Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Under Civil War?
Stoobalou writes "Civil war appears to have broken out in the ranks of headless 'hacktivist' collective Anonymous, with claims that a rogue admin has seized control of two key sites used to coordinate the loose-knit group's online direct action. The news follows speculation that a breakaway group of Anonymous members was responsible for the hacking attacks on Sony's PlayStation Network and Online Entertainment Network, which saw personal information, including credit card details, stolen from as many as 100 million users' accounts."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/
I don't know if I'd call that civil war, more like dissension in the ranks, or mutiny or barratry, and a greater than average amount of anarchy.
Now if you wanted to see Anonymous in Civil War, you should hear the Boxxy story. She managed to divide the indivisible.
It seems that the multinational companies started to work against this movement. I'm hoping that this is just a maneuver to decrease the credibility of the group.
Sounds like someone's having some lolz. I like the idea of Anonymous, keeping companies like HB Gary 'honest', I just don't see it working over a long period of time. Everybody has a different set of ideals (lolz aside) so, in the flat hierarchy, they're all going to pull in a slightly different direction and this kind of stuff will happen.
Really, how many of these kids STILL don't use a proxy when going to Anon's sites after so many of their friends have been busted?
Just like there is no true scotsman, there will always be someone up to good and use someone elses name as the blame, Just like how a buddist symbol was hijacked for Godwinite purposes, there will be a lot of anti sony users pretending to be anonymous.
well.
if ANYONE who uses a pseudo-name online has a disagreement with anyone who has a pseudo-name online, then anonymous are fighting.
stop calling any specific group anonymous. everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
In response to accusations from Sony, Anonymous denies the allegations and blames everything on Anonymous... uh the other Anonymous.
Given how much it has cost them in terms of PR, and how many "gamefags" are pissed off about not getting their PSN fix, the answer is probably "yes".
Therefore some of the less "moralfag" anons may well have had a hand in it. A bit like the schism over scientology protests and all the other things. Anonymous has a limited attention span due to any activity becoming "totally gay" after a while.
I find the whole thing hilarious.
This happens literally all the time. Its not even remotely news. Some part of "Anonymous" is always attacking some other part. Someone gets their feelings hurt and takes down a website or two. They get their name dropped and they fall off the radar. It isn't "civil war"; it's actually just the way Anonymous works.
...that you can't trust a bunch of anarchist computer network destroyers to be the champions of law and justice?
Seriously, how can a hacker get into a computer system run by someone who KNOWS that hackers are after them? Hacks of major sites can be explained by the fact that major organizations (like Sony, etc) have many individual members and tons of bureaucratic incompetence. But you read about the hackers that exchanged stolen credit cards on various forums hacking EACH OTHER's websites, deleting all userdata #@#!, and thus forcing all the members of the site onto a competing site.
So, one would expect that Anonymous would make sure their own servers were hack-proof. Couldn't you trivially make something hack proof by running the server in a VM, and using a hardware authentication system for accessing the server that runs the VMs? How are hackers going to get past a measure like that? The server that deals with the outside world is sandboxed, and they can't crack your password to the management system because it changes every minute.
http://message.anonops.in/ So yes, it's a civil war :D
Anytime a civil war breaks out in a Latin American country, one side is always funded and instigated by the U.S. government. Instigating dissension as a means of disrupting an organization is an age-old government technique that J. Edgar Hoover turned into an artform. Looks like our government boys have finally taken an interest in Anon, and the discrediting campaign is in full swing now.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It sounds to me that there are individuals who don't follow the same ideology as a majority of the group called Anonymous. But since the word Anonymous is the generic word for "The concept of many online community users generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known" (from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)), how can you discern on sect from another.
If you are Anonymous in the collective term, then where one goes, you all go. It is part of the concept of Anonymous. True that only a small sub-group has made the decision to perpetrate a company and steal information, but their actions reflect on all those who associate themselves with Anonymous. If Anonymous as a whole disagrees with what some members do, punishment will be within and will likely be pretty swift.
This to me is not Civil war, but punishment for breaking of the ranks.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
A hacker collective? That's like spiders suddenly becoming social animals.
well to be fair, they did invent the web :)... they are social, just among themselves ... no facebook though
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
before Anonymous started turning on itself. Maybe they've run out of external targets...
Yep. Anarchy's all fun and games until some anarchists own personal liberty or property is threatened. Then the "That's not fair..." whining starts. Who didn't see this coming?
This crap happens ALL THE TIME. Anonymous "turned" on itself years ago. Infighting keeps us strong, routes out the cancer, and confuses the hell out of outside enemies and newbs like you.
Oh fucking please. Anonymous was a cohesive group that is now in "civil war"?
Anonymous is /b/ on 4chan and a bunch of other chans. There is no "leadership" - there is more or less "consensus" for varying values of "consensus" when it comes to a protest or a network attack. Anonymous is about as cohesive as a fist full of jelly.
>Ryan
Ryan is extremely angry because a small group of Anonymous rescued all the old data from Encyclopedia Dramatica by getting it from archive.org before Ryan could get it deleted and then put up their own mirror of the old ED wiki. That's what this is about. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Here's the rebuilt ED wiki, hosted in Switzerland:
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page
That Ryan is raging buttmad over what "Teh Internets" has done "to him" is delicious irony.
--
BMO
Rebellion: Resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
Mutiny: Revolt or rebellion against constituted authority.
How can you rebel when there's no leadership to rebel against?
This is, at best, a schism, and anon has survived schisms before- see Boxxy or the Scientology protests.
Sent from my CR-48
Paranoia much? This crap happens all the time in anon, always has, always will. Just butthurt script kiddies, not government involvement.
What began as a conflict over the transfer of Anonymous from DDoS to identity theft has escalated into a war which has decimated a million scriptkiddies. The Hacktivists and the Rogues have all but exhausted the resources of 4chan in their struggle for domination. Both sides now moronic beyond compare, the remnants of their fad continues to harass Sony, their idiocy fueled by over four thousand years of inbreeding. This is a fight until their mothers tell them to get off the computer. For each side, the only acceptable outcome in the complete elimination of the ROFLs.
The real fact is there isn't a way to define anonymous, and blaming all of anonymous for the actions of one group is ridiculous. Sony calling anon evil for the actions of this group is more or less no different then calling all Christians evil for the actions of Westboro baptist church, anyone can be a christian, and even take some portions of the christian beliefs out of context, yet you don't see the media or anyone hounding Christians as a whole for the actions of one group that claims to be Christians. All Anonymous means is one who dosn't give their identity, and by that logic most bankrobbers, murderers, serial killers have been anonymous since long before the internet was ever born.
Shouldn't you have posted this as AC? Now /. knows who you are.
Pseudonyms are almost just as good. As long as they're changed often enough. Bonus points for using one that someone else already used.
How is this any different than usual?
This sort of emo food fight has been happening in internet groups for decades (literally. I've watched it on usenet in the 80s).
How can you have an insurrection in a self proclaimed anarchy? It's sort of a contradiction in terms.
Spiders are extremely social. For a given definition of social. Not their fault if eating your neighbor is considered bad manners where you come from. For spiders it's just a friendly hello.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I grew up in a conservative Christian household so I got the full scare story on the ebils of rock and roll before I dipped my toe in the other side. From the Christian POV, rock is monolithic. There's the titular head represented by Satan who is coordinating everything in a top-down hierarchical fashion from AC/DC, Ozzy, and Alice Cooper on down to the Beatles and Pat Boone. Even the most banal, lite rock-friendly artist is promoting Satan's message of substance abuse, loose morals, easy sex and enjoyment of life. Drug messages are backmasked into the music. Sex permeates the videos. Album jackets and psychedelic posters all have their hidden symbols and meanings; it's fun to take a trip, put acid in your veins. (supernaut!)
Then you look at it from the other side and shit, it's just a business. Rebellion is popular so you package it, commoditize it and sell it. Satan has nothing to do with it unless that's just a personal nickname for soulless assholes in suits. You really think it takes a prince of darkness to sell people on the idea of having fun and getting laid? Puhleeeeeeeeaze. Some rocker can declare he's doing something in the name of rock and roll, critics can argue about what rock is, how it should be, but they're all just tossing ideas into the collective memetic cess pool. There's no ecumenical councils trying to establish rock orthodoxy, no pope of rock to excommunicate you if you aren't doing it right.
It's the same thing with Anonymous. There's a vague, poorly expressed ideal with everyone supporting their own irreconcilable interpretation of it. You can't really have a civil war amongst people who were never unified to begin with. That's making the fundamental mistake of assuming Anonymous is top-down, hierarchical, and organized. Organized anarchy? That's as oxymoronic as Christian rock.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Do you really think that a hack to steal credit card numbers and personal info sounds like a typical move for Anon members?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There are pro-government patriotic black hats like The Jester and ichsun ("skill of 1000 hackers") who have done things in the interest of their governments. But they could actually be government-backed while pretending to be independent.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Or hating all of Sony for the SonyBMG rootkit fiasco, SCEx getting hacked, etc. SonyBMG (music label), SCEx (SCEA, SCEJ and whatever the European one is, SCEE?) (game console), SOE (software), and whatever the name of the Sony hardware division is. They may all be called Sony, but they are all different divisions that dont have any say/control/knowledge what the others do. SonyBMG used to be pissed about the hardware division creating mp3 players around 2000, as they saw anything that played mp3's as a piracy enabler.
So basically hate Sony for whatever reason you want, just make sure you are hating the correct part of Sony. Untill the removal of otherOS, I always thought it was stupid when people would whine like little girls about the whole rootkit thing, SCEx had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it, so not buying a Playstation because SonyBMG messed up your computer always seemed to me like hating your neighbors friendly spouse because your neighbor stole your newspaper.
Anyway, it just gets me that people who understand that Anonymous is a collective of a bunch of different cliques that sometimes share goals and all use the same banner dont get that many massive corporations are basically separate companies that all share the same name.
"We are legion!" (_!_)
This "rogue" group stinks of HB Gary.
Here is a video that explains Anonymous, its structure, and its political goals.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone
Sure, if you're a retard. In the real world where presumably you are capable of not being an intentional intellectual midget, you will be able to see that the people refered to as Anonymous are a tangible, real set of people that may change over time, but are definable. Anonymous has a creed, a culture and hang outs, as well as informal leaders. People who frequent certain websites, subscribe to the creed, and are a part of the culture can therefore be called Anonymous and can be classified like you would classify a group. Think "Americans". People don't jump in to every conversation where the word "Americans" was used when not referring to government action, and say "American's aren't a group. Anybody can be an American, all they have to do is live in America and call themselves American, so please stop saying things like 'American's not ready for the electric car.' It shows how you just don't get the melting pot concept."
You could easily say that neo-nazis are under civil war when two groups who are independant begin stabbing each other. There is no centralized structure, anybody can call themselves a neo-nazi. Explain to me how they're different. Oh, they're not. Internet douchebags just like to feel deep.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Absolute Freedom is great until someone uses their Absolute freedom to hurt you. When you join an organization there is a false idea that everyone has exactly the same goals in mind or all want the same thing with the same priorities. Criminal Organizations no matter what their original intent is, attracts a lot of the less then honorable people. And shortly there is problems.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Wrong, you are redefining terms. When somebody speaks, you don't get to tell them what they meant. Are you denying any such movement called Anonymous? Because it would seem to me that there is such a movement and they do real things. When people identify them (which is easy because they leave pretty significant clues to what cultural slice of the internet they come from) as Anonymous you can't say "anonymous is just everybody who doesn't give their name", because that's not what the speaker meant. Everybody outside the group gets this. You can refer to a group of people as neo-nazis and generalize them, even though distinct groups may go about things different ways and nobody owns the trademark on the name. Anonymous is no different, they just like to feel different. You're not clever people.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Keeping "us" strong, is it? What makes you so sure that you aren't the cancer?
If Anonymous is anyone and everyone, how can it have an outside to have enemies in?
Don't bother trying that. Resistance is futile.
I think that a hack to steal credit card numbers and personal info sounds like a typical move for professional credit card number and personal info thieves. Inciting a horde of witless script kiddies to declare that they are SPARTACUS FOR THE LULZ is just a smart twist.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"hacker group gets hacked for tools used to perform further hacks" sounds about like the most likely headline here. if anything, i think that whomever made such tools available for people to gain access to is as responsible as sony is for failing at security. as i'm sure that the group as a whole didn't agree that "yes, our tools should be used by some individuals within our group for monetary gain"
... i have a hard time believing that the timing of this attack is mere coincidence.
further, i hate to break out the conspiracy card... but if you were under attack by a anonymous, what would be the best way to turn the public and various governments against them?
the usa has an agenda, like any other country. like any other group of citizens within a country. when the agenda of a group within a country at civil war lines up with the agenda of a foreign country, then funding follows. this was also true for the ussr in the cold war in latin america, but i don't see you talking about that, interestingly enough. its also still true today, around the world, for the usa, china, russia, india, etc.: countries mess with each other's internal affairs. even, and especially, within latin america. always has been true, is still true, always will be true. yet you only wish to focus on the usa doing this?
so in the end, your thinking points to two cognitive failures on your part:
1. the inability to see that there are other countries in the world that mess around with the internal affairs of others
its not the exclusive domain of the usa to do these things. it reveals you have a grudge, an obsession, not a valid global point of view or valid set of principles. maybe you think you have a set of principles, but currently your words boil down to "i don't like the usa." actually, it's fine not to like the usa, the usa has done plenty of things to dislike. however, you need to admit to yourself that you aren't motivated by justice or morality, you are only motivated by typical, story-as-old-as-time tribal chest thumping turf wars. because you won't condemn the other players in the world on the basis of your self-stated principles, you will only condemn the usa. you don't have to pick sides you know. it is actually logically coherent to condemn the usa AND europe AND iran AND china, all at the same time, for example. in fact, if you are motivated by principles and not empty tribal chest thumping, condemning all countries is in fact your only logically coherent line of thought
2. the inability to see that a country at war with itself is composed of organic citizens of that country that actually believe in a point of view that is the organic creation of those people
in other words, if the usa never existed in the first place, then those people fighting for their point of view (that the usa happens to, secondarily, support), they would still exist. by saying that these people wouldn't exist without the existence of the usa is very patronizing and condescending of you: that people outside the usa can't have their own motivations, their own self-realized ideas. to you, they can only be robotic puppets of some imaginary american overlord. for example: al qaeda. the usa gave it funding once. therefore, so goes the moron's reasoning, everything bad al qaeda does is the usa's fault. nevermind that al qaeda is motivated by things that has nothing to do with the usa, but has to do with their twisted view of islam and recreating the medieval caliphate. and that al qaeda has more enemies of this bizarre goal other than the usa, and if the usa never existed, al qaeda would be fighting those other enemies (and in fact, are fighting other enemies besides the usa). and nevermind that the usa was only a temporary ally in the cold war fight against the ussr. no, to you, only the usa can be a source of motivating ideas. everyone else in the world is a derivative reflection of what the usa thinks, for or against, never human beings with their own original thoughts and ideas. how fucking retarded and, frankly, racist of you
pure intellectual and logical fail on your part: you don't understand the world as a set of three dimensional players, you understand the world as only one player: the usa, and everyone else, friend and foe, only act because the usa caused them to do something. in your worldview, only the usa is a responsible player, everyone else, friend and foe, is just reacting. what a dimwitted, condescending way to view your fellow human beings. your anti-americanism has infected and destroyed your ability to perceive human beings and the world at large, your dimwitted mind only see shades of americanism and anti-americanism. you're a hyper-obsessed moron. that's not a baseless insult. that's an objective appraisal of your reasoning abilities
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When somebody speaks, you don't get to tell them what they meant.
This is incorrect, because you did not mean what you wrote right there.
I don't know if I'd call that civil war, more like dissension in the ranks, or mutiny or barratry, and a greater than average amount of anarchy.
Now if you wanted to see Anonymous in Civil War, you should hear the Boxxy story. She managed to divide the indivisible.
That's the problem with anarchists. They don't think they should have to play by the rules, are even opposed to playing by the rules. But let one of their own spread anarchy amongst their own group and then they tout a different ideology.
Either Anonymous has no leadership or this entire article is false.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Since when did my wife start posting to /. ?
-Space for rent
If there is no way to define anonymous then it is perfectly logical to blame anything done under the tag to anyone who uses the tag. By anonymous' own words anyone who uses the anonymous tag is anonymous. It's impossible for anonymous to deny anything attributed to anonymous.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All Anonymous means is one who dosn't give their identity [...]
No, that's what anonymous means. When you capitalize that first letter it's no longer a concept; it's a proper name representing a unique entity.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
I'm not Anonymous.
I am not Spartacus!
So... Japanese government is behind this? lol
I would have thought that the giant robots smashing the opposing server farms would have given that away...
Sony calling anon evil for the actions of this group is more or less no different then calling all Christians evil for the actions of Westboro baptist church, anyone can be a christian, and even take some portions of the christian beliefs out of context, yet you don't see the media or anyone hounding Christians as a whole for the actions of one group that claims to be Christians.
Or for that matter, calling all Muslims evil for the actions of Al Qaida (maybe a couple thousand people out of a population of well over 1 billion, or about 0.0002% of Muslims). But it sure happens far more than you might think.
I am officially gone from
And so far every one of them has f*cked up and screwed people over at every chance they've had.
Sony blew it multiple times.
Anon... well they're not trying to sell me anything or sue me so I don't care.
That's not homophobia. Or at least it's not homophobia from me, I'm merely the observer/reporter here. Notice the quotation marks around those words - Oddly enough those are actually quotations from what I've seen at /b/ and other places.
Apart from the quotations around "yes", they were totally unnecessary....
I'm afraid that's the lingo used in these places though. I'm not sure it's meant to be offensive to people who are actually gay (see the South Park episode about the changing meaning of the word fags), though it may well be. It's probably meant to be offensive to as many people as possible.
The suffix "-fag" is used extensively for anyone you don't like. And sometimes people you do like, or even yourself.
Is it to be encouraged? Probably not. What are you going to do to stop it though?
Does this soil the name of Anonymous or help it?
Does it matter either way?
No.
Kind of sounds like a good way to try to clear your name, blame some kind of rogue inside group... take 'swift action' on them (which can't be verified of course), then assure everyone that Anonymous is back to its moral, just ways.
the lulz just keep on coming
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
That's like spiders suddenly becoming social animals.
Spiders can be social. See for example http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14094404 about groups of spiders working together to build massive webs.See also http://www.pnas.org/content/105/31/10843.full for a take on some of the relevant science.
You missed one big, key element: Sony has a central leadership structure. Christianity does not. Various sects may, but not Christianity as a whole. Enough shit has gone on at Sony that you can tell it's rotten to the top. A lot of these things wouldn't have happened without upper management knowing about it.
well to be fair, they did invent the web :)... they are social, just among themselves ... no facebook though
Well, yeah. You need friends to properly use facebook.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
well.
if ANYONE who uses a pseudo-name online has a disagreement with anyone who has a pseudo-name online, then anonymous are fighting.
stop calling any specific group anonymous. everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone.
Perhaps they should change their name to Spartacus?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
In anarchy, the goals conflict is usually between people that want no rules vrs people who simply want no privileged class that has special rules just for themselves. The Wikileaks matter, for example, was largely driven by people (on Anon's side) who saw it as a class issue, with some class expecting to keep the government's actions private while claiming to have consensus from the very people they were lying to. Anonymous has always suffered from this split. You can try other models, such as serious hactivists vrs. 'just in it for the Lulz', but I doubt any of those models would predict much. Anti-Rules vrs. Anti-Rulers, OTH, seems to explain this, whether or not there's also a CIA mole or two involved.
Who is John Cabal?
Is it to be encouraged? Probably not. What are you going to do to stop it though?
Laugh at them and not take them at all seriously?
Unlike the rest of the internet, who, for some reason, really thinks that they are clever and somehow meaningful to the grand scheme of things.
The best reaction to have when encountering /b/-ese is to think "look a 14 year old boy escape from his chatroom and thinks he has something to say, how cute; now run along until you grow up and have something to say little boy", and then ignore them.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Ok, but how about "Anonymous is anyone who doesn't want to give their name and meets on 4-chan."? Or, "Anyone who says "Ima firin my Layzor!" when they hack" (or anyone who actually knows how to aim that "Layzor"). Or "Anyone who has unpacked a .JPG of a cute kitten in a hand and put those tools on a windows box". Personally, I'd go with "Anon is anyone who has actually used the tools some members of Anon distribute, to target something some members of Anon say is a bad thing." Even that definition though, is iffy. Is it only a lower bound of actually being a Windows script kiddie hactivist or better, or does it also set an upper bound. Is somone who learns about an Anonymous action suggestion from Ars Technica instead of 4 chan and joins in using Linux built in tools or custom software instead of BWRaeper.NET, still Anonymous?
Who is John Cabal?
This is a deliberate result of divisive interference - covertly engaged upon by the US Air Force Cyber Command.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Anonymous isn't an organization, it's a disorganization. Mst of the time it idles in pure chaos, every once in a while a large majority act in the same direction at the same time and something happens. There are no membership requirements or registries (except the sex offender registry). Anyone has just as much right to act in the name of anonymous as anyone else.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Well good luck with that, they don't seem to come to slashdot to consult the wiser, older people on use of language.
Former admins 'shitstorm', 'Nerdo', 'owen', 'blergh' and 'Power2All'
Sounds like anonymous was infiltrated by 5 guys with user names and some anonymous guy has sent these freebooters packing.
The big problem with Anonymous as a movement is that your standard wannabe revolutionary thinks it's cool and all, but also fancies himself becoming a notorious and powerful freedom fighter which kind of conflicts with the whole "nobody knowing who you are" ethos. No matter how rooted a movement is to being without leadership, membership and overarching strategic command, there will always be no shortage of guys who will offer themselves as a representative for the movement.
The powerful image of anonymous is a magnet to silly little boys who dream of gold oak leaves, lanyards and epaulets. The fantasy is that on the day of victory there will be hundreds of people in Guy Fawkes masks and identical suits, but the one in the center, leading them all will have a simple gold pin on his tie denoting his power and authority, how many boys must daydream of being him every day.
So many people have forgotten about the lulz and about doing random acts of anonymous jackassary like taking down anonops and PSN and generally pissing as many people off as you can because nobody can keep you accountable. Honestly, I am upset about not having PSN, because I like PSN, but at least the guy who did it gets what being an online anonymous troll is all about.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Breaking news: Anonymous meditation causes superconductivity.
But both ideas a key to attract undesirable people (Which is different then saying all the people who have these ideas are bad)
Bad people like the idea of no rules or laws, why because it make it easier for them to continue to be bad without any consequences, this idea can't last long as the strongest people will join together to control the weaker threw force and start to punish the people who break their laws. Then as time increases their laws will become more controlled and we are back to where we are now.
Bad People also like the no privileged class idea as they can start out on equal footing as the rest, they can use their Bad methods to get a quick heads up on everyone else then they will form a privileged class.
Human beings are social animals and laws and rules normally help them cope with living together.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
All information is incomplete. We only think terrorist groups are terrorists because our media spins it that way.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Nope. But it doesn't sound like the work of a government either. It's a very typical move for your average internet criminal. Either one of the "members" of anon is an identity thief on the side and decided to steal some info unilaterally, or another for-profit hacker decided to take advantage of anon's attack. Either way, this has nothing to do with the government and little to do with Anonymous as a group.
Omnominous?
anonymous_dude0: I need to get on psn or i'll loose my standing in the ladder.
anonymous_dude1: Oh Shit! sorry dude0. I've already pwnd it. The beotchez were wide open.
anonymous_dude0: @$^@^_dude1! you'll die for this!
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Jesus is President and CEO, you heathen.
This space for rent.
The real fact is those associated with the movement choose to take the identity of the whole movement. A movement that says, "We are Anonymous and we are gathered together to allow us to do whatever we want. And to prevent you from stopping us." If a Anonymous member rapes somebody and identifies it as an act for Anonymous, well, that sucks but you gave yourself an identity that centered around empowering people to do whatever you want without repercussion.
The correct response at that point is to discard your Anonymous identity, come out, and say 'I am not that nor do I support those who identify themselves with that, Anonymous. I am and I would not rape for the lulz.'
Now, the Christians. You do find people who are not Christian identifying the Religion as a whole with its freak outliers. The media in America is generally Christian-centric so it avoids doing this. The thing is, the Christian faith is not "We do things for the lulz and we band together in anonymity to make it difficult for you to catch and prosecute us." It has a relatively well defined set of morals and principles that you can point to and say, "No, Westboro, no, that is not what Jesus would want." You can generally separate a good Christian from a bad Christian. How do you separate a good Anonymous thug from a bad Anonymous thug?
And this long long speach comes to one point... That-- OOOO! QUARTER!
The Sony division that makes Vegas and so forth (the one that bought Sonic Foundry) doesn't seem evil. And I've not seen it screw anyone over.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
All information is incomplete. We only think terrorist groups are terrorists because our media spins it that way.
Q: What do you call people who use terror tactics for political ends?
A: Freedom fighters, if they' achieve those ends, terrorists if they don't.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If you haven't seen it screw anyone over you haven't seen anyone use the software... Files I have ripped from a Sony HDV camera into vegas crash the program and have to be processed using ffmpeg to make them usable. Sound Forge is alright but it hasn't changed since it was Sonic Foundry ~10 years ago. Fuck Sony.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Many of the homosexuals I know take offense to the word queer, why are you trying to offend them while correcting others?
In all seriousness, though, both words have been used to offend, why latch on to one and disregard the other? In either case you completely fail to take into account that the post you are complaining about meant that as a quote.