Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Creates Its Own Social Network
An anonymous reader writes "Google has reportedly banned a handful of Anonymous members from Google+ (it's not exactly clear how many accounts were shut down). The hacktivist group likened Google's actions to the stories of activists being banned from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as governments blocking various websites using Internet censorship tools. As a result, Anonymous has decided to create its own social network: Anonplus."
Talk about an oxymoron.
How can you have a social network while maintaining full anonymity ? It's basically impossible -- how will your "friends" recognise you ? You can have a pseudonym / alias / ID, but then the server will have to authenticate you, so at some level down the stack anonymity will be lost... and your server will be target #1 for police and intelligence agencies.
... all we need to register you is: Your name, address, parent's name, pet's name, birth weight, DNA sample (hair or saliva), and $29.95 for the cranial implant. We can also import information from your MySpace or Facebook. Welcome to Anon+.
'Cloud terrorism' please. They care giving 'cyber' a bad name.
The NAACP were called "terrorists" by the Southern Republicans too...
Google had banned fake names. I don't like that policy, but it isn't the same as targeting specific activist groups (though it does collectively harm them).
Sounds just like a sting operation to me. If you are anonymous please go over there to hand over your IP address and a chat log of all your activities. Thank you, The Management
When it's anonymous?
At the time of writing, the forum already had over 100 registered members.
... and of the 100, 89 of them were CIA, 9 FBI, and 2 Interpol.
A terrorist is a freedom fighter that lost the battle.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just be sure to choose a unique password.
Why don't they use one of the many open source social network engines like Elgg or Anahita? Rolling your own engine would require a huge amount of time and support, not to mention security concerns that are hard to avoid and catch without a full support team that you can trust.
I was only 28,931 registrations away from having a 6-digit UID
This isn't new, there was a well known group that spammed the various Chans for many years trying to set-up this kind of thing a few years ago (mostly because the founders kept getting banned from Chans for posting child porn).
The problem being it required giving up anonymity. Even using a fake name isn't in the true spirit of the Chan Anons and will get you labelled as a "tripfag" (trip codes being used as the authentication method for non-Anonymous posting).
No smart (or old) anon would join such a place because it screams "Governments please monitor me!". Anons who want to be involved in activism need to hide their activity in a crowd of unrelated activity, which is what the Chans used to be perfect for. Setting up a dedicated site just makes it easier to monitor.
Relating Anonymous to NAACP is a slap in the face to every individual who every fought for equal rights.
Gone!
You don't have to tell the truth when you fill out your profile.
Nonetheless current social networks are built on a centralized topology, requiring all views and change requests to go through a central location. This is a weakness both from a civil rights perspective and a reliability perspective. A decentralized social network would be awesome. Usenet was pretty much this way, wasn't it? I thought Diaspora could work like this as well.
They have a full public forum on the website discussing the implementation. Worth a look. Hosted on Zetaboards.
No, not really.
A terrorist is someone who attempts to force some form of change in public opinion/behavior by means of random violence.
Many terrorists consider themselves "freedom fighters", but they really aren't. If you're fighting for "freedom" then you restrict yourself to legitimate military targets, and you don't kidnap and ransom people.
Terrorists use the populace as human shields, deliberately hide their weapons and identities, deliberately target civilians, and are just generally subhuman scum.
relating any terrorist to all terrorists is a slap in the face to every terrorist.
How does Google know who the members of "Anonymous" are? Aren't they, ummm, anonymous?
No sig today...
How are they going to keep the undesirables out? Or in? Or wherever it is that they keep the undesirables?
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.
Imagine some country invaded/occupied the USA, would the rednecks with AR15s be called "terrorists" by the American people? I think not.
I don't think they'd be using the euphemism "Insurgent", either.
No sig today...
Once you strip back the national mythology, many supposedly admirable revolutions in history had the underdogs going after targets with only a tangential connection to the military. Much recent scholarship on the American Revolution, for example, has focused on how the revolutionaries terrorized those they considered Loyalists. Homes were burned down and innocent people were hanged simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about independence from Britain.
Perhaps there is a line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter", but it's awfully hard to draw without losing a rosy view of one's own country's history.
They should just use friendface.
Now with free rootkit? Seriously, trusting them would be idiotic.
Whoa there dude! Check your keyboard, somebody might have slipped you a Dvorak.
It doent matter at all if Anonymous is a government sockpuppet or a "honest" movement. The outcome of their actions is all that will count. They adhere to the same fallacys as everybody, and the rich and mighty of this would could have gotten no bigger present than this bunch of helpless, confused, agressive kids wich fight with their anger. The tiny bit of power they have makes it only better, more laughs for these on top. We, the normal people wont benefit from this ape-circus whatsover.
The hope is that everybody eventually will get really angry against everybody else, rich or poor, leader or slave, jew, christ, moslem, hindu or whoever. War and hate is the requirement for further deepening of the omnipresent slavery. Man is enslaving himself.
If everybody would become aware of his own intolerance and hate, we would have no longer war and poverty.
And make no mistake, the goal wich Anonymous states here, Privacy is ok. The mood in wich this happens is the mistake. To follow the right path, but already with the wrong attitude, and so they are fighting their own goal, and have already lost.
By your definition the U.S. government can be labelled a terrorist organization. There's plenty of documented cases where they haven't restricted themselves to military targets and have kidnapped people.
While it's true that enemies tend to get labeled terrorists, I'd rather define a terrorist as a fighter who makes the other side win.
Historically, terror acts have been perpetrated with advantage if you have enough diplomatic or raw force to justify it, but if your side is the weaker and oppressed one, just don't bother.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Much recent scholarship on the American Revolution, for example, has focused on how the revolutionaries terrorized those they considered Loyalists.
The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.
Homes were burned down and innocent people were hanged simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about independence from Britain.
Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?
These questions matter. If you're not asking them, you don't care about the truth; you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.
By your definition the U.S. government can be labelled a terrorist organization.
Yes, yes it can. What's your point?
Dilbert RSS feed
Anonminus would have been more appropriate.
...deliberately hide their... identities
Ah yes
of course not
absolutely.. I'm sure these people are completely innocent
moi? jamais!
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Isn't an anonymous social network just what we've been calling for? If we can overcome the privacy issues and still have it useful then this could be great. I don't see how google can kick anonymous off their network.
I would not be too much surprised, anyone who has actually read "1984" would not be, to learn a few years down the line that Anonplus was secretly run by the NSA
The point of the gp (IMO) is not that terrorists don't do these things, but that every 'legitimate' military force on earth does them too. For example, the US has been making drone strikes in pakistan that target civilian populations in the HOPE of MAYBE getting a terrorist too.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-- *catches breah* HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Seriously, are these guys for real? This is gonna be hilarious, one way or another.
While it's true that enemies tend to get labeled terrorists
I don't recall even Fox News naming enemy combatants as terrorists. At worst they're called insurgents, redefined to mean "enemy combatants resisting an illegal occupation." The terrorist label is seemingly reserved for hostile acts against the populace, e.g. blowing up a city square.
For one, we're talking about "Disrupting the Internet" vs. "War". Your choice of emotionally charged wording does not change that.
Secondly, define "legitimate military targets." Are not they different for every group? Legitimate depends on your point of view.
By "recent", I mean after the formation of the American national mythology, and that means works of history from long before America's problems with the Middle East. It's hard to call a 1940s historian's recounting of the burning of Loyalist homes (one Wikipedia citation for the event) as "a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east."
It's tiresome that any attempt to show the full picture of early American history is attacked as sympathy with America's enemies.
A matter of policy. Look to the tarring and feathering activities of the Sons of Liberty. Many of the men who supported these actions were later Founding Fathers. The Committees of Safety that superseded the Sons of Liberty were even worse.
Better get some bandages for that bleeding heart of yours.
... of being anonymous if google knew who to ban, are they?
Yes, I'm sure the founders had very high ideals of liberty and freedom for the natives of the land they occupied.. "Oh, and by the way, domine domine domine, you're all Catholics now."
Two way street if there ever was one... but with only one lane apparently
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
It's not kidnapping it's "extraordinary rendition".
I'm in Saudi Arabia, head honcho of oppressive fanatics, but you know, it's a lot safer than medium sized cities in the US. I have little chance of being mugged, burgled or robbed.
What you read on US news is there to scare Americans from leaving the US to find out how nice the rest of the world is.
I thought they already had a social network? Isn't it called IRC?
Your ass. George Bush, about ten congresses, and Barrack Obama have thrown that word around, til it's almost meaningless. Throw in all the cops and activist groups who define a misbehaving child as being "terroristic", and the word has lost all value. Some punk kid tells another punk, "I'm gonna tear your head off, and piss down the hole under it!" he is immediately branded a terrorist.
FFS, dicking around with electronic records does NOT constitute terrorism.
Pull your head out of your ass, take a few deep breaths so as to get some oxygen to your poor starved brain, and just TRY to think about what you've said.
Totally
Fucking
Meaningless
Soundbyte
Drivel
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Anonymous stays anonymous to avoid getting caught. They use nicknames or handles and not real names. A social network would defeat their purpose unless it is a fake one to capture IP addresses and passwords to hack more sites. It makes as much common sense as fighting cockroaches with Viagra. Most likely this Anonplus was created for the lulz and will fold faster than Google Wave did! :)
What next telnet BBSes and ASCII Art? No SSH pure telnet unencrypted Systems? :)
If you are anonymous, you don't care.
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/good-luck-proxies.jpg
So they are bombing at random? Well since 2004 72% of all Pakastanis have been terrorists. 92% more recently.
Or maybe the targeting is a bit better than you think.
http://pakistansurvey.org/about/drones
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I would disagree, and say that "acts of terror" is pretty much a meaningless phrase anyways.
Sure you have "terrorists" killing civilians in a meaningless or near meaningless manner, but the US military does that on a even larger scale and throw in all the torture and it is pretty easy to see which side are the bad guys and who is actually engaged in the the worst acts of terror.
terror is used by everyone to wage war, keep the peace, or just get noticed. It is even a huge part of our judicial system (that is what making an example out of someone means).
But gorilla tactics have been used effectively against larger forces throughout history and at its core gorilla tactics might not rely on terror but they sure can inspire it.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
There is a big difference in striking an area that may contain civilians, because a military target is present as well, and sending someone in to blow up a pizza shop full of innocent civilians just trying to get lunch.
Read the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, the parts covering the terrorist's favorite tactic, human shields:
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. - Geneva Convention IV, Article 28
So, for example: the fact that Moammar Gadhafi sticks his secret bunker under a "public housing" apartment building does NOT render that building immune to military strikes designated to take the motherfucker out.
It's more than that. There's a line of revisionism which states basically that not only were the US revolutionaries terrorists, but that their complaints against Britain ranged from unfounded to trivial, that the colonists were actually being coddled compared to those back at home, and that the whole revolution was unjustified.
so... activism == terrorism now eh? nice to know.... ...
short of them causing actual human harm (death etc) they are just activists. pulling stunts that get attention does NOT equal terrorist attacks. its simply good marketing. and YOU ought to be happy that *someone* is standing up for your freedoms. allowing the ability for the government to control your ability to communicate is not a matter which should not be taken lightly.
WOLVERIIIIINES!!!!!1!
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Or is that triplicity? Either way, I'm stumped by this. I find it hard to believe the FBI would actually expect Anonymous to fall for such an obvious honeypot, and only slightly easier to believe Anon would expect the same of the G-men. Seems like a fishing (or phishing) expedition by someone, hoping to snag something useful. All I know for sure is I'm not going to register an account there.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
So if the CIA operates out of the WTC, that made it a legitimate target?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I thought this was their website/forum: http://www.whatis-theplan.org/
You're right. One fought for the civil rights of only blacks. Anonymous is fighting for the civil and moral rights of everyone.
Relating the NAACP, a racial supremacist group, to actual civil rights activists is just wrong.
Not always. Most people consider the Taliban to be terrorists, because they use suicide bombings and random shootings to kill Muslims whom they view as insufficiently devout. A while back (before the Pakistani military pushed them out) they outlawed things like dancing or women going out in public. If someone violated those rules, their names would get announced on the radio that night, and they would have maybe twelve hours to get the hell out of dodge, or else their organs would be decorating the town square.
I don't think even the Taliban members thought they were "freedom fighters" in this situation.
It's true that freedom fighters are often labeled terrorists by their opponents. It is not true that all terrorists are freedom fighters.
replying to myself FTW...
moreover - of all the things this group might accomplish, hardening the internet from REAL terrorist attacks WILL be one of them. admins are no longer taking the threat lightly; and holes are being closed all over the place. this is a good thing. and at least it is being done someone(s) who doesn't have the aim of causing true damage.
"Oh, and by the way, domine domine domine, you're all Catholics now."
Erm... none of the Founding Fathers were Catholic. They were mostly Deists and Non-Anglican Protestants, who had left Britain specifically because the Anglican Church were being a bunch of dicks about allowing people to worship (or not) as they chose to.
Anonymous announcing they're setting up their own social network will result in the FBI registering in droves...
xkcd gave us a preview
Question: how could anonymous register a domain name without giving away their name?
Southern Democrats
I thought they already did this. Isn't this what that "4chan" doohickey is supposed to be?
Nice diversion there - *golf clap*
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
"It's a TRAP!"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Terrorists use the populace as human shields, deliberately hide their weapons and identities, deliberately target civilians, and are just generally subhuman scum.
By those criteria the US government (and mine) are terrorists.
And I'm not about to puke over the political correctness bullshit. I'm going to reverse my nutrition intake.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's all in the definition. When you label everyone a terrorist, you can't miss when striking.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's much better to use proper Social Networking App, like RetroShare. It gives all you need, and even more. It's option that really gives you privacy.
Lots of people here claim the Anonymous social networking site is a honeypot.
But let's say it is not - then it's an even worse idea. Do you seriously want to put all of your "private" details up on a site run by a group that screws with people just for the LOLs?
Having it be an FBI honeypot is the BEST scenario for the site.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm guessing you have a penis? I hear that the place isn't quite as nice if you have a vagina.
Anonymous isn't fighting for shit. They are worthless troll organization with regard for no one except themselves.
Thy have no purpose. They serve no purpose. They haven't verities anyone, anywhere.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why are everybody signing up with real information in Myspace/Facebook/Google/NextDumbIdea anyway? Back in the BBS days, everybody used aliases.
Yes, I am that old...
A terrorist is a freedom fighter that lost the battle.
This is disgusting. You're only contributing the the misconception that "terrorist" is "someone we dislike".
Thanks for furthering things in that direction, you moron.
Don't trust Google and Facebook with your personal information! Store it with Anonymous instead!
The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.
Convenient: if the facts don't fit your biases, dismiss the people presenting the facts as biased and move on. It helps if you throw in some outrageous hyperbole, too. (In reality, show me anyone who is trying to draw the moral equivalence you suggest, and I'll show you someone who is regarded by any serious historian as a loon.) Meanwhile, back in the real world, the fact that many of the American Revolutionaries were, in fact, by modern standards, out-and-out terrorists is something that's been known for decades.
Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?
These questions matter. If you're not asking them, you don't care about the truth; you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.
Indeed they do; and if you actually care about the answers, you'll do some research. And if you do that, you'll quickly learn that GPP's point is entirely correct: no matter how noble their cause, every revolutionary group in history, including those of the years leading up to 1776, has done things that we'd label terrorism (IIRC, a word that came out of the French Revolution) by modern standards. So have the governments they were fighting, of course. Revolutions are ugly, ugly things, inevitably turning families and friends and neighbors against each other, and even of the best of them quickly descend into horror. This is something that those who casually call for revolution against the modern US government should keep in mind.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You just can't use old Firesign Theater references here. Maybe try for a 'In Soviet Russia' joke or something.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That tittle belongs to MySpace, followed by all the copycats, then Facebook and Tweeter (and copycats alike). There nothing "social" in social networks.
I don't think that anonymous means a bad thing, but I do think that the days of centralised stuff should end. Everybody is just moving from one central problem to another, and I exclude me on this one, even while apparently I already am on g+ even if I have never signed there, all I have is a gmail account which I am closing for obvious reasons. It is worth to rescue the idea of a decentralised network that will respect your privacy, not demand your full details only to sell advertising, yes the platform may be very cool and all, but there are limits. I am proposing to the anonymous group to use our communication protocol which allows you to exchange messages with any platform in an (if you want) anonymous way, or 'not demanding every single detail about you' way. http://s13.zetaboards.com/anonplus/topic/6803256/ or http://wirez.zenopen.org/ if you want to look With all the power of open source why is everybody just running like crazy to the new 'control/restrict me' website? I just don't get people.
Perhaps there is a line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter", but it's awfully hard to draw without losing a rosy view of one's own country's history.
True. When Menachem Begin (prime minister of Israel) met Anwar Sadat (premier of Egypt), he greeted him as a "fellow terrorist". Both were hard-line military types. They put together the deal that has kept Israel and Egypt from fighting for almost 40 years now.
4chan wasn't enough?
Exactly. I Am Spartacus.
No, a terrorist is someone who TERRORISES through acts or threats of violence against CIVILIAN targets to achieve political change. If someone plants a command detonated mine and uses it to blow up a military convoy that is a legitimate act of war. If they use the same mine to blow up a school bus full of kids that is an act of terrorism.
The definition IS CLEAR and HAS BEEN CLEAR since it came about. The "terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side" is bullshit propagated by people who support violence against civilians as a means of effecting political change.
The insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq get called terrorists because they fucking go after civilian targets as well as military ones. And yes most nations have at some point in time committed acts which now would be called terrorism. Instead of white-washing this by perverting the meaning of "terrorism" we need to own up to it and stop that shit.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
who suspects that this story is entirely BS?
Don't they already have 4chan for their social networking? Isn't that sufficient?
Force public opinion via random violence? The same thing could be said to describe many a "legitimate" government. The only difference between a terrorist and any other form of violence is marketing.
It could also be adequately explained by the following quote:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" (Hanlon's or Heinlein's razor)
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
I don't think there's anything in the term "freedom fighter" which justifies these restrictions. You are simply trying to keep people you don't like from using a title with positive associations. People can be ruthless bastards and still desire freedom.
And the term "legitimate military target" raises another question: by whose's rules? A medieval knight would consider an enemy lord's serfs to be perfectly legitimate targets: after all, if you kill them, the enemy has a hard time keeping his army equipped. Is he a terrorist?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
By "recent", I mean after the formation of the American national mythology, and that means works of history from long before America's problems with the Middle East. It's hard to call a 1940s historian's recounting of the burning of Loyalist homes (one Wikipedia citation for the event) as "a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east."
Fair enough - I figured you were referring to the more recent trend of pointing out such incidents any time someone uses the word "terrorism". You know, the way you just did.
It's tiresome that any attempt to show the full picture of early American history is attacked as sympathy with America's enemies.
It is tiresome that any attempt to criticize Americas enemies is immediately met with excuses and attempts to draw moral equivalence. This conversation wasn't about "early American history".
A matter of policy.
Citation?
Look to the tarring and feathering activities of the Sons of Liberty.
So you're comparing tarring and feathering to suicide bombings of mosques and markets?
Are you feeling alright? Make sure you're not running a fever.
Yes, I'm sure the founders had very high ideals of liberty and freedom for the natives of the land they occupied
Nobody, anywhere, gave a shit about the natives. They weren't considered "civilized", and they were barely considered human. The only reason you criticize their actions today is because of the change in attitudes which occurred in the intervening centuries. I don't see the point. It's quite possible that our descendants will one day call us a bunch of brutal assholes because we kill those cute little moo-cows, but their judgment of us will be every bit as ignorant as your judgement of our ancestors. Context matters.
Way to misunderstand.. If we're so 'advanced' we shouldn't be acting the same way our 'savage' ancestors, which, unfortunately we are. See, what you're not getting is that I'm not criticizing the ancestors as much as our exact same behavior and bigotry and prejudices. I really dig the way you stand so tall for American authoritarianism while knocking everybody else's. There's an 'ism' you suffer from. I can't quite pin it down, but it is pretty "rad", as the kids used to say.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Terrorists use the populace as human shields, deliberately hide their weapons and identities, deliberately target civilians, and are just generally subhuman scum.
Wow, you could be describing world war II, Vietnam, or any number of other 'legitimate' conflicts. It really isn't that cut and dried.
So you're comparing tarring and feathering to suicide bombings of mosques and markets?
Are you feeling alright? Make sure you're not running a fever.
The tar is rather hot, or the feathers don't stick. Fairly terrifying I would have thought.
It may not be a site.
-Distributed DNS
-Distributed content
-HTTPS/SSL
-Distributed certificate authority
-Tor
-SSH
-Bitcoin
-Free and open
Everything they need is either implemented or has had white-papers/proof of concepts. It just needs to be hooked togther. The question is whether they can get work together to make it all happen.
Way to misunderstand.. If we're so 'advanced' we shouldn't be acting the same way our 'savage' ancestors, which, unfortunately we are
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not sure how I can help you, though. If you're so disgusted by your own behavior, I would think you'd be able to change it.
No, a terrorist is someone who TERRORISES through acts or threats of violence against CIVILIAN targets to achieve political change
By that definition the US Army are terrorists in the eyes of most Afghani/Iraqi people.
(Around 80% of people they've killed over there were civilians)
No sig today...
:-) Nice try, but needs more effort
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I'm pretty sure unmanned drones strike a good amount of terror into the hearts of civilian afghans, since we've hit so many non-military targets.
Your definition is too narrow to be realistic.
I don't know any rational person anywhere in the country that lives in fear of being mugged.
I know a few idiots that much like you are too stupid to realize that the 'news' isn't reality. Interestingly, you live in a country where (I've been there, have you been here?) where women live in constant fear simply because the men believe they are superior to women and that women are basically there to serve men.
I might be safe in your country, my wife on the other hand is liable to be stoned for making the wrong comment or wearing the wrong cloths unless it gets media attention so the rest of the world sees it.
America is royally fucked up, but you have to be living in an opium den 24/7 to make such a retarded statements.
And finally, you do realize the only reason your country exists in the state it exists in is because we help it to do so ... so we can use your oil, right? You've got what? 10-20 years left before we move to an alternative and your country once again is utterly worthless and you utterly powerless. When you dip back to poverty and starvation, lets see how civilized your country appears then.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
There was really nothing else to be said. You're clearly not speaking for me, or for anyone I know. Since you used the word "we", I drew the logical conclusion. I'm not sure where the "effort" is supposed to come in.
activism == terrorism now eh? nice to know.... ...
Yes, it does. Sometimes. And this is not 'now', it has always been that way.
Green Peace and PETA are both prime examples of terrorists who are also called activists.
The two terms are not mutually exclusive, no matter how hard you try to twist it around to make it appear that way.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
For the real men among us, yes, IRC is where the real shit happens.
Lets face it, 'anon' is a bunch of douche bag script kiddies.
I wouldn't be suprised if there are 2-8 people on IRC that actually are 'anonymous', and use the other bunch of 15 year old script kiddies to do their bidding while remaining safe and legally innocent in the background.
Well, thats what I'd do anyway ;)
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Google has reportedly banned a handful of Anonymous members from Google+ (it's not exactly clear how many accounts were shut down).
Says who?
Really, samzenpus? This post is nothing more than an advertisement and you know it. The story title and summary aren't even remotely accurate.
*They are
You can make a statement on the perfect anonymous social network by providing the banner page and no ability to sign up.
Ta da. There you go.
Update the version number occasionally. Post some jargon. And that's it.
Well, Slashdot was invented in the late 1990s. So there's a precedent for their not-quite-anonymous social networking site. Slashdot should be anonymous for everyone except the CIA and the spooks of all the other paranoid governments.
Google seems to be protecting anonymous members if anything by saying STOP FUCKING LABELING YOURSELF AS ANONYMOUS UNDER YOUR REAL NAME AAAA
Either way, having a full social network for an anonymous group seems counter-productive to their own definition.
I need a new password manager app. A wallet to keep track of my credit card info would be good too.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
It may not be.
If you're fighting for "freedom" then you restrict yourself to legitimate military targets, and you don't kidnap and ransom people.
Says who?
There are many, many cases of people fighting for their freedom from foreign occupation, who targeted civilian targets or otherwise employed terror tactics. A well-studied example would be Soviet partisans, who were a persistent pain in the ass for Germans, and achieved it not the least by intimidating local populace from collaborating - for example, by executing collaborators (even civilians who did not directly aid the war effort, but e.g. worked in factories supplying Germans).
For that matter, if my country was being attacked and its population slaughtered, I don't think I'd much care about how many civilians from the enemy side I have to kill to make it stop - so long as it works to end the war. Not me alone, apparently, given that "total war" is hardly an unknown concept.
What if they use the bomb to blow up a bus full of factory workers, and the factory in question makes bombs?
Sportsmanship is for Little League, not for war.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Saudi... isn't that the country where there are the most car accidents, per vehicle, per mile driven, IN THE WORLD. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.
You can have 1000 'friends' and not have a clue who any of them are.
Yes, the US is in the running for number one supporter of state sponsored terrorism. Though normally they do it via CIA directed proxies rather then openly like the Russians.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
i think google is the best now,could achieve any thing possible .
So what's your point? Because there was a CIA office in the WTC that Al Qaeda was justified in attacking the building?
I don't see your logic at all. You comparison would make more sense if it was a well known fact that Al Qaeda was planning to deploy missiles to target Obama. And if, knowing that fact, he then went and hid in the CIA office of the WTC. I get the feeling that your post is a straight up troll though, so I'm not sure if I'm wasting my breath.
And anyway, the destruction of the CIA office in the WTC was by no means the primary objective of the 9/11 attacks. They were terror attacks, not strategic warfare, and it's debatable that these guys even had intelligence on that office being there. Moot point.
that's teh shizzle bizzle
If Anonymous wants control over their posts, private data, friends-lists, etc. how about just joining diaspaora and helping the development instead of trying to reinvent the wheel ?
This does not have to be an oxymoron. Obviously, the social networks of today are not much more than the successor to what personal homepages of a decade ago, wired together with some sort of email/irc replacement and displaying your friends' RSS feeds.
Such social networks will inevitably someday be replaced with a decentralized solution that is not controlled by a single entity like Facebook or Google. That would take away the privacy-harming aspects that today finance such huge operations. Instead, we can all choose our own hosting provider or host it ourselves. All we need for something like this to take of, is a set of open standards for interaction between such decentralized nodes.
Maybe, anon is planning on building something like this. And if they're not, somebody else will eventually.
0x or or snor perron?!
they should have checked out www.plugin.com first :)
Terrorist IS the definition of "someone we dislike". Or rather, someone fighting dirty we dislike. If we like him, we don't give a shit how he fights and we'll glorify him. Do you think the independence war was a clean one? Lemme think for a moment... on one side a military occupational force, dressed in uniforms and with a logistics for supplies, on the other side a militia of more or less "civilians", backed by the local population. Sounds familiar? You don't think that they didn't hide weapons in barns and that they didn't ambush the British colonial forces while appearing like normal civilians, do you?
So, are Revere and the minutemen terrorists? No, they're heroes. Fought for the liberty of the US, and most of all, they succeeded. By today's standards, most of what they did would be seen in a much less favorable light.
Now, one could say that this was different, a different time, a different place. Ok. Let's go to Afghanistan in the 80s. Same place the shit's going down now, and the time's almost the same, I hope you don't want to say that standards and moral changes 180 degrees in just one generation. The same people that are now called terrorists were our buddies and heroes for fighting the damn commie Russkies. Remember Rambo 3? There's a dedication in the credits, you don't get to see it too often these days. "This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan." But even this isn't the original quote. History rewriting has begone. You won't guess what they put in there originally.
This film is dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan
Think anyone would have called them terrorists in the 80s? I think I distinctly remember them being called freedom fighters.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's fuck all diffference if you're the civilian who gets killed.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Any and all freedom fighters that took the honorable option of facing off man-to-man against the guys with lots of high-tech powerful weapons are already dead.
The truth is that in assymetrical warfare, most methods used by freedom fighters are the same as those used by the terrorists. Add that to the widespread use of the label "terrorist" to tarnish the image of those with real grievances who are the visible face of oppressed populations and you end up with a situation where the word "terrorist" just Goodwins a discussion.
Dear Anonymous,
Anonymous wants to be your friend on Anonplus. Click [accept] to accept, or [ignore] to ignore them.
Regards,
Anonymous
From what I've read, if Google dislikes something you say or do on Google+ or outside of it, as we see here, they can not only ban you from Google+ but also wipe out all your other Google affiliated accounts: Gmail, Picassa, Youtube. Google wields a lot of power and quite frankly, I hope Facebook remains the top social networking site until some sort of open alternative appears (one in which a few people don't make a fortune by selling your information to 3rd parties and governments). Anyway, as everyone else has stated about Anon+, I think that's one alternative social networking site I would stay far away from. The odds it'd be adopted by your parents and most of your friends is pretty slim as well. Of course, if it's not a trap, it's most likely for existing Anon participants and those interested, not so much the general public.
I basically agree, guerrilla tactics are not terror acts when they are against an army, I was not referring to those. And yes I think "we" are perpetrating acts of terror against arabs, that we can afford as long as "we" are the stronger side (it appears to me these wars are a way to prepare new global hegemonies, instead). Those acts are justifiable under some circumstances? well that's another topic.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
i would like to disagree :)
terrorists get their point across by bombing, holding hostages, killing people, etc. anything short of that is simply activism. calling it anything worse is more of a matter of people being too ignorant to come up with a better counter argument - and too naive to realize what effects such statement could have. to be clear, the term activism itself implies that people are taking actions to accomplish their goal - basically a step up from a protester; who merely talks about the problem. we seem to have been made sheep by the thought that anything more than talking is bad. which, IMHO is the exact reason popular opinion means nearly nothing to our government anymore.
so.. no. just because some people may like to use the term "terrorism" against actions that they don't agree with, it doesn't make it a true statement.
done!
This is AnonPlus. Welcome to AnonPlus. You can do anything you like at AnonPlus. Anything at all.
I've been pretty much using Google+ (and Facebook and so forth) as "search engines for people" -- I look people up and find their contact information, and perhaps their event calendar, and whatever else they've chosen to share.
If you're anonymous, you can't put "real" contact information there -- but you could put your email address, as long as it's one you only use for that identity; and if you think it's worth paying for a new phone number (in BitCoin, presumably) just to maintain that identity, you can put that number on your social network as well.
You're still technically anonymous as long as you don't assign a name to these things. Once you do, even if that name is "BACONTAPE," you are *pseudonymous*. On 4chan that would make you a "tripfag".
So if this site merely serves to bundle contact information and other stuff, and doesn't put a name to the bundle, it's an anonymous social network.
LulzSec used Pastebin for this purpose. I guess Anonplus will just be "Pastebin, with multimedia".
Well, the definition was based on actual independent research of the bombings by an NGO (funded by one of the founders of Google). If that's not satisfactory for you, so be it.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
NonaPlus says I can't do anything at all at AnonPlus.
obmoz.com
For a group that is very anti-corporate, funny they use a "V for Vendetta" image, which originated from a corporation (WB).
I hope they got that image cleared with WB, cause I can see conflict already from their front page.
And they should also learn to spell properly!
For every vagina a relative or spousal penis is required for protection.
Hacked already. Fail