Should Cyber Vigilantes Be Cheered Or Feared

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Ted Samson raises several challenging questions in the wake of HBGary, first and foremost being, should the cyber vigilante acts of 'hacktivists' such as Anonymous be embraced? No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling, Samson writes, 'but also troubling is how quickly some members of Congress seek to use illegally acquired information to further their own political agenda.' The underlying message seems to be that cyber vigilantes may have more leeway than those who engage in equally illegal, though decidedly nontechnical methods to expose their targets."

Comments

none of the above?

[bhcompy]

Maybe they do something worthwhile sometimes, but maybe the consequences of that results in a less free internet. I'll withhold cheering

Re:none of the above?

[Reed Solomon]

I'm sure the consequences are of great concern to these internet vigilantes. It's one thing to go after these people, but they're deathly afraid of the cyber police.

Re:none of the above?

[FriendlyLurker]

"No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling..."

Troubling? That's an understatement... "The Obama Administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker [Three military contracting 'cyber-security' companies] to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists" Corporate America, the Military Industrial Complex and the Government all in bed together to operate outside the law inside the US and without any checks, balances or semblance of respect for the law... and this Ted Samson character is more worried about the civil disobedience group Anonymous... Hellooo... threat assessment!?

Re:none of the above?

[causality]

"No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling..."

Troubling? That's an understatement... "The Obama Administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker [Three military contracting 'cyber-security' companies] to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists"
Corporate America, the Military Industrial Complex and the Government all in bed together to operate outside the law inside the US and without any checks, balances or semblance of respect for the law... and this Ted Samson character is more worried about the civil disobedience group Anonymous... Hellooo... threat assessment!?

It's simple really. This is mainstream (i.e. lowest common denominator, bottom of the barrel, that which is easiest to sell, what has style but no substance, etc.) thought on the matter: if you are concerned about the government or members of the government acting completely outside of the law, with impunity, well then you're just another paranoid tin-foil hat-wearing insane nutter conspiracy type. You will be dismissed and ridiculed without ever testing the veracity of your claims. That's because we just don't like the way you sound, and that tie you're wearing pisses us off too.

But, if you're concerned about a group of online vandals who cause a lot of inconvenience to a few people, but nothing on the scale of abusive government with no effective checks and balances... well then, we approve of that. Those damned vigilantes. It's definitely okay to believe that a bunch of people with little no no association, organization, or preperation can conspire to bring down a Web site.

It's those insane morons who believe that a bunch of people who are from the same social class, who play golf with each other, who are in bed with the same special interests, who work similar jobs, who all benefit from a more powerful government, why it's madness to believe that they are anything other than saints who are acting in our interests. MADNESS I TELL YOU. What kind of idiot would believe a story like that? Clearly we must ridicule them immediately. We absolutely must, at all costs, ignore every historical precedent for such abuses of power, every self-interested motive of any authority figure involved, every precedent for past abuses of power our own government has perpetrated, and every lack of oversight and basic competency any public official has ever shown. After all, we have some nutters to ridicule.

Re:none of the above?

[shentino]

The consequences are nothing but a pack of powers that be that are looking for a convenient excuse for something they are hell bent on imposing anyway.

They have the motive and means. The hacktivists only provide opportunity.

Re:none of the above?

[shentino]

I am anonymous.

Re:none of the above?

[marcello_dl]

Maybe they have some hacker among their ranks. I am dubious when I see the choice of targets for their attacks. Some justified ones, but a lot of evildoers were not target of any campaign. Looking at the past years`events and correlating them to attacks seems to me that anonymous does not often read newspapers- which might be good - and not even alternative media. Strange.

Re:none of the above?

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

I, too, am a liar.

Re:none of the above?

[countertrolling]

...in bed with the same special interests...

and each others wives...

Re:none of the above?

[pspahn]

That may be how you feel today or even several years ago, but consider that a lot of prominent hackers got their start doing the same script kiddie type of stuff.

Eventually, they will mature. When that day comes, I think it's a safe bet that Anonymous will possess significantly more talent than they do today.

Re:none of the above?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anonymous" is no hacker group. They're just a bunch of angst teenage script kiddies who post on 4chan. Some of them might know a thing or two but the vast majority use tools and exploits written/discovered by much smarter more talented people than themselves. They're not vigilantes. They attack whoever the fuck they want to attack, for whatever reason, malicious or not.

And while we're at it I might as well say that I'm sick of seeing script kiddie crackers who expose security holes in website (without being asked to) referred to as "security researchers." This article didn't do it but just about every other fucking article on slashdot does.

Disregard this, I suck cocks.

Re:none of the above?

[Runaway1956]

Oh wait. You seem to be confusing "hacker" with "crusader" or something. Where is the book that defines "hacker" as "good", "honest", "upright", or whatever adjective you care to insert? Why would hackers necessarily target "evildoers"? In reality, there are white hat, black hat, and grey hat hackers. Anonymous generally seems to wear a very dark grey hat. They fall short of being evil, in my view, but they are most CERTAINLY not white hats. Thus, it is perfectly alright for Anonymous to go after an evil organization, or a good organization, or anything in between. But, they aren't obligated to go after anyone or anything that sits anywhere on the scale. How about some kind of a dungeons and dragons analogy? Unlawful chaotic? Why would you expect an unlawful chaotic to go after an evildoer?

Re:none of the above?

[AlamedaStone]

The consequences are nothing but a pack of powers that be that are looking for a convenient excuse for something they are hell bent on imposing anyway.

They have the motive and means. The hacktivists only provide opportunity.

Sounds terribly familiar, but I just can't 9/11 place it.

Re:none of the above?

[countertrolling]

If they televise the executions, I'm all for it. It'll be a real shot in the arm for the industry...

Re:none of the above?

[EdIII]

Those that wish for an Internet without Freedom, Privacy, Anonymity, Choice, or Competition do not need the existence and actions of Anonymous to create the foundation for their arguments.

I am cheering Anonymous for their actions with HBGary. However, I am cheering for the specific people that did this specific act.

Cheering for Anonymous is like modding an AC on Slashdot as +5 Insightful and then wondering why he was being such a dick two posts later.

Re:none of the above?

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe they do something worthwhile sometimes, but maybe the consequences of that results in a less free internet. I'll withhold cheering.

Do you hear yourself? Are you saying they shouldn't do anything worthwhile because there will be crackdowns on the rest of us? Have things gotten that bad?

The old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" only applies if you're not already in hell.

Re:none of the above?

[mattib]

Quick! Add the tags before they notice!

Re:none of the above?

[shentino]

You may jest, but Anonymous is a group of people that choose to act as a group.

It's an open ended army.

Re:none of the above?

[AlamedaStone]

Quick! Add the <FNORD> tags before they notice!

My god... someone else fnord read that book? Amazing.

Hail Eris!

Re:none of the above?

[clem]

Whatever we end up choosing to do about these so-called vigilantes, it shouldn't be rational.

Re:none of the above?

[mwvdlee]

If anonymous did unreasonably illegal things with total lack or respect for anybody and anything involved, people wouldn't believe it either.
The fact that they're mostly out doing relatively harmless things keeps it within the realm of believe.

Re:none of the above?

[mwvdlee]

It was a terribly act of terrorism that happened that day.
And the guys who flew the plains weren't nice either.

Re:none of the above?

[FriendlyLurker]

I am cheering Anonymous for their actions with HBGary. However, I am cheering for the specific people that did this specific act.

Cheering for Anonymous is like modding an AC on Slashdot as +5 Insightful and then wondering why he was being such a dick two posts later.

True. I always wondered why "they" do not use public keys and PGP signing/signatures or the like more, at least you'd know which faction was at play as soon as they start flashing around the Anonymous flag and claiming they have biiig stuff going on...

Re:none of the above?

[mcvos]

My god... someone else fnord read that book? Amazing.

Who hasn't?

Re:none of the above?

[h4rm0ny]

I'm Anonymous. And so's my wife.

Re:none of the above?

[AmonTheMetalhead]

"No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling..."

Troubling? That's an understatement... "The Obama Administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker [Three military contracting 'cyber-security' companies] to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists" Corporate America, the Military Industrial Complex and the Government all in bed together to operate outside the law inside the US and without any checks, balances or semblance of respect for the law... and this Ted Samson character is more worried about the civil disobedience group Anonymous... Hellooo... threat assessment!?

Yea, that bit in the TFS come across to me as it's written by a chill to manipulate the public opinion... You know, like out of HBGary's proposals?

Re:none of the above?

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I've never seen anonymous be referred to as 'Security Researches'. As for whom and what anonymous are, sure, it originated from 4chan, but the beauty of the concept is that *EVERYONE* can be part of it when they chose to, it's an open group without leadership, the way it works is fascinating in my opinion.

Re:none of the above?

[Rysc]

You're missing the point. "They" don't care, they're anonymous. Anonymous does not desire for you to know which "faction" is at work. If identifiability was desired a group would be formed with a name. Factions are irrelevant.

Re:none of the above?

[HungryHobo]

Anonymous is more the entire chaotic side of the table rolled into one.

Re:none of the above?

[Thing 1]

How about some kind of a dungeons and dragons analogy? Unlawful chaotic? Why would you expect an unlawful chaotic to go after an evildoer?

Lawful vs. chaotic; good vs. evil. Cannot have lawful chaotic. I think you mean chaotic neutral; perhaps chaotic evil with neutral tendencies?

Re:none of the above?

[FriendlyLurker]

Anonymous does not desire for you to know which "faction" is at work. If identifiability was desired a group would be formed with a name. Factions are irrelevant.

I think your mixing things up a bit there. Crypto-Signature of Mr X vs Mr Y does not make the two any less anonymous... it only makes any anonymous message they wish to send distinguishable.

The big downside for "them" not using cryptography/signatures is that the most rudimentary and basic social engineering attacks are trivial to perform against "them" as a whole. Specifically, False Flag attacks.

"They" don't care.

Sure - "They" don't care is probably pretty accurate. Personally I find it interesting that a group that more or less prides itself on being security experts leaves themselves wide open to one of the oldest and simplest of attacks though. Even a major coo like the HBGary debacle is easily negated... Just que some malicious attacks in the next few months against any warm and fuzzy organization (Emergency 911 service/Amnesty/Dali Lama/take your pick) all in the name of Anonymous. All the excuse needed to justify contracting a few more HBGary 'cyber-security' firms, throw a few more extreme laws against the internet and open communication onto the books.

Re:none of the above?

[causality]

If anonymous did unreasonably illegal things with total lack or respect for anybody and anything involved, people wouldn't believe it either.
The fact that they're mostly out doing relatively harmless things keeps it within the realm of believe.

That's easy to understand: many people believe only what they want to believe. That's because they have little contact with reality except where convenient, where it doesn't too badly challenge what they like to think. It's definitely not because no one ever does truly harmful things.

Re:none of the above?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Have things gotten that bad?

Yep.

At one point I was telling some of my coworkers a story about how I saw a local cop walking down my street and looking inside all of the parked cars. I quized him on what he was up to and why. He had a legitimate reason, it turned out someone had phoned in that a person had locked their dog in the car because it was misbehaving. But, anyways, when I was relating this story to my coworkers, the first thing out of one of their mouths was, "Why would you even draw attention to yourself like that? He's not peeking in your car. Keep your head down."

Or something along those lines. Needless to say, I was somewhat disappointed in my coworkers that day.

Re:none of the above?

[bhcompy]

These guys aren't Gandhi. They're not even Wyatt Earp. They're out looking for a fight, not letting it come to them

Re:none of the above?

[JackOfAllGeeks]

"False Flag" only works if you mistakenly believe that Anonymous is a unit in any real sense. Claiming to be Anonymous is only meaningful to people who don't understand what Anonymous is.

Re:none of the above?

[FriendlyLurker]

Claiming to be Anonymous is only meaningful to people who don't understand what Anonymous is.

Logical conclusion of that line of thinking: Anonymous isn't anything. LOL. Debatable.... but besides the point: history has already proved you wrong on the first point: False Flag attacks do work, even if the "target" does not exist "in any real sense". See La Mano Negra. Anonymous is not important to attackers (States/MIC/Corporations) - not nearly as much as the potential laws and actions they can do in the name of attacking "it". See "War on Terror/Drugs/Bogyman" for more references.

Re:none of the above?

[JackOfAllGeeks]

Logical conclusion of that line of thinking: Anonymous isn't anything. LOL. Debatable....

That Anonymous isn't a group per se doesn't mean it isn't anything. I would posit that Anonymous is an ideology or attitude, and those are neither groups nor "nothing."

but besides the point: history has already proved you wrong on the first point: False Flag attacks do work, even if the "target" does not exist "in any real sense". See La Mano Negra. Anonymous is not important to attackers (States/MIC/Corporations) - not nearly as much as the potential laws and actions they can do in the name of attacking "it". See "War on Terror/Drugs/Bogyman" for more references.

I think we're talking past each other here. The "false flag" for La Mano Negra (if it was indeed a false-flag situation) wasn't "La Mano Negra," it was "an anarchist group." Things were done by that group and then used to justify attacks on other groups. Fine. But how do you apply that to a "group" that attacks disparate targets, seremingly at random, for contradictory reasons? Are you saying you can false flag as "random people on the Internet" in a meaningful way?

Re:none of the above?

[PopeRatzo]

They're out looking for a fight, not letting it come to them

Sometimes, taking the fight to "them" is what it takes.

But I get your point. Sometimes, the little bee sting that they inflict on huge entities like the Church of Scientology or the Koch Brothers is not worth the blowback when those outfits take it out on everyone with both guns blazing. It's an indication of how badly things have gotten out of whack that the criminals are so powerful that we're afraid to look at them cross-eyed.

Re:none of the above?

[treeves]

No, no. The guise flu the PLANES. Your spelling is terribly.

Re:none of the above?

[FriendlyLurker]

I would posit that Anonymous is an ideology or attitude, and those are neither groups nor "nothing."

I agree with you that Anonymous is more of an ideology or philosophy than much else. Random people perform random acts of disobedience, some of them claim to be with the ethereal group "Anonymous". Non geeks look impressed and vision a dark sprawling underground organization.

The "false flag" for La Mano Negra (if it was indeed a false-flag situation) wasn't "La Mano Negra," it was "an anarchist group Things were done by that group and then used to justify attacks on other groups.

Just a quick correction: La Mano Negra by most accounts didn't exist. Much of the Spanish literature on the subject points to it being an invention of the government at the time. The "four crimes committed by La Mano Negra" are speculated to be the False Flag operations used by the government to justify an extremely violent suppression of the unarmed farming peasants - who were beginning to question serfdom and demand political recognition, following the lead from other European countries at the time.

Fine. But how do you apply that to a "group" that attacks disparate targets, seremingly at random, for contradictory reasons? Are you saying you can false flag as "random people on the Internet" in a meaningful way?

Yes and very easily so - those random people have banded around the name "Anonymous", and that can be used against them. Your government want's to pass some extreme laws to militarize the internet or some such nonsense - all that is needed is some justification to wave around and scare enough people with to accept your laws without much question (Witness all the "Cyber war" rhetoric). If the "real" Anonymous idealists are not willing to do something destructive and unpopular enough, organize a false flag event or two and claim your the same Anonymous "members" that hacked the HBGary servers (Since they have already got widespread publicity that can be subverted). Do enough damage in the False Flag attack to give the political capital needed to pass your crappy laws, al-la Patriot Act style. After seeing the depth's HBGary were willing to stoop to, this does not sound very far fetched - it's a textbook False Flag attack. The point is: If I was the individual(s) who claimed to hack HBGary servers using the banner name Anonymous, I'd want the power to discredit anyone else claiming to do other acts in my name. PGP signatures on any and all public communications would give me that power (with no downside).

As an aside, 'al qaeda' is another ideology banded around by disparate, fragmented and disenfranchized groups who carry out random uncoordinated acts of misguided violence in it's name. Far from damaging the MIC, secretive governments and abusive corporations - they have indirectly helped to increase their power. Unlike Anonymous however, there is usually no need to use False Flags to get people whipped up into a fear frenzy. Even then, some creative non-standard False Flag events can go a long way to increasing your power base and guarantee further funding.

Re:none of the above?

[JackOfAllGeeks]

Just a quick correction: La Mano Negra by most accounts didn't exist.

I'm aware. My point was that... In a standard false flag, you pretend to be Eurasia in order to discredit Eurasia. "La Mano Negra" wasn't false-flagging as La Mano Negra, they were false-flagging as "an anarchist group." The difference is subtle, I suppose, but it's a meaningful distinction in our case because you're talking about false flagging as Anonymous, another group that "doesn't exist."

The point i'm making is that La Mano Negra was a fake group used to discredit other actual groups. There's not really an analog to Anonymous.

Yes and very easily so...

An interesting argument, and I think I see you're point. It's an application of false flag that I'm not as familiar with, and it's probably as viable here as it might be elsewhere... But I still don't see how false-flagging as Anonymous accomplishes anything special. Why not false flag as some random blackhat group? It'd be as effective. Claiming the identity of someone who's anonymous is... an odd idea.

My point is, you can't discredit Anonymous, because it's not an entity in that sense. You can't discredit "random people on the Internet." In fact, I'd argue that if they DID start to identify themselves formally through PGP or similar, that would be the only way that "credit" and "discredit" could really even be possible, because as that point they aren't anonymous, they're pseudonymous. They have an identity.

Re:none of the above?

[Zlotnick]

All hail Discordia!

Re:none of the above?

[Rysc]

I think your mixing things up a bit there. Crypto-Signature of Mr X vs Mr Y does not make the two any less anonymous... it only makes any anonymous message they wish to send distinguishable.

know you're missing the point. As much as identifiability isn't desired just so distinguishability isn't desired. On 4chan it's also known as namefagging and is frowned upon.

There is no possibility of a false flag; all people claiming to be anonymous are legitimate so long as they do not attempt to identify themselves or distinguish themselves from any other anonymous. All despicable, harmful and illegal activities carried out by anonymous are legitimate and anonymous approves so long as it's funny.

Personally I find it interesting that a group that more or less prides itself on being security experts leaves themselves wide open to one of the oldest and simplest of attacks though.

Anonymous isn't a group. Anonymous does not pride itself on anything except possibly jackassery and certainly does not claim to be a security expert. Anonymous does not fight for freedom, justice, morality or a baby's smile; anonymous fights for the lulz and for hatred. The HBGary hack was funny, period. Any other motivation you attribute is a mistake.

All the excuse needed to justify contracting a few more HBGary 'cyber-security' firms, throw a few more extreme laws against the internet and open communication onto the books.

Who cares? This was not a campaign against security firms like hbgary, this was malice directed at one person who worked for hbgary. Mission accomplished. Hire as many similar companies as you like.

Re:none of the above?

[FriendlyLurker]

I agree with most of what your saying, except for one basic point: "Anonymous isn't a group". It certainly is a group: just because it has no organization, no fixed philosophy or members, "no pride", has a pure anarchic "direction" - whatever - none of that disqualifies it from being a group. It was a group from the instance more than one person decided to use the same name "Anonymous" to attribute to their random _publicly visible_ action(s). "Anonymous" the group has gone even further than that though by taking up unique symbols to identify itself with. The only way to not be a group is to all go back to being individuals with different names, different symbols - then "they" would be a truly anonymous in the real sense of the word again. Further, the moment any group real or imaginary has a recognizable free for all to use name/symbol, it is vulnerable to false flag attacks - the organizational structure and everything else you mentioned is irrelevant. Example: Hypothetically - if the general population started to see many and repeated reports in the news of any group Name/symbols always being associated with something that motivates their emotions (say, Child porn), then it will not be long before the majority of the population automatically associates that groups name and their symbols as being equal to child porn. If some random individual with no previous connection to anyone else decides to setup a webpage, or go out in public wearing the mask, wave around the name or the symbol - they are automatically judged a pedo - any other mesage they might have will be lost and irrelevant. Enough negativity in the population associated with the group, and individuals would decide to stop using the name/symbols.

Anonymous has so far been no serious threat to any major power base. It has not done anything to piss off the majority of the population. The name and it's symbols are not associated with something the population automatically fear's and/or hates (it is nowhere near the negative name-brand recognition that the group name al-qaeda has for example)... so the name and symbols are so far not under any public pressure. That does not mean it is not vulnerable or its name cannot be destroyed.

Re:none of the above?

[Rysc]

I agree with most of what your saying, except for one basic point: "Anonymous isn't a group". It certainly is a group: just because it has no organization, no fixed philosophy or members, "no pride", has a pure anarchic "direction" - whatever - none of that disqualifies it from being a group

Up to here you are technically correct. I call it "not a group" to counter the prevailing media opinion that it is some kind of organization, but if you know what kind of a 'group' it is then further belaboring would be pointless.

It was a group from the instance more than one person decided to use the same name "Anonymous" to attribute to their random _publicly visible_ action(s). "Anonymous" the group has gone even further than that though by taking up unique symbols to identify itself with. The only way to not be a group is to all go back to being individuals with different names, different symbols - then "they" would be a truly anonymous in the real sense of the word again.

And now you're off track again. What's in a name? What's in a symbol? Some anonymous identify with certain images, some don't. Some of anonymous' actions are publicly visible, some aren't. Just because two people using the same name perform "publicly visible actions" doesn't mean they're a group. Bob Dole and Bob Dylan aren't a group, despite both being named Bob. If they both started calling themselves anonymous they would still not be a group in any but the most trivial and irrelevant senses. The name doesn't matter.

Further, the moment any group real or imaginary has a recognizable free for all to use name/symbol, it is vulnerable to false flag attacks - the organizational structure and everything else you mentioned is irrelevant.

See above, it's not a group. Perhaps some people imagine it is, but it's not. It's impossible, I will stress again, to have a false flag anonymous.

Example: Hypothetically - if the general population started to see many and repeated reports in the news of any group Name/symbols always being associated with something that motivates their emotions (say, Child porn), then it will not be long before the majority of the population automatically associates that groups name and their symbols as being equal to child porn.

Again, it's not a group name, it's an individual's name. Secondly, anonymous is known to be pedo. What I mean is this has already happened. What the majority of the population thinks is irrelevant; the majority appears to think anonymous is a group instead of an individual. It is known that the majority is stupid. I thought we were trying to discuss what is, not what the unwashed masses believe.

f some random individual with no previous connection to anyone else decides to setup a webpage, or go out in public wearing the mask, wave around the name or the symbol - they are automatically judged a pedo - any other mesage they might have will be lost and irrelevant

Correct. Good. All anonymous people are all other anonymous people. Messages are irrelevant.

Enough negativity in the population associated with the group, and individuals would decide to stop using the name/symbols.

Incorrect. It's not a name and a symbol, it's a being. Either you are anonymous or you aren't, it doesn't matter what other people think that means. Anonymous is a cold, uncaring monster. Anonymous is a warm, loving mother. Anonymous is a predator and a victim. If one day all the world equates being anonymous with the worst possible religions and political things, then that's good. And irrelevant.

Anonymous has so far been no serious threat to any major power base. It has not done anything to piss off the majority of the population. The name and it's symbols are not associated with something the population automatically fear's and/or hates (it is nowhere near the negative n

Re:none of the above?

[FriendlyLurker]

What's in a name? What's in a symbol?

In relation to human groups: They are Identity. Association.

Some anonymous identify with certain images, some don't. Some of anonymous' actions are publicly visible, some aren't.

Note the big distinction here between "Anonymous" the identifiable group with it's culture and symbols, as apposed and very distinct to the to the word, anonymous. You have also explained that Anonymous has some loos group rules and telling us what the group's ideals and identity is about - extremely group-orientated behavior! You'd be more correct by saying: "Some Anonymous identify themselves as a group with this name and with certain symbols, some anonymous' people don't (and therefore are not associating themselves with this particular group). Some of anonymous' actions are publicly visible (everyday you see anon people walking on the street), some (anonymous' people) aren't (for example, when they are in their bedrooms)."

Just because two people using the same name perform "publicly visible actions" doesn't mean they're a group. Bob Dole and Bob Dylan aren't a group, despite both being named Bob. If they both started calling themselves anonymous they would still not be a group in any but the most trivial and irrelevant senses

I agree that "Bob Dole" and "Bob Dylan" are not a group ("in any but the most trivial and irrelevant senses") because they have the name Bob. After this I think is where the logic you outline falls short: Your saying two Bobs don't make a group, so therefore the hundreds (or more) who have associated with the name "Anonymous" (as apposed and very distinct to the to the word, anonymous) and its symbols are also not a group. This comparison does not hold up. Everything else you mention after this appears to be based off this faulty logic.

Re:none of the above?

[Rysc]

Note the big distinction here between "Anonymous" the identifiable group with it's culture and symbols, as apposed and very distinct to the to the word, anonymous. You have also explained that Anonymous has some loos group rules and telling us what the group's ideals and identity is about - extremely group-orientated behavior!

The lower case usage is deliberate.

The rest is a failure of the language. I lack the language to explain to you what anonymous is without making it sound like I am talking about a distinct group. You can read in to what I say whatever mistakes you like, but that doesn't support your position ("anonymous is a group") or discredit mine. I'm not playing rhetorical games, even if you are, and I am only interested in communication. Not knowing how else to attempt an explanation I attempt a bad one. I'm sorry that I have failed you.

You'd be more correct by saying: "Some Anonymous identify themselves as a group with this name and with certain symbols, some anonymous' people don't (and therefore are not associating themselves with this particular group). Some of anonymous' actions are publicly visible (everyday you see anon people walking on the street), some (anonymous' people) aren't (for example, when they are in their bedrooms)."

It's more convoluted to say it correctly. "Some actions taken by anonymous are publicly visible," for example. Rephrasing to avoid using him/her/they and plural confusion is possible but annoying, so I don't always bother.

I agree that "Bob Dole" and "Bob Dylan" are not a group ("in any but the most trivial and irrelevant senses") because they have the name Bob. After this I think is where the logic you outline falls short: Your saying two Bobs don't make a group, so therefore the hundreds (or more) who have associated with the name "Anonymous" (as apposed and very distinct to the to the word, anonymous) and its symbols are also not a group. This comparison does not hold up. Everything else you mention after this appears to be based off this faulty logic.

I am not saying "two" I am saying "any number greater than one." Although, in fact, there aren't hundreds of persons associated with "Anonymous," there is only one anonymous.

And you've made another mistake: I am not making an argument based on logic. I am trying to describe something to you. Logic doesn't enter in to it.

Re:none of the above?

[Chronus]

They aren't a civil disobedience group. Anonymous is a political action group at best. A pretty poor one, too. Civil disobedience hinges on refusing to obey poor laws. This is more like breaking into the house of someone you don't like.

Civil disobedience also is about accepting the consequences of your actions. Like for example, when the followers of MLK did sit-ins at segregated businesses they would be arrested. They would plead guilty, and when bailed out return to the business and continue the sit-in. Anonymous does not do this. In my personal opinion, that makes them simple criminals, not activists of any sort. This is why I stated earlier that they are a political action group only at best.

But by definition they are not a civil disobedience group and it does a great injustice to the memories of Thoreau, Ghandi, Dr. King, and all their followers who have actually dared and risked something to change the world.

They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[Debello]

If the government didn't embrace corruption and breaking their own laws.

Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. No one ought to have sympathy with the corruption of a government. However, if so-called vigilantes have impunity then they could become a new oppressive regime.

Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[rtb61]

Two wrongs don't make a right but one wrong can certainly undo another wrong and from that can emerge a right.

There of course is the case of citizen's arrest. So citizen's digital search and obtaining of evidence where it is publicly clear that perpetrators are committing criminal activities and yet for unknown reasons government and police fail to act in an manner to kerb those criminal activities and even in some cases support those activities. Then of course the evidence is presented to the public for their assessment of the activities of the perpetrators of crime as well and the government that supports them.

The whole thing is questionable and undesirable but what to do when government and police fail to act upon the public commitment of crime by protected contractors. mass media, lobbyists, rogue public relations firms and of course corrupt politicians.

It is all rather passive and the only harm seems to be against those who profit by lies and for whom the truth is an anathema. They most certainly seem to wither and writhe when exposed to the public light of the truth.

Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[AlamedaStone]

Agreed. No one ought to have sympathy with the corruption of a government. However, if so-called vigilantes have impunity then they could become a new oppressive regime.

Wow. You're right. If the government doesn't protect us, Anonymous will RULE THE COUNTRY, banishing all women from the internet and compelling people to put things in other things so that they may do things while they do things.

I guess having national ID cards and internet licenses is a small price to pay. I mean, I don't mind putting things in things, but I'll be damned if I'll then go do things while I do things. Where would it end?

Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[Warhawke]

Wow. You're right. If the government doesn't protect us, Anonymous will RULE THE COUNTRY, banishing all women from the internet and compelling people to put things in other things so that they may do things while they do things.

Oh, I don't know about banishing women. They do have the options of Tits before they GTFO.

Where would it end?

Last post, page 15. Unless somebody bumps.

Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Anonymous will RULE THE COUNTRY
All hail first lady Boxxy!

Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[tarlane]

Wait, there are women on the internet?

Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[treeves]

"Putting things in things" reminds me of this:

Toastmaster: Gentlemen, pray silence for the President of the Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things.
(There is much upper class applause and banging on the table as Sir William rises to his feet.)

Sir William: I thank you, gentlemen. The year has been a good one for the Society (hear, hear). This year our members have put more things on top of other things than ever before. But, I should warn you, this is no time for complacency. No, there are still many things, and I cannot emphasize this too strongly, not on top of other things. I myself, on my way here this evening, saw a thing that was not on top of another thing in any way. (shame!) Shame indeed but we must not allw ourselves to become too despondent. For, we must never forget that if there was not one thing that was not on top of another thing our society would be nothing more than a meaningless body of men that had gathered together for no good purpose. But we flourish. This year our Australasian members and the various organizations affiliated to our Australasian branches put no fewer than twenty-two things on top of other things. (applause) Well done all of you. But there is one cloud on the horizon. In this last year our Staffordshire branch has not succeeded in putting one thing on top of another (shame!). Therefore I call upon our Staffordshire delegate to explain this weird behaviour.

False dichotomy

[Local ID10T]

None of the above.

Re:False dichotomy

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Agreed. In the end, the appearance of vigilantes is a symptom of something else; I won't go so far as to say it's inevitable, but if it takes vigilantes before things come to light, your country got problems.

Re:False dichotomy

[Darinbob]

How about "jeered"? A vigilante, regardless of motivations, is a vigilante. And I'm pretty sure many of these poeple are doing it for the lulz rather than to do any sort of meaningful protest that will accomplish something.

Re:False dichotomy

[russotto]

Agreed. In the end, the appearance of vigilantes is a symptom of something else; I won't go so far as to say it's inevitable, but if it takes vigilantes before things come to light, your country got problems.

The appearance of a few vigiliantes, despised by most, means little. The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill. The government condemns them regardless, because the government claims the privilege to dispense justice to be solely its own, but when the government claims that privilege then fails to fulfill the implicit duty, what do you expect?

Re:False dichotomy

[cheekyjohnson]

The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill.

I don't quite understand how a large number of people believing something makes it right. I mean, it might indicate that the government has angered them, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the people are 'in the right.'

Re:False dichotomy

[jmorris42]

> A vigilante, regardless of motivations, is a vigilante.

More like common vandals. If you wouldn't cheer em rampaging in a mob with fireaxes and making off with file cabinets you shouldn't be cheering them doing essentially the same smash and grab and sticking an i, cyber- or some such hip prefix that boils down to the same ol 'take something ordinary stick "on the Internet" on and call it new and fresh. (And probably patentable but that is a rant for another thread.)

They aren't vigilantes anymore when they attack someone for the sole reason they were investigating them. That is so clearly across the moral line the only reason more people don't see it is they agree so strongly with Anonymous's stated political goals it blinds them. Gotham PD gets tired of Batman's vigilante tactics and decides to track him down and arrest him. He shoots Gordon in the face when he shows up at Wayne Manor with a warrant. Goodbye Batman, hello Supervillan looking for a new name.

Re:False dichotomy

[Ruke]

But in this case, the vigilantes are addressing behavior that the government is turning a blind eye to, not behavior that the government had addressed and approved of. It would be quite a different story if there had been a criminal investigation of HBGary and they were found innocent; however, certain parties within the government would seem to have known that they were acting illegally, and chose to do nothing.

And again, it still doesn't mean that the vigilantes are in the right. It just means that they're addressing (for better or for worse) a problem that the government should be addressing, but has failed to.

Re:False dichotomy

[causality]

And again, it still doesn't mean that the vigilantes are in the right. It just means that they're addressing (for better or for worse) a problem that the government should be addressing, but has failed to.

Allowing criminals and other abusers to go unpunished and uninvestigated is the time-tested method of creating vigilantes where there otherwise were none.

Re:False dichotomy

[c6gunner]

Exactly. Individuals make stupid decisions, and hold stupid beliefs, on a regular basis. But when they become a giant mob, I'm supposed to believe that they're acting rationally and doing the right thing? Good luck with that. There's a reason most modern republics aren't direct-democracies. Constitutions don't just exist to protect "the people" from "the government" - they exist to protect the people from themselves.

Re:False dichotomy

[Dr Max]

I don't quite understand how a large number of people believing something makes it right. I mean, it might indicate that the government has angered them, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the people are 'in the right.'

if the number is larger enough it is. thats democracy

Re:False dichotomy

[ScrewMaster]

That is so clearly across the moral line the only reason more people don't see it is they agree so strongly with Anonymous's stated political goals it blinds them.

You can't compare an amorphous, shifting multinational group like Anonymous with Batman, mainly because Anonymous has no stated political goals. What goals they do have are largely spur-of-the-moment, and tend to last only until the next big thing comes along to garner their attention. That's actually what makes them so dangerous: they're not predictable in any particular regard (like Batman invariably is, and which is always used against him) and somewhere amongst that morass of script-kiddies is some real talent.

Re:False dichotomy

[betterunixthanunix]

"Vigilante" is an idiotic term to use here. These people are protesters, nothing else, no different than people who block entrances to government buildings or bombard politicians with mail and phone calls. Why is it that when something happens on the Internet, it suddenly becomes something more than the same act happening in real life?

Re:False dichotomy

[kevinNCSU]

I thought the time tested method for creating vigilantes was blaming problems on a small group of people that the majority doesn't like anyways and so can get behind stringing up to work out their anger issues.

Re:False dichotomy

[kevinNCSU]

"Vigilante" is an idiotic term to use here. These people are protesters, nothing else, no different than people who block entrances to government buildings or bombard politicians with mail and phone calls. Why is it that when something happens on the Internet, it suddenly becomes something more than the same act happening in real life?

By your very argument then Anonymous would be common thieves and vandals for breaking into HBGary property, stealing documents, defacing their website, and destroying property (backups). If you want to make it "the same thing as if it happened in real life" they would not be protesters, but common criminals.

Re:False dichotomy

[AlamedaStone]

A good case in point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

The parents were for YEARS (and probably are still) harassed. And the dudes from south park owe them a public apology.

Vigilantes may target the wrong people even though they 'mean to do good'. People are morons. Sometimes they have power many times thank god they dont.

I'm sorry you chose to AC this comment, as I was not aware of the DNA development. Forensic exoneration is the best kind, and I'm glad to have learned this.

Thanks

Re:False dichotomy

[westlake]

The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill.

The problem here is that it is far too easy to delude yourself into believing that the people are on your side. That you - and only you - have the right to speak for them.

Re:False dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the police didn't come after batman, a (as-yet-unhired) mercenary was after them, proposing to use illegal means themselves.

The act of self-preservation does not make one a criminal. What was likely to happen to those HB Gary noted as being part of Anonymous? (And would they target a: social engineer griefers, b: those who had actually engaged in cracking or script-kiddee-hood or c: everyone period on 4chan making them all possibly unemployable and/or through gross misrepresentation putting every last person there on sex offender lists?

Also, Batman didn't shoot Gordon in the face, he uncovered some of Gordan's illicit dealings in the red light district after campaigning to clean it up. (And suggesting that Batman was a pimp, which he was but no more engaged in it than Gordon.)

HB Gary wasn't looking for their identities to debate them, but to silence them (Anonymous plus all stated opponents of their client) whatever it (shy of physical violence) took.

When you're looking to organize a clandestine smear campaign to perpetrate a cover-up worth spending such massive amounts of money on... there's no pretense of being the good guys.

What we have here is two groups both ranging from amoral to immoral fighting each other, both of whom would rather the proper course not be taken.

Unfortunately both political parties have mastered "forget what you just caught us doing, look at what they MIGHT be doing!" and used it so much that those looking to believe in their chosen party have an automatic response to dismiss evidence against their side upon being presented with that situation.

While it would be nice to believe that government contractors are on the side of law and order, the evidence so far does not bear that assertion. After a few of the matters uncovered by Wikileaks (and some by the regular news during the war proper in Iraq) it's pretty obvious that the contractors have much to hide (some of which has been public-ally released but didn't stay in the papers very long...)

It sure would be nice if we could blanketly agree with you, but if you read Slashdot with any regularity you'll note that for large companies, proper legal consequences don't seem to apply. If anyone fights a large corporation, it's fair game to ruin their life. If a large corporation does something heinous (perhaps losing lives through cheapness and incompetence, oil rig?) they get off with NO threat of dissolution or those responsible having their lives ruined.

Given the relative dangers to each side, I can't condemn any who thought they might be identified as Anonymous (correctly or not) for doing whatever it (also without violence or going further than the other side intended to) took to neutralize the threat to themselves.

It would be really nice if we cleaned house in government and had a clear-cut situation where we could all shake our heads at Anonymous, but at this point with the president himself working to aid and abet the (likely continued) defrauding of Bank of America's customers (the people he should be looking to protect), with the highest public office directly opposed to doing what's right you can rest assured the law will not properly investigate the matter and hold BoA responsible for what the documents contain, but rather punish any who try to spill the beans.

This is what we've earned for ourselves by voting along party lines. One of our most important founding principles is checks and balances to prevent any one group from being able to get away with corruption. The entire purpose of a political party is to get around those checks and balances. Perhaps active membership in one should be considered an attempt to sabotage the country?

This is likely to come up more and more in the near future. It will become trendy to uncover wrongdoing, when this involves anyone in the government expect more "you're with us or against us" nonsense trying to convince people that you're not American if you don't support whoever is in a position of power, even

Re:False dichotomy

[AlamedaStone]

They aren't vigilantes anymore when they attack someone for the sole reason they were investigating them.

I think that is only half true. The reality is they uncovered some Serious Wrongdoing. Whether or not that was any one individual's intent, the Anon cloud seems to employ the Streisand effect to broadcast some major inequities.

On the other hand, they also go after kids on "the facebook" and hassle random people in video streaming and god knows what else. I find it very peculiar that these types of actions never make the big media coverage. If my tinfoil hat was not at a jaunty angle, but rather attached by my tinfoil chinstrap, I might wonder who's interest that serves. I mean, the news networks would get tons of eyeballs for a story like that, wouldn't they?

Curious.

Re:False dichotomy

[AlamedaStone]

"Vigilante" is an idiotic term to use here. These people are protesters, nothing else, no different than people who block entrances to government buildings or bombard politicians with mail and phone calls. Why is it that when something happens on the Internet, it suddenly becomes something more than the same act happening in real life?

That's only true up to a point. The HBGary incident involved breaking into email accounts and (iirc) the remote wiping of an iPad. While hilariously funny, these actions exceed that of sit-in/slow down protesters.

Re:False dichotomy

[causality]

I thought the time tested method for creating vigilantes was blaming problems on a small group of people that the majority doesn't like anyways and so can get behind stringing up to work out their anger issues.

You could certainly make that case, yes.

I don't personally believe it, though it certainly does sound "standard practice" enough. By that I mean ... the (minority of) people who would encourage things to unfold that way, and so get the majority on board with the scapegoating ... they understand that this has a serious flaw. Understand that no objection of theirs is because the maneuver is too low, too heatless, too underhanded, but they are quite practical. It is Machiavellian politics. The only problen such people would have is that it wouldn't actually work.

Simply, doing things that way means that the people who have the most incentive to take the personal risks that becoming a vigilante would imply are also the people who receive the most scrutiny and have the most to lose from doing so. Their fear would be quite the inverse. They would fear taking blame for any such event even if actually innocent. That's what scapegoats are all about. However, it's not a great way to encourage that same scapegoat group to take any radical action.

If the intention is to create a bogeyman so that powers can be expanded then turning a blind eye for a while is exactly the procedure. Then a mild irritant can have time to get off the ground, gain inertia, turn radical, and become a big threat. At that point it turns out that ... oops, just a bit more political power could help to fight such things. What a coincidence.

Hegel called it "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis". It is also called "Problem, Reaction, Solution". It's an ancient tactic that predates the Roman empire. It has survived the test of time for the simple reason that it works. The tiny minority who can see through it is easy enough to ignore or marginalize.

Re:False dichotomy

[EdIII]

but when the government claims that privilege then fails to fulfill the implicit duty, what do you expect?

Batman?

Re:False dichotomy

[russotto]

The problem here is that it is far too easy to delude yourself into believing that the people are on your side. That you - and only you - have the right to speak for them.

Sure, but Muhamar Qadafi is the head of government, not a vigilante at all.

Re:False dichotomy

[cheekyjohnson]

Democracy or not, they could easily be wrong. Second of all, the people don't currently have unchecked amounts of power, anyway (although they have less power than they should).

Re:False dichotomy

[Dorkmaster Flek]

It's not peculiar at all when you consider than anyone can use the banner of Anonymous to do anything they want. The people who hacked HGBarry are almost certainly not the same people who troll other users on Facebook and YouTube.

Re:False dichotomy

[cheekyjohnson]

Absolutely not. That's how a direct democracy works, and that leads to tyranny of the majority. That's why there are checks and balances and the people do not have absolute power (although, currently, I believe that they have less than they should).

Also, the law has nothing to do with whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Transparency is always good...

[filesiteguy]

...as long a there were no laws broken in the process of gleaning or divulging the information.

Re:Transparency is always good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Daniel Ellsberg would disagree with your qualifier, and so would I.

        Secrecy serves no one.

Re:Transparency is always good...

[Cwix]

Be less interesting to read thats for sure though.

Re:Transparency is always good...

[kevinNCSU]

There's no functional difference between an AC and a pseudonym account. If real names were enforced here there'd be a lot fewer douchebags.

Says the AC. ^Real Name^ And just to spite you about there being less douche-bags this way? - Suck it ;)

Re:Transparency is always good...

[shentino]

Define "douchebag"

Now define "douchebag" taking into account the increased influence governments could bring upon slash dotters identified by their real names.

Re:Transparency is always good...

[mcvos]

Some laws need to be broken. Also, this kind of corruption needs to be exposed, no matter how.

Isn't it weird that a group of anonymous vigilantes is more transparent than a government that's supposed to serve the people, or companies that work for that government or for politicians involved in it?

Re:Transparency is always good...

[kevinNCSU]

The last three should be obvious if you're not retarded or understand the google.

Depends on the specific case, of course

[ron_ivi]

In the case of HB Gary - they did everyone (especially those who pay for HBGary's services - meaning mostly taxpayers) a great service by exposing a security company apparently so fraudulent it had no business in the computer security field.

If it were my own web sites, I'd very much hope that if someone found an exploit, they'd let me know by visibly defacing my homepage, rather than just ignoring the vulnerability and leaving me vulnerable until some less scrupulous hacker finds it next.

I hope the law would take intent into consideration a lot in those cases. If the intent was to inform HB Gary and HB Gary customers that their security knowledge sucked, IMHO they did a service to all by demonstrating that. OTOH, if their intent was to steal people's credit cards or something from HB Gary, they should be gone after just like any other credit card thief should.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[MrEricSir]

But HBGary is not a fraudulent security company. Claiming that just because they did several things wrong makes them "fraudulent" is absurd.

The uncovered e-mails suggest HBGary is quite good at finding and exploiting Windows bugs to provide various forms of security and/or spy services. Creepy, yes, but not fraudulent by any means.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[airfoobar]

Creepy and illegal and unethical.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[sjames]

The thing is, they are apparently better at being the bad guy than they are at stopping the bad guy. Apparently if you want the law broken, HB Gary is the go-to company.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[Em Adespoton]

either HBGary Federal was a setup being used to push paranoia, or Anonymous faked some of the emails to support their own agenda.

...or they were a small-time security company trying to make it big by turning to the dark side in a "legal" manner.

Remember -- when you're dealing with corporations and governments at this level, "4 person company" is pretty much meaningless -- the companies are usually "consulting" companies who pull in "contractors" who have "clearance". It's called covering their personal liability just in case something goes wrong. This is actually the kind of group large corporations and governments routinely like to work with, as the company can always be the scapegoat should anything go wrong, and the actual players can disband and re-form with minimal liability (all the "contractors" who work for these companies are one step removed, so don't have any bad press or liability sticking to them at all).

It's always going to be a bit too convenient, because this kind of setup is convenient, and happens constantly.

Oh, and despite what you're saying, nobody has denied the emails and a number of people have made tracks to distance themselves from the emails. The Congressional side of all this is neither here nor there -- if they hadn't got their hands on this situation, they would have found something else similar (because when you go on a fishing expedition, you're likely going to find mud).

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[Z34107]

Three problems, Anon:

1. Anonymous didn't break into just "a few" e-mail accounts. "All of them" would be more accurate.
2. It's awful hard to fake 70,000 e-mail messages.
3. It's awful hard to fake "some of the e-mails", and have them remain internally consistent with the other 70,000.

But, go ahead and read them. Come back when you've found out which ones were faked.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[lostmongoose]

Are tank manufacturers unethical?

At the point where the tanks (exploits and security holes, in this case) are used to harass and subdue opposition amongst the citizenry and the manufacturer has no issue with it, they are. The gov't answers to the people, not the other way around. When the people are angry enough to start speaking out, you don't turn your arsenal on them. Unless you wanna live in China or Libya or Bahrain or Iran....I can go on, but I shouldn't need to.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[ScrewMaster]

The thing is, they are apparently better at being the bad guy than they are at stopping the bad guy. Apparently if you want the law broken, HB Gary is the go-to company.

Well, like Stephen Colbert said, the idiots stuck their collective dick into a hornet's nest. I'm sure Aaron Barr and Co. were more than a little surprised when it turned out that his rather direct challenge (and threat) to Anonymous resulted in a demonstration of blackhattery that was on par with his own. He should have known better, and taken steps.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[BitZtream]

If it were my own web sites, I'd very much hope that if someone found an exploit, they'd let me know by visibly defacing my homepage, rather than just ignoring the vulnerability and leaving me vulnerable until some less scrupulous hacker finds it next.

So how does it feel to be an idiot?

The first time your business's web page gets defaced, and the result is that you lose multiple customers resulting in your layoff/being fired, I suspect you'll start to have a much more practical and far less ignorant approach to the situation.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[Runaway1956]

Sorry, but Arron Barr is a fraud and a con man. Sure, he and his buddies knew a lot of Windows exploits - but that doesn't change the fact that he was a fraud and a con man. All con men have SOMETHING shiny to show the victims, to get the victim's interest piqued. Barr and associates had a few Windows exploits, and a huge bag of empty promises.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[kevinNCSU]

Out of curiosity what is someone "less scrupulous" going to do that's worse then breaking into you're companies private email and data, releasing it to the public, and deleting the backups? It's not like the government was paying HBGary via credit card using their website, it's just a PR thing. "You've added crappy 2-year cyber defense contract to your shopping cart - would you like to check out now or continue shopping?". As far as the website goes defacing it is the maximum damage route they could choose.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[Yaur]

HB Gary and HB Gary Federal are essentially the same company. They share(d) office space and e-mail, were owned by the same people, and communicated with each other as though they were on company. Their separation is a legal fiction to prevent the officers of HB Gary from having to get clearance and to protect HP Gary's IP so that they could sell it to the private sector.
I frankly don't think that Anon is sophisticated enough to fake e-mails and they certainly aren't sophisticated enough to do it well. If anything Anons reaction to (OMG!) stuxnet reinforces this point. I would welcome you to prove your point though. The emails are public and if you find anomalies many people, myself included, will be interested in reading about them.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[shentino]

It's still just as cheeky either way.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[Dan541]

Have you even been through their mail. There is allot more people at hbgary than 4.

Cheered

[PraiseBob]

If there was a shootout between rival gangs of organized criminals, and a body was found with information implicating the rest of their organization, would the police ignore the information because of the method it was gained?

Re:Cheered

[Duradin]

Police investigating a murder?!? What is this world coming to? Will no one think of the murderers?

Re:Cheered

[Stregano]

Organized criminals = gangs. Unfortunately, most police investigations don't do much with gang related shootings. Even Tupac, who was super famous, did not get an investigation into his murder for that reason, it was gang related

Re:Cheered

[PraiseBob]

I was more thinking a Mafia style black book of secrets being found on a body. But in your example, say Tupac's car had been loaded with solid evidence of criminal wrongdoing by other people. Would it get ignored?

Re:Cheered

[TrancePhreak]

Sometimes yes. You used to need a warrant for some things. Not so much any more.

Re:Cheered

[Mashiki]

Yes. It all depends on whether or not the chain of evidence is corrupted. Policing isn't like the movies where 'data' shows up and people go WHOO! Get the DA, lay dem charges! WHOOO!

Re:Cheered

[ScrewMaster]

Any type of activist is a good. It sure beats the usual sheepish (american) who is content with letting 400 people have everything, while they sit and watch NCIS and eat big macs.

I'm guessing you meant "sheeplike", not "sheepish", and what do you have against Big Macs? Or NCIS?

Didn't we use to call them Journalists?

[rsilvergun]

Now their Cyber Vigilantes. Should be asking if Upton Sinclair should be cheered or feared?

Re:Didn't we use to call them Journalists?

[U8MyData]

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Let us not forget either that this was supposedly a "cyber security" company and the couldn't even protect there own sh*t. WTFO!

Re:Didn't we use to call them Journalists?

[AlamedaStone]

Now their Cyber Vigilantes. Should be asking if Upton Sinclair should be cheered or feared?

Wow, a funny mod. How grim. And true.

Re:Didn't we use to call them Journalists?

[antdude]

Their? :P

Re:Didn't we use to call them Journalists?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

First they came for the editors, but I did not say anything because I was a journalist....

Should hackers be praised...

[GillyGuthrie]

I think they should be praised, yes. I also recognize their actions are illegal and therefore uncondoned; however, I believe it is a important thing that the potential impact of the internet is commonly known to all peoples of the world. We live in an age where near-instant communication is the norm and that will hopefully empower more revolutionary movements like the ones we've seen in the Middle East. Damn the semantics - "those 'hacktivists' broke the law" - those hackers are peaceful protestors from a certain perspective.

Sometimes cheered

[Yaa 101]

Sometimes cheered and sometimes booed, better question is why the press is always so binary and void of grey areas.

Re:Sometimes cheered

[Em Adespoton]

...and the answer is that that's what the readership wants.

Re:Sometimes cheered

[AlamedaStone]

...and the answer is that that's what the readership wants.

The readership will eat what they're given. It's what the ad revenue dictates.

Re:Sometimes cheered

[BForrester]

Better question why the press is always so binary and void of grey areas.

Because they're void of grey matter.

Re:Sometimes cheered

[hicksw]

The pride and professionalism of our press operators.

These fine people make sure that black ink forms clear legible text on [somewhat] white paper.

Thank you, gentlemen of the press, for the clarity. You have no control of the veracity.

Cyber?

[Haedrian]

I hate 'cyber' being used for everything. Cybervigilantes should be treated just the same as normal Vigilantes.

Just because they're not riding around with a colt full of silver bullets and instead are behind a computer screen doesn't make any difference.

Re:Cyber?

[betterunixthanunix]

There was an article a few months ago about "cyber" -- it basically said that you should be wary of anyone who chooses to use the word "cyber" to describe anything.

In any case, Anonymous is not a vigilante group; that description is more fitting for a group like perverted justice. Anonymous is just a bunch of protesters who are using the Internet for their protest. I see no difference between Anonymous and a campaign to bombard politicians or businesses with mail and telephone calls (especially since the attacks Anonymous is performing are pretty low level in terms of the skill that is needed -- these people are not writing the next stuxnet). The fact that it is happening online is nothing more than an artifact of 21st century life.

No worse...

[Jessified]

It's no worse than using evidence collected by torture...

Depends on how quiet they stay

[Stregano]

I truly like the idea of anon, but when they start getting cocky, then I refuse the idea. By cocky, I mean then sending threats out to WBC. Even if WBC had a hand in that threat, they threatened and then took them down. I do not agree with that at all. In that case, it would not be cheer or fear, but shun. Now with HBGary, I would cheer. I have said it before, but if they shut up and just do stuff, I would cheer like crazy for them. The moment they start making threat letters or even making people aware of a target, I shun. I do not fear them (they are not that cocky yet). As long as they stay quiet like some ninjas and just attack, then I would cheer for everything they did.

Re:Depends on how quiet they stay

[barrtender]

Knowing WBC's past it's fairly likely that the entire thing was fabricated by them. That said, I don't see anything of value being lost if that organization is actually attacked and taken down.

Re:Depends on how quiet they stay

[Em Adespoton]

The entire idea of cheering or shunning anon is kind of odd to me; no two "cyber" flash mobs are the same makeup.

Now, the activities conducted under the anon umbrella are a different issue....

Re:Depends on how quiet they stay

[GameboyRMH]

Knowing WBC's past it's fairly likely that the entire thing was fabricated by them

That's exactly what happened:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/21/2210212/Anonymous-Denies-Targeting-Westboro-Baptist-Church

Re:It all depends on the damage and reason for it.

[barrtender]

I would like to discourage anyone from clicking that link. It's goatse. I either don't have mod privileges or don't know how to access them so I can't just mod this comment down.

Cheered

[Anonymous Coward]

Any type of activist is a good. It sure beats the usual sheepish (american) who is content with letting 400 people have everything, while they sit and watch NCIS and eat big macs.

Varies Over Time (Re:False dichotomy)

[StCredZero]

None of the above.

Agreed. Historically, organizations vary in their quality and relevance over time. They tend to start out fresh and idealistic, then end up having outlived their usefulness. Anonymous, being an "un-organization" might be able to avoid this fate. I suspect, by the time, if ever, Anonymous has become stale, another such media-stunt group will adopt their methods and pick up such activities under their own banner.

Re:Varies Over Time (Re:False dichotomy)

[marcello_dl]

Anonymous might have been inspired by "Luther Blisset" itself.

Both?

[techoi]

Maybe a little of both - cheers and fears. I think they fill a void that isn't being addressed by any existing group in this day and age. And just maybe they will help bring a balance back to the notion that governments need to fear the people (seemingly lost on most western leaders) more than people fearing their government. If Anon (et al) shine a much needed light on that, then cheer away I say.

As far as WBC goes, never forget that anyone (literally) can claim something in the name of Anon (think of literal free speech), but only if it fires up enough other members (lacking a better word) will much in the way of any action occur.

Both.

[kelemvor4]

Both, since they don't respect the law there's no telling what they will go after next. Also, I don't think that this represents the government giving anon more leeway. I'm quite sure they'd like very much to have the perpetrator in a courtroom adjacent to the one where the fate of HBGary will be decided. They just haven't caught the perps yet is all.

More like protesters

[painandgreed]

Each and every case will just have to taken individually. Mostly likely people will cheer the ones they agree with and jeer the ones they dislike. They may be supportive of some but also agree that charges should follow for the more extreme cases. What we are seeing is nothing more than activism and protests just like we see in the real world. Just because they are happening via computers really doesn't make them anything special. They'll be even less special as the world's population gets more and more used to using computers for everything. PETA, instead of throwing blood on people or posing naked in public will trash other people's websites and spam forums. Populations, instead of gathering in the city square will DDOS the government systems. The same thing happened with the invention of the phone where people would jam the other guy's phone lines or run up their 800 bills by calling their lines. You even had people calling 800 numbers for the lulz as they would just call some 800 number with the purpose of keeping the person who answered on the line for as long as possible while tormenting them verbally. This is just new tech and method of communication, not a new form of human behavior. All this should already be covered and nothing is really changed by adding "cyber-" infront of it.

Nothing has changed in 30 years.

[Lead Butthead]

It's always "their (cyber) terrorist" and "our (cyber) freedom fighters/freedom watchdogs." Whenever it's not serving the agenda of those in power, it's always "theirs." When it does, it's always "ours."

Re:Nothing has changed in 30 years.

[DMoylan]

much more ably illuminated in blackadder :-)

Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...
General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!

Information is information.

[Jane Q. Public]

Once it has been exposed, it has been exposed. The toothpaste is out of the tube. There is no putting it back.

So why is the fact that some people made use of that information "troubling"?? I would be troubled if they didn't.

Is anybody complaining that people shouldn't use information that was exposed by WikiLeaks? No? Why not? How is that different from information that was exposed by anybody else? WikiLeaks did not commit any crimes, but somebody did.

Re:Information is information.

[Jane Q. Public]

To be clear: I am not advocating the breaking of laws to gain information. But once information is already exposed, it's hard to ignore.

I will say, however, that I might be willing to turn a blind eye to minor "bending" of the law, if its intent is to expose government or corporate corruption.

Re:Information is information.

[Jane Q. Public]

"...one of the issues is that if you allow the use of the information - you encourage further unethical acts in later cases... (the old Slippery slope)"

You have a good general point. But in this particular case, somebody was complaining about government information that was leaked, being used by people in government... that seems pretty bizarre to me.

Re:Information is information.

[Sir_Sri]

The pentagon papers ( or at least last I checked were) officially classified well after they became public. Didn't prevent people using them. Because we don't know what the Nazi's results were, we may never know if they were thrown out because in truth, they would have perpetrated more evil, or provided great insight into doing useless things.

I think, if it were to happen with today's information systems, the Nazi era of medical records would be impossible to contain, right or wrong. You can burn paper, you can't burn a million web servers distributed around the world. Back then our governments made the choice to protect us from this information, almost certainly after looking it over to see if there was anything really truly useful worth keeping. Who knows, maybe they did keep a handful of useful things and claim to have developed them separately afterwards, though I doubt it. I think the Germans did enough legitimate research to copy that the value of the unethical experiments on people would be of far less value (especially since, from the article you linked, much of their results are effectively mimicked in wartime anyway, or don't provide results that people particularly want).

Wikileaks might show us the problem with raw information. A lot of it is mindless drivel. I'm sure 99% of medical research paperwork is mindless drivel too, ordering stuff, documenting the same thing every 30 seconds for hours on end, bickering over grant funding and meeting times and so on. The real substantive stuff, depends on what it is. If the Nazi's had figured out how to cure cancer, or treat some poison gas or well... anything actually useful, we might be far more reluctant to toss all their work, no matter how unethical it is. If a hacker steals the secrets to stealth technology or nuclear bomb designs and posts them on the web we probably would be far more reluctant to support that than stealing say.. the pentagon papers or a track record of HB gary's rootkit tools.

Re:Information is information.

[Jane Q. Public]

A workable nuclear bomb design was openly presented by a high school student as a science fair project. It caused an uproar, but it was decided that he broke no laws.

Designs for workable but crude fission and fusion bombs have been in encyclopedias for many years.

Re:Information is information.

[mcvos]

Should information obtained by unethical means be used.
The Nazis KILLED people in medical research - should we use their research ?

If it's reliable, unbiased research, then yes, we should use it. After we punish those who did the research.

also - in these less severe cases - such as being discussed in the article above - one of the issues is that if you allow the use of the information - you encourage further unethical acts in later cases... (the old Slippery slope)

I don't know. If we accept one slippery slope argument, where will it end?

In any case, I stand by my position: we should make use of all accessible information if it's reliable. And we should punish those who commit crimes. If someone intentionally breaks the law in order to expose corruption, and is willing to do the time for it, then more power to him. That's what civil disobedience is all about. And if he's open and honest about it, I'm all for cutting him some slack.

now if you prosecute the people getting the information - the theory is that it wont stop the unethical acts - it will merely drive them underground - where as if you dont allow the use - it will prevent people bothering - because all it does is protect the guilty party.

It's not about prosecuting the people getting the information, it's about prosecuting the real corruption that has been exposed. That should be your primary concern.

Do you honestly want known corruption to continue? The only reason to do that is if you're one of the people profiting from that corruption. Your theory that investigating corruption that's been exposed through criminal means is less important than discouraging the criminal messenger from exposing corruption is completely backwards. Sure, prosecute the messengers too, but also go after the real crooks. They don't deserve your bureaucratic immunity.

Re:Information is information.

[Jane Q. Public]

"If we accept one slippery slope argument, where will it end?"

Some slippery slope arguments must be accepted, because they are true.

I have seen lots of people refer to "the Slippery Slope Fallacy", but what many of them do not seem to realize is that the Slippery Slope Fallacy does not say that any slippery slope argument is a fallacy. It refers only to calling something a slippery slope when it isn't.

Real slippery slopes do exist. The trick is in deciding which are real, and which are just arguments made by people who are grasping at straws.

Re:Information is information.

[Sir_Sri]

We covered bomb design in nuclear physics (and I think it was McMaster had a nuclear weapons course until a couple of years before I started my underrgad). I specifically said steal. There is a far cry from a 70 year old uranium or plutonium bomb design, and a relatively modern weapon... of american or russian design, like say, the sort the chinese are trying to steal (See the cox report) and may have stolen.

Re:Information is information.

[mcvos]

I'm only objecting to the slippery slope argument because it's funny to use a slippery slope argument to do so. (Perhaps an unrelated joke in an otherwise serious comment wasn't the best idea.)

Perspective and scale

[Okian Warrior]

The problem is one of definition and scale.

We've all been taught to oppose vigilante actions, and rightly so. We believe that vigilantism is bad at a gut level, and people use that bias to sway public opinion to their own ends.

Vigilantism is when you pass penalty judgement on someone outside of the legal process, for example hanging someone for stealing cattle. The actions of the hackers don't fall under the definition because no one was hurt and no penalties were passed out.

This is simply one group committing a crime in order to expose a much larger crime. We should apply a measure of scale here and realize that the lesser crime can be outweighed by the value to society from exposing the larger issues.

If this is vigilantism, then so is Brad Manning's gift to Wikileaks. Both parties broke the law in order to expose larger crimes which had substantial public interest.

While I don't advocate reporters breaking into places to root around for evidence, at times the public interest is so overwhelming that we can forgive (and even applaud) illegal actions under those limited circumstances.

This is one of those cases. Anonymous can legitimately be labeled with bad words for their actions (immature, hackers, &c), but in the case at hand, their service to society completely outweighs the gravity of their crimes.

Re:Perspective and scale

[Fluffeh]

The actions of the hackers don't fall under the definition because no one was hurt and no penalties were passed out.

That is arguable. A CEO stepped down. A company is now plummeting in terms of value.
On the flipside, should that company ever have been worth that much?

So, what we really need to discuss here isn't so much is it okay to be a vigilante, but rather look at each case and determine it on the merits of that single example - and evaluate it on a "Does the end justify the means?" scale.

Here, the means were illegal in some way, but does the end - showing how corrupt, morally and ethically disgusting a company is - justify the rules that were broken?

My opinion? Absolutely. I have been living in Australia for the majority of my life and if there is something that Aussies like, it's an underdog. Secondly, what we like even more than an underdog is one that goes out for the good of the people. So, here, I applaud the actions of this Goliath killing David in this case. Ask me again when the next one comes up and I will again evaluate the incident based on its individual merits.

Who is to say what is and isn't appropriate?

[chaboud]

You put your server on the internet, show some ports to the wild like a hole with party invites, and then want the law to make up for your technical inadequacies later on, divining the intention of the flawed system of your own construction? Nonsense.

The internet would be a far more secure/safe/reliable place if we just treated it as the wild west from a data perspective.

Using (but not acquiring) credit card numbers that don't belong to you? Still illegal.

Breaking into a building to gain access? Still illegal.

Gaining access under false pretenses (e.g. phone trickery)? Still fraud, still illegal.

Now, since Anonymous went old-school human engineering on this one, sure, someone broke the law, but I'm far more willing to tolerate this sort of action when it's aimed at exposing rights violations, abuse of legal procedure for what amounts to extortion, or corruption.

When it comes to just issuing requests to a faulty piece of software/hardware, I'd say that a hostile environment has a much better chance of improving real security than one with soft (and capriciously applied) legal restrictions. Straight up hacking should just be the expected norm.

Re:criminal activities

[tnk1]

You can be a criminal even if you only victimize criminals. Vigilantes, despite their aura, are almost always in violation of the law when they act. Vigilantes rob their targets of Due Process, which is what helps corporations and rich people get off scot free, but it does also protect the innocent in the majority of cases.

As far as Anonymous goes, I really haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing that the component members who executed the actual attacks are in violation of a law or three.

Vigilantes know that what they are doing is illegal. They understand they can only act unless or until they get caught. They do it because they feel they have to, or because there are just too many lulz to pass up. Whatever the reason, the specific component members of Anonymous know it's breaking the law and they are banking on not getting caught.

As for the government, they may be beholden to the corporations, but they are even more beholden to media attention. The fact is that everyone knows Anonymous is out there, they're featured all over the place. Corporations are good at keeping their mouths shut. They don't make a stink and they rarely gloat. They just vacuum up money any way they can get away with.

By being public and issuing threats in defiance of the law and doing so with impunity, they're guaranteed to attract the attention of the law. You might be right that corporations are just as culpable, if not more, but how can the law ignore someone screaming "WE ARE ABOVE THE LAW" in deference to investigating nice, quiet white collar criminals? They really can't get away with that. Anonymous must be responded to in some fashion because they are so public. There may be rats crawling inside the walls, but its going to be the mouse that sticks its head out of the hole that is going to get stomped on first.

Unfortunate

[sjames]

I would LIKE to not feel a need to cheer for them. I would like to have police and courts interested in the best interests of society and individuals within it, but apparently that's not the case, so I just have to be grateful for anyone willing to fill the vacuum. The press used to do some of this for us when something fell through the cracks, but they don't seem all that interested in hard core investigation any more.

So, I guess as long as DOJ, DHS, FBI, et al are too busy working for the mouse and the *AA to take care of these things and the press are too afraid they might not get invited to the next ball, it'll have to be Anon and Wikileaks.

Wrong question

[tverbeek]

It isn't (or shouldn't) be a question of whether someone is breaking the law or not that troubles us. Sometimes that's a Bad Thing (e.g. Oliver North) and sometimes it's a Good Thing (e.g. M. L. King). What we should be asking in any given case is whether what the "vigilante" is doing is ethical or not. It's a more difficult question to answer in many cases (e.g. Anonymous), but at least it's a question worth exploring.

Meanwhile back in the article.

[Steauengeglase]

For example, would supporters of Anonymous view this situation differently if a group of masked men and women broke into HBGary, Berico, and Palanti in the dead of night, stole computers or drives containing the various damning files, and shipped them to a contact in the House of Representatives?

That's like comparing Deep Throat with G. Gordon Liddy.

One is an informant, the other is a hired thug. Whatever happened to asking about motive?

Re: But...

[Isaac Remuant]

What happens when the goverment decides that the divulgation of information that people want is against the law?

Not vigilantes

[formfeed]

A vigilante, regardless of motivations, is a vigilante. And I'm pretty sure many of these poeple are doing it for the lulz rather than to do any sort of meaningful protest that will accomplish something.

And vigilantes are a lawless mob controlled by their hate, going after victims that probably haven't even done anything wrong.

So let's not call them vigilantes then.
Cyber protesters, cyber revolutionaries, cyber resistance ??
And my personal favorite: the secret order of the cyber knights.

Re:Not vigilantes

[Darinbob]

No, you have the wrong definition of vigilante. Vigilantes go after people who they feel are escaping justice and try to enact extra-legal justice, often against people who probably are guilty. This is the correct and appropriate word I meant to use.

The press black and white?

[formfeed]

...better question is why the press is always so binary and void of grey areas.

I don' t know. But here in the studio we have our two experts, Dr. Good and Dr. Evil.

Re: But...

[filesiteguy]

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html

Remember, the document was written to protect the citizens - us - against any tyranny of the Government.

HTH!

Re:result of bad parenting

[Rik Rohl]

Who are you referring to here? Anonymous or HBGary?

Well, let's weigh their motivations

[mykos]

I fear people who want to take away life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those who expose truth.

I cheer people who support truth-bearers any way they can.

So I cheer the vigilantes.

the end justifies the means?

[pointbeing]

No, thanks.

I prefer people with a bit stronger moral compass, myself. People who believe the end justifies the means brought us among other things, the Patriot Act and waterboarding. IM frequently less than HO if you do a bad thing for a good reason you're still doing a bad thing.

Re:result of bad parenting

[mcvos]

HBGary I hope. I can see how some might think they deserve a whipping. Anonymous is at least standing up for something they believe in, and against corruption. They're not afraid to stand up to someone more powerful than they are. As a parent, if my kid was involved in something like that, we'd have a few good talks on ethics, but I'd also support him and be proud of him.

Balance

[willy everlearn]

It should all balance out in the end.

You have to ask your self, "If I were a member of anonymous, would it be worth potential prosecution, exposure, fines, and/or imprisonment to out HBGary?"

Pick and choose your battles. As a older man with a family, it would take a pretty lofty goal to take that kind of risk of that battle.

In my younger, brasher days when I had fewer people relying on me, perhaps this would have been worth the risk.

Was I good enough then to pull it off and not get caught? Pull it off? perhaps. Not get caught? Perhaps not.

You make your choices, You take your chances. If the goal is righteous enough then it is worth the punishment if caught.

And if caught, there is always the chance that the jury will be lenient on a hero? (Not likely)

willy

Re:Democracy is a large number of people

[cheekyjohnson]

That's why laws should, for the most part, be written using facts, and not mere opinions. That's also why the people shouldn't receive complete power (more than they have currently, but the government would still have power that the people do not).

Should Cyber Vigilantes Be Cheered Or Feared

[JasterBobaMereel]

Should Cyber Vigilantes Be Cheered Or Feared

Simple answer : Yes

Re:Free the data and your a$$ will fallow

[Ash-Fox]

Anonymous == freedom fighters. People don't like like them but when everyone is out to screw you they become the hero.

Here is Anonymous's previous response to such claims:

People these days seem to think we are some sort of Internet vigilante group, That couldn't be further from the truth. We are the little voice in the back of your head that wants to fuck your hot sixteen year old daughter. We are the father who beats his six year old child simply because he spilled his beer. We are every chef that's ever spit in some random person's food for the hell of it. We are the pyromaniac who burns down the homeless shelter for shits and giggles. We are the person who rapes the same girl twice. We are that feeling you get when you beat your pets; and enjoy it. We see some guy hang himself live, we laugh. A wrestler kills his family, we laugh. Some maladjusted Asian shoots up his university, we laugh. Fifty-thousand die in North Korea, we laugh. AIDS ravages a continent, we laugh. An Austrian man locks his daughter in his basement for 24 years and fathers 8 children with her, we laugh. A religion invented by a psychotic writer swindles countless gullible fucktards out of their cash, we laugh, and then go kick his religion's ass just for the hell of it. We aren't some vigilante group righting wrongs. We aren't your friends, your buddies or your saviors. Your feelings mean nothing to us. We are human nature unencumbered by pointless ethics, foolish moralities or arbitrary laws and restrictions. We are every dark impulse you have; unrestrained and fully realized. We are what deep down, you wish you were. We exist as a means for instant gratification, purely at our own whim. We have no culture, we have no laws, written or otherwise. We are an autonomous collective, each an insignificant part of a whole. You cannot assimilate us, we do not change. You cannot defeat us, we do not exist. You cannot infiltrate us, we know our own. We do not sleep, we do not eat and we do not feel remorse. We will tear you apart from outside and in, we have all the time in the world. You operate under the delusion that we will someday be outdated, that we might even see the light. You are irrevocably wrong. You are not special, you are not unique and you aren't crusaders for justice. You're a blend of college age faggots who think that they can do some sort of good, and who are desperate to belong, to have attention. You have accomplished nothing, and you will fall. Enjoy your AIDS, faggots.

It's just a lynch mob

[kalirion]

Occasionally, when the justice system fails, a lynch mob does in fact go after the right person for the right reasons.

Does that mean lynch mobs should be cheered?

Re:Cheer? Embrace? How about wait and see?

[JackOfAllGeeks]

As the old proverb goes, "when Godzilla and Mechagodzilla fight, only Tokyo suffers."

Re:Oh, that's easy peasy.

[cheekyjohnson]

If the political system is democracy, or a reasonable derivative such as a democratic republic, and the "large number" you speak of constitutes a majority of enfranchised citizens, then the people are most definitely 'in the right'.

Really?

I know you're speaking about laws, but that wasn't my point.

That is what majority rule means.

Tyranny of the majority? Also, we don't currently have "majority rule." The so-called 'representatives' get lobbied so easily that they can hardly call themselves as such.

Re:result of bad parenting

[Alimony Pakhdan]

And thus we learn that two Anonymous Cowards need to get outside in the sunshine a bit more.