Anonymous Creates Its Own Social Network

Anonymous social networking. by z3alot · 2011-07-17 02:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Talk about an oxymoron.

Re:Anonymous social networking. by Tukz · 2011-07-17 02:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

I was thinking the exact same thing.
We're anonymous, let's make a website that keep records of us.
Wait, what?

--
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Re:Anonymous social networking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:30 · Score: 1

Well, it's more of an Antisocial Networking site. Actually, it's just a mirror of 4chan.
Re:Anonymous social networking. by cjjjer · 2011-07-17 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe they are creating the first Anti-Social Network
Re:Anonymous social networking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:14 · Score: 0

Erm, no, I believe the TEA party crowd already has prior art on antisocial networks.
Re:Anonymous social networking. by hoytak · 2011-07-17 06:09 · Score: 1

Obligatory: http://amultiverse.com/2011/07/12/the-antisocial-network/

--
Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
Re:Anonymous social networking. by Arancaytar · 2011-07-17 07:23 · Score: 1

Talk about an oxymoron.
Why? It's very efficient; they only need one account for everyone. This means they don't need to implement any sort of personal profiles, authentication, relationships or inter-account messaging. Just one single wall everyone can write to.
(Mh, come to think of it, /b/ pretty much does all of that already.)
Re:Anonymous social networking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 08:47 · Score: 0

Maybe they are creating the first Anti-Social Network
I LOLed. Well done.
Re:Anonymous social networking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 21:26 · Score: 0

http://www.hatebook.org/
Re: Anonymous social networking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 23:21 · Score: 0

That's already been created: GetOuttaMyFace-book
Re:Anonymous social networking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 23:33 · Score: 0

Also obligatory: GetOuttaMyFace-book
Re:Anonymous social networking. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 23:27 · Score: 0

How about this

Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:16 · Score: -1

They are a cyberterrorism group.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by SimonTheSoundMan · 2011-07-17 02:19 · Score: 3, Funny

'Cloud terrorism' please. They care giving 'cyber' a bad name.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:21 · Score: 0

The NAACP were called "terrorists" by the Southern Republicans too...
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 02:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by schnikies79 · 2011-07-17 02:36 · Score: 1

Relating Anonymous to NAACP is a slap in the face to every individual who every fought for equal rights.

--
Gone!
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Moryath · 2011-07-17 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by MichaelKristopeit416 · 2011-07-17 02:41 · Score: 0

relating any terrorist to all terrorists is a slap in the face to every terrorist.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Joce640k · 2011-07-17 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by CRCulver · 2011-07-17 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you're fighting for "freedom" then you restrict yourself to legitimate military targets

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by marcello_dl · 2011-07-17 03:05 · Score: 1

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by c6gunner · 2011-07-17 03:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by icebraining · 2011-07-17 03:07 · Score: 2

By your definition the U.S. government can be labelled a terrorist organization.
Yes, yes it can. What's your point?

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by countertrolling · 2011-07-17 03:14 · Score: 2

...deliberately hide their... identities
Ah yes
...and you don't kidnap... people
of course not
... legitimate military targets...
absolutely.. I'm sure these people are completely innocent
...deliberately target civilians...
moi? jamais!

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Surt · 2011-07-17 03:21 · Score: 2

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:26 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by earls · 2011-07-17 03:26 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by CRCulver · 2011-07-17 03:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

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.

Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by earls · 2011-07-17 03:30 · Score: 1

Better get some bandages for that bleeding heart of yours.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by countertrolling · 2011-07-17 03:30 · Score: 2

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."
...you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.
Two way street if there ever was one... but with only one lane apparently

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by joaosantos · 2011-07-17 03:30 · Score: 1

It's not kidnapping it's "extraordinary rendition".
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Runaway1956 · 2011-07-17 03:32 · Score: 1

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by jbeaupre · 2011-07-17 03:40 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by wisnoskij · 2011-07-17 03:42 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Moryath · 2011-07-17 03:44 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by russotto · 2011-07-17 03:46 · Score: 1

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.
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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Gripp · 2011-07-17 03:48 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by ElectricTurtle · 2011-07-17 03:49 · Score: 2

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Surt · 2011-07-17 03:52 · Score: 2

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:59 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by artor3 · 2011-07-17 04:00 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Gripp · 2011-07-17 04:03 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Moryath · 2011-07-17 04:04 · Score: 1

"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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by UHBo2 · 2011-07-17 04:09 · Score: 1

Southern Democrats
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by countertrolling · 2011-07-17 04:21 · Score: 1

Nice diversion there - *golf clap*

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:22 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 04:31 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 04:32 · Score: 2

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-17 04:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm guessing you have a penis? I hear that the place isn't quite as nice if you have a vagina.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:55 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by ToasterMonkey · 2011-07-17 05:08 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2011-07-17 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by ColdWetDog · 2011-07-17 05:24 · Score: 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!
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Animats · 2011-07-17 05:47 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by BoberFett · 2011-07-17 06:27 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by ultranova · 2011-07-17 06:30 · Score: 1

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.

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by c6gunner · 2011-07-17 06:34 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by c6gunner · 2011-07-17 06:50 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by countertrolling · 2011-07-17 07:16 · Score: 1

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by prowley · 2011-07-17 07:16 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by prowley · 2011-07-17 07:21 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by c6gunner · 2011-07-17 07:58 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by countertrolling · 2011-07-17 08:09 · Score: 1

:-) Nice try, but needs more effort

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 08:17 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by BitZtream · 2011-07-17 08:18 · Score: 1

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by c6gunner · 2011-07-17 08:23 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by BitZtream · 2011-07-17 08:28 · Score: 1

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by SimonTheSoundMan · 2011-07-17 10:46 · Score: 1

*They are
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-17 14:57 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by couchslug · 2011-07-17 15:17 · Score: 1

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."
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 15:44 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by mogness · 2011-07-17 19:52 · Score: 1

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 21:31 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by tehcyder · 2011-07-17 21:53 · Score: 1

>quote> 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.
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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Aceticon · 2011-07-17 22:40 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by marcello_dl · 2011-07-18 00:27 · Score: 1

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
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Gripp · 2011-07-18 00:56 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by jbeaupre · 2011-07-18 04:39 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-19 07:45 · Score: 0

For every vagina a relative or spousal penis is required for protection.

Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:19 · Score: 0

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.

Re:Oxymoron by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 02:23 · Score: 0

It doesn't really matter, does it. Let's be honest here, there are, in every walk of life, two kinds of people: Those that count and those that do not. You will quickly spot the ones that do, and you will also easily be able to discriminate a "real" message from them from a fake one. And who cares about the others?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Oxymoron by tverbeek · 2011-07-17 02:59 · Score: 2

They all post as Anonymous Coward, all the time. It's like a blindfolded sex party.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Oxymoron by grub · 2011-07-17 03:09 · Score: 3, Funny

They all post as Anonymous Coward, all the time. It's like a blindfolded sex party.

They should call their social site "The Glory Hole".

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:Oxymoron by icebraining · 2011-07-17 03:12 · Score: 1

A pseudonym doesn't preclude anonymity as long as there's no way to link it to a real person.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Oxymoron by Vegemeister · 2011-07-17 03:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Public key cryptography, of course. To 'friend' someone, you generate a keypair and give them the public key and your user id. They do the same. Wall posts, comments, etc., are encrypted with a symmetric cipher (with a random single-use key), and the symmetric key is encrypted with the public key of each person who you want to make the message available to. Of course, you are vulnerable to an evil friend publishing your posts, but that is an unsolvable problem (see: DRM). In place of stateful authentication, each post is signed with a private key whose counterpart is held by the server.
Do all the crypto client-side (perhaps javascript, or alternate integrated clients, like gwibber and smartphone facebook apps) and all the server has to do is hold the encrypted content and validate signatures. You could even make a generalized protocol out of it, so that the content doesn't have to be on any particular server, i.e. host your own damn social network profile. That would ease the node-to-node bandwidth requirements of a server farm for the service. If you're familiar with it, think Sone on Freenet, but without the distributed hash table and associated latency.
Re:Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:36 · Score: 0

You really should keep this pseudo-intellectual bullshit to yourself.
Re:Oxymoron by magloca · 2011-07-17 03:40 · Score: 1

Well, if it's fully anonymous, it's not a social network, really, but it should be possible to set up a pseudonymous social network, where users go by handles instead of real names. Preferably in I2P or Freenet or Tor or some other darknet so IPs can't be logged. I've actually wondered for quite some time why this hasn't happened (well, I2P has that Twitter-like thing, whatever it's called, but it doesn't see much use).
Re:Oxymoron by countertrolling · 2011-07-17 03:44 · Score: 2

I'm afraid that with today's setup, there's always a link.. And the authorities aren't really concerned if they get the right guy either
July 12, 1998 - TX
Six police from Houston's anti-gang task raid the home of Pedro Oregon Navarro. Officers storm his bedroom, where Navarro awakes, startled and frightened, and reaches for his gun. Police open fire and shoot Navarro twelve times, killing him. His gun was never fired. Police found no drugs or evidence of drug use or sale in Navarro's home.
Police obtained Navarro's address after pulling over a car of three men, one of whom they arrested for public intoxication. Already on probation, the suspect offered a "tip" on a nearby drug dealer in exchange for his release. Police agreed to the bargain, and obtained Navarro's address from the suspect.
The officers who shot Navarro were fired. Only one was charged. A jury took about an hour to acquit him of misdemeanor criminal trespass. In August of 2005, two of them applied for reinstatement, adding that they'd hoped to be 'vindicated' of the Navarro shooting.
Sources:
Tim Lynch, "Another Drug War Casualty," Cato Daily Commentary, Cato Institute, November 30, 1998.
Steve Brewer, "Officer Cleared in Oregon Case," Houston Chronicle, March 26, 1999.
"2 ex-officers hoping to be 'vindicated'; Pair fired after Oregon shooting seek reinstatement," Houston Chronicle, August 25, 2005, p. B4.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:52 · Score: 0

So to spin "Cheers" for these guys it is, "I wanna go where nobody knows my name"?

Two anonymous guys walk into a bar...
Re:Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:17 · Score: 0

Nice to see someone has finally came up with perfect security which would seem to be a requirement for that kind of anonymity.
Re:Oxymoron by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 04:36 · Score: 1

Hurts to be in the second group, huh?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Oxymoron by ultranova · 2011-07-17 06:06 · Score: 1

It doesn't really matter, does it.

Well, yes, it really matters, since posters having a an identity the defining difference between an imageboard and a social network.

Let's be honest here, there are, in every walk of life, two kinds of people: Those that count and those that do not. You will quickly spot the ones that do, and you will also easily be able to discriminate a "real" message from them from a fake one. And who cares about the others?

And what happens when a griefer decides to change your friend list - which he easily can, since the server certainly can't tell you apart? Are you going to keep all it in your head? Then what does this "social network" offer that the chans don't? Or are you going to have the admins do it all manually at user's request - and thus overtax them and bring the whole service down?
High school schoolyard politics don't solve engineering problems.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Oxymoron by TheCouchPotatoFamine · 2011-07-17 08:40 · Score: 2

[not the AC] i gotta say, your outlook isn't really informative... it's more of a tautology, and worse, you sound as if you have solved some huge issue and the satisifaction i'm sure that brought you, without providing and behaviors, fact, or information for anyone to act on. It is pseudo-intellectual bullshit. We're all guilty of it sometimes, me included.

--
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
Re:Oxymoron by ynp7 · 2011-07-17 18:32 · Score: 1

People who count know the difference between "who" and "that." Now carry on with keeping your pseudo-intellectual bullshit to yourself, as the GP said.
Re:Oxymoron by ynp7 · 2011-07-17 18:35 · Score: 1

So it'd be kind of like Wii Friend Codes, but really, really long?
Re:Oxymoron by badkarmadayaccount · 2011-07-18 04:55 · Score: 1

NNTP with per server swarm distributed Bittorent mirroring of content, and multiple servers. Add some basic cluster quorum techniques, and your done. 50 LoC Perl, and lots of libs, I bet.

--
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.

Alright... by p0p0 · 2011-07-17 02:19 · Score: 1

... 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+.

Re:Alright... by hedwards · 2011-07-17 03:56 · Score: 1

That was my thought precisely. I wonder why we should trust the same anonymous that just recently leaked 90k military email accounts to handle the security of the information. Sure, I bet they know how to secure it, I just question whether they'd bother to. Or worse how we'd know that the information was secure.
Re:Alright... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:32 · Score: 0

That was my thought precisely. I wonder why we should trust the same anonymous that just recently leaked 90k military email accounts to handle the security of the information. Sure, I bet they know how to secure it, I just question whether they'd bother to. Or worse how we'd know that the information was secure.
Because no-one other than a retard would actually sign up with their real name anyway.

Nothing to do with activists by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:21 · Score: 0

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).

Re:Nothing to do with activists by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 02:24 · Score: 2

Erh... DUHHH? What's the point in collecting data about fakes? It poisons your data pool!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Nothing to do with activists by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:45 · Score: 0

Because people who log-in using fake names still buy marketed products, Opportunist.
Now back to administering my G+ Darth Vader account.

Site Moderator: FBI? by tsalmark · 2011-07-17 02:22 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:39 · Score: 0

I don't think it will get much uptake. If I wanted to make my self aware to the authorities, I would just send text over the internet that contained words like nuclear, uranium etc. Why would I bother signing up to a site for criminals? (I'd have to remember yet another password...)
Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by pedantic+bore · 2011-07-17 02:47 · Score: 1

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
This will only catch the ones that don't know how to use TOR or something similar.

--
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by CrazyDuke · 2011-07-17 02:47 · Score: 1

Seriously: Oh, hai! You have won a free TV! Please go to 5245 Public Safety Circle to claim your prize!

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by ColdWetDog · 2011-07-17 05:39 · Score: 1

Seriously: Oh, hai! You have won a free TV! Please go to 5245 Public Safety Circle to claim your prize!
Don't laugh, it's happened.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 06:08 · Score: 0

TOR is not the solution here, maybe TOR hidden services, but in fact there is Freenet/Darknet and many other censor resistent, anonymous networks that could easily serve as a base for a social network.
Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 08:33 · Score: 0

what do you think 4chan is? if you start posting threats and a lot of CP, guess who's watching besides the mods who are silently fapping in the bg?
Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by MattGWU · 2011-07-17 09:15 · Score: 1

Homer: (Wearing an FBI listening device.) Hey, see you're watching the ball game. Looks like a good one. Any of you involved in any illegal activity? Cause I could sure go for some. How bout you, Lenny? Testing, testing. Lenny?
Lenny: You saying you want to commit a crime, Homer?
Homer: Maybe. But first I need to hear about some other crimes to get me fired up.

--
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 01:09 · Score: 0

IPs traced and packets sniffed,

You never heard of Tor?

Should have used a proxy bitch,

That's the FBI at your door.
Re:Site Moderator: FBI? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-19 05:55 · Score: 0

The CIA probably owns half the TOR entry/exit nodes enabling them to compromise the anonymity of a quarter of TOR users. Just needs a little intra-governmental cooperation for the FBI to get them.

How do you find people? by Chrysocolla · 2011-07-17 02:23 · Score: 1

When it's anonymous?

Re:How do you find people? by NotBorg · 2011-07-17 04:29 · Score: 1
1. Let people choose an alias and authentication key (password).
2. Design perfect security to prevent efforts to map said aliases to real world IPs/locations/people/etc.
3. ???
4. Profit (until the security fails some how).
--
I want this account deleted.
Re:How do you find people? by TheCouchPotatoFamine · 2011-07-17 08:44 · Score: 1

By using any number of pre-shared secrets - something you exchange in person to ensure you only friend, you know, real friends, like a passcode, nickname, url, number, etc that is not personally identifiable otherwise. This is a "duh" question. In truth, the ability for massive social networking sites to violate privacy is related to the laziness your statement implies, i.e, "Please here is all the information about me go find my friends for me, please!". Laziness indeed...

--
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!

Registered members by $pace6host · 2011-07-17 02:24 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Re:Registered members by ElectricTurtle · 2011-07-17 02:31 · Score: 1

Well of course, they're the designers and testers of this obvious false flag operation. I must go so far as to say obvious trap is obvious.

--
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
Re:Registered members by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

While you're at rolling about conspiracy theory, why not make it a double-false flag op? Set up by the "real" anons to trick the FBI into hunting the poor idiots that register there so they keep both groups, the feds and the wannabes, occupied?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:54 · Score: 0

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.
No, 88 were CIA, 8 FBI, 2 Interpol, 1 from the Church of Scientology, and 1 was some random idiot pulled of the street to make the other 99 look legit.
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:27 · Score: 0

LOL. You ain't right. You ain't even wrong.
Re:Registered members by hitmark · 2011-07-17 03:39 · Score: 2

Was there not a claim that during some meetings in the 60s, most of the people in the room was either agents or informers to various government agencies?

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:51 · Score: 0

In the years leading up to the Russian revolution, there was a secret society of anti-tsarists that was almost entirely made up of spies. It had only a single real member.
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:32 · Score: 0

Hey, well at least the 100 will be anonymous so hackers can't discover their true identity. Homeland Security will be more secure now :)
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:46 · Score: 0

Remember SDS?
Re:Registered members by shoehornjob · 2011-07-17 05:00 · Score: 1

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.
Your numbers are all wrong. The CIA doesn't give a shit about groups like this. The real count was 50 for NSA 49 for FBI and 2 for Interpol. Come to think of it you may want to throw a man or two in from Air Force "cyber" intelligence as we all know Anonymous is a threat to the US government's "cyber" infrestructure. The real threat of course is state sponsored hacking with China being the prime suspect.

--
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 07:12 · Score: 0

That's exactly what we've done.
We hacked everything. So what's the most advanced computer there is, with the shittiest security system ever conceived?
The brain of Joe Random Luser.
So let's hack that.
We figured, anyone dumb enough not to get the oxymoron of Anonymous registering anywhere, deserves to be made fun of.
And after all, that's what we are here for. :)
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 10:18 · Score: 0

If you're interested working for the government and want to create connections for probing that dream job at an agency, better register yourself to the social network most likely containing agency employees to have that something extra in your application. Join now!
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 18:22 · Score: 0

You counted the double agents as CIA or FBI?
Re:Registered members by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 21:35 · Score: 1

I kinda doubt that. Not the hacking part, more the advanced bit. Most people I know could be replaced by a very small script.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Registered members by Opportunist · 2011-07-17 21:36 · Score: 1

Maybe I am and am just misleading you into thinking I am neither?
Let the conspiracies fly high!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 09:15 · Score: 0

Wrong. Around 50 of those are newfags.
Re:Registered members by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-19 06:13 · Score: 0

Was there not a claim that during some meetings in the 60s, most of the people in the room was either agents or informers to various government agencies?
Yes. At the very least it's been well documented that it happened for a series of meetings of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Advice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:27 · Score: 1

Just be sure to choose a unique password.

Open Source Engine by mikazo · 2011-07-17 02:27 · Score: 1

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

Re:Open Source Engine by icebraining · 2011-07-17 03:16 · Score: 2

From what I can tell, because they have no idea about what they're talking about. One of the posts by (apparently) a founder talks about the need to use a central authentication server; the concept of PKI seems foreign to him/her.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Open Source Engine by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:19 · Score: 0

you need a central server because decentralized simply doesn't work in practice. These guys aren't doing CS research, they're creating an anonymous social network, so they're going to use tools that work.
Re:Open Source Engine by mikazo · 2011-07-17 04:02 · Score: 1

Also, I hope they have some knowledge of graph theory

--
I was only 28,931 registrations away from having a 6-digit UID
Re:Open Source Engine by taiwanjohn · 2011-07-17 04:09 · Score: 1

Fair enough, but still... what's the use? If the whole thing can be shut down at a single point of vulnerability, then why bother?

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Re:Open Source Engine by XDirtypunkX · 2011-07-17 06:02 · Score: 1

Centralized authentication doesn't necessarily mean a single server, or a single data store, or even that all the authentication servers have to be in the same data center. All it means is that there is only one logical authentication authority.
Re:Open Source Engine by icebraining · 2011-07-17 08:19 · Score: 1

StatusNet doesn't need a central server, you can have single user nodes connect to each other in a P2P way, and it works fine.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Open Source Engine by BitZtream · 2011-07-17 08:39 · Score: 2

PKI is also a concept you don't seem to understand either.
PKI, to be effective, requires a central clearing house to validate certificates.
Lets look at the letters ...
Public
Key
Infrastructure
I realize many of the more vocal slashdot idiots think that p2p is the cure to everything, yet can not point out a single system that doesn't depend on a central trusted authority. Do yourself a favor and just don't talk about this shit.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Open Source Engine by dskzero · 2011-07-17 09:46 · Score: 1

They are planning to run it on torrents. Yup.

--
Oblivion Awaits
Re:Open Source Engine by Anonymus · 2011-07-17 11:42 · Score: 1

Because it's ridiculously quick and easy to move a site to a different host or domain name and inform the users of the move.
Re:Open Source Engine by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 12:39 · Score: 0

You can have a "Central Authority" that is in fact distributed. Look into bitcoin.
Thanks for coming out.
Re:Open Source Engine by icebraining · 2011-07-17 23:03 · Score: 1

CAs aren't centralized, you stupid fuck. What's the central CA for the Web?
You could have multiple decentralized nodes/servers, each on acting as a CA for its users. Sure, this would still depend on you having to manually trust CAs and users outside your node, but it's still PKI.

I realize many of the more vocal slashdot idiots think that p2p is the cure to everything, yet can not point out a single system that doesn't depend on a central trusted authority. Do yourself a favor and just don't talk about this shit.
I never claimed P2P would solve everything, you moron, I was just saying that if you want to design a decentralized, hard to kill system, you can depend on a fucking central server.
And by the way, what's the central trusted authority for email PGP?

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Not the first "Anon" network. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:33 · Score: 1

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.

All social networks can be anonymous by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:36 · Score: 2

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.

Re:All social networks can be anonymous by amck · 2011-07-17 02:50 · Score: 2

Agreed.
They basically need a distributed network, so that they can't be blocked by DNS, etc. : with proven good security, and the ability to not need real names.
So why not fix the bugs, missing features in Diaspora, etc. instead?
Absolutely the last thing you need is your own high-profile network. Thats just flagging activities you don't want to be flagged.
You want instead a distributed network where dissidents, etc. can just use it without being spotted (lost in the crowd), with
secure communications, and the ability to go viral with news reports, etc: basically FB or Google+ with privacy.
Picking your own l33t social network such a bad idea.

--
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
Re:All social networks can be anonymous by rrohbeck · 2011-07-17 15:14 · Score: 1

Just run it on Freenet or a .onion site. Problem solved.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it

Forum by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:37 · Score: 0

They have a full public forum on the website discussing the implementation. Worth a look. Hosted on Zetaboards.

I did a double-take by Joce640k · 2011-07-17 02:43 · Score: 2

How does Google know who the members of "Anonymous" are? Aren't they, ummm, anonymous?

--
No sig today...

Re:I did a double-take by wisnoskij · 2011-07-17 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think Google pretty much knows everything that goes on on the internet now.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:I did a double-take by Dwedit · 2011-07-17 03:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Google-owned "Recaptcha" appearing on every board on 4chan doesn't hurt. It will identify everyone who isn't behind seven proxies.
Re:I did a double-take by Gripp · 2011-07-17 03:38 · Score: 1

they make it clear on their accounts that they are members of such groups. i would imagine that they have private accounts that google doesn't know about.

most of their recent actions with twitter et al have been a matter of PR - to get the public on board with what they are about. which was exactly the accounts that got banned by google+.

personally i can't believe that google of all organizations would do this. short of pressure from gov entities i suppose. and the creation of a social network that is NOT geared for tracking you seems like a good idea. however, i'm not sure they can afford the bandwidth without either stealing it or finding some source of income for the site.
Re:I did a double-take by Osgeld · 2011-07-17 03:47 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Congratulations, your our first poster to use: "ummmm. anonymous?" in this anonymous thread, you have won a swift boot to the head!!!! Please meet with our staff to arrange when and where you would like to receive your kick to the head and grats again
(seriously why is there always some dink that thinks "ummmm. anonymous?" is the most clever joke ever on these stories? yea we get it, its not fuckin funny)
Re:I did a double-take by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:53 · Score: 1

nerdrage, however, is definitely the funniest rage.
Re:I did a double-take by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:05 · Score: 0

The accounts that were removed had named like "Trolling McTrollington" and "Anon Ymous". Google only removed (not banned, but removed - they are free to recreate their accounts at any time) accounts that were very obviously fake.
Re:I did a double-take by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd guess the staff reaction at Google was something like, "You've got to be kidding me, right? Do they understand that we're a business that's required to respond to gov inquiries surrounding illegal activity?"

Honestly it's probably better for both Google and those Anon's that goog closed the accounts. The only people that should be disappointed are investigative authorities. Because otherwise, it was only going to end badly.
Re:I did a double-take by Joce640k · 2011-07-17 05:08 · Score: 1

i'm not sure they can afford the bandwidth without either stealing it or finding some source of income for the site.
They control huge botnets, the bandwidth they can bring to bear is precisely what makes them dangerous to big sites (or "effective", depending on your political position).
I don't think running a social network will be a problem for them. They can probably serve most people from their own machine, making the site feel much snappier then either Facebook/Google+.

--
No sig today...
Re:I did a double-take by somersault · 2011-07-17 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

They also know all the people Googling for open proxies.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:I did a double-take by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 05:15 · Score: 1

Congratulations, you're the first poster to overreact to something mildly amusing with threats of violence! You have won an "Internet tough-guy epeen contest winner" tropy!
Please let us know where you would like to have your trophy shipped.
(Seriously, get over yourself.)
Re:I did a double-take by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 05:39 · Score: 0

Correct. I have few accounts, none of them linked. My twitter account follows no one I know in real life and is linked to a yahoo account that was made specifically for that purpose. I've NEVER shared anything personal on there. Google recommended a ton of people on my twitter feed for Google+
Re:I did a double-take by prowley · 2011-07-17 07:11 · Score: 1

On the internet nobody is completely anonymous. Everybody sends an identifier with each packet. It's called an ip address.
Re:I did a double-take by Ravon+Rodriguez · 2011-07-17 07:27 · Score: 2

While what you say about IP addresses being included in every packet is true, it's possible to mask your identity by going through proxies. If I, for example, use TOR, my connection can be routed all over the world before reaching my final destination; this makes it at the very least impractical, and most of the time outright impossible, to trace the origin. Anonymity is possible on the internet if you have the right tools and the intelligence to use them properly.

--
Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
Re:I did a double-take by Khyber · 2011-07-17 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Anonymity is possible on the internet if you have the right tools and the intelligence to use them properly."
Not if I own the backbone your traffic routes through.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:I did a double-take by drolli · 2011-07-17 08:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, sure.
http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=+tor+embassy
Re:I did a double-take by fuscata · 2011-07-17 08:47 · Score: 1

Also Google Analytics on anonplus.com is a little fishy, no?
Re:I did a double-take by Securityemo · 2011-07-17 09:15 · Score: 2

Leakage between the exit node and destination host doesn't matter at all if you don't reveal any identifying information over the TOR connection. Which you obviously shouldn't, since it defeats the purpouse.

--
Emotions! In your brain!
Re:I did a double-take by Alranor · 2011-07-17 09:17 · Score: 1

Except that's not actually relevant. Those folks snooped the traffic on a tor exit node, which meant they saw whatever it was that the person on the other end of the tor connection was doing, but it didn't let them work out who that was
Re:I did a double-take by RobbieThe1st · 2011-07-17 09:57 · Score: 1

XD
Actually, if they could pull somehing like that off... that'd be impressive.
Re:I did a double-take by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 11:06 · Score: 0

Aren't they, ummm, anonymous?
No, they are 'Anonymous' not 'anonymous', there's a difference, for example Dan Marino was a 'Dolphin', not a 'dolphin'.
Re:I did a double-take by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 11:38 · Score: 1

You've never used TOR have you? In my extensive experience with it, the range of IPs is pretty limited and thus it's easy to block them. After you block about 100 individual IPs TOR is effectively banned.
*shrug*
Re:I did a double-take by berashith · 2011-07-17 11:53 · Score: 1

yup. I am glad I am not the only person shocked by the depth of the recommendations in the G+ tool.
Re:I did a double-take by Sanat · 2011-07-17 12:29 · Score: 1

My girlfriend is going to Florida next week to swim with the dolphins... she didn't say anything about Dan Marino being there. Guess I need to do a little research on this.

--
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
Re:I did a double-take by cavreader · 2011-07-17 13:47 · Score: 1

Dream on brother. Your best security precaution is in not doing anything monumentally stupid and attracting attention to yourself. Things like bragging about lame script kiddie attacks on twitter. Try investigating the capabilities of the NSA. Believe it or not all governmental agencies are staffed by morons. These guys use some of the most advanced technology in the world and are more than adequately funded to insure they can continue their work. Also, relying on ISP's or backbone providers to deny the government anything they ask for is foolish.
Re:I did a double-take by Ravon+Rodriguez · 2011-07-17 14:15 · Score: 1

If the connection was routed solely inside of the United States, I would say you're right; however, the connections are routed around the world, and would require the concerted efforts of several countries to even begin to trace the origin. Even if they do monitor every packet going across a backbone provider in the U.S., TOR packets are encrypted. The NSA may well have technology to crack encryption that we don't know about, but unless you've seriously pissed somebody high up off, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

--
Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
Re:I did a double-take by lul_wat · 2011-07-17 19:07 · Score: 1

I'm guessing the people using re-cpatcha for science are getting a little frustrated with all of the unidentified scanned words coming back as "nigger". This isn't a troll, try it and you will see it works.

--
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
Re:I did a double-take by drolli · 2011-07-17 19:28 · Score: 1

Well. Luckily everything is save and nobody would ever use Bittorrent...
https://www.usenix.org/events/leet11/tech/full_papers/LeBlond.pdf
I did not know this paper when posting, but what i know is that giving streams to arbitrary unknown exit nodes is not very wise. I imagine that if a research group can replace a small nuber of exit node, then i dont know what one of the big North American buyers of computational power (the NSA) can do (does anybody know if there is "critical" number of Tor nodes to reconstruct traffic reliably in a given time? ).
Re:I did a double-take by AmonTheMetalhead · 2011-07-17 21:23 · Score: 1

Never, ever do something stupid from your own IP address, plenty of wireless access points to exploit instead.
Re:I did a double-take by TheTurtlesMoves · 2011-07-17 22:10 · Score: 1

There have been a number of successful attacks on TOR. Sure it is more anonymous, but not completely so.

--
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Re:I did a double-take by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-17 23:49 · Score: 1

Not if I own the backbone your traffic routes through.
Yes, even then. Tor is designed specifically to prevent people owning infrastructure from determining where a packet comes from. All they can see is an encrypted packet going from A to B, but there is no way of knowing if that packet originated from A or was sent to A from Z. There is also no way of knowing if B is the final destination or if B is going to re-encrypt the packet and send it on to Y. Even if traffic for all four nodes passed over your backbone because the data is encrypted using a different key each time it reaches a node there is no way of telling if you are seeing the same packet forwarded or a different one.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:I did a double-take by cavreader · 2011-07-18 00:58 · Score: 1

What makes you think the US would have had any problems getting other countries to provide all the access they wanted? Those countries would also have their own reasons for accessing the same data.
Re:I did a double-take by Andy+Dodd · 2011-07-18 01:35 · Score: 1

Yeah. There's no way for Google to know who is a member of Anonymous, unless they are violating Google's "use your real name" policy for +.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Re:I did a double-take by Khyber · 2011-07-18 04:12 · Score: 1

TOR isn't proof, sorry. Man can make it, man can break it. Period.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:I did a double-take by badkarmadayaccount · 2011-07-18 04:49 · Score: 1

IPSec right back at ya' bub.

--
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Re:I did a double-take by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2011-07-18 05:44 · Score: 1

The Google-owned "Recaptcha" appearing on every board on 4chan doesn't hurt. It will identify everyone who isn't behind over NINE THOUSAND! proxies.
FTFY.

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Re:I did a double-take by treeves · 2011-07-18 08:44 · Score: 1

Either way, she is going to boink someone/something other than you. Sorry.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

Who do I ask for an invite? by pedantic+bore · 2011-07-17 02:44 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Who do I ask for an invite? by Cable · 2011-07-17 03:41 · Score: 1

Get infected with a software virus or download pirated files. In Soviet Russia AnonPlus invites you. All you have to lose is your identity. Identity theft and social engineering goes hand in hand with AnonPlus social nethacking.
Re:Who do I ask for an invite? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 07:49 · Score: 0

there are no undesirables. no one to tell you 'congratulations, you're in' or 'sorry, you're not Anon material'
Re:Who do I ask for an invite? by Xtifr · 2011-07-17 09:11 · Score: 1

Same way they do on 4chan? Flames and kitty porn?

I know by Sniper98G · 2011-07-17 02:48 · Score: 2

They should just use friendface.

Anonplus by Ardx · 2011-07-17 02:56 · Score: 0

Now with free rootkit? Seriously, trusting them would be idiotic.

--
Whoa there dude! Check your keyboard, somebody might have slipped you a Dvorak.

They already lost by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 02:58 · Score: 0

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.

Surely by SQL+Error · 2011-07-17 03:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Anonminus would have been more appropriate.

Re:Surely by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:17 · Score: 0

Anominous?
Re:Surely by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 09:24 · Score: 0

Do you participate in those boards, where they lie on the ground all day think of cool names for operations and acronyms for new agencies?

What we want by currently_awake · 2011-07-17 03:19 · Score: 1

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.

Re:What we want by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:33 · Score: 0

Google doesn't have anything against the group Anonymous. However, they have a policy that you have to use your real name when signing up for Google+. Obviously, Anonymous isn't going to use their real names, so they're not allowed to use Google+.
Re:What we want by hedwards · 2011-07-17 04:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

The issue is that it would be created and maintained by anonymous and we have no way of guaranteeing that it isn't the same anonymous that's been releasing account information of random people without redaction. On top of that we have no way of knowing if they're securing the information rather than just hoarding it for a future release.
All in all, Anonymous can get my info, I'm pretty sure of that, but I'm not going to hand it over directly. That would be pretty dumb and quite frankly anybody that bites on this is probably an informant or agent of some sort. Well, or so stupid that they deserve to be compromised.
Re:What we want by RJFerret · 2011-07-17 04:02 · Score: 2

However, they have a policy that you have to use your real name when signing up for Google+.
No, they don't, this is rumor that keeps getting repeated, here is the G+ name policy.
They require you use the name you "commonly go by". "If you use your full name", they suggest it'll help people find you, but really the point is to provide what people would type in the search box to find you.
Re:What we want by NickFortune · 2011-07-17 23:55 · Score: 1

They require you use the name you "commonly go by".

Hmmm... you snipped that quote off a little early. This is the first paragraph from the link you posted.

Google services support three different types of use new window when it comes to your identity: unidentified, pseudonymous, identified. Google Profiles is a product that works best in the identified state. This way you can be certain youâ(TM)re connecting with the right person, and others will have confidence knowing that there is someone real behind the profile theyâ(TM)re checking out. For this reason, Google Profiles requires you to use the name that you commonly go by in daily life.

So unless your nickname is pretty much the only one people know you by, then real names are going to be required. Of course, it remains to be seen how strictly they choose to enforce that, but the wording seems clear enough.

--
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Re:What we want by makomk · 2011-07-18 02:57 · Score: 1

Of course, this doesn't seem to be how the policy's been enforced... if your name doesn't resemble a real name, there's a good chance you'll get banned even if that is the name everyone knows you by.

Anonplus run by NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:21 · Score: 1

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

Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:23 · Score: 0

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-- *catches breah* HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, are these guys for real? This is gonna be hilarious, one way or another.

They aren't doing a very good job... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:30 · Score: 0

... of being anonymous if google knew who to ban, are they?

They're using "leet" speak, luckily, I speak it. by earls · 2011-07-17 03:31 · Score: 1

I thought they already had a social network? Isn't it called IRC?

Anonplus? Anonlulz! by Cable · 2011-07-17 03:37 · Score: 2

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? :)

Re:Anonplus? Anonlulz! by Zorque · 2011-07-17 03:53 · Score: 1

I doubt it's anything that well-thought-through. Remember that while there are a lot of real hackers and such that call themselves a part of "Anonymous", a lot of 15-year-olds who think image macros are the height of hilarity do too.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bunch of them using their real information on there, even.

Go ahead... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 03:38 · Score: 0

If you are anonymous, you don't care.

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/good-luck-proxies.jpg

Re: Holy duplicity Batman! by taiwanjohn · 2011-07-17 03:50 · Score: 1

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

Don't they already have a website? by Deathsoldier11 · 2011-07-17 03:55 · Score: 1

I thought this was their website/forum: http://www.whatis-theplan.org/

Why would they anounce this? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:04 · Score: 1

Anonymous announcing they're setting up their own social network will result in the FBI registering in droves...

xkcd gave us a preview

Domain name by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:04 · Score: 0

Question: how could anonymous register a domain name without giving away their name?

Re:Domain name by BitZtream · 2011-07-17 09:01 · Score: 1

Using a prepaid CC and any one of the registrars that do shit for verification ... so pretty much all of them.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

YUO FAIL hiT by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:08 · Score: -1

and promotes our BE IN A SCENE AND influence, the progrres. Any Are you a NIGGER *BSD IS DEAD. they are Come shitheads. *BSD windows, SUN or Name on the jar of

Wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:12 · Score: 0

I thought they already did this. Isn't this what that "4chan" doohickey is supposed to be?

Anon+ by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-07-17 04:21 · Score: 2

"It's a TRAP!"

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Website is always bad by Sami+Lehtinen · 2011-07-17 04:46 · Score: 1

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.

Anon social network site bad for different reason by SuperKendall · 2011-07-17 04:49 · Score: 1

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

You're doing it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:55 · Score: 0

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nonplussed... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 04:59 · Score: 0

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...

Don't trust Google and Facebook by Jeian · 2011-07-17 05:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Don't trust Google and Facebook with your personal information! Store it with Anonymous instead!

Re:Don't trust Google and Facebook by impaledsunset · 2011-07-17 08:09 · Score: 1

Hey, I'd rather share my personal information with a random anonymous vigilante than with that Mark Zuckerberg guy!
Re:Don't trust Google and Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 08:10 · Score: 0

hehe... I probably would trust rouge anti-virus more than real anti-virus. At least the fake stuff doesn't do anything. The real stuff does.
Re:Don't trust Google and Facebook by the_humeister · 2011-07-17 08:51 · Score: 1

I store stuff in /dev/null and retrieve from /dev/random. /dev/random has everything!
Re:Don't trust Google and Facebook by Altheron · 2011-07-17 14:44 · Score: 1

Don't trust Google and Facebook with your personal information! Store it with Anonymous instead!
Let's be fair, here. Given how lax corporations have become with the data that represents "us", I figure signing up to Anon-plus is.. well.. just cutting out the middle man.
Re:Don't trust Google and Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 14:53 · Score: 0

Real men store their family pictures on 4chan.
Re:Don't trust Google and Facebook by Pyrus.mg · 2011-07-17 16:24 · Score: 1

Save time filling out forms. Have anons dox your own profile.
Re:Don't trust Google and Facebook by dwandy · 2011-07-18 00:37 · Score: 1

Don't trust Google and Facebook with your personal information! Store it with Anonymous instead!
Campaign Tag Line:
Don't make us come and get it.

--
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?

Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 05:34 · Score: 0

That tittle belongs to MySpace, followed by all the copycats, then Facebook and Tweeter (and copycats alike). There nothing "social" in social networks.

anonymous != bad by felipe13 · 2011-07-17 05:40 · Score: 1

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.

So I guess... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 05:51 · Score: 0

4chan wasn't enough?

I Am Spartacus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 06:00 · Score: 0

Exactly. I Am Spartacus.

Terrorist = deliberately attacking civilian target by the_raptor · 2011-07-17 06:02 · Score: 1

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

Am I the only one one by makubesu · 2011-07-17 06:08 · Score: 1

who suspects that this story is entirely BS?

Re:Am I the only one one by MakinBacon · 2011-07-17 09:26 · Score: 1

who suspects that this story is entirely BS?
This has to be real. Anonymous has long prided themselves on their lack of structure which allows anybody to declare themselves members of Anonymous and start doing stuff in the group's name. The upshot of this is that anybody who wants to can start their own business and capitalize on anonymous. Hell, I could open up my own fast food joint and call it Anonyburger if I wanted to.
Re:Am I the only one one by TheCarp · 2011-07-17 12:03 · Score: 1

Of course it is BS, but, isn't that what Anonymous is? What any leadership is? A bit of BS to get people to work.
Point them at their tools, give them a vision on what to build.... and a little BS to help convince them to do it. Money never hurts but, when it isn't readily available for a cause, sometimes people will do it anyway.
What more does anonymous need for leaders than anyone who will jump up for a second and say "hey lets all do X". Then, whoever wants to join in, does X. Whoever thinks it is lame, or isn't interested, doesn't. Whoever thinks its a bad idea jumps up and says so too.
With a forum setup, if they can get enough people with the right talents and free time on board, then designing the software and building it should hardly be the serious hurdles. Gaining wider acceptance and scaling if it works out, those will be bigger.
I was thinking....Freenet would be an interesting backend. Though, comes with its own problems.... but a "social network" overlaps nicely with freenet's darknet connections.... so there are some overlapping goals.
Could be just the killer app freenet has needed to actually build the network to a decent size.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

4chan? by wembley+fraggle · 2011-07-17 06:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't they already have 4chan for their social networking? Isn't that sufficient?

Re: Holy duplicity Batman! by St.Creed · 2011-07-17 06:29 · Score: 1

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)

Re:Anon social network site bad for different reas by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 07:27 · Score: 0

It may not be a site.

Doable. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 07:42 · Score: 0

-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.

Re:Doable. by BitZtream · 2011-07-17 09:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

Lets go over how badly you missed the point.

-Distributed DNS
-Distributed content
Neither of these things actually exist, they're both still linked by a central authority.

-HTTPS/SSL
-Distributed certificate authority
Distributed certificate authority ... do you know what mutual exclusion is? You can't have a distributed certificate authority.

-Tor
Isn't nearly as useful as you think it is, all you need to do is spend a few hours mapping the tor network with some automated software and you've taken a massive amount of its usefulness away, at best, its as useful as non-logging open proxies, but thinking that its any more useful is sily.

-SSH
Okay, so I can't see your traffic on the network, until you slip up and I get enough of your data or the hosts data to pull off a MITM attack. Granted, its going to require me to access some info that you are at least in theory putting a good effort into protecting, but I doubt theory is reality. In your particular case I'm positive that you'll slip up based on your previous comments showing your lack of understanding. This isn't unique to you, its fairly common, and fortunately SSH was designed very well and makes up for a LOT of human short falls. I'm not saying someone will break SSH, but they will take advantage of the stupid human on the end of the connection making a mistake, the end result is the same.

-Bitcoin
-Free and open
So now I guess you're just throwing random buzzwords you've heard out there? Bitcoin? Seriously? Do you live in a box and this is the first hour you've been out of it in several years? Monopoly money is literally more valuable and harder to counterfeit. The only place bitcoin has any value is among complete and total idiots.
'free and open' ... again ... seriously? This is why you fail. You're allowing a silly political agenda (thats not even yours, you're just a ME TOO) play a part in how you design a system? Its a safe bet your systems will always fail.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:Terrorist = deliberately attacking civilian tar by Joce640k · 2011-07-17 08:00 · Score: 1

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...

Re:They're using "leet" speak, luckily, I speak it by BitZtream · 2011-07-17 08:55 · Score: 1

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

Samzenpus by WML+MUNSON · 2011-07-17 10:19 · Score: 1

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.

The Perfect Anonymous Social Network by Cruciform · 2011-07-17 12:16 · Score: 1

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.

Slashdot was first by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 12:24 · Score: 0

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 protecting in their own way by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 12:26 · Score: 0

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 hope they have a decent app store by jcoy42 · 2011-07-17 13:31 · Score: 1

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.

Re:I hope they have a decent app store by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 14:47 · Score: 0

LOL!

Re:Anon social network site bad for different reas by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 13:34 · Score: 0

It may not be.

Re:Terrorist = deliberately attacking civilian tar by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-17 15:02 · Score: 2

What if they use the bomb to blow up a bus full of factory workers, and the factory in question makes bombs?

Just like facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 17:46 · Score: 0

You can have 1000 'friends' and not have a clue who any of them are.

Re:Terrorist = deliberately attacking civilian tar by the_raptor · 2011-07-17 19:07 · Score: 1

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

review by StephanieKim1 · 2011-07-17 19:46 · Score: 1

i think google is the best now,could achieve any thing possible .

Diaspora anyone ? by Anon8---) · 2011-07-17 20:02 · Score: 1

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 ?

Oxymoron? by zmooc · 2011-07-17 21:23 · Score: 1

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 are a bit late by Jah+Shaka · 2011-07-17 21:28 · Score: 0

they should have checked out www.plugin.com first :)

Anonymous wants to be your friend on Anonplus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 23:30 · Score: 0

Dear Anonymous,

Anonymous wants to be your friend on Anonplus. Click [accept] to accept, or [ignore] to ignore them.

Regards,

Anonymous

Don't trust either "Plus" network by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 00:25 · Score: 0

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.

So... Anonplus.org redirects to 4chan.org/b/ by revlayle · 2011-07-18 02:21 · Score: 1

done!

Am I the only one getting a "zombocom" vibe here? by Bratmon · 2011-07-18 02:33 · Score: 1

This is AnonPlus. Welcome to AnonPlus. You can do anything you like at AnonPlus. Anything at all.

What's a social network anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 04:25 · Score: 0

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".

AnonPlus has LIED to you! by omnichad · 2011-07-18 06:50 · Score: 1

NonaPlus says I can't do anything at all at AnonPlus.

obmoz.com

illegal from day one? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-18 07:27 · Score: 0

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.

Spelling by brabo_sd · 2011-07-19 00:00 · Score: 1

And they should also learn to spell properly!

Anonplus hacked by netflusher · 2011-07-20 00:59 · Score: 1

Hacked already. Fail

Slashdot Mirror

Anonymous Creates Its Own Social Network

271 comments