Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Creates Its Own Social Network
An anonymous reader writes "Google has reportedly banned a handful of Anonymous members from Google+ (it's not exactly clear how many accounts were shut down). The hacktivist group likened Google's actions to the stories of activists being banned from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as governments blocking various websites using Internet censorship tools. As a result, Anonymous has decided to create its own social network: Anonplus."
Talk about an oxymoron.
'Cloud terrorism' please. They care giving 'cyber' a bad name.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How does Google know who the members of "Anonymous" are? Aren't they, ummm, anonymous?
No sig today...
A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.
Imagine some country invaded/occupied the USA, would the rednecks with AR15s be called "terrorists" by the American people? I think not.
I don't think they'd be using the euphemism "Insurgent", either.
No sig today...
Once you strip back the national mythology, many supposedly admirable revolutions in history had the underdogs going after targets with only a tangential connection to the military. Much recent scholarship on the American Revolution, for example, has focused on how the revolutionaries terrorized those they considered Loyalists. Homes were burned down and innocent people were hanged simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about independence from Britain.
Perhaps there is a line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter", but it's awfully hard to draw without losing a rosy view of one's own country's history.
They should just use friendface.
They all post as Anonymous Coward, all the time. It's like a blindfolded sex party.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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.
By your definition the U.S. government can be labelled a terrorist organization.
Yes, yes it can. What's your point?
Dilbert RSS feed
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,
Anonminus would have been more appropriate.
...deliberately hide their... identities
Ah yes
of course not
absolutely.. I'm sure these people are completely innocent
moi? jamais!
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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
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
By "recent", I mean after the formation of the American national mythology, and that means works of history from long before America's problems with the Middle East. It's hard to call a 1940s historian's recounting of the burning of Loyalist homes (one Wikipedia citation for the event) as "a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east."
It's tiresome that any attempt to show the full picture of early American history is attacked as sympathy with America's enemies.
A matter of policy. Look to the tarring and feathering activities of the Sons of Liberty. Many of the men who supported these actions were later Founding Fathers. The Committees of Safety that superseded the Sons of Liberty were even worse.
Yes, I'm sure the founders had very high ideals of liberty and freedom for the natives of the land they occupied.. "Oh, and by the way, domine domine domine, you're all Catholics now."
Two way street if there ever was one... but with only one lane apparently
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
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.
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? :)
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
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
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
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.
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.
"It's a TRAP!"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
I'm guessing you have a penis? I hear that the place isn't quite as nice if you have a vagina.
Don't trust Google and Facebook with your personal information! Store it with Anonymous instead!
The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.
Convenient: if the facts don't fit your biases, dismiss the people presenting the facts as biased and move on. It helps if you throw in some outrageous hyperbole, too. (In reality, show me anyone who is trying to draw the moral equivalence you suggest, and I'll show you someone who is regarded by any serious historian as a loon.) Meanwhile, back in the real world, the fact that many of the American Revolutionaries were, in fact, by modern standards, out-and-out terrorists is something that's been known for decades.
Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?
These questions matter. If you're not asking them, you don't care about the truth; you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.
Indeed they do; and if you actually care about the answers, you'll do some research. And if you do that, you'll quickly learn that GPP's point is entirely correct: no matter how noble their cause, every revolutionary group in history, including those of the years leading up to 1776, has done things that we'd label terrorism (IIRC, a word that came out of the French Revolution) by modern standards. So have the governments they were fighting, of course. Revolutions are ugly, ugly things, inevitably turning families and friends and neighbors against each other, and even of the best of them quickly descend into horror. This is something that those who casually call for revolution against the modern US government should keep in mind.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Don't they already have 4chan for their social networking? Isn't that sufficient?
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
[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!
What if they use the bomb to blow up a bus full of factory workers, and the factory in question makes bombs?