse others of strawman arguments, please review your own arguments.

Re:Hmmm

[darthdavid]

If you're going WTF it's because you've probably only heard about the war from American history textbooks. Yes we lend-leased a lot of material to the Russians, but that really just sped up the process. They had plenty of their own industry and if you compare the two countries it would've taken a miracle for the Germans to win that one.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"snotty 4chan teens"...?

Sure there are teens among them but it isn't them you need to fear. It's the 40+ sysadms with anarchistic tendencies you need to fear. They can give anybody a really bad day... Like hacking your home PC and dumping gigs of CP on it, complete with a browser history of CP distribution going back years - and then tipping off the cops. And that's when they're playing nice... If you get them upset... not even God can help you.

Re:Hmmm

[tehcyder]

If we were on the street and saw some brown shirts hauling a jewish family out of their home, making them get on their knees, and putting a gun to their head, you know what we'd do? We'd shut our fucking mouths and look the other way, because we don't want to be next.

Speak for yourself. Some of us own firearms.

So you'd go and shoot some cops if they were abusing someone?

That sounds very noble, just unconvincing.

Re:Hmmm

[tehcyder]

It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.

I'm not sure the Russians would agree with you there.

Re:Hmmm

[tehcyder]

You're right, it's just Wikileaks. Every other violation (suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind, among many others) You do realize in just about every war time scenario, habeas corpus is suspended and most people don't seem to mind. But yeah, the sky is falling.

The problem is that this isn't a war time scenario.

Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan were simple police actions.

Re:Hmmm

[hairyfeet]

Wow, yet another strawman, only this one taken out of contest, please ignore the gasoline...WHOOSH. Notice in the first sentence you quoted I said "(which even then would have been doubtful as the "cash and carry" would have still allowed England to use the USA for manufacturing) but would have still fallen ultimately to Stalin. And at least get the dates right, Stalingrad wasn't truly over and free from shelling or attack until mid may 1943, not 1941.

And it was YOU sir that claimed the war would have ended differently if the Americans hadn't rode in, and I quote " however, the next three and a half years, they made a major push in Europe that did change the outcome of the war." end quote. Now as I pointed out you were completely wrong, or as we call it locally full of shit. Now if you don't like being full of shit, read a book, watch one of the several very well made documentaries on the subject, hell the communiques of the generals on both the USSR and Nazi side have been translated and are free to view. The only one that doesn't seem to accept the war in the east was lost by Stalingrad was YOU, and since one can't win a war while losing your entire eastern flank, and by the end of 1943 (again without a single American boot on the ground) you had the USSR cranking out 4 tanks for every one lost it doesn't take Stephen Hawking to do the math. By mid 1943 it was pretty obvious Hitler would lose the east, the question was when.

I would suggest you watch the excellent 26 part BBC series on the subject "The World AT War" especially the episodes on Stalingrad and the war in the east. They use actual German footage showing not propaganda but what the troops were facing, and by mid 1943 you have Germans using oxcarts to retreat and burning Panzers litter the fields. And since Stalin would have never made peace with Hitler after being betrayed it was over, the fat lady was down the street having a sandwich. Again the only question was when, just as many will point out the decisive battle in the Pacific was NOT late in the war, but quite early. A little place known as Midway. Notice the first sentence says " widely regarded as the most important naval battle of the Pacific Campaign of World War II"? Which just drives home what I said, it is often not some great "final battle" that decides a war it is a single campaign with fatal mistakes that changes the outcome. For the Pacific it was Midway, for the European war it was Stalingrad. Just as we didn't need a single British or Russian to win Midway and change the war neither did the Russians need the USA to do the same. Oh we did help as I pointed out, and ultimately saved many Soviet lives. But as I said you were wrong on the Americans changing the outcome, accept your wrongness and learn from it.

Re:Hmmm

[Dcnjoe60]

I suggest you check carefully the credits and contributors to said series. But again, how any of this deals with a response to a flippant Hitler remark on slashdot is beyond me.

Like Hitler, this story is over.

Re:Hmmm

[CATINTHEHAT]

Damn right. When Russia was losing 500 people a day in 1941 and Molotov was in Washington pleading for a second front, the SecDef said "We don't see the need."

Re:Hmmm

[das3cr]

I still call BS in your little fasinating story that it would have ended the exact same way. Sure Hitler had F'd himself. But for all those boots you casually discard they very likely would have had a workable nuke by the time Russia was able to do it all by themselves. Oh .. and since what if is part of your fantasy ... what if .. Japan had invaded russia and divided their war efforts?

Yeah ... so many possibilities .. so many randoms when you decided to arbitrarily change what has already taken place. Nice effort to be an ass though.

It's sad.

[Seumas]

I think it's a sad comment on modern reality that my response to anything counter-culture or pro-liberty and freedom for the past 30+ years would have been a fist in the air and a "fuck yeah!" and, today, my gut response is "some people are going to be disappeared" and "better to keep my mouth shut and not even give vocal support or encouragement to anything which might seen to dissent from my government, because I can't afford the hassle of being eyeballed or investigated or put on a list somewhere". Not just for this, but things with even more credibility.

Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

Re:It's sad.

[ifiwereasculptor]

To be fair, that shift of perception is usually a sign of getting older.

Re:It's sad.

[Moryath]

Say again?

The Libertarian party is alive and well. Actual libertarian-focused groups like the EFF do just fine, too.

The problem you've got is that the Libertarian platform got co-opted by the other "big two" parties in such a way that Libertarians can't find a focus to get their foot in the door. Either they focus on social issues and get lumped in with the extremist wing of the Democrat party, or they focus on a number of law and tax issues and get lumped in with the extremist wing of the Republicans.

It'd be far better if we abolished the "direct election" of the US Senate and re-instituted state legislature appointment or even better, turned the Senate into a parliamentary body where the smaller parties (green, libertarian, etc) could actually get a minority voice with real representation present for debate. But that won't happen because the republicrats and demicans (who the fuck can tell them apart most days anyways while they betray their constituents?) don't want to give up their institutional stranglehold on the election process.

The difference between the US's "democracy" and the Chinese "democracy" isn't as great as we think these days. The Chinese get to vote in elections with only one candidate, US citizens get to vote in elections where both candidates are the two faces of the same fucking coin. The illusion of "choice" is about all we get.

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

I’m Canadian, so what happens in the US doesn’t directly effect me, however the shit that happens “down there” tends to roll back up here so this stuff tends to make me nervous.

What really disturbs me is that I suspect all these "slippery slope" arguments are about to be put to the test. The recent twitter thing is just the start. All the privacy issues that paranoids have been spouting about for years are becoming a reality. Admittedly I’ve made several snide “oh get a life” type comments to the whole “the government will use your social network posts to identify you as counter to their views and have you dealt with” type mentality, but things really are approaching this.

I just hope that enough people realize what this all means on the grand scale before it is too late.

Re:It's sad.

[dkleinsc]

Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

Have you ever been fired for being a suspected libertarian? Have you ever been fired, and then all your potential employers informed that they shouldn't hire you because then they might be suspected as being libertarians too? Have you ever been called up in front of a congressional investigative committee for being a libertarian? Have libertarian leaders been imprisoned? All those things were happening to suspected communists during the 1950's: For instance, my grandfather went from being a highly respected academic musicologist to teaching a dozen piano students in his living room.

And if you want to know what the most risky group to be affiliated with right now in the US, it's not libertarianism, its Islam, which subjects you to regular harassment at airports, hate crimes, and in a few cases being disappeared.

Re:It's sad.

[Seumas]

Alive and well, but you can't be blind to how obvious the efforts are by the government to slowly identify "libertarian" with things like "fringe" and "terrorist". It's still a stretch, today, but for how long? After all, who dissents with the direction of our current government more than a libertarian?

Hell, Napolitano has been making comments just recently that while taken for being directed at lunatics who bunker down in crazy fringe camps in the middle of the mountains, stockpiling guns and writing manifestos would also seem to greatly apply to most libertarians. Associating our mere dissent and dissatisfaction (not even to mention political activities) as suspect.

Re:It's sad.

[kellyb9]

The problem you've got is that the Libertarian platform got co-opted by the other "big two" parties in such a way that Libertarians can't find a focus to get their foot in the door.

Nothing new here. This has been happening for years (and by years, I mean centuries). It used to be the purpose of a 3rd party to have their platform adopted by one of the two big parties, now it seems the two big parties exist to trivialize the platforms of smaller more relevant parties. People simply assume that they need to either vote republican or democrat based on social policy that isn't going to change or tax issues that are just going to get worse. It's really a perception that needs to change pronto. I, for one, would like someone who had an ounce of common sense, but rest assured, they'd never get elected.

Re:It's sad.

[Magada]

Howzabout if you try and grow a pair? Yeah some people are going to be disappeared. Yeah you might be one of them and once you go through the mirror the best you can hope for is to one day be dumped back, naked and stark raving mad, on some roadside in outer Albania. So? You're losing your freedoms because you're not using them. Being afraid won't help.

Re:It's sad.

[interval1066]

"Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

No, its not even close. Been a lifelong Lib and I've never felt threatened.

Re:It's sad.

[Xest]

Where do you live, North Korea?

Christ I live in CCTV land (the UK) and don't share these concerns. Things aren't good, but they're certainly not that bad.

Re:It's sad.

[laughingcoyote]

Then, you are part of the problem.

Nope, no buts. If you know of something, and you let it pass silently and without protest, you are agreeing to it. If you think it's wrong, speak up. Now if you're truly at risk from doing so, by all means, speak up quietly and don't put yourself at unneeded risk. But don't be afraid to put yourself at needed risk.

I'll say it right here, and I've said it by writing to the President and Congress under my own name. What Wikileaks did was correct and necessary. We have every right to know what our government is doing. If it would be ashamed of what it's doing under my name, and a lot of other people's, well, the solution isn't to do those things anyway and cover them up a little better next time, the solution is to refrain from doing them. There are certain things that, if you want to claim to be the Good Guy, and claim you're governed according to ethical and moral principles, you never get to do regardless of provocation.

So speak up or shut up. And if you shut up, you're no better than anyone else watching TV and eating Cheetos or whatever the hell it is they're up to. You're rationalizing your inaction just like they are.

We still have at least the semblance of freedom and the right to protest. Don't waste them.

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

You don't know how true that could be.

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] "some people are going to be disappeared" and "better to keep my mouth shut and not even give vocal support or encouragement to anything which might seen to dissent from my government, because I can't afford the hassle of being eyeballed or investigated or put on a list somewhere".

That is a good point. After all, a hosting company was DDoSed pretty harshly simply because they had a similar name to a hosting company a bunch of 14-year-olds didn't agree with that week. Mob rule IS swift and painful, you're right.

Wait, that's NOT what you meant?

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

And there is every chance that that can happen again. There was no constitutional amendment to prevent another McCarthy. And even if there were, politicians will always, always have the power to subvert the constitution in times of "crisis" which they can hype up at any time. Look at how the US got into wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. And look at how that one guy took over Germany in the 1930s and then went on to invade much of Europe. He was just a politician at one time.

The only way we can ever be assured of safety is to get rid of the politicians entirely. Look up "open source governance" and see if you can help.

Re:It's sad.

[davev2.0]

"some people are going to be disappeared"

Please list at least one person who has been "disappeared" in the United States over the last 10 years for supporting "anything counter-culture or pro-liberty".

No one? Yeah, thought so.

Re:It's sad.

[circletimessquare]

i don't understand what you are trying to say. all i see is someone who has grown ashamed and cowardly about their own views

real life tyrants depends upon the reaction you seem to have developed recently

Re:It's sad.

[couchslug]

Considering what Islamic countries do to those not, or insufficiently, Islamic, there really is logical ground to oppose people affiliated with it and consider them enemies. There is zero evidence, anywhere, I defy you to find it, of Islamic governments enhancing freedom by ensuring secular law and trying to keep religion out of government.

There is an ideological imperative in some quarters to consider religion "different" so one can ignore the outcomes its believers produce when they run the show.

Want a taste? Bring a stack of Christian literature through Saudi customs and inform them you intend to convert the heathens.

You can buy all the Qurans you like in the US, and even sects like Louis Farrakhans Nation of Islam are free to demonstrate on the street.

Re:It's sad.

[Seumas]

I said it was almost to the point where it feels that way. Intentional hyperbole aside, I think it's clear that dissent of all flavors (particularly against actual government positions and actions) are slowly being vilified. Refer to recent Napolitano (and others) quotes over the last two months as an example of where they're headed.

Anyway, I'll see your Islam and raise you an Atheist.

+ Atheists are the least electable persons in the country (source: 2007 Gallup poll).
+ Atheists are the least trusted people in America (source: UMN study).

Ninety percent of respondents thought whites and blacks could share their vision of society. About 80 percent said the same of Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians. More than 70 percent said it of immigrants, and 64 percent said it of Muslims. Atheists had the lowest rating at 54 percent.

Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively. (source)

I would certainly hesitate before letting anyone get the idea that I was an atheist. I probably wouldn't mention it to my neighbors. I wouldn't mention it to a girlfriend's family. I absolutely would not mention it to an employer or colleague or would avoid inadvertently giving the impression that I was. People react viciously and with great prejudice toward it and it is not a stretch to imagine that a "believer" would can your ass for it. Or at least, treat you with great disfavor within the work place.

And, no, I don't necessarily buy that being associated with Islam makes you the most likely to be disappeared within this country. I steadfastly assert that it's anyone voicing too much dissent that crosses the attention of the wrong official. Now, you might be accused of ties to Islam or some terrorist group as part of the justification of harassing or disappearing you (like the guy in Portland a few years ago and several others in the last half decade), but that's more a scapegoat than a reason.

Re:It's sad.

[Seumas]

Okay, cool. Let's totally stand up to "the man", no matter what happens! Okay? Okay.

You first, though . . .

Yeah, therein you see the problem. You step forward and the entire life of supporters take one giant step back from you.

Re:It's sad.

[circletimessquare]

the only thing your post tells me is that a prerequisite for being a libertarian is having a persecution complex

NO ONE IS AFTER ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR BEING A LIBERTARIAN

(now i will get responses saying it is true, thus proving me correct about strange weirdos with persecution complexes calling themselves libertarians)

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'd be happy to have a libertarian on your staff then, would you? What would your grandfather say about that?

Of course you can't outright discriminate. That would be unfair. You need to discriminate in a way that hides what you're doing. Always find some other reason for denying a promotion or a job.

Incidentally if you substitute "Communist" for "Nazi" in your story, then suddenly the discrimination against your grandfather starts to seem a lot more reasonable. If de-Nazification was necessary, post WW2, then de-Communisation was surely equally necessary for the same reasons. Imagine what damage such people might do, in positions of influence and authority... Unfortunately, McCarthy was a few decades too late.

Re:It's sad.

[danbert8]

Hey, I'm an American. Can I ask you a favor? Every time someone in America who supports government healthcare talks about how great it works for Canada, can I send them up there to live with you?

Now I don't know if you like your healthcare or not, or heck if it's even socialist. What I do know is that I like my choice, and that is what my country is founded on. If they like Canadian healthcare so much, then why do they not move to Canada? If I like free market healthcare, where do I go?

Re:It's sad.

[danbert8]

Yes, as a Libertarian, I am not worried about my personal freedom at the moment. I try to avoid the airport at all costs though.

Now what I am worried about is my retirement savings being "disappeared" because of government spending. Can we work on that first? When the government has a tiny budget, the personal freedoms will follow.

Re:It's sad.

[Magada]

What, me? I'm already walking the walk. I'm experiencing no shortage of like-minded people, either.

Re:It's sad.

[blueg3]

So because we disagree with the laws in Islamic countries, we should ignore the rights of Muslim citizens of the U.S.?

It seems the same argument could be applied to support Japanese internment camps. Or hunting down and persecuting Communists and socialists.

Re:It's sad.

[Tr3vin]

Being an atheist in the midwest can be tough. As long as you keep your mouth shut, you will generally be ok. That doesn't mean you won't hear very insulting things from those around you. Many a good, loving christian has insulted me without knowing it. I really feel for the middle eastern looking people in America. I can get by without targeted hatred since my looks aren't strongly associated with my personal beliefs. I can barely imagine how tough it must be to try to live with everybody giving you strange looks or being outright hateful.

Re:It's sad.

[Henk Poley]

OkCupid's blog OkTrends has a nice post about age vs. political ideology: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/

Re:It's sad.

[Monkeedude1212]

You CAN do that - but you should probably point out one of the major reasons why it works so great in Canada and why it wouldn't work out so well in the states.

The biggest difference is our population and size. We've got about the same population of California spread across an area larger than the entire United States. As such, our major population centers are simply less crowded, the density isn't there, and that helps keep hospitals from being over-burdened. This means our health care costs are simply lower than in the States.

Also we don't tend to spend as much on our military simply because we know the States is spending so much on theirs. If they went and reverted all those tax dollars away from their military spending, Canada might need to step up its own defense. As it is right now we play younger brother and let the US come to our defense if there's ever a need. That comes with certain obligations though, we sent our forces into Afghanistan where we perceived a real threat to the US, and our relationship was soured a bit when we didn't follow into Iraq. To give you a rough idea of how much we spend vs the Americans, guess how many Aircraft Carriers the Canadian Army has and how many the US has in service right now?

I'm a Canadian, and yes, I like our Health Care system. Whenever someone in the US says that they should mirror our Health Care system, you should remind them why that won't work. Remind them that there is no "One size fits all" system, there is no perfect way to run a government, the conditions for each country vary and as a result their governing should vary. Canada's works for Canada.

Feel free to send them up here though, but make sure they know how to drive in Minus 24 Celcius, blowing snow, fog, and black ice on the pavement. We don't need more people getting into car accidents, and using that health care coverage.

Re:It's sad.

[Monkeedude1212]

You might find it a bit easier to rest knowing that Internet Policies are one section that Canada has stemmed away from the States, in that we have simply put a tax on blank media to cover costs for artists who might feel they've lost sales through digital downloads of copyrighted material. This mostly keeps the RIAA and MPAA out.

I haven't personally read a news article where any member of Anonymous has been arrested for their activities online, but I can almost guarantee Canada won't be the place where it happens. We've got too many other issues to deal with, and with the Pirate Party just starting up and growing, it's more likely that our government will try to reach a consensus or compensation if it becomes a big issue, as opposed to just outright combatting it. (No, I am not associating the two, but you can't deny that their views tend to align from time to time). Remember, it's the US Creed to not negotiate with terrorists, not Canada's. At the very least we will listen to demands before refuting them.

If you need to be worried about anything in Canada happening against Anon's, it's Shaw and Bell and Primus increasing the rates and decreasing teh Caps on internet usage, which means its going to cost people more money if they rapidly download movies, music, etc - or if they spend all their evenings sending out DDOSs. The Corporations are a bigger threat to Anonymous in Canada than the government is.

Re:It's sad.

[dkleinsc]

So you'd be happy to have a libertarian on your staff then, would you?

1. I don't have any staff, nor expect to acquire any.
2. When I was in that sort of role, I cared whether the prospective employee could do the job, and politics never came up in workplace discussions with them.

Imagine what damage such people might do, in positions of influence and authority.

You completely missed that my grandfather's profession was that of a music theorist, collector of folk music, and composer. Explain exactly how he would have caused political problems by writing a string quartet, writing down a mining song from Appalachia, or describing why humans find C major to be a more pleasing chord than a B diminished.

Blacklisting targeted ordinary folks with no political clout whatsoever for their political views. It's as simple as that.

Re:It's sad.

[Magada]

Well played, sir or madam. I very nearly snorted coffee through my nose. Thanks.

Re:It's sad.

[dkleinsc]

Are you familiar with the tu quoque fallacy?

Just because group A does something does not justify group B behaving the same way. If I commit a robbery and get arrested, "the other guy committed a robbery too, and he wasn't arrested" is not a valid defense.

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. On his deathbed, he will be completely disenfranchised and death will be a final release.

This does not sound like a fruitful perspective to carry through ones life. Perhaps if things were better than they are ....

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine what damage such people might do, in positions of influence and authority...

Oh my God, you're right... they might publicly promote left-wing values! Vote against conservative policies!! Even submit socially inclined initiatives for consideration!!! What would become of the world!!!!

Re:It's sad.

[davev2.0]

Oh, yeah, I can relate. I can see the U.S dollar going the way of the Zimbabwe dollar.

I have thought about put silver bullion into my (Roth) IRA. At least that has intrinsic value and its value will appreciate as the dollar falls.

Re:It's sad.

[DerekLyons]

It'd be far better if we abolished the "direct election" of the US Senate and re-instituted state legislature appointment or even better, turned the Senate into a parliamentary body where the smaller parties (green, libertarian, etc) could actually get a minority voice with real representation present for debate.

It would be even better if the smaller parties stopped trying to leap tall buildings in a single bound when they are barely capable of stepping over a wad of gum on the sidewalk.
 
Seriously, 90% of the reason the smaller parties can't get any traction is that they over reach every time. They appear from nowhere with no experience and no track record and insist they be considered for the top job(s). Try getting a track record - run for city council, mayor, the state legislature, etc... etc... build an actual party rather than insisting they be treated as one when they blatantly aren't.
 
The other 9.999% of the reason is the smaller parties are often single plank/narrow philosophy.
 

But that won't happen because the republicrats and demicans (who the fuck can tell them apart most days anyways while they betray their constituents?) don't want to give up their institutional stranglehold on the election process.

It won't happen because doing so is Very Hard Work and will take years if not decades to do. The Libertarian party lacks the structure, vision, and will to take on the task.

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slight misconception. the chinese do get to choose to vote between more then one person. It's just that they all have to be approved by the communist party in china and it's only for local area's.

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well played, sir or madam. I very nearly snorted coffee through my nose. Thanks.

/me nods clinically and checks the "Internet Tough Guy" box on the form for Subject SD-741361

Thank you, don't call us, we'll call you, have a safe drive home, and feel free to come back and brag about how you're "walking the walk" when you can actually back it up.

Re:It's sad.

[Artemis3]

Islam does tolerate Christianity and Judaism as long as they don't try "converting heathens", because they are "peoples from the book". What Islam doesn't really like is atheism...
A non-secular state won't make much difference which religion is backing it. There is plenty of historical/recent misdoing under "Christian/Jewish" rule...

The current islamophobia is promoted by the US/Israel gov because it suits their current interests, since the "communistphobia" faded away; and they need a faceless enemy to drive their economy and "patriotism" up so people don't start thinking by themselves and question the whole 2 party/Zionism corporate rule thing.

In short, what I'm saying is you should not discriminate Islam any different than Christianism or Judaism or any religion or lack of for that matter, otherwise you are no different.

BTW: The US doesn't have a clean history for religious tolerance either. It was only after much struggle they kinda tolerate the non Christian beliefs, and even now some would want to get rid of, say, Islam...

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting this as anonymous coward simply because I'm always cautious about these things. I don't want to be "disappeared."

I'm a lifelong Libertarian and, yes, I know people who have lost their jobs, their small businesses and their own personal freedom for putting their libertarian beliefs into practice. Yes, people have even gone to jail for exercising their rights as Libertarians. Use Google to do some quick research on well-known libertarians like Irwin Schiff, Steve Kubby, Michael Badnarik, Tommy Chong, Eddy Lepp, Bernard von NotHaus and others who have risked their lives for their beliefs, been arrested and jailed for challenging the power of entrenched politicians, yet doing harm to no one in the process.

The only reason the government's attacks on Libertarians don't make national headlines is because the media ignores such incidents. The only reason McCarthyism is remembered at all these days is because it affected Hollywood celebrities, who endured the blacklist, but ultimately prevailed and have spent decades reminding the rest of us what happened to them.

Julian Assange may not be the perfect hero for the freedom movement, but neither are the other folks I listed above. Like them, however, Assange does have the courage to put his life on the line for his beliefs. Download the Wikileaks Insurance file and keep it safe, as it may be the only weapon you have available against the power that opposes us. I am anonymous... and so are you.

Re:It's sad.

[GooberToo]

Nope, no buts. If you know of something, and you let it pass silently and without protest, you are agreeing to it.

Not really. You ever heard of, "Pick your battles?" When people bemoan everything, they are quickly ignored as whiners and effectively become a useless, blunt, instrument; if they're still an instrument at all.

We have every right to know what our government is doing.

Within limits. That's the problem. Generally, every time you find someone who makes that unqualified statement, you've found an idiot. And that's exactly the reason why the government kept it a secret.

As an example. People bitch and moan left and right about arms races. Arms races exist because of public knowledge of specific weapon systems. Arms races are expensive and frequently require funding far above what the research and development in of itself requires - because its now political. But if you develop a weapon system in secret, the entire arms race is avoided and the bitching and moaning from the clueless masses is completely avoided.

The simple fact is, you do NOT have the right to know everything out government is doing. Simply because, simply knowing undermines the government and the people it represents. Now then, that fact is frequently abused and idiots use that abuse as an excuse to conflate the two, but it doesn't change the fact that we're still talking about idiots and conflation.

The reality is, unlike your pixie dust world, is that the world is full of - HUMANS! Humans are not perfect. Humans are greedy and selfish and contrary to popular myth and bullshit, are not inherently good. The old cliche that power corrupts is true. The fact that humans can abuse a required system to protect the masses which may or may not be abusing the system is not justification for destroying a government.

All too often people are conflating dozens of issues, especially here on slashdot, and seemingly have absolutely no idea they are. When you add in a bag if ignorance (the general population), lying editorial shows (FOX News), reality that most people can not even begin to relate, understand, or comprehend (war), plus idiots who believe everything should be completely transparent, you have a ripe recipe for tons of conflated stupidity which constantly feeds back in on itself.

What the masses of incredibly stupid wikileaks supports seem completely unable to comprehend, wikileaks have done surprisingly very little good. And what little good has been done, could have been leaks in of itself. Hell, most wikileak supporters are so stupid, they don't even know anything about the person or organization they're willing to throw themselves in front of the bus for.

Now then, should there be a high level of transparency? Absolutely. Should there be secrets? Absolutely! Should there be leaks? Absolutely! But only ethical leaks which actually help - otherwise you're just the other side of everything you condemn...and that's the problem with the sociopath known as Julian Assange.

"Killing people is fun." - Julian Assange

Lastly, just to highlight how stupid the, "I MUST KNOWN - REGARDLESS OF THE COST", mentality, reporters currently have the deaths of TENS OF THOUSANDS of people on their hands in Afghanistan alone; if not many, many, many more. Had the release of US photos simply been postponed a couple of weeks, civil war would not have broken out. The people would have been empowered more than a year faster. US military drawn down could have happened yet faster. The simple fact is, knowledge is a weapon. Reporters and leak organizations have a morale responsibility to use it appropriately; despite Assange's statements that he doesn't care if people die for anything he might leak. The fact is, knowledge is power.

So unless you're an absolutely hypocrite, it is literally impossible to shake a finger at the US government without shaking the same finger at Julian Assanage.

Re:It's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck, you're a lackey for the bourgeois!

Someone makes a comment on how early warnings of the kind of abuses those with power will commit, and your reaction is to make some fucking dumb comment about health care.... just as you have been trained: when core tenets of oppression are highlighted, change the subject, fast! So I am posting this as an AC, as your post and this reply is OT.

Then you prattle on in the kind of terms the bourgeois use to justify their dominance of markets, like "free market", when the markets are anything but actually free. When the bourgeois say "free market" they mean they don't want those pesky people, the ones that are meant to be represented by the government, interfering in how they run their businesses. And they want total dominance of markets so they can profit.

And dumb fuckers like you think it is choice you want. No, what you probably actually want is the best hospitals that humanity can provide. Yeah, government systems are wasteful bureaucracies, but reaming profit off[1] that could be spent on people's well being is just as shit from the point of view of the unwell.

If Canada were to get rid of its national health care and bring in private, it would be no cheaper overall for the Canadians: the market price for a health care system is what is being paid now, so if private industry came along the total would be the same. Unless you accept that economics 101 as some kind of gospel truth, that competition will lead to the best. Bollocks, what will happen is the greedy will rig the system so that the system is as shit as possible without the people kicking-off. Just like in the USA, that has some stats where it is number 1 for things that it really shouldn't be, considering how wealthy a first world country it is.

[1] And the investors will want to see ever increasing profits, or their investment will go where that is promised.

Re:It's sad.

[shutdown -p now]

Whenever someone in the US says that they should mirror our Health Care system, you should remind them why that won't work.

They don't have to have a single healthcare system on a federal level - it can (and should, really, from the way US political structure was originally designed) done by the states. And there's absolutely no reason why many (most?) US states couldn't copy the Canadian system.

Ultimately, of course, it's up to the American voters to decide.

Re:It's sad.

[shutdown -p now]

Every time someone in America who supports government healthcare talks about how great it works for Canada, can I send them up there to live with you?

Given that Canada is one of the easiest countries to immigrate into, particularly from another First World country, you're quite welcome to do so.

Re:It's sad.

[dkleinsc]

There's a big difference: Those guys actually broke a law. Possibly justifiably (and almost certainly in Badnarik's case), but there was at the very least charges, arrests, court hearings, and so forth. The kind of stuff both I and GP were talking about both involve people being repressed without committing any crime whatsoever because of a political statement. The difference is the people you listed were charged for actions, not beliefs or statements.

For instance, Irwin Schiff chose to put his tax refusal belief into practice, which is why he was charged. That puts him in roughly the same category as, say, a politically motivated draft dodger during Vietnam: arguably morally correct, but legitimately in legal hot water. He's been charged repeatedly with refusing to pay his taxes, not for being a libertarian.

Re:It's sad.

[laughingcoyote]

Not really. You ever heard of, "Pick your battles?" When people bemoan everything, they are quickly ignored as whiners and effectively become a useless, blunt, instrument; if they're still an instrument at all.

Or are deliberately deluged with things and then told they're "whiners" when they dare to take a position on too many of them. I'm not saying you must fight to death or revolution on every issue you disagree on. I am saying, if you disagree, just bother to say so.

And there are issues on which further action is warranted. That's where picking your battles comes in, not in just choosing to be apathetic about the majority of things. You don't get a certain number of opinions that you may express per year.

Finally and strangely, those currently who just want to raise hell about and shout down everything don't seem to get classified as "whiners". In fact, they seem to be winning. Maybe it's time for a little more engagement from the other side, instead of a little less.

Within limits. That's the problem. Generally, every time you find someone who makes that unqualified statement, you've found an idiot.

Than idiot I am. I'll accept a few reasons for secrecy (the date/location of D-Day before the fact, the Manhattan Project, things like that), but it should be a rare exception, not an expected norm.

As or more importantly, it should not be used to cover up wrong, illegal, and embarrassing actions. If I do something illegal, the government will hold me responsible. I expect to be able to do the same back. That's what "rule of law" means—no one, anywhere, is above the law.

The reality is, unlike your pixie dust world, is that the world is full of - HUMANS! Humans are not perfect. Humans are greedy and selfish and contrary to popular myth and bullshit, are not inherently good. The old cliche that power corrupts is true.

While I entirely agree with this statement, it sounds like an argument for more transparency and oversight, not less. The fact that power corrupts is exactly why I want the dealings of those in power to be open and transparent. That's the best antidote to that type of corruption that there is.

All too often people are conflating dozens of issues, especially here on slashdot, and seemingly have absolutely no idea they are. When you add in a bag if ignorance (the general population), lying editorial shows (FOX News), reality that most people can not even begin to relate, understand, or comprehend (war), plus idiots who believe everything should be completely transparent, you have a ripe recipe for tons of conflated stupidity which constantly feeds back in on itself.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly, but you're arguing against yourself again. If spin is a problem, raw facts and transparency are the answer. What's the alternative? More talking points and spin about less hard facts?

What the masses of incredibly stupid wikileaks supports seem completely unable to comprehend, wikileaks have done surprisingly very little good. And what little good has been done, could have been leaks in of itself. Hell, most wikileak supporters are so stupid, they don't even know anything about the person or organization they're willing to throw themselves in front of the bus for.

Oh, I well know Assange is no saint, and that goes well beyond the rape charges (whether they're trumped up or not). He's an attention whore in a lot of ways. But that doesn't keep me from thinking a particular action of his was right. Who was it, that just reminded me the world is made up of imperfect humans?

Now then, should there be a high level of transparency? Absolutely.

Can't argue with that part.

Should there be secrets? Absolutely!

Then, surely you're for having very few secrets. Secrets and transp

Re:It's sad.

[tehcyder]

Libertarians are part of the problem with the fascist military industrial complex, not part of the opposition.

Re:It's sad.

[tehcyder]

Why are you linking to a dating site?

Re:It's sad.

[tehcyder]

Also we don't tend to spend as much on our military simply because we know the States is spending so much on theirs. If they went and reverted all those tax dollars away from their military spending, Canada might need to step up its own defense. As it is right now we play younger brother and let the US come to our defense if there's ever a need.

I think the truth is more that Canada doesn't have a huge military because it doesn't go around invading other countries.

Please don't.

[dangitman]

It would be better if Wikileaks, which actually serves a valuable (although controversial) role, is not associated with Anonymous and their juvenile DDOS attacks and Rick-rolling.

Re:Please don't.

[Eraesr]

I think the initial statement by Anonymous by attacking Mastercard and Paypal and such was a powerful one. However, the problem is that with a decentralized entity like Anonymous which lacks any chain of command or hierarchy to speak of, is that it always tends to go rogue. Maybe not even under the Anonymous banner.

In the Netherlands, the website of the ministry of justice has been attacked because police arrested a scriptkiddy that was involved in DDoS attacks. It is arguable that Anonymous' attacks on Mastercard have some grounds of morality, but attacking a website of a ministry that simply does it's job does not. It's these kinds of uncontrolled offshoots of an initiative like Anonymous that kills the credibility of Anonymous.

If Anonymous really wants to continue to have any impact then it should evolve beyond scriptkiddies firing TCP packets at websites and especially distance itself from uncoordinated rogue attacks which often are done out of sheer spite or a desire for vandalism.

Re:Please don't.

[Seumas]

Unfortunately, no matter how tenuous or even non-existent the association, it's trivial for the government and media to link them in the mind of the public.

Re:Please don't.

[sznupi]

It would be even better if Wikipedia wasn't associated with this - its 10-year anniversary will be celebrated at the very same day

Such coincidence seems like a purposeful effort at creating confusion...

Re:Please don't.

[bluefoxlucid]

This.

The whole "Anonymous" group is a bunch of idiot fourteen year old superhackers that downloaded a portscanner and used it to DDOS someone by having five of their friends run it with nmap -T5.

I have met these people on the net. They are basically huge assholes. The fact that scientology attracts huge assholes both as members and as bitter enemies does not change this. They're jumping on any big issue they can whine about so they can cry for attention.

Re:Please don't.

[Seumas]

Maybe every Anonymous protestor can have a giant Jimmy Wales face on their signs.

Re:Please don't.

[jasonditz]

Since WikiLeaks was already being called a "terrorist" organization by high ranking US officials before Anonymous started its DDoS attacks how much more damage was there to do?

Re:Please don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't really have much of a choice. The choice is between 'associated with Anonymous (and anyone else who cares about information transparency)' and 'quietly swept under the carpet by the powers that be.'

Re:Please don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's perfect. You're listening to a song called "ironic", in which nothing is actually ironic, while responding to an article which misuses the word "ironic".

Indeed. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, we're on to you!

Re:Please don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Btw. and on the 15th of Jan. is also the simultaneous release of the Zeitgeist Moving Forward movie in 60 countries in 300 different venues, subtitled in 30 different languages. www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com/zmap , zeitgeistmovie.com

Re:Please don't.

[dangitman]

Since WikiLeaks was already being called a "terrorist" organization by high ranking US officials before Anonymous started its DDoS attacks how much more damage was there to do?

There is immense potential for damage in reinforcing the slurs against Wikileaks. Politicians can accuse Wikileaks of terrorism all they like, but few people will believe them, because people generally don't trust what politicians say. However, if third parties start reinforcing what they say with their actions, then people will start believing those politicians.

Re:Please don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haters gonna hate .

Re:Please don't.

[xenobyte]

This scores as "insightful"?!

FYI, DDoS is not juvenile by any means. They work. That's why they're used all the time. Nothing like blackmail from a bot-herder offering to end a DDoS-attack for the right payoff... It's big business because it works and because it can cost a lot of money or very life of a business if their network presence is severely hampered or destroyed. The Russian Mob knows this and Anonymous/4chan knows this.

On the other hand, Rick-rolling is pretty juvenile... ;)

Re:Please don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who you met on the net, but I assure you that neither 4chan nor Anonymous is nothing more than a bunch of fourteen year old script kiddies. Sure, you'll find both wannabes and script kiddies among them, but the core is something completely different.

Yes, they can be huge assholes but that's their way. They live for pissing people off using any means necessary, from simple trolling and rick-rolling to severe attacks of various kinds. Usually they just hack your stuff and publish names, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, private photos and other stuff you *really* don't want plastered all over the net. But if you really piss them off they'll not hesitate in framing you for CP or worse. They have the skills and no empathy or morals and they really couldn't care less about who they hurt as long as they get their target as well. It might seem childish but don't be fooled. You might call them sociopathic hackers or something along those lines.

Well...okay

[Kireas]

To be honest, it means that (if nothing else) it'll make non-governmental attackers of the site a bit wary. After all, who want's to be DDoS'd into oblivion? I'm not sure what anon are going to do about the US Government though.

"Defending internet freedom" via DDOS?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to save it, we had to destroy it.

Where have I heard THAT before?

A history for defending Internet freedom?

[prezkennedy.org]

I thought they had a history of DDoSing anyone they disagree with.

Re:A history for defending Internet freedom?

[Seumas]

Of course, the people they appear to be DDoSing also have a history of DoSing "freedom", by denying people access to their funds, services to transact funds, their domain names (a pretty effective DoS). Not saying that mimicking bad actions makes a right action, but they're hardly targeting anyone with clean hands, it appears.

Re:A history for defending Internet freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

They only targeted websites, the transactions were working fine the entire day. You're an idiot.

Re:A history for defending Internet freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really can't assume "they" have a history of anything. From what I can tell Anonymous isn't a group in any sense of the word, it's a great example of anarchy. People jump onboard with whatever they feel like or don't feel like at random. One day there might be some people doing something good, another day some people are trying to ruin someone's life for the fun of it. This might even happen on the same day. "Anonymous" is a culturally fascinating phenomenon but trying to think of it in the sense of a group or organization ultimately breaks down.

Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are DDOS attacks considered "defending freedom"?

I musta not got the manifesto...

Re:Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I am endorsing this or anything. But one can think of it as an act of civil disobedience.

Re:Freedom?

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

The best offense is a good defense.

Re:Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rally against the government... by attacking private enterprise!

Re:Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and?

then you deserve to be told the below

[unity100]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[Anonymous Coward]

If I got a penny each time someone mentioned that quote in a crowd of people who have all seen it mentioned a hundred times before, I'd be able to buy all the liberty I wanted.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[Seumas]

If I got a penny each time I heard some idiot interviewed "man on the street" fashion who said "we have to give up some freedom to be secure", I'd be richer than you would be.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[Seumas]

How many of us throw that quote around along with "Give me liberty or give me death!" and really mean it? And if we haven't acted on your principals against the actions of our own government by now, exactly what is it going to take for us to ever do something? I mean, for fuck's sake, we slept through the suspension of Habeas corpus and endured several years of corporate welfare to provide economic speculators a safety-net that we've never before offered. We've tolerated questionable wars in our name, with shifting justifications given. One could generate a nearly endless list of significant concerns just from the past decade and while we still throw around quotes, we do nothing (I'm lumping myself in here as well, of course).

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[Pojut]

Screw that...if you had a penny for every time someone quoted it different than the last guy did, you'd be rich.

Seriously. It has to be the most differently-quoted quote to ever exist.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[I_Voter]

Mod up. Mod way up!

The vast majority of the U.S. population has little political power compared to most other democratic nations. I wonder if many of the people who promote standing up for "liberty," ever consider the relationship democracy has to "liberty" or "freedom." Are liberty and freedom defined by, and stem from, democratic principles or elite principles? We no longer have any real jury nullification power in the US. The terms liberty and freedom mean nothing. You must explain who has the right to define the laws relating to them.

Politically speaking, if freedom only means "nothing else to lose," then you are fairly free in the U.S. - it could include our large prison population.

Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[danbert8]

Please note that the United States is NOT a democracy. It is a republic. As such it is designed such that the general population has little political power. However, also note that per our Constitution, the government is supposed to have little political power as well.

Freedom is not having the government control my life... Whether the people, a dictator, or bought and paid for politicians are controlling me is moot, I have lost my freedom.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[I_Voter]

Wrong! A republic just means that political rule is not by a hereditary nobility. The franchise was restricted, but people voted for representation. The USA was often described as a democracy. SEE: Tocqueville's, Democracy in America, pub 1835.

Wildly Wrong! In fact we had a great deal more political power than we have now! Those who had the franchise had jury nullification. Jury nullification included the right to judge contracts, speech issues, theft, etc.
The Constitutional Relationship of the People to the Law

RE: per our Constitution, the government is supposed to have little political power as well. That brings up something that I think needs to be more widely understood, although it is not a constitutional issue. It is the effective outlawing of political parties. It gives incumbent politicians much greater power.
What is a Political Party

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[GrumblyStuff]

If you ordered security and the waiter misheard that as liberty, then you can expect free appetizers (but you didn't deserve them).

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[danbert8]

See Article 4: Section 4 of the US Constitution. I think that pretty much sums it up. I just cited a source, not a commentary.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

If you read that you'll note that the difference is between who has power. In a republic, it's the individuals. In a democracy, it's the group (the government in this case).

The government is well beyond the bounds of the Constitution and has exceeded it's allowed powers. There is a reason that the Constitution spells out powers that the government has and explicitly states, "Hey, if it ain't in here, you can't do it without an amendment". But somehow that got forgotten.

Though I must agree with you, I don't think there should be political parties. I don't think they should be illegal, but their power over primaries and controlling debates is an obvious conflict of interest.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[shutdown -p now]

However, also note that per our Constitution, the government is supposed to have little political power as well.

Per your Constitution, the Federal government is supposed to have little political power. It places very few restrictions on the size of State governments.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[I_Voter]

If someone believes that words on a piece of paper will defend their rights, they are not a republican or a democrat, they are fools. Only people have the interest to defend political rights that benefit people.

You can not have it both ways. A political system that gives most political power to an an elite will not be defended by those without power. Also, those without power will not help you turn the tide back to the way it was. The powerless may, or may not, be highly educated, but they are not such fools as would put their trust in a piece of paper! I suspect you can see the writing on the wall - to use a vaguely biblical phrase.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[nametaken]

Boiling frog, good sir. It's not the sum of what's happened over the last decade, it's that we lose one thing at a time to seemingly justifiable causes.

Each of those had a reason that seemed sane at the time. Sad though, I know.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below

[tehcyder]

Please note that the United States is NOT a democracy. It is a republic. As such it is designed such that the general population has little political power. However, also note that per our Constitution, the government is supposed to have little political power as well.

If the US weren't a democracy you wouldn't vote for your political representatives. You are playing with words in order to justify your right wing agenda, i.e. reducing government powers in so far as they help the poor majority against the rich minority.

*sigh*

[Haedrian]

I hate it when people say "Anonymous" are doing X. It makes it sound like its some sort of static group with a single leader who determines what the group will be up to this week.

Its never as simple as this. Anonymous are a bunch of individuals who decide whether doing X 'for the lulz' is a good idea or not. Who their leader is changes and doesn't really matter as much as in other cases.

Its pretty much a case of a totally distributed system which forms links on the fly.

The person who decided on the DDOS, and the people who followed him/her could be totally different from the people who will be out protesting.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes it sound like its some sort of static group with a single leader who determines what the group will be up to this week.

Yeah, the media still doesn't understand how Anonymous works. Or how the internet in general works for that matter.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous is a largely unorganised group of roughly 6.9 billion people where an infinitesimally small sub group performs DDOS attacks in support of wikileaks. The only recognisable sub division is between those who know they are part of the group, and those who don’t. While I only agree with a tiny fraction of what “Anonymous” says, I believe in their right to say it.

Re:*sigh*

[Seumas]

Not to mention, I don't see anything in the page this submission links to that mentions DDoS. I see a video full of people in Guy Fawkes masks protesting in meatspace with signs, like every other group has been allowed to do (though, some of them relegated to "free speech cages", recently). As far as I know, protesting with signs on the street is still legal (though I thought wearing a mask in public -- especially in an assembled protest -- was illegal in most places in America, now).

I guess that's the next step, though. The only avenue allowed to people who dissent these days is "peaceful protest" and even then you tend to need to petition the government for a permit to do so. And even then, what possibly be more impotent than a peaceful protest? Next step would probably be to somehow associate protesting with "radical dissent" and who are therefore a threat to the government and freedom and are therefore domestic terrorists yadda yadda yadda.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

..or how *anything* works. Seriously, the media either comprehend then skip the details or spout the least accurate bits they seem to believe.

I'm not in America, so it's something to say that even *my* news media is half-baked and mindless drivel pumped out by underpaid, 25yo just-pay-my-wage journalists for Mr Murdoch and friends.

Re:*sigh*

[ledow]

But flying under the banner of a group by your own admission (as many people do) is basically adjoining yourself to that group and (partly) condoning their actions and (certainly) being tarred with the same brush as everyone else in the group.

I don't support Anonymous because (apart from the fact that I think they are all idiots and follow pretty much only idiotic causes) if, tomorrow, they all decide that the issue of the moment is that nobody should have central heating, and they start DDoS'ing my energy provider, then that's not something I agree with. With a changeable "group" such as Anonymous, condoning ONE of their actions is pretty much condoning the others too (or you'd be forming a splinter group that *DOESN'T* DDoS those people you don't want to, and thus supporting THAT group instead of Anonymous).

The fact that different people who BOTH claim membership of the group can do two opposing things isn't my problem. It's just a convenient banner, then, to hide under whenever you do something, no matter what that is and whether the rest of the group condone your actions. But *joining* that group or *condoning* that group (or even acknowledging it's existence as anything other than a vague moniker under which to attack people) is *recognising* that group and thus agreeing with its policies and actions to some extent.

If people don't want to be associated with those actions, they would be handing in their "membership" of such a group, or clarifying exactly where the boundaries of the group lie - every group has extremists who want to use it to stamp on the good name (just look at certain Muslim extremists) but their actions are always condoned and the separation between "Muslims" and "Nutters who want to blow people up in the name of Islam" is always made clear.

Anonymous isn't a group. They don't have a cause. They don't have an agenda. They don't really have "members". It's just like saying "God made me do it" or "*THEY* made me do it". And just as convincing.

Any group that's too shy to name it's member (e.g. British National Party), too scared to disown its own member when they do wrong, or in which ANY action is tolerated isn't a "group" at all. It's just a convenient moniker for doing shit that you want to hide.

Re:*sigh*

[openfrog]

Who their leader is changes and doesn't really matter as much as in other cases.

Its pretty much a case of a totally distributed system which forms links on the fly.

The person who decided on the DDOS, and the people who followed him/her could be totally different from the people who will be out protesting.

Who takes charge DOES matter. Otherwise, your enemy may as well initiate any action in your name, that is, take charge and associate your cause with mob disorder. The aim and net effect of this would be to raise public opinion against your cause in order to push for web censorship policies...

Oh wait...

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you should replace individuals with high school students because that's about the level of maturity, threat, and organization they're able to regularly muster.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when people say "Anonymous" are doing X.

Anonymous is doing your mom as we speak.

Re:*sigh*

[ThirdPrize]

For that to be true most of the Anonymous would have to have a grudge against your energy provider. Some people might and some would follow blindly. Most would probably just go back to looking through their Boxxy folder.

Re:*sigh*

[Tranzistors]

[..] But *joining* that group or *condoning* that group (or even acknowledging it's existence as anything other than a vague moniker under which to attack people) is *recognising* that group and thus agreeing with its policies and actions to some extent.[...]

WTF? If I recognise existence, I agree to its policies? Care to elaborate?

It's just a convenient moniker for doing shit that you want to hide.

I am not sure if you have noticed, but that kind of is the point of Anonymous. And I can support them or denounce them all I want, provided I point out for what exactly.

Re:*sigh*

[Ihmhi]

Their leader is dynamic, in a sense. Not just dynamic in the sense of "Dynamic IP", but dynamic in the sense of "Dynamic personality." Think Dennis Leary's character in Demolition Man. He knows how to speak the language of the people he leads, even though he's not the "leader" per se.

To get "Anonymous" to take action, all you need is the following:

1) Willing and able bodies that can follow simple instructions. (They have this in large supply.)

2) Someone who has the technical skill to coordinate an event. (They do things besides DDoS attacks.)

3) Someone who can convince a large group of Anonymous to do things. This may or may not be the same person in 2).

4) A place through which to coordinate. These are places like 4chan & other similar imageboards (there are dozens of clones of 4chan), IRC, ED, etc.

Keep in mind that Anons don't just do stuff "for the lulz". They are, as a group, the very best and very worst of us. Yeah, they might troll the living daylights out of someone who acts like a pretentious ass on YouTube (or just seems like an easy target), but god help you if you hurt a cat and they find out about it. They've also tracked down child molestors and righted other wrongs. They have probably done more "bad" than "good" (as the average person would consider "bad" and "good").

They are the very essence of crowdsourcing, cell-based behavior, and the human condition all rolled up into one horrifying maelstrom of dick jokes and lolcats.

Not even Bruce Willis and a rag-tag group of oil workers can save us now.

Re:*sigh*

[GameboyRMH]

Whenever I see "Anonymous is doing X" my mind auto-translates it into "A large group of random people on the Internet have agreed on doing X"

Re:*sigh*

[BitZtream]

Yes, its a mob mentality, we get it, we realize EXACTLY what it is, a bunch of pansies with computer courage who like to terrorize anyone who doesn't agree with them.

'Anonymous' is a name for a bunch of pussies in mommies basement pretending to be thugs because they can send packets from someone elses server because they downloaded some script where someone else did all the work.

Anonymous is a perfect example of WHY we don't allow our world to be ruled by the Mob mentality. They are a perfect example of what civilization is not.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace "Anonymous" with "Online Protesters".

It conveys more information because it points out that the same people aren't responsible every time. The people doing this and the people doing DDoSes probably don't have many members in common.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Members or not, there are about 60,000 at any given time.
The trouble is (at least with your statement) that anyone who doesn't put their name on their actions is lumped into Anonymous. So everyone that wants to cover their face condones everything else that has been done anonymously.
Just seems funny to me.

and ?

[unity100]

anonymous is people. wikileaks serves people. anyone who tries to separate people with what serves them, are against people.

Re:and ?

[dangitman]

anonymous is people. wikileaks serves people. anyone who tries to separate people with what serves them, are against people.

Oookaaaay... would you like some Soylent Green with that? I have my copy of "How to Serve Man" right here if you want to refer to it.

Re:and ?

[kellyb9]

I don't buy it. Anonymous serves themselves and whatever issue happens to be the flavor of the week. They protest in favor of wikileaks this week, next week they'll be back to DDoSing Scientology and Gene Simmons. I can speak for myself just fine, thanks.

Re:and ?

[imakemusic]

I buy it. Anonymous is just a name for a bunch of people who are doing as they see fit. Anonymous isn't necessarily the same people each time. It may help if you replace "Anonymous" with "a bunch of people who feel strongly on the subject".

The issue some of them are currently fighting against is the censorship of the Wikileaks website. The issue they were fighting against in the Scientology case was the Church's efforts to censor and shut down websites. I see no "flavour of the week" flip-flopping, they're the same issue! So, yes, next week they probably will be back to rallying against Scientology because many of them never stopped. As for Gene Simmons, I don't really know...+

DDoSing might not be the most subtle, mature or democratic method to achieve their goals but it does seem to work. It also has the bonus of attracting a lot of attention which, when you're trying to expose internet censorship, is a helpful thing.

You say that you can speak for yourself. Am I to assume that you will be making your own protest then?

Re:and ?

[kellyb9]

DDoSing might not be the most subtle, mature or democratic method to achieve their goals but it does seem to work. It also has the bonus of attracting a lot of attention which, when you're trying to expose internet censorship, is a helpful thing.

So, if I'm understanding this right, the end justifies the means. Isn't that the same argument people who support the US Govt use against wikileaks? Anonymous does attract a lot of attention, but you make the assumption that they speak for the unheard majority. Well if the unheard majority actually went out and voted, things might change. One can only assume that the unheard majority didn't vote, or they simply didn't vote for who you and anonymous wanted them to.

Re:and ?

[unity100]

the end justifies the means, when the people are prevented from using any means, but this. that's that. if you push people to a situation in which the only practical and doable thing they can do is ddos, they will ddos.

Re:and ?

[dangitman]

if you push people to a situation in which the only practical and doable thing they can do is ddos, they will ddos.

How is DDoS the only practical and "doable" option?

Re:and ?

[Anonymous Coward]

the end justifies the means, when the people are prevented from using any means, but this. that's that. if you push people to a situation in which the only practical and doable thing they can do is ddos, they will ddos.

You're a looney.

Re:and ?

[unity100]

it is the only practical and doable option after you get home from your 10+ hour shift at walmart, day after day, year after year, trying to make ends meet or feed kids.

such is the situation of a lot of people on this planet.

Re:and ?

[dangitman]

How is it easier to orchestrate a DDoS attack after a hard day's work than write a letter to your congressperson, or to a newspaper, or something? At least those options would be more effective.

Re:and ?

[unity100]

write a letter to your congressperson, or to a newspaper, or something? At least those options would be more effective.

give me one case in which those have been of any use.

Re:and ?

[dangitman]

give me one case in which those have been of any use.

Give me one case where a DDoS attack has been of any any use (to further the stated political cause).

Re:and ?

[unity100]

to hone and strengthen the concept of 'reaction' in citizens' minds.

Re:and ?

[dangitman]

So, not very successful, then?

vital liberties

[digitaldc]

Members of a free society must not allow information to be suppressed simply because it inconveniences those in power. We share the responsibility to defend vital liberties.

The vital liberties of being able to max out your credit card at Walmart, watch reality tv, become obese, go into debt slavery and work for the rest of your life.

Re:vital liberties

[c0lo]

Members of a free society must not allow information to be suppressed simply because it inconveniences those in power. We share the responsibility to defend vital liberties. The vital liberties of being able to max out your credit card at Walmart, watch reality tv, become obese, go into debt slavery and work for the rest of your life.

The trick with a free society: if one wishes all the above, why not? However, in a true free society:
a. only because one wishes so this doesn't imply that all the others must choose the same.
b. if one wishes so, the one should be absolutely free to do it without being affraid to be ridiculed! (works both ways, actually)

Re:vital liberties

[AltairDusk]

So you would have us believe a society which is not free would be better? If someone else is going to tell you how to live your life why bother living at all?

Re:vital liberties

[Seumas]

I'm going to show my support by committing a DoS against the credit card companies. On January 15th, I am going to spend so much damn money on my Visa card in so many different transactions. I will totally show them! :)

I DOSSED paypal

[AndGodSed]

But I did not DOS the government...

Re:I DOSSED paypal

[Anonymous Coward]

And they say it is a capital offence!

Re:I DOSSED paypal

[c0lo]

But I did not DOS the government...

Should have done it the other way around.
I mean, who's actually the sheriff? (hint: who tells you to kill it before it grows?)

Re:I DOSSED paypal

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it backwards... the financial firms are the sheriff.

In the words of Martin Niemöller

[Anonymous Coward]

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Re:In the words of Martin Niemöller

[Ihmhi]

As tired as some of us may be of hearing the parent post, it is in no way irrelevant to the current discussion. It still rings as true today as when it was first put to paper.

You're a pirate

[sourcerror]

Do what you want, ‘cause a pirate is free,
YOU ARE A PIRATE!
Yar har, fiddle di dee,
Being a pirate is alright to be,
Do what you want ‘cause a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!

Song

Re:You're a pirate

[sznupi]

Please, something more... epic next time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0QfVDebLFg

Re:You're a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh.

Re:You're a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why you got the woosh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13j3LIMCNmI

Re:You're a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm to me, "epic" its more like this heavy metal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZDEQCZTwq8

"The Pirate's Song"
Jose de Espronceda (1808-1842)
________________________________________

The breeze fair aft, all sails on high,
Ten guns on each side mounted seen,
She does not cut the sea, but fly,
A swiftly sailing brigantine;
A pirate bark, the Dreaded named,
For her surpassing boldness famed,
On every sea well-known and shore,
From side to side their boundaries o'er.
The moon in streaks the waves illumes
Hoarse groans the wind the rigging through;
In gentle motion raised assumes
The sea a silvery shade with blue;
Whilst singing gaily on the poop
The pirate Captain, in a group,
Sees Europe here, there Asia lies,
And Stamboul in the front arise.
Sail on, my swift one! nothing fear;
Nor calm, nor storm, nor foeman's force,
Shall make thee yield in thy career
Or turn thee from thy course.
Despite the English cruisers fleet
We have full twenty prizes made;
And see their flags beneath my feet
A hundred nations laid.
My treasure is my gallant bark,
My only God is liberty;
My law is might, the wind my mark,
My country is the sea.
There blindly kings fierce wars maintain,
For palms of land, when here I hold
As mine, whose power no laws restrain,
Whate'er the seas infold.
Nor is there shore around whate'er,
Or banner proud, but of my might
Is taught the valorous proofs to bear,
And made to feel my right.
My treasure is my gallant bark,
My only God is liberty;
My law is might, the wind my mark,
My country is the sea.
Look when a ship our signals ring,
Full sail to fly how quick she's veered!
For of the sea I am the king,
My fury's to be feared;
But equally with all I share
Whate'er the wealth we take supplies;
I only seek the matchless fair,
My portion of the prize.
My treasure is my gallant bark,
My only God is liberty;
My law is might, the wind my mark,
My country is the sea.
I am condemned to die !I laugh;
For, if my fates are kindly sped,
My doomer from his own ship's staff
Perhaps I'll hang instead.
And if I fall, why what is life?
For lost I gave it then as due,
When from slavery's yoke in strife
A rover! I withdrew.
My treasure is my gallant bark;
My only God is liberty;
My law is might, the wind my mark,
My country is the sea.
My music is the Northwind's roar;
The bellowings of the Black Sea's shore,
And rolling of my guns.
And as the thunders loudly sound,
And furious the tempests rave,

Off-topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Directly commenting on the consequences of the topic of the article is apparently off-topic.

Re:Off-topic

[Magic5Ball]

> Directly commenting on the consequences of the topic of the article is apparently off-topic.

Yes. Critical thinking is hard. That's why (for the most part) we only stop to consider issues as they come up in the news, as opposed to being constantly mindful of the frameworks around us.

Despite claiming to support such radical causes in the pseudo-public realm online reputation effects, many forumers remain conditioned to the concept of the geographic sovereign nation state as the optimal and inviolable mode of human organization. Anonymous may or may not be effective, but to be cognitively offended by the possibility of alternatives does not require rational consideration of the circumstances.

It's not their fault. Silver platters of turds are still silver platters.

Re:Off-topic

[rtb61]

'Anonymous' will not be doing anything, 'Anonymous' does not exist as a group, you can not join 'Anonymous', no one represents 'Anonymous' and, no individual or group runs 'Anonymous'.

'Anonymous' is a political activism meme, individuals can either choose or not choose to carry out any particular activity in the name of 'Anonymous' and any activity they choose to do in the name of 'Anonymous' has no connection with any other individual chooses to do in the name of 'Anonymous'.

All activities carried out in the name of 'Anonymous' are done upon an individual basis and might or might not align with any current 'Anonymous' activism meme being carried out using the title 'Anonymous'. This analysis is based upon truth and in order to protect person whom might choose to conduct legal and honest political activism from any whom might choose to push the bounds of the law, from a corrupt interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act.

Whilst organisation and individuals might euphemistically refer to anonymous as a group it is categorically not accurate.

Re:Off-topic

[Magic5Ball]

The particular instantiations of Anonymous with whom you have interacted have certainly been effective in conditioning individuals such as yourself to post a standard retort to word usage, rather than addressing the substantial issue.

Well played, *Anonymous.

Re:Off-topic

[rtb61]

Your salacious insinuation that I have associated with falsely claimed instantiations of 'Anonymous' again repeat the same factual inaccuracy that 'Anonymous' exist as a group, and not simply as a activism promotional meme, basically 'Anonymous' is nothing more than an open use promotional meme, anything else is a lie.

My interpretation of current sociological interactions in digital political activism are my own and that in this instance they differ from mass media interpretation which far to often deceitfully serves government rather than questioning it and adhering to the truth does not insinuate any other actions on my part, it does however demonstrate government and mass media willingness to work together to promote a lie in order to illegally attack those that don't agree with them.

You don't understand what "Anonymous" is

[just fiddling around]

Being born in 4chan, Anonymous is much like a great party: it has no definite direction, no leader and will just keep on rolling as long as the people in it like what happens. Given that, Anonymous will continue having an impact for as long as it will, and after that everybody goes home and remember the good time they had.

The fact that Anonymous exists is a relief, because it shows that there is still a part of the people that can not only see that we have taken a wrong turn, but will act to change the course.

Re:You don't understand what "Anonymous" is

[Eraesr]

I understand the nature of anonymous in that it is not a definable group of people. Anonymous is basically everyone that cares to act.

However, a herd can also be defined as the sheep that decide to stick around. As long as the sheep decide to bite the farmer's hands when he tries to "steal" their wool, it's understandable and maybe even a noble effort. However, when the sheep start stampeding Mr. Joe's shop because he sold the sacks the farmer uses to store the wool, then the sheep have gone too far.

At this point, the sheep should return to thinking as individuals and decide that, hey, as fun as it may have been, it wasn't right to do so and shouldn't happen again.

My point is that in the case of Anonymous, the individuals that feel they are somehow connected to the movement shouldn't go and do things because you can simply hide behind a mask.

p.s. Sheep analogies are far better than car analogies.

Re:You don't understand what "Anonymous" is

[bluefoxlucid]

I believe that when the sheep bite, the farmer has lamb chops.

Re:You don't understand what "Anonymous" is

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that when the sheep bite, the farmer has lamb chops.

If democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, then Anonymous is a sheep in three-wolf moon T-shirt protesting the vote.

Anonymous is not for moralfaggots

[sourcerror]

Anonymous has a well known history of cyber-bullying (do you like pizza and strippers?), vandalizing myspace and facebook pages etc. even though it might not qualify as DDossing.

Re:Anonymous is not for moralfaggots

[Anonymous Coward]

No man is ever a part of the same Anonymous twice, for it's not the same Anonymous and he's not the same man.

why

[unity100]

is the above downmodded. are some of you unable to comprehend what is the above, or, value your life over your freedom.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your quote was from someone who A) specifically wanted to rouse the rabble and B) rode out the rebellion in France being a horn dog.

Re:why

[unity100]

oooh, so franklin was a horn dog. i guess the 'rabble' would be able to make it against the royal army if the french navy was not patrolling eastern seaboard and keeping royal navy, and the french volunteers and generals bolstering rabble's ranks. all of which have been possible thanks to franklin's and lafayette's work in france.

no sir. you are another one who doesnt deserve freedom. because you talk shit while not knowing anything. despicable. deplorable. no wonder america is in such a shitty state, with freedoms being taken away so easily all the while a charade is maintained.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic how you claim to fight for freedom, but not a few hours later have claimed the position of deciding who deserves freedom and who does not based on a post a single line in length.

Re:why

[unity100]

me ? no. it wasnt me who decided that. it was the poster himself.

first, s/he didnt know how his/her freedom was gained. second, s/he didnt know who gained it for him/her. moreover, third, what s/he knew was WRONG, shitty right wing propaganda, done by the very sources which tout similar ideologies with the ones against which people fought for freedom. fourth, up till this point in life, until making that shitty ignorant comment, s/he didnt have the integrity to actually wonder and attempt to learn what really happened.

basically s/he ate what s/he was fed.

s/he had made the choice. i just stated that choice.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

> it wasnt me who decided that. it was the poster himself

You said:

> you are another one who doesnt deserve freedom

I rest my case.

Is EFF libertarian?

[sourcerror]

Did EFF ever campaign for cutting social services? Did EFF ever said they're libertarians?

Re:Is EFF libertarian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did EFF ever campaign for cutting social services? Did EFF ever said they're libertarians?

Who said that cutting social services was a cornerstone of the libertarian ideology?

Please become familiar with this phrase: Civil Livertarianism.

Namely, straight from the wiki:

In the past 20 years, with the advent of personal computers, the Internet, email, cell phones, and other information technology advances, a subset of civil libertarianism has arisen that focuses on protecting individuals’ digital rights and privacy. The organization most closely affiliated with this sort of civil libertarianism is the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Re:Is EFF libertarian?

[c0lo]

Livertarianism

Mod me offtopic (the post fully deserves it), but I couln't resist
Is it something related with the liver?
Le'me try:
"Civil liVertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liVerties, or who emphasizes the supremacy of liver-rights and personal liverdoms over and against any kind of authority."
Nah, doesn't sound right. It is a typo for sure.

Re:Is EFF libertarian?

[Seumas]

What are they supposed to do, spread themselves thin over every single possible principal? The E stands for "Electronic".

And yes, it's essentially a libertarian organization which was founded by John Perry Barlow (a libertarian) and Mitch Kapor (also a libertarian, I believe?) and initially financially supported by John Gilmore (a libertarian) and Steve Wozniak (who, if not a registered libertarian, is awfully close to being one).

Of course, even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that the causes they work toward are any different.

Re:Is EFF libertarian?

[OneAhead]

Be careful with those adjectives there - they have the potential to completely altering the meaning of the noun they're applied to. From the wikipedia article: Civil libertarianism is not a complete ideology; rather, it is a collection of views on the specific issues of civil liberties and civil rights. Because of this, a civil libertarian outlook is compatible with many other political philosophies, and civil libertarianism is found on both the right and left of modern politics, although it is often associated with social liberals in the United States.

Example: I consider myself a social democrat and always get irritated by the idiocies hardcore Libertarians spread on Slashdot. I'd feel insulted to be classified a Libertarian - I'm pretty much the opposite. Yet I fully support most of EFF's causes.

Re:Is EFF libertarian?

[GameboyRMH]

You could say the EFF is Civil Libertarian, something both libertarians and liberals have in common.

Re:Is EFF libertarian?

[tehcyder]

Who said that cutting social services was a cornerstone of the libertarian ideology?

Well, most of the fucking libertarians who post on slashdot, for a start.

Re:Is EFF libertarian?

[sourcerror]

Yeah, that's excactly what I was complaining about, that libertarians are appropriating EFF.

spanish translation / traduccion al castellano

[buanzo]

http://blogs.buanzo.com.ar/2011/01/apoya-a-la-libertad-junto-a-anonymous.html

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're trolling, because if you're not then I'm truly sad for this country and I no longer feel it's worth being a part of when someone who stands against atrocity and deceit and misuse of authority should be crucified for doing the right thing. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Because surely with the increasing loss of sanity in this country and the tightening of the authoritarian noose around our necks someone needs to start reigning the fools in before they hang themselves.

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[HBI]

Julian swore nothing, but his actions were fundamentally the same as a foreign agent controlling a network of spies. It would be hard to imagine a result where a conviction of espionage against the US were not returned, as it ultimately will be. He'll be a fugitive the rest of his life, if not in prison.

The rest, I can agree with.

Then the problem with Anonymous is

[Anonymous Coward]

that we don't know who they are.

Re:Then the problem with Anonymous is

[sznupi]

...neither do they, themselves.

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[Anonymous Coward]

How about jail? Don't you think shooting people for a trust issue is overrated? People like you go around and shoot everything that doesn't share your ideas, right?

YES

[Godskitchen]

WE MUST KNOW EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON IN THE GOV'T SO WE CAN CONTINUE OUR REIGN OF MALICIOUS GOSSIP AND INACTION.

(Not everything needs to be transparent to the average citizen people - you CAN DO something by voting for the candidate whom, after researching thoroughly and not because he or she is the right color (blue/red/black/white), you think is the most fit for the position. Go away anonymous, we don't nee you.)

Re:YES

[VortexCortex]

(Not everything needs to be transparent to the average citizen people - you CAN DO something by voting for the candidate whom, after researching thoroughly and not because he or she is the right color (blue/red/black/white), you think is the most fit for the position. Go away anonymous, we don't nee you.)

And I suppose you expect me to make an informed decision to vote for a candidate "after researching thoroughly" without actually being able to perform the thorough research because it is bogously classified as vital to national security? Did you even attempt to think that through?

Re:YES

[Godskitchen]

I believe enough information is available to the general public for them to make an informed decision.

Yes.

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[davev2.0]

Actually, the solider who passed off the information was acting as a spy in a time of war:

Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the Unites States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.

Do they even know what they're aiming at??

[des_irl]

hi there, Long time reader, first time poster... what the hell are Anon doing? Last night they took down the website of one of our political parties (Fine Gael), the replacement cover notice stating something about freedom and press and internet.. or something like that... But the party they targeted isn't even a member of the running government!! They are currently running quite high in the polls and will do better in the upcoming elections that the current party (Fianna Fail) "running" the place... A party that is VERY corrupt and who only technically has a mandate to be in government! Well done lads! (sarcasm)

"A history of defending Internet freedom"

[operagost]

Anonymous has a history of defending Internet freedom

Really? Which basic human right is it that allows one to disrupt the commerce of innocent people?

Re:"A history of defending Internet freedom"

[MakinBacon]

Anonymous has a history of defending Internet freedom

Really? Which basic human right is it that allows one to disrupt the commerce of innocent people?

This is slashdot, where censorship is only censorship if one of the following two conditions are satisfied:

a) You disagree with the party being censored

b) The US government is the one censoring people

Re:"A history of defending Internet freedom"

[operagost]

Apparently, also
c) The mods like you

Re:skip soldier - shooting never a solution

[smittyman]

Shooting people is never a solution. Here is a person that is betrayed by his own country on ethics, moral and honesty.

As a response he chooses with great risk to bring these out for the public to see.

The response by this goverment alone, by starting the smear campaign etc. is proof alone there is something rotten going on.

Try to imagine the thoughts, choices and feelings that soldier must have had and still has for making that choice? Maby shooting would be a relief, can't imagine he's too happy.

Please don't call for shooting people, this is devolutionairy behavior.

wait a cotton picking minute

[Anonymous Coward]

The soldier has not been convicted in the criminal justice system of any crime. He has not been found to be associated with the embassy leak in any way. He is alleged to have leaked clear video evidence of warcrimes against unarmed civilians. Congratulations to him, if only there were more like him willing to stand up for truth, justice, democracy and the rule of law.

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[Seumas]

A great example of one of our big problems in this country. The government points a finger and says "teh bad guyz is over der!" and we all waddle our turkey-gobble faces across the street to set the guy on fire. It never occurs to us to question how this guy got access to such supposedly confidential information. Certainly, he couldn't be someone's patsy. He couldn't have fallen for a honey-pot. He couldn't be a scapegoat to facilitate an intentional leak of uninteresting "confidential" information so as to discredit certain groups or efforts (or mere principals).

Not saying the guy isn't guilty of anything or even everything. But let's not join the mindless pitchfork crowd.

Also, don't we have a proud history in this country of celebrating those who take risks to uncover things? Why so eager to silence them? Are you one of those guys who believes that the fox should watch over the hen-house and nobody should watch over the fox? I'd hate to think of the implications if we strike the fear of death into people who might want to be rightful whistle-blowers in the future.

And, most baffling about the whole thing, why are people so ready to execute Assange (because they're idiots who believe that Assange is a citizen) and Manly, but when we uncover an actual spy from a government that we have a poor relationship with and was considered our enemy for most of the last fifty years, we send her safely back to her own country, where she becomes the adviser on the board of a bank and a local celebrity? And is given a baby tiger... And is featured in a Maxim layout. . . And does a photoshoot for Playboy . . . And becomes the figurehead of a youth political movement . . . ?

Cool Story Bro!

[ThirdPrize]

Since I discovered it, I feel 4chan is one of the last remnants of the old internet. It is still fairly obscure, populated by some fairly sick individuals but seems to have an effect than a few nerds on an IRC channel would. I used to read 2600 but lets face it, a hacking mag you can buy in Borders. Most of the articles boiled down to ever more elaborate ways to reprogramme your router. Due to the distributed nature you never know what 4chan will come up with next. Long may it reign.

You forgot what you were arguing about

[sourcerror]

You said:"I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle. "

You said as well:"And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe."

Well, a Japanese invasion would have threatened the US consumeristic lifestyle, wouldn't it?

Re:You forgot what you were arguing about

[tehcyder]

Well, a Japanese invasion would have threatened the US consumeristic lifestyle, wouldn't it?

The likelihood of Japan launching a successful military invasion of the US in 1941 is about the same as their doing so now, i.e. for all intents and purposes nil.

Re:You forgot what you were arguing about

[sourcerror]

They had no problem with China :)

_ Let's get something right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous (the anti-Scientology group) and 'Anonymous' (the larger collective) are not one and the same. This has been stated time and time again, but it never seems to click in the heads of those who write our news.

Anonymous (the collective) is a massive chord of harmony (or discord) struck by a ridiculous number of people who are protesting a myriad of different points and causes but are united as a whole by a (sometimes contrived) need to preserve their anonymity for fear of retribution for their beliefs. (In the case of 4chan 'hacktivists' they also preserve their anonymity for fear of legal retaliation.)

Anonymous (the anti-Scientology group) is a specific facet of those who fall under this banner, in that these individuals have their own methods and ideals, and protect their anonymity specifically to prevent retaliation by practitioners of Scientology. (They've publicly and thoroughly retaliated in the past, so it's a wise move.)

There are only two points that bind the two:
A. Both the smaller groups (Wikileaks supporters and Scientology Protesters) are part of the larger Anonymous collective, but operate entirely independently of one another.
B. All members of Anonymous (as a whole) feel they need to maintain their anonymity to protect themselves and their personal lives from harm, which, combined with protesting .something. and taking up the Anonymous moniker make them part of the larger, distributed collective.

So what's going on here is that the Project Chanology group (who was -not- responsible for those pathetic DDoS attacks) is arranging a legitimate, worldwide protest of the Wikileaks debacle, whilst also textually supporting the collective as a whole for it's efforts.

Cool. So basically, I'm tired of journalistic ignorance making me angry in the morning.

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[jasonditz]

Actually they revealed massive criminal activity on a number of fronts already, and we've only gotten a small portion of them. The Iraq War Logs alone detailed enormous numbers of war crimes related to facilitating torture and killing civilians. The State Department cables, which we've only got about 1 percent of, already detailed a State Department plot (signed off on by the Secretary of State) to steal credit card numbers and passwords from top UN officials. That's a major crime under international and domestic law.

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[jasonditz]

Or fundamentally the same as what every decent sized newspaper does on a daily basis.

Said before

[jav1231]

I've said it before. WikiLeaks lost the high ground when they started releasing the diplomatic cables for no other reason than retaliation. They decided to go to war. That Anonymous is supporting them is sad. The only thing I can say is that at least Julian Assange isn't hiding behind anonymity. Gotta give him props for that. I supported Anonymous' when they went after Scientology. But this time they're supporting a would-be journalist, attention whore who I hope gets what he deserves.

Re:Said before

[xenobyte]

I've said it before. WikiLeaks lost the high ground when they started releasing the diplomatic cables for no other reason than retaliation. They decided to go to war. That Anonymous is supporting them is sad. The only thing I can say is that at least Julian Assange isn't hiding behind anonymity. Gotta give him props for that. I supported Anonymous' when they went after Scientology. But this time they're supporting a would-be journalist, attention whore who I hope gets what he deserves.

You're mistaken if you think they only released the diplomatic cables in order to retaliate. They release what needs to be released, which is everything. Information wants to be free, remember?

The entire diplomatic corps is sinking in a swamp of secrecy. Lying, speaking with two tongues, telling the public one thing while doing something completely different is the core rot of the democracy. It's not diplomacy to tell lies. It's diplomacy to tell the truth - even when it hurts - without insulting anyone. Lying is too easy and only works because it can be drowned in secrecy.

It all needs to be exposed and used however it can. Then we need to learn and stop abusing secrecy to hide everything from opinions, over various forms of abuse, to downright betrayals and failures. Wikileaks are doing the right thing although it might have been done more gracefully and without the Assange mess.

Re:Said before

[Enigma23]

I've said it before. WikiLeaks lost the high ground when they started releasing the diplomatic cables for no other reason than retaliation. They decided to go to war. That Anonymous is supporting them is sad. The only thing I can say is that at least Julian Assange isn't hiding behind anonymity. Gotta give him props for that. I supported Anonymous' when they went after Scientology. But this time they're supporting a would-be journalist, attention whore who I hope gets what he deserves.

Well, after EasyDNS pulled their DNS entry, Amazon stopped hosting them, PayPal, Visa and Mastercard all stopped allowing payments to them, posting more of the content that has been leaked to them is just about the only ammunition they have left to fire with. There are enough people motivate to keep wikileaks going, with 1426 mirrors or the original site in operation at the current time.

Why be anonymous?

[Oxdeadface]

So when is wikileaks going to publish the identities, phone numbers, and home addresses of all the members of anonymous? There's no reason that any organization should keep anything secret after all. Right?

Re:Why be anonymous?

[VortexCortex]

So when is wikileaks going to publish the identities, phone numbers, and home addresses of all the members of anonymous? There's no reason that any organization should keep anything secret after all. Right?

Well, you see, it's kind of hard to publish information that is not known -- even more difficult when the "organization" isn't one at all, and as such doesn't keep those types of records (let alone in a centrally accessible location).

You'd have as easier time expecting Wikileaks to release the personal information of everyone who has visited an arbitrary IRC chatroom (one that doesn't require authentication, you know, because the users are "Anonymous"), considering that "members" of Anonymous congregate in many different unrelated places.

Re:Why be anonymous?

[wvmarle]

I have the feeling that publishing such personal information is against the spirit of what Assagne is after with WikiLeaks. Assagne himself is very secretive when it comes to his private life - he values privacy of the person.

The openness he is after is in the public sphere: governments and large corporations. Governments are working directly for the public (and are paid for by the public via a.o. taxes, tariffs and levies), and as such the public has a right to know what's going on in their government. Large corporations are often publicly traded, and their actions affect the public at large, so they also should remain transparency.

I can't imagine you will find leaks of, say, the full details of telephone subscribers on WikiLeaks. Neither should you be able to find lists of say unemployment benefit receivers. That's not about keeping corporations and governments transparent and open - an open government and strong personal privacy can go very well together.

Then there is the little issue that what we know as Anonymous is not an organisation, does not have members, does not have leaders, let alone a correspondence address (other than boards.4chan.org/b/). They are anonymous after all.

Re:Why be anonymous?

[Anonymous Coward]

When Anonymous ceases to be an online dogpile of INDIVIDUALS

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[Artemis3]

You do know the rest of the world consider the same of CIA operatives? And you do know ALL US embassies have a CIA command post?

The cables are not really enlightening, they just confirm what everyone knew. Most of the secret/noforn things are boring, and not even accurate in many cases, its just "their view" of the situation, or the situation viewed by US sympathizers (not necessarily true) told to their home country and their fellow embassies elsewhere.

So the US is committing war crimes, and a soldier had enough and decided to do something about it, yet he is the only one paying the consequences? At this rate i can only expect more leaks to follow...

BTW: There is some shady involvement of Israel and Julian Assange involving some payment (perhaps an offer he couldn't refuse?) for conveniently not disclosing "certain info" from 2006/2008...

If Assange is not killed, he will get asylum in some country, such as Brazil. It's not like he is the first case of "someone" revealing US "secrets". Even CIA agents have turned sometimes, which is how the world learned their doings with precision.

He might be a fugitive for the US, but is a hero for others, particularly those the US has been more hostile with. As they say: "the enemy of my enemy..."

Anyone willing to reveal US "secrets" is pretty much welcome in many other countries. The world is not under total US control...

where to we need to be tomorrow.

[oliverthered]

let the future be like today,
not some time to come, but a time to be

Re:skip wiki get soldier

[Anonymous Coward]

The secrets he revealed, do not point to massive crimminal activity by the US government and/or members of the government.

At least one of the reports seems to indicate that you are a blind and gullible retarded fucker.

Re:totally distributed

[TaoPhoenix]

Could this be the first Super-Democracy?
Each user "votes" whether to attack this, or that, or that other thing. The "decision by the group" is ... the sum of the votes.

I think the Governments are using a subtle trick to over-weight the less popular actions to penalize the reputation of the whole.

There was an awesome satirical video describing the leaked content and if you skipped the visual half where it showed who, the audio track went "this guy says this guy is a coward. This guy and this guy talked to this guy about this guy." That was the most powerful statement on the nebulous concept of nations I have seen.

Don't worry, we're from the internet

[Huckabees]

If the Project Chanology protests are any indication these will be more about reciting internet memes in public than actually conveying any sort of cohesive message...

history fail?

[fireylord]

I think the attack on Pearl Harbour indicated that the Japanese attacked the US, and then declared war. The tripartite pact was, in any case, something that Hitler and Mussolini could have ignored in that situation. It wasn't like they were ever too bothered about treaties etc.

Call us when you've lost your job as a result

[fantomas]

Call us when you've been sacked from your job and forbidden from working in a field as a result (like socialists and communists were in the 1950s). Until then it's just hot air, surely?

- of course I am open to hearing some examples of the harassment people get by declaring themselves as libertarians, to help me modify my opinion.

Re:totally distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this be the first Super-Democracy?

No. Some guys in Athens were doing something like it a loooooooooong time ago.

Not as long as longcat is long, but still, pretty long.

US-Japan wasn't on wiki's common misconceptions

[ediron2]

um, We attacked Japan?

Either your fingers got ahead of you or I need someone to 'splain where my admittedly-lame US-ian education got that detail backwards...

Internet crybabies throw a tantrum, film at 11

[Alimony Pakhdan]

What with the hyperbole in the summary and the sheer stupidity of Anonymous' tactics, I dont know whether to laugh or down another antacid. For whatever reason people may disagree with a business, a religious organization or whatever, how in any way is reducing or denying them their freedom of speech a "good thing"?

focus on winnable battles, and civil litigants

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see Anonymous organizing the public side of this. Any strictly direct action effort can be characterized easily as an excuse for vandalism. However they were more on the right track when they were focusing on civil litigants like the Church of Scientology. In the long run, far more important information is denied us by civil lawsuits than by any action of government. So many of us have an interest in what government does that eventually the facts come out. But corporations, using their preferred weapon the civil lawsuit, prevent far more facts from reaching the public.

There is no chance Anonymous will take down Mastercard, PayPal, Visa or a government of even a small country. However there is every chance they could cause abusive civil litigation to end.

Targetting more vulnerable litigants who threaten the entire Internet with the objective iether of ending their suits or driving them entirely off the Internet and maybe out of business is a far better strategy - it will make clear the consequences of co-operating in suppression of public issue information and comment. Wayne Crookes and his firm West Coast Title Search, which he has involved in all his lawsuits probably to write off his many legal expenses, would perhaps be a good (certainly legitimate) target, as he has sued Google, Wikipedia, Yahoo, even wiki and DNS service providers - and several people who criticized his political activities or lawsuit tactics (Michael Geist, for instance). There's every possibility that he could be driven entirely out of business or forced to end his lawsuits if he realized that trying to make every link on the Internet or every harsh word about politics the subject of a probing lawsuit from British Columbia is a very bad plan.

A few repentant or defeated enemies of the Internet and individual politicians will realize they are next, and that their next campaign for office could well be an uphill fight against an online mob.

Anonymous: Focus on battles you can win. Defeat enemies who are vulnerable. Build up strength and credibility so that the larger opponents start to actually fear you. Don't take them on yet.

They are an 'Internet Collective'

[Anonymous Coward]

They screw with peoples money, support organized chaos, put innocent lives at risk, sleep with the worst of the worst, and they are just an 'internet collective' supporting another bedfellow, poised on a catastrophic platform for bringing down the very freedoms that have held them up.. Excuse me while I fucking throwup..

Re:MOD PARENT UP +1 INSIGHTFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

#34822636
#34824638
Samefag detected.

One wonders...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if decades later, when historians review this whole matter, they'll come to think of Anonymous as the Edelweiss Pirates of our time.

Re:totally distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that, among all the population of Athens, only about 10% were allowed to take part in the democracy? Women, men of lesser social rank, slaves and strangers were never allowed to vote.

Obligatory xkcd

[kalirion]

Obligatory xkcd