Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Takes Down Turkish Government Site

Posted by timothy on from the turkey-need-not-be-pejorative dept.

arisvega writes with word that the group of hackers known as Anonymous "has taken down a Turkish government website in a protest against recently introduced Internet filters that many consider to be censorship. They also appear to have published a manifesto. Turkey has a long history of Internet censorship, with the country's ISPs having blocked YouTube and numerous other sites in the the past couple of years." From the linked manifesto: "(The Turkish government) has blocked thousands of websites and blogs while abusive legal proceedings against online journalists persist. The government now wants to impose a new filtering system on the 22nd of August that will make it possible to keep records of all the people's internet activity. Though it remains opaque why and how the system will be put in place, it is clear that the government is taking censorship to the next level."

69 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. The website is by vajorie · · Score: 2

    http://www.tib.gov.tr/

    1. Re:The website is by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      http://www.tib.gov.tr/

      Or maybe you just slashdotted it...

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    2. Re:The website is by xenopain · · Score: 2

      For all trying to check whether the website is still down, TIB actually blocked connections out of Turkey to their website as a precaution against this attack. Soon they will cut the cord and claim their website is not affected at all.

    3. Re:The website is by vajorie · · Score: 1
      It was my jailbait for you all.

      slashdotted it...

      BTK had an announcement about TIB on a Turkish newspaper today, saying that they will get the IP addresses of the attackers and will "possibly punish them" for it (1, in Turkish). I posted the link so we all can have a touristic visit to a Turkish jail.

      PS. Turkish media are now reporting (most probably upon government directives) that the attacks were not successful despite initial reports.

    4. Re:The website is by vajorie · · Score: 3, Funny

      TIB actually blocked connections out of Turkey to their website as a precaution against this attack.

      DoS'ing yourself to avoid being attacked... They are experts in security!

      These fucktards regulate the internet in my country...

    5. Re:The website is by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's something I didn't quite get, what's so "horrible" about burning a flag? Are we so dependent on totems and fetishes, after all those years of civilization?

      Don't get me wrong, if someone loves his country or is proud of its achievements, or just likes it lots, all fine and nice. I enjoy living where I live as well and if push comes to shove, I might consider defending it with arms. But getting worked up about someone burning the flag? Fffft. If it keeps you warm, have fun. You bought it, it's your property, you may destroy it. No problem with that. Burn my (the one I own) flag and you pay for it!

      Yes, it's a symbol of a nation and I guess burning it is a statement that the person doing so does not like that nation. Ok. Accepted. You don't like my country. Now please explain why I should care.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:The website is by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ultimate security is in a disconnected computer. That part of the ISO27001 they got right.

      Now let's talk about that "availability" part of the trinity "security - integrity - availability".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:The website is by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I think I should give my cert back... You're correct.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Hacking increase by thecounterweight · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it just me or has the number of news stories relating to someone being hacked or DDOSd dramatically increased in the past few months?? From PSN (which I am a member of), to the wave of recent LulzSec and Anonymous stories, I cant ever remember a streak of hacking like this one. Loving equilibrium, I think It would be awesome if someone at least attempted to hack LulzSec. They seem less interested in making the world better like Anonymous, and more interested in just showing off their hax0rz skillz.

    1. Re:Hacking increase by DurendalMac · · Score: 2

      They've found that they're getting more and more media attention and loving it.

    2. Re:Hacking increase by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Anonymous has no agenda, because people or groups who are operating under the Anonymous banner do not communicate or coordinate with one another. Sure, the case might prove to be that in reality there's only one small active group that are actually competent and driven enough to pull off "advanced persistent threat" status - but it might as well be any number of people and groups involved. And even then, that group would probably shift, or new groups and people could take up the banner.

      Someone could start hacking charities tomorrow and claim to be "Anonymous".

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    3. Re:Hacking increase by xilefone1 · · Score: 2

      To be specific, media coverage about hacking has increased. Actual hacking activity might have increased. The two are very separate things.

    4. Re:Hacking increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're also getting more police attention. Now we get to find out how good they really are. It's not what you can do, it's what you can get away with.

      Unless the press get bored, which they almost certainly will. Then the public will forget and the police can go back to sleep.

    5. Re:Hacking increase by xantonin · · Score: 1

      They are called LulzSec for a reason, and I'm sure that reason is for the lulz. So I can't really agree with you that an organization that does things for the lulz should do anything more meaningful...

    6. Re:Hacking increase by xantonin · · Score: 1

      Every time I see a story about "anonymous" I just replace the word with "unknown people", and all the stories make more sense.

    7. Re:Hacking increase by UBfusion · · Score: 1

      What gets published in the media as "news" is heavily filtered and several criteria have to be met before an event becomes "news". One of the criteria is whether the item has brought enough ad clicks in the recent past and the PSN hack certainly did.

      Do you really think that the hacking of a minor gov site would make the news in e.g. CNN two years ago?

      The number of such news stories recently has increased but it's mainly positive feedback: the more publicity the villains get, the more they are at it.

    8. Re:Hacking increase by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Since when does "Anonymous" make the world; or anything else better?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    9. Re:Hacking increase by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      inevitably next up : the evil genius mastermind , "leader" of anonymous gets arrested on charges of raping a groupie in a hotel room whilst throwing child porn around in the streets. You're right, this seems to be turning into a boasting contest.

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  3. They could have been more successful if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... they could actually find a TR government site that works.

    1. Re:They could have been more successful if... by vajorie · · Score: 1

      Try this one. It works, and as a bonus, you can learn how to say "Citizen: The Shortcut to the State" (the site's title) in Turkish!

  4. Call me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... when they take the government down.

  5. EU membership by Hitman_Frost · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm really not sure we should be letting these guys into the EU until they start making some changes to the way they do things.

    1. Re:EU membership by robot256 · · Score: 2

      I dunno, man. Seems to me they're not all that far off.

    2. Re:EU membership by Narishma · · Score: 2

      They're just trying to preemptively comply with future EU legislation.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    3. Re:EU membership by dryriver · · Score: 2

      Its the other way around. Ever since the EU - France/Sarkozy and Germany/Merkel in particular - pushed a then EU-membership-eagerTurkey away in the mid 2000s with silly religious-geographic arguments, like "Turkey isn't and never will be a European Country", privacy-rights and other human rights in Turkey - like the right to peaceful protest/assembly - have become seriously eroded. Turkey in 2011 is a true Orwellian 1984 state where people are afraid to discuss politics or religion over the phone or internet, where going into important business meetings you are routinely asked to check your smartphone/mobile phone at the door, where anytime anything crime related happens, police magically get hold of 'detailed Internet records' of the perps immediately. It wasn't like this when Turkey was still headed for EU membership. All of this happened AFTER the EU basically stopped/stalled/pseudo-rejected Turkey's memberhip talks.

      --
      Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    4. Re:EU membership by vajorie · · Score: 1

      I'm really not sure we should be letting these guys into the EU until they start making some changes to the way they do things.

      But, my highness, please... let us in... it's so warm and cozy in there!

      /sarcasm

    5. Re:EU membership by vajorie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Turkey in 2011 is a true Orwellian 1984 state where people are afraid to discuss politics or religion over the phone or internet, where going into important business meetings you are routinely asked to check your smartphone/mobile phone at the door, where anytime anything crime related happens, police magically get hold of 'detailed Internet records' of the perps immediately.

      I live in Turkey: all of this is outright lies except the last one, which occurs "elsewhere" as well (as in "think of the children").

    6. Re:EU membership by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Don't worry the don't have snowballs chance in hell of ever being admitted. The only reason they have not been shown the door yet was because the US was supporting them but that is no longer the case.

    7. Re:EU membership by chromas · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that's just exactly what they want you to believe!

    8. Re:EU membership by UBfusion · · Score: 1

      +1 insightful, precisely my thought too.

  6. Re:One reason for censorship by Securityemo · · Score: 2

    Creationist retard?

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  7. Concerns.. by laxguy · · Score: 1

    Is no one else concerned with the fact that these guys get to do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, and there are no repercussions? I understand the way Anonymous works, it's difficult to track these people down. But you can't tell me that with the recent trend in public hacks that many of them aren't performed by the same group of people.

    Anonymous doesn't have any type of real leadership, and there has never been a very active group of core members, it's more or less "hey we're going to attack this site" and then a bunch of basement dwellers rise up and start DDoS'ing. After they get bored they leave and move on.. But many of these recent attacks have seemed more organized than previous Anonymous doings.

    Are people not concerned with their actions? I understand that so far they've been doing things that people can agree with "LOLSONYREVIL" "TURKEYCENSORINTERNETS" and blah blah. But the more attention we give them, the bolder they're going to become.. what happens when they decide that they want to fuck with the US or the some major company in the States.. I don't think people will be quite so willing to wave off their actions then.

    1. Re:Concerns.. by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Okay. If you're so concerned, go track them down then.

      Or what do you propose? Warrantless raids/espionage on proxy servers/bots/Tor nodes all over the world? Because that's what it would realistically take to catch "them".

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    2. Re:Concerns.. by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Attendum: I agree that it's not a good thing that you can get away with evil/bothersome things like carding and vandalism over the net. I'm just saying that it's pretty much impossible to track someone who doesn't wish to be tracked when the only information you have is the IP address of the last proxy in a chain stretching across the globe. That's just the reality of the situation.

      The only way to remove that would either be to remove all technical possibility of exploitation and attack from the net, or removing all technical possibility of anonymity.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    3. Re:Concerns.. by preaction · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned with what happens when the so-far-silent majority decides they are a threat and does something. It can only mean another step on the road to Treacherous Computing.

    4. Re:Concerns.. by xenopain · · Score: 1

      How much traction do you think their actions will get if they do that?

    5. Re:Concerns.. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      They've been getting arrested. The law moves relatively slowly, but if they keep hacking different sites, eventually they will get caught. Just like the Washington DC sniper.....sure, one snipe and he got away with it, but when he kept doing it, he got caught. And my guess is they will keep doing it, because excitement is addicting and intoxicating.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Concerns.. by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Interesting point, but if we're talking about a small and competent hacker group, they technically wouldn't need "traction" to operate. They'd need motivation, though. Then the question is, what motivates them?

      If they're normal human beings they'd stop when the damage of their actions wasn't outweighed by their perception of "greater good"/"the target had it coming".

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    7. Re:Concerns.. by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Or moles, warrants for access to server logs and wiretaps, and basically all the tools that are already used to track organized criminals. I know they like to bill themselves as these supernatural, everywhere-and-nowhere crusaders, but they're not. They're a bunch of losers and man-children who, until recently, didn't attract enough attention to be worth taking down. That may be changing.

    8. Re:Concerns.. by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're probably just male twenty-thirtysomethings who're in it for excitement, like it seems most every member of a hacking group throughout history. I've studied this a bit, and it's fascinating how similar their behaviour seems to be.

      And if they're "internet-based" (eg, accepting members from online) you could infiltrate them. Warrants probably woudn't be as effective, though, since you need the jurisdiction involved to cooperate. And you're basically still relying on the attacker to make a mistake, in practice.

      I think it's this that's my basic point, that the entire "game" seems to be played with the attacker's advantage. It seems too easy to "commit the perfect crime", over and over again.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    9. Re:Concerns.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anonymous hardly does any harm.
      They are only effective because the public reacts to their actions.

      For example, Anonymous helped the revolution in Tunisia to happen. On their own, Anonymous were useless, but the Tunisians reacted to what Anonymous did and this fueled the revolution.
      Anonymous is effective because the population gets angry at the government or the population realizes the government is in reality weak and powerless ("The government failed miserably at protecting itself from HACKERS - what the hell do we have to fear, then?").
      Anonymous works as a tiny spark, then populations of countries around the world must provide the fuel.

      DoS attacks, even hacking are not that bad at all. These things are at most inconveniences.
      I know, you will probably tell me "Look how they bankrupted ACS:Law and nearly destroyed HB Gary! They can be dangerous."
      But if the population did not like Anonymous and cared about this issue (for example, imagine Anonymous hacked a charity for homeless children and stole the money), the people of Anon would become a lot easier to find. People who know something would start talking, the police would receive more help (i.e. better training, tools, more funding, etc.)...
      Anonymous are protected in large part because nobody really hates them. If the government decided to give the police a few million dollars to help find Anonymous, most people would scream "In this economy?? You want to spend millions just to find kids who do pranks on websites??".

      Note also:
      We're not talking of legalizing what Anon does, so there is no issue of "if you say it's ok for Anon, then it should be ok for everyone else, even bad guys"
      We're only talking about moral approval.
      I approve of what Anon does because they go after powerful people and groups (e.g. corporations and governments) who do a lot of harm to society. I would not approve the same actions if they were done to cause harm to innocent or good people. It's like how murder, abduction and assault are illegal except when the police does it to put a criminal in jail. (I know, Anon are not the police... my point is, some actions are not illegal or wrong by themselves; instead, whether those actions are wrong depends on the situation).

      Finally:
      Laws, voting, etc... It's useless.

      - Corporations pay off politicians. They help the politicians they like to get elected. If this fails, they can still pay the politicians we elected so that those politicians act in the interests of the corporations. We can not know in advance which politicians will not let corporations bribe them either. It all depends on luck: hopefully, we'll be lucky enough to elect the right guy but since we can't really know who he is until he's been elected.... You get my point.

      - Using laws against corporations and politicians: it doesn't work. Many judges seem biased towards certain issues, or they simply tend to rule in the interests of the people who made them judges. Also, corporations can hire LOTS of expensive lawyers so Mr. Average Joe can't really hope to successfully sue a corporation who did something wrong to him.

      - Changing the laws: it doesn't work in indirect democratic systems, where laws are made by the government. If the politicians are bribed by corporations or care about their own interests, they won't make laws that benefit society.
      A few countries have Direct Democracies, such as Switzerland. Over there, any citizen can, at any time, suggest a new law or change a law. There are 2 phases:
      1) Get enough people to sign your proposal (it has to be a fixed number, for example 1 million). This is done to show many people are interested by your idea, and putting your proposal up for voting is not a waste of time.
      2) If you get enough people to sign, then the entire country is asked to vote on it. What politicians think of your law suggestion is irrelevant, the population is the only one who makes the decision. If the majority is in favor of your idea, your suggestion becomes a new law.

      The o

    10. Re:Concerns.. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Is no one else concerned with the fact that these guys get to do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, and there are no repercussions? I understand the way Anonymous works, it's difficult to track these people down. But you can't tell me that with the recent trend in public hacks that many of them aren't performed by the same group of people. Anonymous doesn't have any type of real leadership, and there has never been a very active group of core members, it's more or less "hey we're going to attack this site" and then a bunch of basement dwellers rise up and start DDoS'ing. After they get bored they leave and move on.. But many of these recent attacks have seemed more organized than previous Anonymous doings. Are people not concerned with their actions? I understand that so far they've been doing things that people can agree with "LOLSONYREVIL" "TURKEYCENSORINTERNETS" and blah blah. But the more attention we give them, the bolder they're going to become.. what happens when they decide that they want to fuck with the US or the some major company in the States.. I don't think people will be quite so willing to wave off their actions then.

      I hear you brother! And I'd be with you too, but, but - all those young people flaunting their youth, and all those women flaunting their their, um, attractiveness, and all those successful people flaunting their success, and all those people doing things and thinking and standing up to the pricks and threatening the bullies. Oh I'm with you brother - if we don't stop this now people *will* walk on my lawn.

      Dick

  8. Doesn't sound difficult by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    How big of a pipe does a country like Turkey really have?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Doesn't sound difficult by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Turkey is a G20 member, and has higher GDP than most EU countries (if it were a EU member, it'd rank 7th, above Sweden, Finland and Denmark).

    2. Re:Doesn't sound difficult by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Looks about five or six inches long.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    3. Re:Doesn't sound difficult by FatherDale · · Score: 1

      Awesome.

    4. Re:Doesn't sound difficult by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Filth! And the wrong sort of filth too!

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    5. Re:Doesn't sound difficult by arisvega · · Score: 1

      if it were a EU member, it'd rank 7th

      I hardly think so, especially in the longrun.

      If it were an EU member, there would be very many standards and procedures it would have to comply with. Labor would not be that cheap, child labor would be banned, running factories would be much more expensive and complicated (and less dangerous for the workers), specialized positions would demand degrees, so overall production costs would be much higher. Since Turkey ranks near to last on technology research for the "western" nation it is supposed to be, it would not have anything interesting to export and make money out of (like Austria's robotics, Norway's drilling experts, Sweden's missile technology, Denmark's clockwork farming)

      Turkey is a G20 member because its many-tens-of-millions strong workforce is in poverty and under a tight leash from its government, and will work for food. So almost all production is the government's to play with.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  9. It is against the censorship regulations. by xenopain · · Score: 1

    It is not related to the elections at all - it is against the the censorship regulations that will come into effect on August 22, which is proposed by TIB.

  10. Re:One reason for censorship by Palmsie · · Score: 1, Funny

    Redundant.

    --
    Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
  11. homosexuality censorship too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They also block sites that mention the fact that Ataturk was homosexual. (Ataturk is founder of the nation)
    They think that is a blemish on the nation so they stick their head in the sand. it is why they have blocked youtube a couple of times for example.

  12. Turkey is nice enough to by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    giving shelter to Syrian citizens (refugees) from the persecution from the Syrian government & military right now...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:Turkey is nice enough to by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Yes, and America drops food after we bomb the shit out of an area. No matter how desperately these people need the food, it doesn't make up for the bombing.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    2. Re:Turkey is nice enough to by arisvega · · Score: 1

      giving shelter to Syrian citizens

      Last time they did that was when Israel attacked the Lebanese population, and Syrians thought they were next- the queues of Syrians outside of Turkish embassies were enormous, and the "solution" the Turkish administration came up with was simple: fifty euros a head per visa. Not that good considering the typical size of a Syrian family. Do they still sound "nice enough" to you?

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  13. GDP vs GDP per capita by Patron · · Score: 1

    The GDP per capita however would be 2nd from the bottom, between Bulgaria and Romania (source: wikipedia).

    1. Re:GDP vs GDP per capita by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yeah, GDP is capita is how rich the populace is (very roughly speaking). Total GDP is how rich the country as a whole is. So, speaking of "how big of a pipe does Turkey have", GDP is the relevant metric.

    2. Re:GDP vs GDP per capita by Patron · · Score: 1

      You're right, I was just a little confused with your comparison. I was just thinking that GDP per capita would be then be more relevant since Turkey has more than 3 times the population than Sweden, Finland and Denmark combined. Now Poland on the other hand is roughly half as large, populated and "rich" compared to Turkey.

  14. At first i hoped it was for another reason by markass530 · · Score: 1

    at first I Hoped it was because of turkey's continued denial of the Armenian Genocide.

  15. Re:One reason for censorship by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    it's using retarded people to make one feel better about having just as little clue as anyone else as to why there is something and not nothing.

    hah.

  16. Re:One reason for censorship by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    I don't think it's redundant. It's useful to distinguish how someone is retarded, such as Creationist, Republican, or Cubs Fan.

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  17. Re:Dear "Anonymous": I'd like to ask U a question by Yeknomaguh · · Score: 1

    This is completely different than filtering malware sites and the like. You would do well to read up on the problem in Turkey before posting. The Turkish government has lately been censoring the crap out of any journalist who speaks poorly of it. This blanket censorship has widely been seen as the next step of censoring the masses. This might help educate you a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Turkey

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Here's what you do by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Every time you find an Anonymous person. You cut them apart, with power tools on television. I mean it's all fun and games when you go after pussies who run banks and movie studios in the US but countries like Turkey or Russia's grasp of 'due process' is abstract, at best.

    There's going to be a new reality show on tv - 'Pressure Drop', where they just take nerds and kick them out the helicopter.

    And I'm ok with that.

    1. Re:Here's what you do by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Every time you find an Anonymous person. You cut them apart, with power tools on television. I mean it's all fun and games when you go after pussies who run banks and movie studios in the US but countries like Turkey or Russia's grasp of 'due process' is abstract, at best.

      There's going to be a new reality show on tv - 'Pressure Drop', where they just take nerds and kick them out the helicopter.

      And I'm ok with that.

      Oh come now, we all see through your thinly veiled attempts to prove you are not a leader of Anonymous; Your overly outrageous statements actually support this view.

      How do you explain the fact that many Anonymous members claim that they were secretly taking direction from you!?

      You will be punished for your crimes against no one in particular!

    2. Re:Here's what you do by gelfling · · Score: 1

      It's all funny when Anonymous goes after brie nibbling western liberal states and the occasional innocuous fat target like a television network. Yesterday they went after the Turkish government, not known for their shyness when persecuting Kurds and Armenians. Imagine the fun times when they go after Vladimir Putin.

      It's like those tools who 'accidentally' stumbled into Iran or North Korea? And you mean mommy and daddy didn't bail them out? Why I am incensed at those country's lack of compassion and tolerance for youthful hijinks.

  20. Re:Dear Anonymous: A question... apk by byornski · · Score: 1

    Yeah, triple isn't really what most people call "MANY orders of magnitude".....

  21. Re:Can be done by a 1 person in less than... by UBfusion · · Score: 1

    You didn't say how many more minutes it would take before I hear a knock on my door... Thank you for helping me get arrested.

  22. Re:Dear Anonymous: A question... apk by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Is that censorship? Depends. Opt-in (or even opt-out), it's not. If you filter "for" me without me having a say in it, and you being the government, then yes, it is censorship, even if the intent is good.

    Censorship is or is not. There is no "good" censorship, and neither is there "limited" censorship. If you're sincere about protecting your people, offer them a free filter, maybe make it mandatory for ISPs to carry and advertise it to their customers so nobody could possibly claim he didn't know about its existence, but the ultimate choice has to be in the citizen's hand.

    Everything else IS censorship. Intent does not matter.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. There is not such thing as a "group"... by w4rl5ck · · Score: 1

    ... called "Anonymous". A group is defined as not only people sharing the same motives and taking concurrent actions, but also some "working together" routine, organization, and structure.

    All of this is missing in Anonymous; it's more like a swarm, then a group.

    This critic is similar to that one could state against the idea of having a "Anonymous Leader" arrested in Spain.

    There is no defined leader in a swarm of birds, as they are not really a group; they just coincidently fly together into the same direction. If you are interested in such logical rule-based swarm "auto"-coordination, check out the Sanderling, which is a little bird occupying many seasides. You will see hunt through flat waters in something that looks like "groups" of birds, but in reality, those are not at all tied together, and just coincidently appear in the same place at the same time doing the same thing.