Anonymous Vows To Destroy Facebook

if not at least deface it! by Joe_Dragon · 2011-08-09 12:19 · Score: 5, Funny

if not at least deface it!

Re:if not at least deface it! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 12:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

How would we tell? Have you seen what people post?
Re:if not at least deface it! by cayenne8 · 2011-08-09 13:38 · Score: 1

I hate to root for them (no pun intended), but.....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:if not at least deface it! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 13:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Hm...
Outcome 1: Facebook is "destroyed" (somehow, I guess; unless air raids are involved on the server farms, are they aware of the long-term memories of most Facebook users?). Everyone is "liberated" in a "glorious" "revolution" of genericness, ambiguity, and sheer comic book levels of concretely-defined, crystal-clear morality and happiness for all*? Overall: Good, in theory. I guess? Probability: Immeasurably negligible.
Outcome 2: A bunch of kids who depend on such social media for even the barest simulation of a social life execute their plan to "destroy" Facebook (again, somehow; just go with me on this, it'll be less painful for all of us if you stop asking questions that will inevitably have no answers) and obviously underestimate Facebook's sheer data capacity and redundancies. Said kids wind up embarrassed by their inability to follow through on their promises and hope the internet forgets this (look, if you keep asking questions like "how", we're not going to get anywhere, all right?). Overall: Acceptable. Probability: Above average.
Outcome 3: These kids are bluffing and won't do anything. As the internet is tired of their shenanigans, they don't get the apocalyptic levels of global panic they were looking for. Fearing embarrassment, they bring out the same old ambiguous, contradictory lines about how Anonymous is everyone and no one, there is no Cabal^H^H^H^H^HAnonymous, fear fear fear fnord, blah blah blah. Overall: Neutral. Probability: Average.
Outcome 4: Anonymous fails hard. They try to execute their plan, they find government agents waiting for them, they get tracked, they get busted. The world enjoys a good laugh, since schadenfreude swings both ways. One kid manages to get into the Twitter feed to give an unintentionally cartoonish "I'll get you next time, Gadget, NEXT TIME!!!"-style post. Overall: Very good. Probability: Very low, but definitely measurable.
Out of all the possible outcomes to this, none are terribly bad, I have to admit. I guess the possibility of victory, to them, outweighs the sheer pain and suffering that would be incurred if they JUST STOPPED USING THE DAMN SERVICE ALREADY IF IT BUGS THEM SO FUCKING MUCH.
*: Yes, I'm aware that the imagery they're invoking comes from a movie based on a comic book where said morality is quite opaque. Therein lies the irony.
Re:if not at least deface it! by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-08-09 14:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Outcome 5: Anonymous neither fails nor attacks on that day. The announcement is misinformation. Perhaps it is a distraction from a different target they intend to hit on the same day, is a distraction because they will be hitting facebook before that.
Outcome 6: Anonymous has already obtained information that, when released, will be a major public relations scandal for facebook, or perhaps will be evidence of criminality. The information will be released on that day.
In any event, this appears to be Anonymous trying to do something to hurt the U.S. Intelligence community, with the side-effect of raising awareness of data privacy issues.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re:if not at least deface it! by MightyMartian · 2011-08-09 15:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Outcome 6a: Nobody gives a sweet fuck about any public relations scandal, and Facebook still races towards a billion users, and Anonymous reveals itself once again to be a worthless bunch of virginal fucktards with stock hacking tools and the imaginations and wit of retarded rocks.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:if not at least deface it! by RandomFactor · 2011-08-09 15:17 · Score: 2

Sadly I'm not sure if you are sad to root for Facebook, or Anonymous.

--
--- Mercutio was right.
Re:if not at least deface it! by epistemology · 2011-08-09 16:13 · Score: 1

In a connected world there can be no privacy. It is still worth it. And if we follow a more robust exclusion of ill-gotten evidence in the courts, in employment, and in insurance, we will still find fairness. Free information = No secrets.
Re:if not at least deface it! by arth1 · 2011-08-09 16:43 · Score: 1

Outcome 7: By then, the sheep have moved on to the next big social networking fad (Google+), and too few are left to give a shit.
Reasoning: The same people who now say they'll never stop using Facebook are likely those who said the same about MySpace, Friendster, Livejournal, and if old enough, AOL and EFNet.
You can have my WELL account when you pry it out of my cold dead squiggle dot
Re:if not at least deface it! by TWX · 2011-08-09 17:00 · Score: 2

For some reason, a certain iconic commercial from a Super Bowl from the early eighties comes directly to mind.
On the other hand, I don't have faith in the populace. Bread and Circuses worked for the Romans, and fast food, 24 hour cable "news", "reality" TV, radio call-in and talk shows, video games, and the Internet work for the western and developed eastern worlds. Take away one, and probably the worst you'll see on any really large scale will be puzzlement as people switch to another, with complaints from some.
Even if you manage to turn off all of these media that require no critical thinking, all you're going to do is to make a bunch of people angry at you for taking this away from them. You're not going to get most of them to see what they're choosing to slave themselves to, and most of them wouldn't agree that their diversions are bad. They certainly aren't going to en massé realize how they've been had and rise up. They're addicts.
I sympathize. I've been a TV, video game, and Internet addict at various times. I consider myself lucky in a way that the possibility of getting infected through the browser is high enough that I've stopped using Stumbleupon and stopped surfing constantly, and now I go play in the garage, or work on the house, or you know, talk with my wife. Sometimes I miss it, but I get enough of it throughout the day anyway that I may as well tune out and regain my own free time when I can.
This is a step that only an individual can personally choose to take. Most people aren't ready. Those in Anonymous who've chosen this course probably haven't really considered the true lack of result they'll probably see.,

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:if not at least deface it! by oztiks · 2011-08-09 17:35 · Score: 1

Outcome 8: Holobands are the next in thing. We create a race of AI beings which then wipe us out
Re:if not at least deface it! by deathguppie · 2011-08-09 17:44 · Score: 3, Informative

In any event, this appears to be Anonymous trying to do something to hurt the U.S. Intelligence community, with the side-effect of raising awareness of data privacy issues.
Oh, ya that higher morality thing that Anonymous has going.. like the time they tried to fill youtube with porn.

--
once more into the breach
Re:if not at least deface it! by rastos1 · 2011-08-09 18:56 · Score: 2, Funny

if they JUST STOPPED USING THE DAMN SERVICE ALREADY IF IT BUGS THEM SO FUCKING MUCH.
The problem with that approach is that your privacy can be violated by your friends that put your personal information on FB even if you don't have an account there. I'm trying to solve the problem by not having friends IRL either.
Re:if not at least deface it! by Gaygirlie · 2011-08-09 20:24 · Score: 2

Outcome 6: Anonymous has already obtained information that, when released, will be a major public relations scandal for facebook, or perhaps will be evidence of criminality. The information will be released on that day.
- Yet Facebook would still live on, even in the very unlikely situation where the management went to jail, and thus Facebook still wouldn't be "destroyed."

with the side-effect of raising awareness of data privacy issues.
- Average Jane and Joe simply DO NOT CARE. Result: none.
Re:if not at least deface it! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 20:25 · Score: 1

Outcome 9: Puppies!
Re:if not at least deface it! by Gaygirlie · 2011-08-09 20:25 · Score: 2

if they JUST STOPPED USING THE DAMN SERVICE ALREADY IF IT BUGS THEM SO FUCKING MUCH.
The problem with that approach is that your privacy can be violated by your friends that put your personal information on FB even if you don't have an account there. I'm trying to solve the problem by not having friends IRL either.
To be honest, that same thing happens IRL, too. Does that mean we should start fighting reality also and prevent people from talking about you or anything related to you when you haven't expressly given them permission?
Re:if not at least deface it! by Stuarticus · 2011-08-09 20:37 · Score: 1

I'm with you if you want to do a press release saying that on November 5th you and I will attack the very fabric of reality.

That should put the fear of god in people!

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re:if not at least deface it! by Gaygirlie · 2011-08-09 21:00 · Score: 1

5th November.. that means I still have some time to put together my superhero costume. Need to find some really obnoxiously bright and tight spandex: even if I fail in breaking the fabrics of reality atleast I'll make damn sure they won't forget me easily!!
Re:if not at least deface it! by reboot246 · 2011-08-09 21:01 · Score: 1

Finally! A worthwhile project!
Re:if not at least deface it! by Zeromous · 2011-08-09 22:39 · Score: 1

This idea is completely outrageous!

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Re:if not at least deface it! by wdef · 2011-08-09 22:41 · Score: 1

IRL is not a valid comparison. Damage via say gossip is often transient and local within a small community. It is also not always attached to a trackable unique identity - you might be just passing through. By contrast, Facebook can if they wish expose your data to whoever, forever, and it links back to what is probably your real name and photo.
Re:if not at least deface it! by tenco · 2011-08-10 00:00 · Score: 1

Outcome 8: Holobands are the next in thing. We create a race of AI beings.
Outcome 8a: AI beings wipe us out (SkyNet).
Outcome 8b: AI beings wipe our asses (The Culture).
FTFY ;)
Re:if not at least deface it! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-10 00:08 · Score: 1

It's your choice whether or not to use Facebook, if you do choose to use it then Anonymous is going to try to take that away. So fuck them for trying making decisions for me.
Re:if not at least deface it! by w_dragon · 2011-08-10 00:22 · Score: 2

choosing to slave
Do you see the contradiction in logic there? Slaves don't have a choice, in particular they don't have a choice to be a slave.
Re:if not at least deface it! by Stuarticus · 2011-08-10 00:34 · Score: 1

Should we toss a coin to decide who is the sidekick?

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re:if not at least deface it! by qxcv · 2011-08-10 00:41 · Score: 1

Outcome 11: ???
Outcome 12: Profit.

--
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
Re:if not at least deface it! by kevinNCSU · 2011-08-10 01:07 · Score: 1

In any event, this appears to be Anonymous trying to do something to hurt the U.S. Intelligence community
Yes, how will we ever find Ayman al-Zawahiri if he isn't allowed to continue to post status updates and "check in" on Facebook. We would have gotten him too if it was for those meddling Anonymous and their dog!
Re:if not at least deface it! by justsayin · 2011-08-10 01:18 · Score: 1

Outcome 7: The Navy Seals bust through the window and take em all to Guantanamo.
Re:if not at least deface it! by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-08-10 01:29 · Score: 1

I was not suggesting it was a moral act, just that it had a particular side-effect which happens to be good. From a PR standpoint, that side-effect may be bad because it will help turn the common people against them. Interestingly, that is another possibility, now that I think about it--someone they have ticked off in the past may be doing this, and pretending to be them, in order to tick people off and provoke stronger public support for an electronic crackdown.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re:if not at least deface it! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-10 01:57 · Score: 1

I could waste my time and energy trying to get the barest amount of knowledge through your rock-like skull, but why bother when I can just link to a recent xkcd strip that quite succinctly details the problems with your assertion? That's much more fun, and most of us get another laugh out of it after we're done laughing at your inability to understand that the internet exists outside of HTTP.
Re:if not at least deface it! by __aasehi2499 · 2011-08-10 02:03 · Score: 1

Sure they do, they may not like the idea of the consequences they will have to face in order not to be a slave, but they can choose. For example, a slave in the truest sense could choose not to be a slave by not doing what their told or running away, but they may get hurt or killed for their transgression. Civil disobedience has effectively demonstrated that doing nothing when told to x, y or z results in all three not happening, with consequences that the disobedient must then be at least aware are coming.
Re:if not at least deface it! by ConceptJunkie · 2011-08-10 02:10 · Score: 1

Oh, I have plenty of friends, but none of them know my real name, job or where I live. Plus I always leave the house in disguise. At night.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:if not at least deface it! by uniquename72 · 2011-08-10 03:44 · Score: 1

A retarded screed if ever there was one. Facebook is a great way for me to keep in touch with my family 2000 miles away. 100 years ago, I'd have written letters and used the phone. Same fucking thing.

YOUR use of various media may have come at the expense of your life (and your wife) -- but to extrapolate your personality defects onto everyone else and then pretend to feel superior about it? Piss off.

How 'bout spending time with your family instead of posting to /.?
Re:if not at least deface it! by teslafreak · 2011-08-10 03:53 · Score: 1

Outcome 7 epilog : Government cackles wildly, people laugh at their misfortune (because people always do), two days later, everyone forgets everything. Of all the places you could try and attack to make a statement, a social network site seems like the worst idea. If you manage to cause serious damage, you have more people looking for you, and a bunch of cranky people who can't post about that they had for lunch anymore (but otherwise will just go to Twitter to do it). If you fail, you fail in a setting where even more people than normal are aware that you failed. It just seems like a lose/lose situation.
Re:if not at least deface it! by GNious · 2011-08-10 04:08 · Score: 2

Outcome 6: Anonymous has already obtained information that, when released, will be a major public relations scandal for facebook, or perhaps will be evidence of criminality. The information will be released on that day.
Probability: Possible
Effect: Negligible, if measured more than 3 days after the event
Re:if not at least deface it! by Cederic · 2011-08-10 04:46 · Score: 1

A retarded screed if ever there was one. Facebook is a great way for me to keep in touch with my family 2000 miles away. 100 years ago, I'd have written letters and used the phone. Same fucking thing.
Not the same thing at all. You can write without telling the postal service all of your personal details, and having them sell them on. You can phone without giving out more than a billing address.
You can also use multiple Internet services or write your own to keep in touch with your family 2000 miles away. You don't need Facebook to do this.
So no, it's not the same fucking thing. Anyway, how 'bout spending time with your family instead of being 2000 miles away posting bullshit to slashdot?
Re:if not at least deface it! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-10 05:01 · Score: 1

In any event, this appears to be Anonymous trying to do something to hurt the U.S. Intelligence community, with the side-effect of raising awareness of data privacy issues.
I think you're making Anonymous out to be more clever and more noble than they actually are.
Re:if not at least deface it! by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-08-10 06:26 · Score: 1

Not really--It doesn't make them either clever or noble. It's just a logical target, with side-effects that appeal to concerns of techies. It doesn't take any particular cleverness to know facebook is an intelligence source, since that's been covered by the media a few times. (I don't recall the particular articles, but am sure they've come up on slashdot before.) Nor does it take any great nobility to rationalize or have a rationalization for a criminal act. Most criminals do.
I suppose it's possible that harm to the intelligence community isn't the driving factor. If anonymous isn't thinking strategically, or if their strategy is warped by some kind of odd logic that makes them think that this will help them with the general public, for example.
It is also possible that this is not Anonymous at all, but is a script kiddie in a basement. Apparently it comes from a low production quality youtube video that was sitting around for a month before the German Press noticed.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re:if not at least deface it! by kmoser · 2011-08-10 16:47 · Score: 1

How does this differ from any other site where people post stuff?
Re:if not at least deface it! by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-08-13 04:57 · Score: 1

There's a problem with outcome 5. All the intelligent people who would be capable of something like that have grown up and gotten jobs and such and no longer associate with this Anonymous thing of their childhood.
Re:if not at least deface it! by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-08-13 04:58 · Score: 1

Problem with outcome 6*. Fuck.
Well I guess it's a problem with all outcomes that don't result in massive failure.

All your faces by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 12:20 · Score: 1, Funny

are belong to us?

Re:All your faces by ArundelCastle · 2011-08-09 17:02 · Score: 1

=b ArundelCastle and 4 other people like this.

Uhm... DUH. by MikeV · 2011-08-09 12:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

How long did it take the Anonymouse script-kiddies to figure this out?
"When a service is "free," it really means they're making money off of you and your information.'"" Hello - that's been the model of free services for as long as services have been free. You guys need to get a refund for that pot you're smoking and go detox somewhere. People consider it an amicable trade. A few are inconvenienced - boo hoo. Grow a pair and move on.

Re:Uhm... DUH. by darkmeridian · 2011-08-09 12:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

"A few are inconvenienced."
I don't think people understand how much information companies like Google have on its users. Unless you are completely off the grind living in a shack in Montana, credit card companies know what you're spending your money on, as does PayPal, eBay, Google Checkout, and Amazon. So does all the tracking websites with the persistent cookies. Your email, your most intimate thoughts and angriest words along with your buying habits are all in there. Google Voice is fucking ridiculous in terms of getting information. It knows who you call and text, and its learning what you're saying. (Voicemail transcription, anyone?)
If I went to your Google.com/Dashboard, I'd know a great more about you than you thought you were giving up. And that's only one aspect of the web. You are giving up more than you think.

--
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Re:Uhm... DUH. by artor3 · 2011-08-09 12:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know what I'm giving up, and I give it up gladly for the services I receive. You may disagree. But who are you to tell the rest of us what we should and shouldn't do?
Why should I care that some companies know my buying habits? I am one of billions. There exist some unfathomably vast spreadsheets with a row that indicates I like oatmeal for breakfast and enjoy the works of Terry Pratchett. Why should that bother me? If anything it means that more stores will stock oatmeal and more quality humorous fantasy books will get made.
They certainly don't have my most intimate thoughts, because those rarely leave my lips and never enter a computer. They may have a few angry letters I wrote, but so what? I'm one of billions. No one's likely to see it, and unless it's something really egregious, no one will ever care.
Frankly, I think you're paranoid. You think that people care about tracking you, personally. Let me assure you, you're not that important. No one cares. That's a good thing. You're one of billions, and well below the notice of multinational corporations. If you're afraid of using facebook, fine, but don't go demanding it be destroyed because of your fear.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 13:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

But wait until you try and do something about the world. Maybe you'll run for political office. Or want to help out at child care center down the street. Wanted that teacher's license? Maybe someone will find out that people that google Cheerios, fucktards, and pantyhose are statistically proven to be terrorists and need to be rounded up and vilified. They'll look around for a while until that one row in one table in one database outs you. Then you're toast.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Darkness404 · 2011-08-09 13:11 · Score: 1

Exactly. You aren't that important and the data important to marketers isn't your most personal information and the data that they use in the end often benefits you in a way because marketers use that data to find an audience. If you enjoy, for example, playing Japanese RPGs, and Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/Square/etc. see that you are one of many who enjoy that, they will release more Japanese RPGs for sale, meaning more games (or better games) for you.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Noodlenoggin · 2011-08-09 13:12 · Score: 1

@Artor3 (1344997)

+1
It's just soo easy to hide amongst all the noise that nobody really cares about your person as such.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by cavreader · 2011-08-09 13:12 · Score: 1

People have gone overboard with their fear of someone knowing anything about them. They post their life stories on the Internet and turn around and complain about someone breaching their privacy. Anonymity is not a human right as a lot of these folks believe. Just paying your electric or water bill puts your information into someones database. It is entirely up to the individual to decide whether to use a social media service or conduct commercial transactions using the Internet. There are ways to obscure your web activity if you want to. Granted even the most sophisticated ways of doing so can be by passed but only when someone with the resources to do so are looking for you specifically for some reason. People are perfectly free to abandon the online and electronic communication services and move to a shack in the wilderness but even then you still need to dodge and thermal imaging satellites that pass over head. If someone is really searching for you it can accomplished without relying on the Internet but we are moving into the generations who have never experienced life without the Internet and don't realize while it might be faster to track someone today using the Internet it could also be accomplished in the pre-Internet era.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Dunbal · 2011-08-09 13:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

A people that is willing to judge your leadership by something you might have done years ago which they found out about on facebook doesn't deserve a good leader. Maybe they should stick to the other kind - the too-good-to-be-true whitened teeth clean new shirted smooth talking liar who is going to rape them in the face the first chance s/he gets. You know, the kind we have all the time.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 13:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's the point. No one walks on water unless it's frozen. Everyone deserves anonymity, but none of us get it. Google and others can read my cookies and figure out any little dark secret they want. Maybe they'll get http_referrers and keep appending the list. The method doesn't matter, the ad-based economy is designed to optimize selling to you at the price of your privacy. They'll put 2+2 together, however, and come out with 44.13833.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Dunbal · 2011-08-09 13:32 · Score: 2

So the other theory is valid. Increase the noise enough and the signal is lost. But we have to get rid of this pseudo-religious attitude of "me? Oh god no not ME! I would NEVER do that - people actually DO that?". Come on. Everyone has peed in the shower. Everyone has picked their nose. Everyone has shat themselves. Everyone has been in a really embarrassing or compromising situation at some point or another. But a crook will not post that he is a crook on facebook. You won't find that ANYWHERE. Therefore if people are to lose their privacy, then people have to learn to ignore stupid, trivial things like "omg he smoked a joint in college" and focus on what people actually think.
Hell my rationale is all over the internet if you google my pseudonym, I've got thousands of posts on many boards. I'm not saying I'm right all the time, and I'm not saying I have the answer to everything. But I'm certainly not ashamed of anything I've written because this is who I am.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by atomicbutterfly · 2011-08-09 13:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

But wait until you try and do something about the world. Maybe you'll run for political office. Or want to help out at child care center down the street. Wanted that teacher's license? Maybe someone will find out that people that google Cheerios, fucktards, and pantyhose are statistically proven to be terrorists and need to be rounded up and vilified. They'll look around for a while until that one row in one table in one database outs you. Then you're toast.
The fact you had to use hyperbole to make you point, in fact destroys your point. Act sensibly on the net and you'll be fine for the most part. These 'what if' scenarios are so statistically insignificant, particularly if you follow the sensible part I mentioned, that it's basically a barrier to being able to use technically in a useful and fun manner.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by antifoidulus · 2011-08-09 13:41 · Score: 2

That signal to noise ratio is precisely why its better to have a common and/or famous name then it is to have a rare name. You google Henry Smith and you probably wont get a whole lot on Henry Smith of Baton Rouge LA, even if you went looking for it because there is just so much noise out there.

The real problem of course comes when you have a name thats common enough for a few other people to have it, but not all that common. In my case someone with my first and last name, only about 2 years older than I, and from relatively the same area as I am from has been arrested twice and been in the papers for it. While nobody will probably conflate me with said person, its not something Im exactly thrilled about.....

And of course if you google my full name you get mostly porn(which is why I should use it more often :P), but thats neither here nor there.

--
Monstar L
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 13:43 · Score: 1

Actually, there are some pretty stupid criminals out there, but we'll leave that to one side for now.
Having the attitude of living freely is ok. Saying what you want is free speech. You may not be right, but you might be. Same here.
The capacity to protect your personal privacy from those that would abuse it is an important human right. For those that don't give a shit, it won't make any sense as they've subjugated the currency of their privacy and rationalized it away. To others, it warrants respect because THEY believe in it, and it's part of THEIR currency. They deserve the protection. You might not need it or care for its possible outcomes. But there are others that do, and if you devalue your sense of the currency of privacy as an issue, you also devalue their currency but not by their choosing. You may not needed. Maybe they do, and you subvert theirs by not caring about yours.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 13:45 · Score: 1

Civilians deserve the same protection that geeks know how to navigate by lessons learned. There are toads out there that compile information, then push all of the data to one edge to distort reality. Privacy has real currency; some don't see it that way. That view diminishes the privacy view of others by assent.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by izomiac · 2011-08-09 13:51 · Score: 2

That is a model, not the only one. Probably not even the most common. As for Facebook, their popularity was gained when they respected privacy a tiny bit more, and now they're milking their data for all it's worth. Bait-and-switch, with the social lives of millions held hostage, and no way to end your business relationship and reclaim the privacy you've lost under false assurances of confidentiality. While I use Facebook, I have to micromanage my data so carefully that I'd be glad to see Anonymous make good on their threat so people move to a better service.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 13:55 · Score: 1

Facebook I'm not worried about; although its correlations are juicy for someone, I suppose. My criticism is about Google and tracking cookies and http_referrer manipulation, and so forth.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by __aaqvdr516 · 2011-08-09 13:57 · Score: 2

We can idealize what people *should* do all day long. When it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, you'll find that the actual response may not be what it *should* be and no one is the wiser.
For a period of time I was an instructor. We routinely selected recent graduates to stay on to instruct the next class. One of my students was exceptional. He had also smoked weed and had admitted to it. That alone was the deciding factor in his application being dropped. I learned of this after the fact and I did tell him the reason that he was passed over. It didn't matter how long ago he did it, it was the fact that he did it at all.
In reality, people are dicks. Ideologically, they'll tell you they'd never make such a brash decision.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 13:59 · Score: 1

Will the internet and techology also make it a lot easier to target people, both for ads and for other reasons. For example if your phone is broadcasting its GPS coordinates all the time and a potentially suspicious fire breaks out 30 minutes after you've left a building the authorities will now know. Sure it is a benefit that if an arson happens that it will be easier to catch the bad guy. But it also means hundreds or thousands of people might get called in or asked to answer questions by email etc because something is "suspicious" without a more through investigation being done in the first place. Thus thousands and millions of people hours are at stake because it is now more convenient to cast a wide net than to try to make a more through filter first. Every time there is a traffic accident they could call in everyone that was on that block in to ask them if they saw anything. No more hearing a bang and looking over and it had already happened. Now you'll have to stick around or get called in to answer questions about what you "witnessed" rather than the fact you left being used as a logical filter for "I didn't see anything so I don't need to be here", they can now just text message everyone that was nearby and harass them with questions they have no good way of answering.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by russotto · 2011-08-09 14:06 · Score: 1

Your email, your most intimate thoughts and angriest words along with your buying habits are all in there.
My most intimate thoughts aren't on the net. My angriest words I want people to hear; the problem with them isn't too little privacy, but that they're drowned out in the noise. As for my buying habits, if you care that I bought a battery (9V 2000mah), a sink, a workstation (a table, not a computer), a Nelson lamp, and a Schedules Direct subscription, you're welcome to that information; that's all Google Checkout has.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Wovel · 2011-08-09 14:20 · Score: 1

The problem is not anominity, the problem is shallow people that care about irrelevant data.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-09 14:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

No one "deserves" your protection. You aren't their nanny, no matter how certain you are that you know best.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 14:24 · Score: 1

Sadly, I am. I'm my brother's guardian, and also for my mother, who suffers from dementia. I have a responsibility to others: it's called civility.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by sjames · 2011-08-09 14:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

In an age where people have ACTUALLY been thrown off a flight and threatened with arrest at an airport because they had a PICTURE of a gun, it's not necessarily an exaggeration. The "authorities" have gone insane and cannot be expected to operate in a rational manner. They might attach odd significance to nearly anything,. much like any sufferer of schizophrenia.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by cavreader · 2011-08-09 14:36 · Score: 1

I can't speak for all phones but I can disable the GPS functionality on mine if I want to.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-09 14:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, and parents nanny their children. That doesn't change the fact that you don't know best for anyone else. You not only have no responsibility to save my parent's privacy, you have no right to be part of the equation.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by grubwort · 2011-08-09 14:48 · Score: 2

> a crook will not post that he is a crook on facebook. You won't find that ANYWHERE.
Unless they're in London, of course.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 14:52 · Score: 1

Their privacy is their own, as is yours. I assert my responsibility to those that don't realize that their privacy is capitulated. And I speak freely so as to add my voice to those that believe that privacy has currency. Their rights, human rights, one of which is privacy, needs protections from those that would usurp and manipulate it to ends not understood by those individuals robbed of it.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by HornWumpus · 2011-08-09 14:55 · Score: 1

Dumbass should have never admitted anything.
One thing I've learned watching cop shows on TV is, never admit to nothing, the only words you say are 'I want a lawyer'. Doubly true if innocent.
Then again I bet people/suspects that come in with lawyers to fill out their apps don't get far. I could be wrong. I bet saying the words 'I want a lawyer' during an interview would be frowned on.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Uhm... DUH. by MikeV · 2011-08-09 14:57 · Score: 1

If your online participation is done with the idea that it is all public anyway, then what is the problem? If people value their privacy that much then they need to zip those loose lips to begin with. There is no privacy on the internet. Never was, never will be. The only way to be free from that is to turn your computer off and go do something useful. But wait - Visa knows every purchase you've made and can track you where ever you are - so you may as well give up your credit cards. Credit reporting agencies have an extensive profile on you as well that is worth money and that is exploited for money - so ditch the idea of having a car or house or school loans. There are databases of every check you've written so you may as well close your bank account and use cash only. Grocers have gone to tracking you with their discount cards, so get used to paying full price. Just where do you draw the line? In a mud hut out in the forest somewhere with foil lined walls and wearing a foil hat? Privacy loss is inevitable and unavoidable. The best you can do is be aware of that and make sure you act online in that dark room of yours as if you were in the middle of church with everyone looking over your shoulder. Being aware of the absolute lack of privacy gives you the opportunity to shape how you are perceived. While it is often the sign of impending dictatorships that say, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about," for us a better solution is to make sure that what we do have to hide simply remains off-grid.
We also download gigabytes of data, mostly for free. ISO's of our favorite OS here and there, images, movies, music, etc etc. We are able to visually communicate with each other with pictures and videos as well as text and even live audio also largely for free. Did you really thing it was truly free. The other wise saying is alive and well here - "Nothing Is Free." What then is it worth to you? You can't stop it. Anonymous can't stop it. So - what are you going to do? Sit in a corner crying, or being smart with what you expose of yourself on what is essentially a very public and exploited network?
Re:Uhm... DUH. by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-09 14:58 · Score: 1

The arrogance in asserting your responsibility to that which you have no right to be responsible is staggering, but expected from a typical Slashdotter. It's a basic disconnect between belief and reality. You simply have no place in making such a decision for anyone but yourself.
Feel free to whine about it all you want, of course. Just save the hyperbolic talk for someone who doesn't see through it.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by KingMotley · 2011-08-09 15:02 · Score: 1

Uh, no. I know what I've given up. Also, they don't know my most intimate thoughts, or angriest words, because I'm not an emo teen, and I don't post those things ANYWHERE.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by cheekyjohnson · 2011-08-09 15:08 · Score: 1

But who are you to tell the rest of us what we should and shouldn't do?
That happens all the time. In fact, it'd be difficult to make a law that didn't do this.

Frankly, I think you're paranoid.
If countermeasures only take a few moments to set up, then why not do it (provided you have the desire to in the first place)?

You think that people care about tracking you, personally.
I don't think anyone said that.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 15:08 · Score: 1

A "fucktard" is an epithet, one that's all too commonly used on Slashdot as an ambiguous denigration. "They" is intentionally left ambiguous. "They" are whoever gets the information, to be unintentionally used against you.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by isaac · 2011-08-09 15:11 · Score: 1

I can't speak for all phones but I can disable the GPS functionality on mine if I want to.
Sure, but you can still be tracked by the network and anyone who cares.
E911 Phase 2 requires the ability to localize your phone to 300 meters, within 6 minutes regardless of whether you've "disabled GPS" or not.

--
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by KingMotley · 2011-08-09 15:12 · Score: 1

Perhaps you should look for a job at a company that doesn't already have bafoon managers?
Re:Uhm... DUH. by LordLimecat · 2011-08-09 15:14 · Score: 1

I don't think people understand how much information companies like Google have on its users.
Google has a link to what they gather on every page. They make it ridiculously easy to pick up shop and move to another service.
Are you seriously complaining that most people dont care enough to click "about" or "privacy policy" or "terms" on gmail? If they dont care-- and this with magazines like Time claiming "Google wants to own your mind"-- why on earth do you need to care for them.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by MightyMartian · 2011-08-09 15:14 · Score: 1

And what, they weren't doing that before? Political scandals and skeletons in the closet weren't invented along with COBOL. If you've did something wrong, even a hundred years ago, someone knew about it and somehow always showed up at the moment of least convenience.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 15:17 · Score: 1

Now, loads of disconnected information can be connected together. No one used to sit and watch what you read in a library or the privacy of your own home, but Internet accessibility is quite well tracked. Ask Fox News.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by LordLimecat · 2011-08-09 15:17 · Score: 2

Everyone deserves anonymity, but none of us get it
Um, you can actually PAY for some of these services and not be tracked. Heck, google gives you a free web browser and then lets you opt out of ALL of its info-gathering.
People deserve what they are willing to pay for. The people have spoken, they want free services, not anonymous services.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by MightyMartian · 2011-08-09 15:18 · Score: 1

Google's too big a target. The worthless piles of garbage known as Anonymous have enough sense to realize that. Facebook is probably far too large and distributed now to be reasonably taken down. A node here and there, maybe, but Anonymous, well they're as pig ignorant as they come. Fuck I wish their fucking parents would paddle their asses and ground them from their computers for three months.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by MightyMartian · 2011-08-09 15:31 · Score: 1

So it makes the blackmailer's job easier. Like I said, plenty of politicians have fallen due to scandal in the past.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Altrag · 2011-08-09 15:42 · Score: 1

I know what I'm giving up, and I give it up gladly for the services I receive. You may disagree. But who are you to tell the rest of us what we should and shouldn't do?
I'm not anyone to tell you what to do. And nor is anyone else.
Where the problem comes in is with the people who DON'T know what they're giving up when they're using these services.
And that's the issue that repeatedly gets associated with Facebook -- the information is gathered, but there's little or no indication of that fact. I'm sure there's some overly broad clauses in some ToS somewhere but lets face it, some 180 page legal document is not going to be read or understood by the vast majority of Facebook users.
And worst of all, they're happy to sell your information (including personal information) to anyone willing to pay, regardless of how shady they are and your only way to opt out is to delete your account.
And deleting your account is getting hard to do if you want to keep up with your social circles (at least it is around here -- Facebook is the social networking app in my area of the world).
They've been getting better over the years, but its always been at the "urging" of third parties. That is, someone makes a big enough stink that they're forced to take notice either via legislation or to save face from a PR standpoint.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by atomicbutterfly · 2011-08-09 16:04 · Score: 1

Who? Source(s)?
I'm not suggesting you're a liar (in fact I'm sure sure this crap happens to unfortunate people every now and then). But I'd bet money it's still statistically insignificant to the number of users who use social network services harmlessly and fruitfully.
On that note, if the authorities have a problem with someone, the information they used to profile said individual could come from anywhere, not such social networking services. Authorities can be dicks, yes, and staying hidden away from any social interaction on the net is a way to remain reasonably hidden, but we shouldn't bow down to such demands, particularly since we're doing nothing wrong.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by mrmeval · 2011-08-09 16:26 · Score: 1

Yes but it's transitory and with some effort easily poisoned.
Of the stuff which I'd allowed to be tied to me II had thought Usenet archives would store the stuff forever till Google got a hold of them.
Now there's less than 10 percent of the stuff from the 1990s online and it's dwindling.
I'm not sure if it's deliberate or that the scribblings are getting eaten by enough errors to cause the software to delete them or hide them.
Soon I'll cease to exist pre-2000

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Re:Uhm... DUH. by fferreres · 2011-08-09 16:42 · Score: 2

Hey, stop it. You have any rights at all because someone cared for a constitution and for generation centuries ago. That's why you can open your lousy mouth and say that nobody needs to care about you or others because you decided that. Everyone in the USA and in most countries where there is and degree of free speech, got it from someone else that not only cared for himself/herself but for all the people living there then, understood the importance of it, and found a way to pass it on to future generations regardless of their understanding or not of it. If you want to give the gift up, you can go to places many many places where there is none, and regardless of you not acknowledging it, you will miss your rights, and understand how they were gifted to you and for what reason.

--
unfinished: (adj.)
Re:Uhm... DUH. by rocketPack · 2011-08-09 16:43 · Score: 1

Why should I take this kind of data collection personally? After all, they know what I do on the internet but they don't actually don't know anything about me. I'm just a number, a component of their statistical calculation. I'm a source of data used to seed their advertising rotation algorithm for shit I never buy (mostly because I don't even acknowledge the advertisements).

Why is it that when we WANT someone to notice our tiny, pathetic existence we decry the cold, computerized nature of big business and complain about how we are "just a number" to them... but when we call it a "privacy issue" it's all about "how much they know about me!"

So what if Google knows you looked up hydroponics kits? Do you think they have some useful purpose for that information which is ultimately going to negatively affect you in some way?
Re:Uhm... DUH. by cavreader · 2011-08-09 16:47 · Score: 1

"network and anyone who cares" Of course I can. I don't even disable my GPS because I frequently use the mapping and navigation apps on the phone. But I also really don't give a shit about the very remote chance that someone can use my phone data to specifically look for me. The government or private detectives can find me anytime they want by just using my tax returns, drivers license, SSN, and any data stored by the credit agencies if they are interested in my financial history. I have even provided in-depth personal information and fingerprints for my security clearances. All of this information provides a much more detailed picture of me and all of these sources existed before the Internet.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by sjames · 2011-08-09 17:21 · Score: 1

It's right here on google or here.
My argument wasn't that we should bow down to all this and censor ourselves at all. I was just pointing out that with incidents like the above, I see no hyperbole at all in GP's post. Giving these people a database like that IS just like giving a toddler a loaded gun with the hammer pulled back.
While that particular incident was in the U.K., there is plenty to go around, including the great Boston Light Bright scare.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by GNUman · 2011-08-09 17:30 · Score: 1

Don't know what exact event the parent was talking about, but it brought back memories of the guy at Heathrow Airport who was threatened with arrest unless he changed his t-shirt. The offending t-shirt showed Optimus Prime with a gun. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1234193.ece
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Svartormr · 2011-08-09 17:59 · Score: 1

Heck, google gives you a free web browser and then lets you opt out of ALL of its info-gathering.
...and you believe them?
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-08-09 18:19 · Score: 2

These 'what if' scenarios are so statistically insignificant, particularly if you follow the sensible part I mentioned, that it's basically a barrier to being able to use technically in a useful and fun manner.
Ah, the old convenience trumps everything argument.
The problem with even such "statistically insignificant" events is their outsized effect. I don't mean just screwing over one person, I mean screwing over society. Because you can never really take it back something once it is on the net, what you think today is no big deal may change as circumstance change but you can't change the fact that the information is now out there.
One such example is the netflix "anonymized" data that they released a few years back. Yeah it was anonymous, until combined with IMDB voting information. Once that happened it was easy to out closeted gays who rented both 'straight' and gay-interest movies from netflix. Careful to keep their cover they only ever voted on 'straight' movies at IMDB, but that was still enough to match the 'anonymous' netflix profiles that contained the record of all of their movie rentals.
Big deal. So some gays might have been outed, it happens all the time. It's not the end of the world for everybody else. Consider a whistle-blower with an extensive facebook profile. In order to protect his identity, he decides to send some documents to his uncle halfway across the country to have them snail-mailed with a post-mark from an entirely different state. Except that facebook information links him to his uncle and the people he blew the whistle on are able to use that information to narrow down their list of suspects to just him. Oh shit.
Oh shit for him and oh shit for all whistle-blowers in the future who may be intimidated into silence because there is just so much info out there about them that they can't have any confidence that it won't somehow, someway be used for revenge.
More hyperbole? Eh, it would make a good movie. But it also makes a relate-able example of the entirely new class of risks for people who "act sensibly" but could still get boned and most importantly, society in general gets boned because the corrupting nature of the status quo ends up being challenged less and less.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by godel_56 · 2011-08-09 18:45 · Score: 1

But wait until you try and do something about the world. Maybe you'll run for political office. Or want to help out at child care center down the street. Wanted that teacher's license? Maybe someone will find out that people that google Cheerios, fucktards, and pantyhose are statistically proven to be terrorists and need to be rounded up and vilified. They'll look around for a while until that one row in one table in one database outs you. Then you're toast.
Yeah, I recently saw where a young American female teacher was sacked for posting a photo of herself just HOLDING a beer while at a tour at a brewery in Ireland (I think), while she was on holidays.
She wasn't drinking it, she wasn't drunk, and she was fully dressed and presentable. Of course this was in one of the retard southern states.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Shihar · 2011-08-09 18:47 · Score: 1

But wait until you try and do something about the world. Maybe you'll run for political office. Or want to help out at child care center down the street. Wanted that teacher's license? Maybe someone will find out that people that google Cheerios, fucktards, and pantyhose are statistically proven to be terrorists and need to be rounded up and vilified. They'll look around for a while until that one row in one table in one database outs you. Then you're toast.
Google (and Facebook), don't sell information on you personal. Period. Full stop. Stop being paranoid. No one can pay Google for your personal search history or get a profile on you. Google does try and understand who you are. When Google "sells you", they sell you by slapping you into a bundle of "nerds who are likely to buy your goofy as Firefly shirt" and promise to the people who make Firefly shirts that they are going to show ads to people like you. This is harmless. Not only is it harmless, but it is actively good. If an advertiser can target me enough to try and offer me up crap that I actually want, it becomes a service rather than an annoyance. I only wish Google knew 'my type' well enough to sell me a good interesting book instead of offering me the chance to refinance a mortgage that I don't have.
The only real danger is when your government jumps in and start trying to hunt down people based upon their data. That is a legitimate concern,but frankly, if your government wants to fuck you, they are going to have their way. Otherwise, all that matters is controlling your data from people who you want to hide it from. Don't friend your fucking boss on Facebook and then declare him the devil incarnate. Friend with care on Facebook, use Google Plus, use e-mail, or simply keep it off the tubes. If you over share, you are just being a moron.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by brillow · 2011-08-09 19:24 · Score: 1

I think their argument is that facebook does not readily make available information for you to know what you're giving them. Essentially, facebook knows most people would not be ok with some of the things they do, so they hide the information.
I think its likely anon will execute something, and it will probably make facebook's login not work for 10 mins for people in Slovenia or something else very minor. However, even this small event would probably make CNN, and then they might start asking questions about facebook and its privacy practices.
This would be something facebook would not like, and might harm them, if even very slightly.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Cheech+Wizard · 2011-08-09 19:40 · Score: 1

"Where the problem comes in is with the people who DON'T know what they're giving up when they're using these services." So - You want to play nanny for those who YOU believe *don't* know. How nice of you! And, good luck with that. You have millions of people to look out for. And, my bet is after you have explained to each one 99% will look you in the eye and ask what business is it of yours to interfere with their lives telling them you know what's best for them.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by trickyD1ck · 2011-08-09 20:10 · Score: 1

Then don't do anything stupid. This has nothing to do with Facebook or Google.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Gaygirlie · 2011-08-09 20:34 · Score: 1

Maybe someone will find out that people that google Cheerios, fucktards, and pantyhose are statistically proven to be terrorists and need to be rounded up and vilified. They'll look around for a while until that one row in one table in one database outs you. Then you're toast.
Not everyone lives in the US. The rest of the world still knows how to use common sense.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Gaygirlie · 2011-08-09 20:39 · Score: 1

Why should I care that some companies know my buying habits? I am one of billions. There exist some unfathomably vast spreadsheets with a row that indicates I like oatmeal for breakfast and enjoy the works of Terry Pratchett. Why should that bother me? If anything it means that more stores will stock oatmeal and more quality humorous fantasy books will get made.
They certainly don't have my most intimate thoughts, because those rarely leave my lips and never enter a computer. They may have a few angry letters I wrote, but so what? I'm one of billions. No one's likely to see it, and unless it's something really egregious, no one will ever care.
I can't help but agree with you. I don't CARE if people know my shopping habits because, well, why the f*ck would it matter? I mean, everyone knows I like gadgets, anime, manga and movies in general, and that I really like to drink Cola and eat pizza. Everyone knows what kind of stuff I like and what I dislike and I really do not feel I have to somehow hide those things. Googling my nickname brings out most of the websites I frequent and again, I have never made any attempt to appear anonymous there: why would I? I frequent those sites exactly because I'm known there and I enjoy the sites.
My point is: anything out there on the Internet about me is stuff you could find out anyways just by asking me. I simply do not have anything worth hiding.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by TheRaven64 · 2011-08-09 21:09 · Score: 1

In the USA, during the second world war, there were a number of charities that sent aid to the Russians (America's allies against the Nazis) to help the half of their country that was devastated by the Nazi war machine rolling over it twice. Lots of people gave money to these charities, because they were good causes.
Some years later, the political establishment decided that sending money to the USSR - in any context - was a sign of communist sympathy. The names of any donors to these various charities were all dug up and people found that they were under suspicion of being members of the communist party (or, as we'd call them today, suspected terrorists!!11eleventyone) and lost their jobs. They even lost many of their friends, who were afraid that they'd also be branded as communists.
They had nothing to hide - the fact that they'd made a donation to a charity 10 years earlier wasn't something any of them were ashamed of, or that most of them even thought about.

Why should I care that some companies know my buying habits? I am one of billions. There exist some unfathomably vast spreadsheets with a row that indicates I like oatmeal for breakfast and enjoy the works of Terry Pratchett
From just those two facts, I can make a good guess at your voting habits (look up the demographics of Pratchett readers some time). From the typical information that Facebook collects, you can get a 99% probability of exactly who you vote for. You don't think that this information is valuable? Collect it, process it, and you know exactly which voting stations you need to disrupt to win the next election. Or who to intimidate in a marginal constituency.

You think that people care about tracking you, personally. Let me assure you, you're not that important. No one cares. That's a good thing. You're one of billions, and well below the notice of multinational corporations
You're still in the late 20th century mindset where tracking someone was difficult. Now, you're just one entry in a database. You're filling it up with information about yourself, and hoping that no one will run a query that pops out your name in any context that you don't want. And you might be right, but the impact of the Stasi was a lot greater than just their effect on the relatively few people who came under their direct scrutiny.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Darfeld · 2011-08-09 21:13 · Score: 1

People don't understand what they trade off most of the times... When was the last time you actually reads an agreement before signing up?
I really don't think that much people knows or understand how FB and Google make money. The whole "We will hit That Day" shit is advertisement. Even if Anonymous do take down FB, I don't think it will die and I'm pretty sure Anon isn't such a fool that "he" believe it will. They just want to be front news to be eared by as much people as they can. Taking down FB even an hour would be a good start for that. Saying it in advance even better. And they say it enough in advance so that enough people will be watching and talk about it. Even if Anon fail to take down FB, they still might be eared. Not good for "him" since "his" credibility will suffer, but still worse it.
And if you say "I don't care they trade my data!", they made you think about it, kind of, and that's a good start.

--
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Re:Uhm... DUH. by TheRaven64 · 2011-08-09 21:20 · Score: 1

I've talked to quite a lot of non-geeks about Facebook. They first express surprise that I'm not on Facebook, and say something like 'but you know a lot about computers, why aren't you on it?' I tell them that I find Facebook's terms and conditions completely unacceptable, and quote a few of the things that I'm giving them permission to do. The response has been shock in about 90% of cases, about 10% have closed their Facebook accounts, and a lot more have dramatically reduced what they do on Facebook.
I have yet to meet anyone who has both read the Facebook T&Cs before agreeing. Most people believe Facebook's PR and so skip the legalese. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 90% of people who put their face in the book have absolutely no idea what they permitted when they signed up.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Uhm... DUH. by mcgrew · 2011-08-09 22:29 · Score: 1

That's true. I got rid of my credit and debit cards a long time ago, and pay cash for almost everything. Haven't been on social media since MySpace, But my info is still mostly out there. Most of my friends and family are on FB.
However, I'm on G+ now; there are six other guys on G+ with the same name as me.
Ironically (or stupidly? I simply don't care) I've been putting large amounts of my life online for over ten years. Lots of folks have found it amusing; yeah, I'll be putting it in book form Real Soon Now. At least when I put stuff on the internet, the lies (if they are indeed fiction, I ain't telling) are my own and not somebody else lying about me.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-08-09 23:13 · Score: 1

Nonsense, most people are blithely unaware of the amount of information that is being collated about them. All they know is they are getting cool stuff.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 23:25 · Score: 1

The information is collected. It's open to DHS, or whoever is cajoling google that day. Who knows whom the data will be sold to, or what malicious app might coerce your browser into coughing the wrong readable cookie.
Oh yeah. Period. Full Stop. Fuck off! Google and the telcos dump more info in one day than will go through your self-assured brain in a month of Sundays.
If you actually believe what you've written, you've been sold down the river.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by postbigbang · 2011-08-09 23:29 · Score: 1

Ok.
You start.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by tbannist · 2011-08-10 00:49 · Score: 1

Except, of course, that our world contains people exactly like Rupert Murdoch, who might use their 60% ownership of media in a country to blare the statistically insignificant scenario across the front page of dozens of newspapers and air it on rotation on 24 hour news channels to defeat any politician who won't bow before them.
It's only statistically insignificant when you consider one person, when you consider all of the people in a country, you might notice that every country has people running for office. When you combine this lack of privacy with media consolidation you start to see an inevitable pattern of corruption. The end results of this aren't pretty. The rioting in England? Mostly lower class, poor young people. The kind of people who tend to be hurt worst by the policies pushed by Rupert Murdoch, and the candidates he's backed. The S&P rating downgrade? S&P essentially blamed it on the Tea Party, the very people that Murdoch's Fox News helped to win their elections.
This type of gotcha information could be very dangerous in the right (or wrong) hands.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Uhm... DUH. by tbannist · 2011-08-10 00:56 · Score: 1

Combine that with media consolidation. How do you like the idea of Rupert Murdoch deciding who wins (almost) every election?
I don't like it, because when one man has enough power to influence the results of elections, the winners serve that man, and not the voters.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Uhm... DUH. by LordLimecat · 2011-08-10 01:07 · Score: 1

After running wireshark and ProcMon to verify their claims, yes, yes I do. Others have similarly audited it.
And honestly, when time and time again, Google shows complete integrity in saying what they are doing and being true to their word, I do not understand the cynicism. Can you show me a single example of Google lying about their actions? The biggest gaffe I can remember-- the wifi data gathering-- resulted in them giving a full mea culpa confession and beginning an independent audit.
What about a company that acts in this way makes you want to be skeptical of THEM, of all people?
Re:Uhm... DUH. by LordLimecat · 2011-08-10 01:09 · Score: 1

People don't understand what they trade off most of the times... When was the last time you actually reads an agreement before signing up?
This is neither Google's fault, nor a reason to call for more legislation, nor a reason for you to care for those people.
If people cant be bothered to read the contract, the solution is NOT to weaken contracts; if people cant be bothered to read the privacy policy the solution is not to crack down on the companies. The ONLY (and I mean ONLY) way to have a long term "fix" is to make people have to care about what is truly important, by enforcing the privacy policies and agreements people enter into. If it becomes a big issue, they will have to care-- this is how adults are supposed to behave.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by LordLimecat · 2011-08-10 01:11 · Score: 1

Thats their fault for being irresponsible. Would you have us be enablers for this irresponsibility by making it so you CAN live your life in blithe ignorance?
Why not simply expect people to manage their own affairs and watch what agreements they enter into, and not try to protect them from themselves? This is kind of foundational for moving past middle and high school, and becoming a mature and responsible adult.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by shentino · 2011-08-10 01:21 · Score: 1

This would fall under the "sad but true" category for me.
I avoid Facebook on principle.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Batmunk2000 · 2011-08-10 02:19 · Score: 1

They are unaware because the consequences of it have been trivial. Google having tons of information isn't scary because they can't do anything to me besides annoy me with ads or use the data to profile masses.
The other side of the coin is that the information would be troubling if it fell into the hands of Government. If there is a debate here - it is whether the collected information can be used by Big Brother.
Also, put it into perspective. When people file their taxes look at what the government collects from them. Banking info, expenses, income, biz relationships... all of it going to an inept government. The idea that we have any privacy went out the window a long time ago.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Darfeld · 2011-08-10 02:21 · Score: 1

Yeah yeah, you can whine all you want that adults should behave that way, they won't. Cause humans are lazy (much like anything alive...)
I don't say you should weaken the contract and I'm not saying Anon are good or bad guys...
The fact is : People don't read that shit.
The other fact is : people know it and use precedent fact to there own benefit.
It annoying enough when being the one who didn't read get you screwed... You can say you deserve it then, but really it shouldn't be that bothersome to install a program or to sign in on a website.
Face it : FB or Google doesn't really expect anybody (except lawyers) to read it : their would be far less "sign in"s if they somehow forced people to read 10 pages of boring policies and warnings and stuffs. They didn't try to be clearer because they don't give a damn. Seriously, I wouldn't either...
I agree that it wouldn't be wise to spawn a law about it. So how do you make people to care about what they agree ? One way is advertising on the matter. That's basically what Anon is doing right now. Whether it'll be effective or not is an other story. We'll have to wait and see. And I'm not saying it's a good way to do it, just that it's not random bragging.

--
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Re:Uhm... DUH. by smelch · 2011-08-10 02:22 · Score: 1

DId it ever occur to you that the people who don't know the risks of facebook are about to be informed by a lesson from anonymous, thus undermining faith in the network?

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Dunbal · 2011-08-10 02:42 · Score: 1

Reread your comment and then ask yourself where the double standard is.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by ConceptJunkie · 2011-08-10 02:46 · Score: 1

The problem is not shallow people that care about irrelevant data, the problem is that too many people have an inordinate amount of power over your life. Whether it's a crook who is subverting technology to steal your identity or stalk you, or a government official who has decided to put you on a list of people for a tax audit, or deny you an approval to make improvements to your home, or who vindictively sends the FBI after you because you support his political opponent ("Why yes, I did hear him making threats of terrorism."), the ability of anyone to cause anyone else great amounts of harm in ways that are more or less anonymous is the real problem.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by ConceptJunkie · 2011-08-10 02:48 · Score: 1

Well, since we don't have any, I'd say you're right. We have people in charge, but they are hardly leaders... mostly just scum that has risen to the top in a system that rewards corruption and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by ConceptJunkie · 2011-08-10 02:49 · Score: 1

That's getting harder and harder to find since we a society are losing the collective ability to manage, or even know what a manager should be able to do.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-08-10 03:18 · Score: 1

My point was that there hasn't been some group consensus decision reached that people would rather get adverts than remain anonymous. Most people don't have a clue that there is even a price, or potentially alternatives. Responsibility of some sort isn't the issue I'm referring to.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 03:39 · Score: 1

Okay how about this. You become the target of Anonymous because you did something that made you look like a tasty lolcow (maybe something IRL that got their attention, like being arrested while in a funny Halloween costume). They dig up info on you and make obscene/harassing calls to you, your family and your employer, just for the lulz. If you're a dumb Average Joe, maybe they hack your email using the awful fucking password recovery question, and then all hell really breaks loose. A completely plausible scenario.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Uhm... DUH. by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 03:43 · Score: 1

Also see this:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-07/travel/muslims.kicked.off.plane_1_muslim-group-muslim-community-ibrahim-hooper?_s=PM:TRAVEL

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Uhm... DUH. by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 03:47 · Score: 1

No one can pay Google for your personal search history or get a profile on you.
Maybe you can't pay (there's no way for us to know) but governments can certainly get that information.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Uhm... DUH. by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 03:50 · Score: 1

Not everyone lives in the US. The rest of the world still knows how to use common sense.
In certain other countries (including some in the Western world), posting about your sexual orientation on the web would be very bad for your health and would definitely ruin any chances you had at running for office.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Uhm... DUH. by he-sk · 2011-08-10 03:56 · Score: 1

And you just lost the argument by saying these extreme scenarios are statistically insignificant. Because that concedes that they actually take place. And they are never "insignificant" to the person that has to deal with them.
Congratulations to your compassion to your fellow human beings. Or, rather, your lack of it. You'll do nicely in this world.

--
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Yvan256 · 2011-08-10 04:50 · Score: 1

Well, they can get those angry letters from me:
A
H
Z
K.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by jahudabudy · 2011-08-10 04:58 · Score: 1

. Everyone has shat themselves. Everyone has been in a really embarrassing or compromising situation at some point or another.

Based on your phrasing, I gather you don't necessarily find one of these to be a proper subset of the other. Possibly merely overlapping sets? If so, I admire your iron-clad sense of confidence.

From upwind, of course.

--
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Re:Uhm... DUH. by russotto · 2011-08-10 05:45 · Score: 1

Workstation, battery, sink and Nelson lamp? Wow, these sound dangerous, you are a terrorist planning nasty things with your Schedules Direct for sure. Don't be surprised when suddenly you'll get much more thorough searches in the airports. It's for the children, you know.
If they could draw such conclusions from that data, they could make them from any given set of data or no data at all. This is probably true, but it still means that my information being out there is harmless to me -- whereas the TSA is not, whether or not my information is out there.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by DrCode · 2011-08-10 11:16 · Score: 1

Sometimes it's funny. I get an email from someone with an Asian name, and I get ads for martial-arts schools on my screen. I search for tickets to a Broadway play and they assume I'm gay.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Svartormr · 2011-08-10 12:09 · Score: 1

It's good that you tested to see what was going on. But I imagine you used Google services and contacted Google servers. That means information can be tracked about you without leaving markers on your local computer (see here and here). And I'm sure Google's own browser will be sure to act in ways that are standard and don't hinder this. Google is certainly opposed to the 'Do Not Track' flag.

Google is very open about what they believe in and that's not a lot of privacy or anonymity. In 2009 Eric Schmidt said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.". And their actions re Google+ effectively shows them agreeing with Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg who recently said "I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away.". And 97% of their revenue is from advertising, selling what they know about all of us.

Google wants to know *everything* about us. They want as much of that data to be as good as possible. And the WiFi data gathering and other events show that if there's a chance to get information, they get it, record it, and correlate it with what else they have. There appears to be no decision to limit what they get unless they violate statues and are found to have done so.

I believe in my controlling my privacy, being public and being anonymous as I decide circumstances dictate. I limit my interactions with Google as much as possible. Despite their good works (and there are a lot of them) they have a core philosophy that is just wrong.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Scott+Scott · 2011-08-10 19:02 · Score: 1

Act sensibly on the net and you'll be fine for the most part.
That sounds suspiciously like the "only criminals have something to hide" defense, thinly veiled with a qualifier that defeats any merit your point might otherwise have.
Yes, we get it, people who experience serious retribution likely did something to provoke it. Thank you, oh oracle of ancient triteness, er, wisdom.
Yes, the prior poster could have expressed their position more effectively, but you haven't actually countered it. What exactly is your response, in the event that someone's information is dredged up and used to destroy them? It seems self-evident that even innocuous statements can be twisted into damaging weapons for the person with any reputation worth destroying.

These 'what if' scenarios are so statistically insignificant, particularly if you follow the sensible part I mentioned, that it's basically a barrier to being able to use technically in a useful and fun manner.
Please don't confuse hypothetical situations with statistics. If you're going to claim that they bear any relation, please cite studies or some very convincing proofs. As it stands, you're arguing that something that isn't a statistic has no statistical merit and is therefore moot, while insinuating that your wholly unqualified, unverified concept of sensible behavior - whatever that means - holds some degree of the same.
Now then. In the entirely possible case that someone is badly affected by the use of such collected data, what protects them?
Re:Uhm... DUH. by Scott+Scott · 2011-08-10 19:20 · Score: 1

Seems like a false dilemma here. If only one in a million users suffers because data is improperly harvested and used, that doesn't support the misuse unless it is essential to keeping the other 999,999 happy. I doubt it is.
I concur with your remarks on authorities; if anything, their means of collecting, storing, and using data are even scarier than many of the worst corporate offenders. I do wonder why Anonymous isn't campaigning against some of the recent policies.
Re:Uhm... DUH. by AP31R0N · 2011-08-11 00:31 · Score: 1

Some sites benefit from anonymity, some from real names.
FB and G+ are worthless w/o real names. i wouldn't have joined either if they were just another forum (like Reddit, /. or Fark). i can be an anonymous coward/fuckwit on those sites. On FB and G+ i'm myself, and the hottie in my geometry class in the 90s is herself.
Some people aren't paranoiacs, which is concept many /.ers can't wrap their supposedly large brains around. Some people *like* to connect with other people.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Re:Uhm... DUH. by tomhudson · 2011-08-16 12:50 · Score: 1

Or you could pay for everything via either cheque, debit card, online bank payment, or email debit. This way, the only entity that has access to all your info is the bank you deal with. Paypal, the credit card companies, etc., are totally cut out.

Um... by hedgemage · 2011-08-09 12:23 · Score: 4, Informative

No American has any idea why the 5th of November is significant unless they read comic books. At least that's the truth for me.

Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 12:26 · Score: 1

Dont forget V for Vendetta
Re:Um... by damn_registrars · 2011-08-09 12:26 · Score: 1

No American has any idea why the 5th of November is significant unless they read comic books. At least that's the truth for me.
True, and the movie V for Vendetta did tragically poorly at the box office. It was one of the best movies made that year yet few people bothered to see it, and not many more saw it on DVD.

I can tell you at least this American knows about the 5th of November, though...

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Um... by kaliann · 2011-08-09 12:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Hey! Some of us saw that Natalie Portman movie!
Re:Um... by Yaur · 2011-08-09 12:32 · Score: 1

V for Vendetta leaves out the whole jihad aspect.
Re:Um... by dingfelder · 2011-08-09 12:43 · Score: 2

What a load of crap.
Some americans have actually read about English history.
Besides that., do you seriously believe that no americans have ever been to New Zealand, Australia or the UK in November? Any who do so are likely to know about Guy Fawkes day.
Re:Um... by hedwards · 2011-08-09 12:46 · Score: 1

Sure we do, it's the day that the Green River Killer pleaded guilty to 48 murders.
Re:Um... by DarkOx · 2011-08-09 12:49 · Score: 1

Well there is a tiny population in this country that paid some attention in their English and History courses. You are normally subjected to them while in those compulsory government detainment ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H education facilities we call high schools.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Um... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-08-09 12:51 · Score: 1

Remember when you were young
How the hero was never hung
Always got away
Remember how the man
Used to leave you empty handed
Always, always let you down
If you ever change your mind
About leaving it all behind
Remember, remember, today
And don't feel sorry
The way it's gone
And don't you worry
'Bout what you've done
Remember when you were small
How people seemed so tall
Always had their way
Remember your ma and pa
Just wishing for movie stardom
Always, always playing a part
If you ever feel so sad
And the whole world is
driving you mad
Remember, remember, today
And don't feel sorry
'Bout the way it's gone
And don't you worry
'Bout what you've done
Oh, no, remember, remember
The fifth of November.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Um... by PCM2 · 2011-08-09 13:01 · Score: 1

True, and the movie V for Vendetta did tragically poorly at the box office. It was one of the best movies made that year yet few people bothered to see it, and not many more saw it on DVD.
And some of us saw it and thought it was puerile, pandering, and plain poor.
And FWIW it completely discarded Alan Moore's original themes of fascism versus anarchism and replaced them with some kind of lib-dem feelgood wank where the conclusion has everybody dressing up in identical V masks, because apparently the new, kinder, gentler uniformity of opinion and action is much preferable to the kind they had before, and if we all just band together we can get rid of Surrogate Dick Cheney and Surrogate George Bush and elect a left-wing government. Or something.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Um... by MokuMokuRyoushi · 2011-08-09 13:11 · Score: 1

Mach 20 whoosh.

--
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Re:Um... by damn_registrars · 2011-08-09 13:14 · Score: 1

Sometimes people are looking to place politics in films that aren't actually there; you remind me of the people who saw (clips of) The Day After Tomorrow, with the president who looked like FDR who was somehow declared to be a stand-in for Cheney.

Or have you somehow tricked yourself into thinking that the US followed the Bush Administration with a "left-wing government" - when in reality we are seeing just yet another Bush term?

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Um... by quickgold192 · 2011-08-09 13:17 · Score: 1

And those who do know about it from the books/movies probably think it celebrates a stand against tyranny.
Re:Um... by Noodlenoggin · 2011-08-09 13:20 · Score: 1

If the purpose was to burn down London, then Anonymous is making a fashionably 2 month late entrance to _that_ party.
Re:Um... by PCM2 · 2011-08-09 13:27 · Score: 1

Sometimes people are looking to place politics in films that aren't actually there
If you don't even think V for Vendetta is about politics then the Wachowski brothers failed even more miserably than I thought they did.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Um... by elfprince13 · 2011-08-09 13:29 · Score: 1

Or reads Brit Lit. Paddington anyone?
Re:Um... by PCM2 · 2011-08-09 13:37 · Score: 1

Here's what Alan Moore, the author of V for Vendetta, had to say about the movie:

When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.
Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
I saw pretty much the same thing that Moore saw in the script in the film itself, and I thought it was pretty limp-dicked and lame for the Wachowski brothers to spin it that way. They should have written their own movie if that was what they wanted; now most people associate V for Vendetta with a bunch of bullshit that its creator wanted nothing to do with. And I say this as a fairly liberal guy myself, and as someone who is not a particular fan of the original comics. I just thought the movie was silly and its creators came off as thoroughly uncreative clowns.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Um... by demonlapin · 2011-08-09 13:45 · Score: 1

Both are common.
Re:Um... by jbeaupre · 2011-08-09 13:51 · Score: 1

It's not a dumb date to pick because American's don't know the significance, it's a dumb date to pick because the plot was foiled on that date.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Re:Um... by damn_registrars · 2011-08-09 13:52 · Score: 1

If you don't even think V for Vendetta is about politics then the Wachowski brothers failed even more miserably than I thought they did.
I am well aware it is about politics in a dystopian future. What I was after was that people are placing it in the classic "left-right" bullshit view that is (in spite of completely lacking in applicability) applied to the US political system.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Um... by Darinbob · 2011-08-09 13:58 · Score: 3, Informative

I couldn't make it through that movie. Very awful.
I find it strange that Guy Fawkes idiot ends up being a hero or a symbol of freedom/anarchy/whatever. Guy Fawkes was not out to promote any sorts of liberties, he wanted to replace a Protestant monarch with a Catholic monarch. He failed at that, failed at achieving any aims at all, and so he's a hero because he's a reminder of no matter how badly you screw things up, someone is always a worse screw up than you.
And Americans don't need to read comics books to know what 5th of November is. We have real books here that can be read instead. This is is taught in history classes (well, at least pre no-child-left-behind).
Re:Um... by mgblst · 2011-08-09 14:12 · Score: 1

The 5th of November means nothing to Australians, and I suspect New Zealanders as well. Sure, if you read history, you will know. So I should say, almost all Australians know nothing about the 5th of Nov, unless it is mentioned on the news on the day, and then forgotten 10 mins later.
I do not have a lot of faith in my fellow aussies.
Re:Um... by fyngyrz · 2011-08-09 14:32 · Score: 1

Why do you bring them up? Are you profiling?

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Um... by dingfelder · 2011-08-09 14:38 · Score: 1

It is still pretty big in NZ, the largest fireworks time of the year.
so I guess I stand corrected, it is much bigger in here than australia.
(I had assumed that since it is still big here in NZ it was there too.)
as I understand it now, Guy Fawkes (or Bonfire Night as some call it ove there)
used to be a lot bigger in Australia until fireworks were cut down on a bit in the 70s
some good info here: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night
Re:Um... by MightyMartian · 2011-08-09 15:23 · Score: 1

The issue here is that the film utterly trashes the political message that Moore was making. It indeed turns it into some sort of Americanized story. Moore himself readily criticized the work. A movie made with Moore's intentions and vision would have been spectacular. To start with, it wouldn't have had an American actress with a horrible English accent. Second of all, it would have kept the good bits, like the bad guy have a romantic relationship with the computer.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Um... by MightyMartian · 2011-08-09 15:26 · Score: 1

And they couldn't find a decent English actress, and had to import an American one, under the usual Hollywood theory that Americans won't watch a movie unless a big A list star, no matter how inappropriately cast, gets top billing.
I'm sure Moore shudders every time he sees those infantile fuckwits claiming to be Anonymous running around with Guy Fawkes masks, demonstrating their immaturity and sheer stupidity.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Um... by MightyMartian · 2011-08-09 15:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is a lesson in the Gunpowder Plot for those Anonymous children. The Gunpowder Plotters didn't restore Catholics their liberties, they in fact pretty much fucked over English and Irish Catholics until the 19th century. Anonymous is creating the conditions under which governments will ultimately be able to justify destroying a free and open Internet. They're stupid, self-centered and uneducated, basing their world view on a fucking movie of all things, and they are going to fuck us all over.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Um... by alexo · 2011-08-09 15:31 · Score: 1

I think that you'll find the 5th of November more interesting than you suspected.
Re:Um... by GrahamCox · 2011-08-09 15:34 · Score: 1

No American has any idea why the 5th of November is significant unless they read comic books. At least that's the truth for me.

Well, shame on you. It was a significant event leading up to the foundation of your country, since religious persecution (which was what the Gunpowder Plot was all about) was the reason your founding fathers set sail on the Mayflower. That took place only 15 years after the Gunpowder Plot. While the dissenters on the Mayflower were protestants, they were opposed to any state interference in religion, which was enshrined in law the year after, and directly arising from, the failure of the plot.
Re:Um... by lexsird · 2011-08-09 15:49 · Score: 1

You are assuming these are indeed script kiddies and not operatives for a "tail wagging the dog" situation. But what can we say if you are right and it's just idiot kiddies. This is what we get for slacker parents dumping off kids into a shamefully stagnate education system. Not to mention the complete destruction of any sense of community in our society, to the point of us ignoring the modern robber barons as they steal from the public coffers until we are all paupers in the streets. How can we preach or teach morality to children when we can't get the concept past those who are in power? Leadership is more than having enough assholes to vote for you. There are qualities to the job which we seem to have lost sight of long ago in our own personal quests for self satisfaction. Now as we say in Iowa; "The chickens have come home to roost."

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:Um... by Darinbob · 2011-08-09 16:01 · Score: 1

Sort of how the rioters in England today are just going to have the government add more surveillance and restrict liberties more, rather than solving any social issues.
Re:Um... by bursch-X · 2011-08-09 17:31 · Score: 1

I still don't get it.
So, there's this reactionary catholic asshole who wants to kill the king in order to replace him with a reactionary asshole catholic king.
Wow, great revolutionary really.

--
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Re:Um... by HeadlessNotAHorseman · 2011-08-09 19:36 · Score: 1

I was born in Australia and have lived here all my life. I have never seen anyone here celebrate Guy Fawkes day, and I would be surprised if many people knew what date it was. What little I know about it I learned in my history class in high school, and from reading Famous Five books when I was a small child. The date is of no significance to Australian culture.

--
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
Re:Um... by assertation · 2011-08-09 19:55 · Score: 1

Thanks, I was about to say the same thing.
Re:Um... by xpwlq · 2011-08-09 21:13 · Score: 1

Of course we did, it had guns, karate, explosions and Natalie Portman.
Re:Um... by jimicus · 2011-08-09 22:24 · Score: 2

Halle-freaking-lujah, someone else who gets it.
We've already seen from China and many Arabic countries that contrary to popular belief, the Internet can be controlled - and it's not all that difficult. All you need to do is legislate that all major Internet providers in the country do X, where X is one or more of:
- Block access to (list of IP addresses).
- Implement HTTP filtering of (list of URLs).
- Block outbound traffic on all ports except (list of whitelisted ports).
- Block inbound traffic except for (list of whitelisted inbound traffic).
- Agree to extend these blocks to cover any arbitrary thing on short notice.
This is an extreme dystopian scenario, and isn't one I see happening any time soon. What I do see happening is that the UK already has an Internet blacklist of sorts managed by a quango called the Internet Watch Foundation, which is nominally there to block child porn. You can't easily avoid this in the UK unless you explicitly seek out a very small ISP which openly admits to not using the IWF list or anything like it.
I can easily see the IWF mandate being extended to cover anything which promotes terrorism or civil unrest.
Re:Um... by Spad · 2011-08-09 22:39 · Score: 1

He isn't, at least outside of V and amongst people who actually know what history is.
The 5th of November in the UK isn't a celebration of Guy Fawkes as so many people seem to believe, it's a day that remembers the foiling of his plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...
Re:Um... by lastx33 · 2011-08-10 00:09 · Score: 1

"Anonymous is creating the conditions under which governments will ultimately be able to justify destroying a free and open Internet." Our governments are doing this anyway without requiring any justification other than the generic "threat of terrorism".

--
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead!" - Stan Laurel
Re:Um... by tbannist · 2011-08-10 01:20 · Score: 1

Not that I agree with the rioters, but the status quo isn't exactly working to their benefit. And that, I think, is the root cause of the problem.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Um... by Pope · 2011-08-10 02:55 · Score: 1

It also got delayed from an actual November 5th release date to the next Spring, greatly diminishing its box office potential. You can advertise a movie for a few months then delay it for ~5 more and expect it be top of mind for the audience.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Um... by martas · 2011-08-10 03:21 · Score: 1

Maybe that's not so bad? Seems to me the best way to fix a screwed up system is to make it so much worse that even the most satisfied portion of society is ready to spill some blood in a real revolution.

--
weinersmith
Re:Um... by MightyMartian · 2011-08-10 03:29 · Score: 1

Other than a few notable exceptions, most revolutions usually end up with no improvement, or something even worse.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Um... by martas · 2011-08-10 03:43 · Score: 1

Perhaps that is true in the short term, but I think the benefit of a revolution is that it makes more "stable" changes possible, i.e. creates a situation where there are necessarily less established powers, and hence more "freedom." This can be good or bad depending on who gets their hands on that freedom first, but at least it can be an opportunity.

E.g., the post-soviet countries (admittedly not your typical revolution, but still informative I think). True, in many aspects many of them are worse off today than in 1988. There's probably more extreme poverty, lack of education, crime (both violent and other), etc. Still though, if given the choice, how many people in those countries do you think would go back to the USSR? (The real one, not the idealized utopia it had a lot of people convinced it was through very effective propaganda.)

--
weinersmith
Re:Um... by CmdrPorno · 2011-08-10 04:02 · Score: 1

Yes, and she was covered in hot grits.

--
Sent from my iPhone
Re:Um... by Darinbob · 2011-08-10 06:11 · Score: 1

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Well then poke it harder and maybe it'll get better!"
Re:Um... by PhxBlue · 2011-08-10 06:57 · Score: 1

I find it strange that Guy Fawkes idiot ends up being a hero or a symbol of freedom/anarchy/whatever. Guy Fawkes was not out to promote any sorts of liberties, he wanted to replace a Protestant monarch with a Catholic monarch. He failed at that, failed at achieving any aims at all, and so he's a hero because he's a reminder of no matter how badly you screw things up, someone is always a worse screw up than you.
Maybe that's why he was EpicFailGuy on 4chan before he actually became the "face" of Anonymous.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:Um... by DiEx-15 · 2011-08-11 01:24 · Score: 1

If an US Citizen can't use Google, then I have seriously and erroneously overestimated how smart the US really is...

ohpleaseohplease by SoupGuru · 2011-08-09 12:23 · Score: 1

What a glorious day it would be if they were successful. Knock out TV for a while too and we might end up having to talk to each other. EEK!

--
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable

Re:ohpleaseohplease by Professr3 · 2011-08-09 12:30 · Score: 1

No, we still have G+
Re:ohpleaseohplease by Darkness404 · 2011-08-09 13:19 · Score: 2

Yeah, really "glorious". Lets face it, most of the people we are in physical contact with suck at interesting convos. For example, unless you are really lucky, the majority of your co-worker's convos will revolve around A) Survivor/American Idol/The Bachelor(ette)/Big Brother/other reality shows B) Sports C) Rather boring stories about their (grand)kids/spouse/other family member or D) Small talk/gossip about the weather, other co-workers, or other idle chitchat.

Lets face it, without the internet/media our convos wouldn't suddenly turn to philosophy, engineering, science and literature, but would be mostly the same only you couldn't talk to people outside of your geographic area.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:ohpleaseohplease by Darinbob · 2011-08-09 14:16 · Score: 1

Of course, no one uses Facebook while at work, so I doubt anything will change during daylight hours.
Re:ohpleaseohplease by Pete+Venkman · 2011-08-09 14:20 · Score: 1

Thank God the internet was invented so we could subsequently invent philosophy, engineering, science and literature.
Re:ohpleaseohplease by LordLimecat · 2011-08-09 15:19 · Score: 1

Yes, a forcible and illegal cyber attack by members of /b/ (of all people) designed to destroy a social network will be the beginning of a golden age of civility. Thats EXACTLY what will happen.
Re:ohpleaseohplease by dmdavis · 2011-08-09 15:45 · Score: 1

And 9 month later, we'll have another baby boom on our hands.
Re:ohpleaseohplease by TheRaven64 · 2011-08-09 21:31 · Score: 1

Lets face it, without the internet/media our convos wouldn't suddenly turn to philosophy, engineering, science and literature, but would be mostly the same only you couldn't talk to people outside of your geographic area.
Odd, they seem to around me. But maybe that's because none of my friends are ridiculous enough to feel the need to abbreviate the word 'conversation' to 'convo', and can actually handle polysyllabic words.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

It would be interesting... by AlienIntelligence · 2011-08-09 12:24 · Score: 1

It would be interesting... seeing all those pasty people crawl from their
subterranean domiciles and surrender themselves to the sun, squinting
as their virtual world, disappears.

Maybe my roommate could pick up a tan.

-AI

--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion

Re:It would be interesting... by artor3 · 2011-08-09 12:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

The majority of people on facebook are well adjusted, sociable people. Facebook is used to let your friends know what you're up to without having to call them one by one. It's used to share photos, without having to email out links to an online album. It's used to make plans and invite people to parties. Yes, it's also used for stupid shit like Farmville, but even the people who play that generally do other things too. Methinks you're projecting.
Re:It would be interesting... by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-08-09 14:09 · Score: 2

Are you sure you're not talking about Slashdot being destroyed?
Re:It would be interesting... by Sardokaur · 2011-08-09 20:17 · Score: 1

You got it all wrong. Some people use it for stupid things like socializing, but it's actually pretty nice gaming platform.
Re:It would be interesting... by cffrost · 2011-08-09 20:57 · Score: 1

The majority of people on facebook are well adjusted, sociable people. [...] Methinks you're projecting.
Methinks you're deluded.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=status-update-im-so-glamorous

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Re:It would be interesting... by AlienIntelligence · 2011-08-10 00:12 · Score: 1

Methinks you're projecting.
Methinks you're whoosh...
but that's cool,
=)
-AI

--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
Re:It would be interesting... by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 06:31 · Score: 1

The end of Surrogates has a scene like this.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:It would be interesting... by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 06:34 · Score: 1

If that happened you'd either have the end of the recession, if it took place during work hours, or a world-wide power grid meltdown, if it happened after work hours (from a combination of users F5'ing and firing up their gaming machines to pass the time).

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Thanks, Everyone! by Chysn · 2011-08-09 12:25 · Score: 1

From TFA:

[Facebook] gives users the illusion of and hides the details away from them "for their own good"

One day you will look back on this and realise what we have done here is right, you will thank the rulers of the internet, we are not harming you but saving you.

Well... at least everyone is looking out for my interests.

--
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?

groan by Literaphile · 2011-08-09 12:25 · Score: 1, Redundant

What a bunch of self-absorbed attention whores.

Re:groan by cffrost · 2011-08-09 21:03 · Score: 1

What a bunch of self-absorbed attention whores.
Scientific American supports your assessment; Facebook lusers are indeed self-absorbed attention whores:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=status-update-im-so-glamorous

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Re:groan by Scott+Scott · 2011-08-11 04:09 · Score: 1

Ur, no. The relevant information that link provides is what we already know:
1. College students with self-esteem issues use Facebook a lot.
2. Self-absorbed college students use Facebook a lot.
3. Self-absorbed college students make a lot of self-aggrandizing posts on Facebook.
4. Self-absorbed college students upload a lot of self-aggrandizing photos on Facebook.
It's pretty obvious that other people use Facebook too.

Helpful Tyler Durden? by kaliann · 2011-08-09 12:25 · Score: 1

"Destroy Facebook servers. People make real friends while rioting in the streets."
Somebody took the demotivational meme a bit too seriously.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/daa/

Baby, Bathwater. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 12:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anonymous may have a technical point about Facebook's motives & mechanisms, but they've missed the point. Facebook has become something of a default mechanism for people to stay in touch and communicate, and for some people to store photos etc. To do anything to take down Facebook would be hurting many millions of blameless people. It's all very well to say that people could just go and find an alternative like Google+, but in the end it's not up to anonymous to decide unilaterally that Facebook=Bad. If they want people off Facebook "for their own good", they should mount a public information campaign and let people decide for themselves. Militancy in this case is simply the wrong, most hurtful approach.

Re:Baby, Bathwater. by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-09 12:44 · Score: 1

Well let us not forget: it's also not terribly likely to happen.
Re:Baby, Bathwater. by tbannist · 2011-08-10 01:29 · Score: 1

Of course, by "Destroy Facebook" they might mean "Officially Launch AnonPlus" which, of course, will be immediately followed by everyone deleting their Facebook accounts and switching to AnonPlus, of their own free will.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Right.. by schnikies79 · 2011-08-09 12:26 · Score: 1

"Anonymous" is full of shit.

--
Gone!

Re:meh by jaymzter · 2011-08-09 12:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

And with this.... Anonymous jumps the shark.

--
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love

What a great picture of Zucker they chose by rebelwarlock · 2011-08-09 12:28 · Score: 1

FTFA: He looks like a fish. What are the odds that they're intentionally trying to make him look dumb in an article about Anon's intent to dismantle his cash cow?

Re:that's been the model of free services by TaoPhoenix · 2011-08-09 12:29 · Score: 2

I'll borrrow you as an example but incomplete post.

Facebook like it or not achieved serious traction well beyond MySpace.

So to destroy them takes a SERIOUS campaign, well beyond what a 1 shot Anonymous can do,

Google+ is promising, but not the whole answer. Neither is a MS service or an Apple service.

We need one more player with BUCKS to Show them how it's done and shut these guys up.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Title incomplete. should read... by TheGreatOrangePeel · 2011-08-09 12:31 · Score: 1, Funny

The full title was intended to say, "Anonymous Vows To Destroy Facebook. Nothing of value to be lost."

While Anonymous are a bunch of dicks... by gatkinso · 2011-08-09 12:31 · Score: 1

...I have to admit they are right (in this case).

Not that being right gives them the right to destroy.

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.

Re:While Anonymous are a bunch of dicks... by Pete+Venkman · 2011-08-09 14:27 · Score: 1

What are they right about? That facebook sells your data? Most people that use facebook know that already, and if Anon thinks that people shouldn't be able to choose to let someone sell their data, then they are assholes for trying to tell other people what to do.
Re:While Anonymous are a bunch of dicks... by MightyMartian · 2011-08-09 15:33 · Score: 1

Behind every activist is an authoritarian just waiting to leap out. "We want you to be free to do things the way we want!"

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:While Anonymous are a bunch of dicks... by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 06:37 · Score: 1

I'll remember that next time I see libertarians (like the Tea Party?) protesting.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Someone has delusions of grandeur.. by Billlagr · 2011-08-09 12:33 · Score: 2

One day you will look back on this and realise what we have done here is right, you will thank the rulers of the internet, we are not harming you but saving you.

Sooo... moved from self-appointed guardians of the masses to self-appointed rulers of the internet eh? In that case..I declare myself Ruler of Australia! No, wait, Ruler of the World! One day you'll thank me for it!

Re:Someone has delusions of grandeur.. by Wovel · 2011-08-09 14:24 · Score: 1

I already thank you.
Thank you.

Target by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 12:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The world is crumbling around our feet. the Middle East is lighting on fire. England is Rioting. American Congress caused the value of the dollar to fall through the floor and our major enemy is Facebook?

Re:Target by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 12:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

The world is always crumbling around our feet...
Re:Target by Noodlenoggin · 2011-08-09 13:35 · Score: 1

The world is crumbling around our feet. the Middle East is lighting on fire. England is Rioting. American Congress caused the value of the dollar to fall through the floor and our major enemy is Facebook?
First world problems.
Re:Target by LordLimecat · 2011-08-09 15:22 · Score: 1

Yes, well at least the riots in England are the worst of Europe's troubles.
Re:Target by ScentCone · 2011-08-09 16:34 · Score: 3, Informative

The world is crumbling around our feet
Just like it's done so many times before, only worse. Not that you can trouble yourself, of course, to read about the Dark Ages, or either of those pesky World Wars, or the 1918 flu epidemic, or anything like that.

the Middle East is lighting on fire
Yeah, just like it's been for thousands of years.

England is Rioting
Just like they've done before. Not that you've, again, bothered to study any history, or heard about the time London really burned down, or was bombed to rubble - just pick one episode and bone up on it.

American Congress caused the value of the dollar to fall through the floor

Ah, OK. It's now clear that you're completely clueless.

and our major enemy is Facebook?
No, that's the fashionable target for a bunch of simpering script kiddies. There's no "our" there.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Target by he-sk · 2011-08-10 04:07 · Score: 1

Wow, you bring up the (so-called) Dark Ages, yet assert at the same time that the Middle East has been on fire for thousands of years?!
Here's a clue-stick: Who do you think saved those works from antiquity so that renaissance scholars could rediscover them and jump-start the enlightenment era in Europe? It was Islamic scholars, and they were only able to do so because the Islamic empire was a beacon of civilisation for almost a thousand years.

--
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Re:Target by c6gunner · 2011-08-10 04:35 · Score: 2

Who do you think saved those works from antiquity so that renaissance scholars could rediscover them and jump-start the enlightenment era in Europe? It was Islamic scholars, and they were only able to do so because the Islamic empire was a beacon of civilisation for almost a thousand years.
Not exactly, no. Even during the dark ages, it's not like everything of any scholarly value was being destroyed. Many of those "works from antiquity" were either ignored, or hidden by Europeans. Many were simply lost in time, to be dug up at a later date.
Much of it was also saved by Muslim scholars, yes. And yes, the Islamic empire was "a beacon of civilization", in the sense that Afghanistan might be considered a "beacon of civilization" for Somalia. That's not really saying much, though. Let's not pretend that the Islamic world has ever had anything even slightly similar to the Enlightenment, or the secular, scientific, democratic societies which stemmed from the Enlightenment.
Re:Target by he-sk · 2011-08-10 08:08 · Score: 1

No, the Islamic world had nothing comparable to the Enlightenment, and never completely separated the Church from the State. And I never claimed that they did. But they were definitely on a path towards that accomplishment. And let's not pretend that this principle is not being assaulted by reactionary forces in the West. You should never rest on the laurels of your ancestors.
As for science -- the whole scientific process was invented in the Islamic world, even if it wasn't formulated as such. By that I mean that a theory has to fit all the available data and is refined through constant experimentation. The world "Algebra" has its root in an Arabic text. That alone shows their influence in the field, even if they didn't invent all the methods. In astronomy, they compiled a huge amount of data (and tried to explain it with some success) that was used by European astronomers centuries later. And in medicine they led the field for 7 centuries and many of their insights have not been disproven to this day (only refined) in contrast to the earlier Greek assumptions about how the body works. They invented the hospital, clinical trials and animal testing, first described how infectious diseases spread, and first described many structures and processes of the body, including the pulmonary, coronary and metabolic systems.
The simple fact that the period between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance is called the Dark Ages betrays an incredible anti-Islamic bias in Western thought. Because outside of Europe, and even in Moorish Spain, civilization was flourishing. And if you don't believe me, you should travel to those places and look at all the archeological evidence that can still be seen today. They are just as amazing as the stuff the Romans build.

--
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Re:Target by c6gunner · 2011-08-10 09:22 · Score: 1

But they were definitely on a path towards that accomplishment
Sure, but somehow they never got there.

As for science -- the whole scientific process was invented in the Islamic world, even if it wasn't formulated as such.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that the Greeks might have beat them by a few years. Plus we have records of Egyptian discussions on empirical methodology even earlier than that. But yes, Islamic scholars did contribute quite a bit during the 500 years when they were relatively free to do good science. I never claimed otherwise.

The simple fact that the period between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance is called the Dark Ages betrays an incredible anti-Islamic bias in Western thought. Because outside of Europe, and even in Moorish Spain, civilization was flourishing.
lol. No, man. It "betrays" the fact that we tend to focus on the history of our ancestors, rather than the history of other cultures. It's utterly absurd to claim that the phrase "dark ages" is anti-Islamic.
Re:Target by he-sk · 2011-08-10 09:47 · Score: 1

It "betrays" the fact that we tend to focus on the history of our ancestors, rather than the history of other cultures.
The problem with this view is that it tends to see history as a collection of locally, chronologically and culturally isolated events (and gives a false importance to them), when in truth cultures from different parts of the globe have influenced each other since pre-historic times.

But yes, Islamic scholars did contribute quite a bit during the 500 years when they were relatively free to do good science. I never claimed otherwise.
IHMO you did when you compared them to (present-day) Afghanistan and Somalia.

--
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Re:Target by c6gunner · 2011-08-10 10:39 · Score: 1

The problem with this view is that it tends to see history as a ...
Yes, yes, I'm aware of the problem, but there's so much history that we could dedicated 50% of a students school-time to it from grade 1 until university, and still not cover everything in any kind of significant detail. We have enough difficulty teaching history to kids as it is - I don't think we'd be doing them any favors by trying to squeeze in 10 times as much material.

IHMO you did when you compared them to (present-day) Afghanistan and Somalia.
I didn't compare Islam to Afghanistan and Somalia, I suggested that, during the dark ages, the Caliphate was to Europe what Afghanistan is (today) to Somalia. And that was in the context of your claim that the Islamic world was "a beacon of civilization", so I wasn't speaking specifically about science anyway. In other words, yes, they were far better, but they were still far from what we would consider civilized or progressive.

Re:understand how much information by TaoPhoenix · 2011-08-09 12:41 · Score: 1

I mostly understand, and I'm midline.

It's Cardinal Richelieu all over again and his 6 lines to smear anyone.

Everyone has some 1.6% pages they want to keep private, so the end of the world would be 2012 with all browising histories of anyone anywhere starting with the 4000 men and women in power across the globe + 10,000 close cronies.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Anono-hypocrites by MikeV · 2011-08-09 12:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Authoritarian governments by definition rule people because they think the people cannot self-rule. As in, authoritarian governments think they are "saving" their people. With that in mind, balance this quote from Anonymouse: "Some of these so-called whitehat infosec firms are working for authoritarian governments, such as those of Egypt and Syria." ...with this one a few sentences down:

"One day you will look back on this and realise what we have done here is right, you will thank the rulers of the internet, we are not harming you but saving you."

Sound familiar? Anonymouse are doing what those they claim to fight against are doing. Just another dictatorship that claims to be "rulers of the internet" that defends its "dictatorship" with petty DDoS attacks and makes outlandish and extremist claims that are on par with the "We will destroy America" claims we hear from the dits in the Mid-East. In the end, Anonymouse are nothing but wannabe digital terrorists and nothing they have done or will do matters. Their activities are as much a waste of time results-wise as the Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and all the years of ridiculous and resultsless claims, proclamations and violence had accomplished nothing, while one humble fella with a can of gasoline and a match set the dominoes falling, toppling governments in one simple act of self-immolation. And, interestingly, as much as they brag about being anonymous, a bunch of them are being rounded up by the Feds. So much for anarchistic intelligence.

Re:Anono-hypocrites by rpillala · 2011-08-09 15:06 · Score: 1

Authoritarian governments by definition rule people because they think the people cannot self-rule. As in, authoritarian governments think they are "saving" their people. With that in mind, balance this quote from Anonymouse: "Some of these so-called whitehat infosec firms are working for authoritarian governments, such as those of Egypt and Syria." ...with this one a few sentences down:
"One day you will look back on this and realise what we have done here is right, you will thank the rulers of the internet, we are not harming you but saving you."
Sound familiar? Anonymouse are doing what those they claim to fight against are doing. Just another dictatorship that claims to be "rulers of the internet" that defends its "dictatorship" with petty DDoS attacks and makes outlandish and extremist claims that are on par with the "We will destroy America" claims we hear from the dits in the Mid-East. In the end, Anonymouse are nothing but wannabe digital terrorists and nothing they have done or will do matters. Their activities are as much a waste of time results-wise as the Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and all the years of ridiculous and resultsless claims, proclamations and violence had accomplished nothing, while one humble fella with a can of gasoline and a match set the dominoes falling, toppling governments in one simple act of self-immolation. And, interestingly, as much as they brag about being anonymous, a bunch of them are being rounded up by the Feds. So much for anarchistic intelligence.
The difference is that Anonymous isn't saving you by telling you what to do. They're saving you by (in their mind) killing a parasite.
Al qaeda gave the executive branch(es) cover to grab a lot more surveillance power. Maybe, had it not been al qaeda, it would have been something else. But that's not the case it was them and not something else. Erosion of civil liberties and rapid expansion of surveillance and associated bureaucracies is more destructive to America than killing its people. Bin Laden said that spreading fear was his intent in recorded videos. One need look no farther than Congress to hear people expressing fear for their personal safety and why basic tenets of freedom (press, speech, 4th amendment) need to be struck down to protect it.

--
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Re:Anono-hypocrites by alexo · 2011-08-09 15:23 · Score: 1

I simply cannot bring myself to take seriously a man who appears to type the word "Anonymouse" with a straight face.
You could see his face while he typed it? I had no idea that our privacy eroded that much.
Re:Anono-hypocrites by ender- · 2011-08-09 16:23 · Score: 1

The difference is that Anonymous isn't saving you by telling you what to do. They're saving you by (in their mind) killing a parasite.
Al qaeda gave the executive branch(es) cover to grab a lot more surveillance power. Maybe, had it not been al qaeda, it would have been something else. But that's not the case it was them and not something else. Erosion of civil liberties and rapid expansion of surveillance and associated bureaucracies is more destructive to America than killing its people. Bin Laden said that spreading fear was his intent in recorded videos. One need look no farther than Congress to hear people expressing fear for their personal safety and why basic tenets of freedom (press, speech, 4th amendment) need to be struck down to protect it.
From the government's point of view, what LulzSec and Anonymous are doing is digital terrorism. Perhaps it doesn't take actual lives [yet], but it makes the masses fearful. So eventually our fine Congress is going to decide that something must be done. A digital war will be declared [or not, as it were], and our freedoms online will be taken from us in the name of security, just as our personal freedoms have been taken from us in pieces over the last 10 years.
Of course, a conspiracy theorist might decide that it was the government itself performing these acts of digital terrorism, as an excuse to put into place more control over the internet. I don't quite go that far, in spite of the fact that I'm pretty sure the government hates the openness of the internet.
Either way it saddens me. While I wouldn't mourn the loss of Facebook, I think Anonymous is just providing good excuses for the further loss of freedom and anonymity online.

--
Nothing to see here
Re:Anono-hypocrites by Bob9113 · 2011-08-09 18:30 · Score: 1

"Sound familiar? Anonymouse are doing what those they claim to fight against are doing."
Not too familiar with the concept of dissidence and revolution, I take it? That is exactly how it is, every time. Small group of outsiders, attempting to push their agenda, which they believe represents the true will of the complacent populace. If it gathers enough support, it becomes a revolution.
For a good example case, see Thomas Paine.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Anono-hypocrites by Syberz · 2011-08-10 00:33 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but Al Qaeda's actions were not a waste of time.
Don't believe me?
How much has the US spent on the wars in the Middle East so far? Yeah... most of that money could have been spent on healthcare, education or boosting the economy (admittedly, the war spending does keep some people employed).
From Al Qaeda's point of view, with a few box cutters, IED's and vintage assault riffles, they've managed to make the US waste tons of money and the US people lose the very rights that they are "fighting for" in the Middle East. So yeah, I wouldn't call that a waste of time.

--
~Syberz
Re:Anono-hypocrites by Requiem18th · 2011-08-10 00:59 · Score: 1

Anonymouse? Seriously? Do you have a spelling impediment or just have the mind of a 10 year old child?

--
But... the future refused to change.
Re:Anono-hypocrites by rpillala · 2011-08-10 01:29 · Score: 1

Isn't the definition of terrorism being constantly expanded as we get more and more fearful? The USA PATRIOT Act managed a lot of this expansion as I recall. I don't think kidnapping was terrorism before that.

--
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Re:Anono-hypocrites by ender- · 2011-08-10 01:54 · Score: 1

Isn't the definition of terrorism being constantly expanded as we get more and more fearful? The USA PATRIOT Act managed a lot of this expansion as I recall. I don't think kidnapping was terrorism before that.
Of course. Which is why this is not a good thing that Anonymous is threatening to do. The government will expand their definition of terrorism again, and do some more expanding of whatever trumped-up, PATRIOT Act style rules they want.

--
Nothing to see here

Question how concerned is Mark? by DarkOx · 2011-08-09 12:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Personally I'd be very worried if I were him. Groups like Lulz Sec have shown they have people among them who are highly capable and are able to create substantial economic losses for their targets. Anonymous has had less success notable their failure to take down Amazon, and the Credit Card processing companies. Still the threat is credible and Facebook being a one trick pony (they have no business out side their website) could be really hurt by an attack.

Me thinks Anon better come up with something a little more clever than a DDOS though or they are going to be the ones getting schooled.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:Question how concerned is Mark? by PCM2 · 2011-08-09 13:06 · Score: 1

Me thinks Anon better come up with something a little more clever than a DDOS though or they are going to be the ones getting schooled.
My thought was that they better hope nobody who claims to represent Anonymous tries to extort money out of Facebook between now and November 5, or anybody who does try to launch a DDOS attack on that date could be going to jail.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Question how concerned is Mark? by DarkOx · 2011-08-09 13:10 · Score: 1

Very good point, I can see FBI or some other three letter agency coming down like a ton bricks if even the whisper of extortion comes into this. I would call "going to jail" a form of "getting schooled" however.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Question how concerned is Mark? by mcrbids · 2011-08-09 13:29 · Score: 1

There was a resource starvation issue found in apache a while back. Basically, if you give a long post size in the headers of a form post, and then start sending 1 byte every per seconds, the process would remain open. You could then launch 100,000 more such processes and crash the server.
At the time I wrote a quick PHP script as a proof of concept and was able to bring my dev server to its knees in less than 10 minutes, including coding time.
You don't have to be particularly good, just good enough.

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Re:Question how concerned is Mark? by slashqwerty · 2011-08-09 14:40 · Score: 1

I don't think 'Anonymous'--whoever is behind them--have the interests of freedom and privacy in mind.

The recent actions of 'Anonymous' have all been prime examples of the sort of thing lobbyists have been feeding congress to push data retention laws, an Internet off-switch, etc.

Taking down one of the most popular web sites on the Internet is sure to fuel those arguments. If people lose access to something they spend four hours a day at, they will be calling congress demanding for a solution much like they did after the WTC attacks. They will not care what the solution is, and congress will not care if the 'solution' works or is in any way ethical.
Re:Question how concerned is Mark? by sjames · 2011-08-09 14:45 · Score: 1

Especially someone working for the FBI claiming to be Anon.
Re:Question how concerned is Mark? by assertation · 2011-08-09 19:58 · Score: 1

I think Mark Zuckerberg is more worried about Google+ and rightly so.
Re:Question how concerned is Mark? by jimicus · 2011-08-09 22:33 · Score: 1

Most of the targets which have been successfully hit have been organisations where "... on the Internet" is either not particularly crucial to their business or security is not something they'd have had to consider from a corporate culture perspective.
Take the Sony attacks - now while most people on /. would, if setting up some sort of Internet-based gaming platform that consoles can hook into would go to all sorts of lengths to make sure that everything is as nailed down as is humanly possible, Sony haven't historically had to worry about that as a company. And it doesn't look like they did.
But you look at, say, Amazon, who would have had to worry Internet security since day 1, and it's a different matter altogether. Similarly payment processing companies - nobody's saying they're infallible, they're probably not, but there's a much better chance that they've put some real effort into security compared to the Sonys of this world.
I don't think Facebook have anything to worry about.

value by dingfelder · 2011-08-09 12:45 · Score: 1

Anonymous has vowed to destroy Facebook on November 5th, and even if they succeed, nothing of value will be lost.

-- there. fixed it for you.

Re:value by Icegryphon · 2011-08-09 13:20 · Score: 1

If I had Mod points. +1 for funny meme
As for some info and lulz.
Message from Anonymous: Operation Facebook, Nov 5 2011
YourOpenBook.org

Shyeaaa.. when pigs fly... by sphantom · 2011-08-09 12:46 · Score: 2

Though I'm against vigilante justice, I certainly agree with their motives.

HOWEVER.... Am I the only one who thinks Anon won't have much success? The worst they could probably do hack some user accounts. If they think DDOS'ing a site with the infrastructure to handle hundreds of millions of users is going to work with a bot net made up of a few hundred thousand machines, then they're probably in for a surprise. Heck didn't they already try and fail with Amazon?

Or was that Lulzsec? I get those two confused all the time.

Re:Shyeaaa.. when pigs fly... by kelemvor4 · 2011-08-09 13:18 · Score: 1

They also tried and failed with Scientology.
Re:Shyeaaa.. when pigs fly... by Wovel · 2011-08-09 14:26 · Score: 1

And Amazon

I like Google+ better by kurt555gs · 2011-08-09 12:46 · Score: 1

They can destroy Facebook any time now.

--
* Carthago Delenda Est *

Re:The hight of arrogance and hypocrisy by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-09 12:48 · Score: 2

Why would you assume these people are liberals? And well-intentioned at that? They seem more like... well honestly, teenagers. Not really cohesive, politically speaking, just raging for the sake of raging. Not really caring about the harm they're causing because they've never had responsibility or faced consequences. Basking in the attention they would never get any other way. Shit like that.

Re:Bunch of self-important pompous kiddies... by icebraining · 2011-08-09 12:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't have to join Facebook to be tracked by them. See those Facebook buttons on almost every site? Yeah, they're using those to track you.

"When a user does not have a Facebook account, there is no cookie and no user ID available. In this case, an HTTP GET request for the 'Like' button doesn't issue a cookie.
"However, when a site is visited which includes Facebook Connect, this application issues a cookie. From that moment on, visits to other websites which display the 'Like' button result in a request for the Like button from the Facebook server including the cookie."

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/11/30/facebooks-button-tracking-you/

Sure, it can be blocked fairly easily, but it's an opt-out, not opt-in. And many (most?) people have no idea.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Like! by siegeman · 2011-08-09 12:51 · Score: 1

Where is the 'Like' button when you need it...

Re:Like! by kelemvor4 · 2011-08-09 13:16 · Score: 1

Like ohmigod totally ya know?

Vows to destroy facebook... by oopspowsurprise · 2011-08-09 12:55 · Score: 1

Using private citizens compromised computers to do so... What a bunch of sanctimonious clowns. Hacking systems displaying peoples private information on the Internet without their OK yet complain about the privacy practices of facebook... At least data posted on facebook people MADE THE CHOICE to do so. Those victimized by Anonymous and Lulzsec didn't have the choice.

Disorder, chaos, anarchy: now that's fun! by thryllkill · 2011-08-09 12:59 · Score: 1

Destroy it? I doubt that. But if they bring it to its knees for just a few hours. Well, hell, that'll bring a smile to my face.

And then I'll change my password. Again.

--

Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

Re:meh by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-09 12:59 · Score: 1

Is it fair to call the optards?

Angry mens group by ripdajacker · 2011-08-09 13:02 · Score: 1

While their rant on Facebook certainly has some valid points to it, and it is indeed hard to delete such an account. One should look at Facebooks business model before the ddosing starts: They sell ads. You have agreed to the craziness that is the missing privacy, the undeleteable accounts and the lack of choice.

IANAL but I think the agreement isn't breaking any laws, and since every user agrees about it they really should stop the bitching.

Is it me or do Anonymous sound more and more like a support group for men that are pissed off? Here are my two tips for Anomymous:
1) Don't be cunts.
2) Get laid.

Re:Angry mens group by hedwards · 2011-08-09 13:41 · Score: 1

I haven't agreed to they're terms and they spy on me anyways. Sure I get less spied upon because I don't have an account, but it's still none of their damned business what I do online.
I'd rather have to see a few tampon ads if it means that I can have at lest some privacy online.

Whose fault is that? by adamofgreyskull · 2011-08-09 13:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

And yet the rest of the world knows why the 4th of July is significant.

Re:Whose fault is that? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-08-09 13:15 · Score: 1

Yes,
That's the beginning of the greatest squandered opportunity and betrayal of trust in modern history.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Whose fault is that? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-08-09 14:07 · Score: 1

You mean, they promised the fireworks display would be better than it actually was?
Re:Whose fault is that? by dmdavis · 2011-08-09 15:43 · Score: 2

I know, right? We're pretty awesome. Everyone knows about us!
Re:Whose fault is that? by Rigrig · 2011-08-09 19:22 · Score: 1

That's the day you guys defeated the aliens, right?

--
**TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
Re:Whose fault is that? by LongearedBat · 2011-08-09 19:29 · Score: 1

Yeah, that was when Will Smith destroyed the alien mother ship in Independence Day, wasn't it?
(I don't live in the US. ;)
Re:Whose fault is that? by ladadadada · 2011-08-09 19:54 · Score: 2

See ? He's right. You have no idea why it's significant.

That was the day Jeff Goldblum proved that aliens use Macs.

--
Sig matters not. Judge me by my sig, do you?
Re:Whose fault is that? by lenawash · 2011-08-09 20:09 · Score: 1

And yet the rest of the world knows why the 4th of July is significant.
yes, because that's 10 days before the french national holiday commemorating the "prise de la bastille"!!
Re:Whose fault is that? by TheRaven64 · 2011-08-09 21:27 · Score: 1

Yup, it's when we in Britain celebrate Thanksgiving.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Whose fault is that? by SmilingBoy · 2011-08-09 23:33 · Score: 1

No, I didn't really. I googled it and it is USA independence day. I vaguely remember having heard that date before, but it was certainly not in my active part of my memory. (Being from continental Europe, I was not really affected by US independence and have no reason to remember this exact date. More important is probably to know the time when it roughly happened; IIRC it was at the end of the 18th century.)
Re:Whose fault is that? by Walking+The+Walk · 2011-08-10 01:04 · Score: 1

And yet the rest of the world knows why the 4th of July is significant.
Because it's 3 days after Canada Day?

--
A recursive sig
Can impart wisdom and truth
Call proc signature()
Re:Whose fault is that? by TheHonch · 2011-08-10 01:49 · Score: 1

I know all Americans BBQ and can use fireworks on that day, but I have no idea why it's significant... I blame the swedish educational system!
Re:Whose fault is that? by CraftyJack · 2011-08-10 02:35 · Score: 1

You need more significance than BBQ and fireworks? Well, traditionally, there is also beer involved.

With Better Service? by Culture20 · 2011-08-09 13:03 · Score: 1

Are they planning to make a better, open service where people can remain anonymous and only give the information they choose to give? Compete with Facebook and deliver this new, better product on November 5th? Or are they going to DDoS and just annoy some soccer moms who can't harvest their Farmville corn for a couple hours?

Re:The hight of arrogance and hypocrisy by DarkOx · 2011-08-09 13:06 · Score: 1

Yep, Anonymous are/is pretty much just vandals. Lulz Sec at least seemed to have a clear agenda. They were doing to have a good time and to point out the stupidity and arrogance of others. Not the most noble of ambitions, no, but something you cheer for as long as it did go to far. Anonymous on the other had seems more like the London rioters. Something sets them off but they are mostly out there because they are angry at the world and just want smash something.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

..and nothing of value will be lost.. by sstamps · 2011-08-09 13:07 · Score: 2

Seriously, Farcebook??

I'm all for seeing FB disintegrated via beam shooting from my index finger, but why bother? It's already heading into the sunset.

Maybe they think they will just give it one good swift kick in the ass before the door does its job on FB's way out. Probably that.

--
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."

April 1st? by Alien+Being · 2011-08-09 13:10 · Score: 1

LMAAO at the headline.

This is just some new video game for Xstation DCLXVI, right? The new Genesis?

This place is fucked. Best wishes.

-ab

Who's next? by ashvagan · 2011-08-09 13:13 · Score: 1

"When a service is "free," it really means they're making money off of you and your information." So Google should be next in line! Let us know beforehand so we can stop using that part of Google, unless they want to take ALL of Google out ...

Please don't by atomicbutterfly · 2011-08-09 13:13 · Score: 1

Please don't do this Anonymous. If you take Facebook down for even just one day, once people find out who's responsible, any remaining respect or sympathy the average non-geek person has with Anonymous will disappear down the drain.

Not to mention the fact that you have no right to lecture me about choice and then take it away from me. I don't use Facebook that much anymore, but I still have an account for the occasional linkups. I'm trading the limited info I provide on it for the benefits it provides me, and I'm conscious of that trade, hence I keep things civil and use appropriate privacy settings. Now fuck of Anon and stop playing games.

mark who? by decora · 2011-08-09 13:16 · Score: 1

never heard of him

they will start doxing hi profile geeks by decora · 2011-08-09 13:17 · Score: 2

eventually. its like the lust for power you allude to. then the geeks will turn against anonymous,, and uhm....

the anonymous people will probably go work for governments etc

Re:Feel the Wrath of A Million Limp-Wristed Slaps by Dunbal · 2011-08-09 13:18 · Score: 1

To be honest facebook doesn't exactly have a stellar track record as far as security is concerned. Maybe there IS a vuln or two waiting to be exploited...

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:funny, and I here thought 4chan was a free webs by Dunbal · 2011-08-09 13:19 · Score: 1

The gold account is for newfags. Diamond is where it's at.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Talk about biting the hands that feed... by dontmakemethink · 2011-08-09 13:19 · Score: 1

Doesn't Anonymous owe much of their recruiting and information distribution to Facebook? Are they pissed they didn't have to pay for that?

I'm no Facebook fanboi, but as a musician, sound engineer, producer, and last but not least AdBlockPlus user, Facebook doesn't owe me a penny. As long as people don't take the time to figure out how to secure their online profiles (of all types), punishing those who legally exploit them won't fix anything. People won't stop stealing cars as long as they're left unlocked with the keys in the ignition either.

--

War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines

Why not November 13th? by krygny · 2011-08-09 13:19 · Score: 1

National Felix Unger day.

--
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.

Re:November 5 by Yaur · 2011-08-09 13:20 · Score: 1

yeah... July 14th would seem appropriate on multiple levels.

Re:How hard can it be? by Dunbal · 2011-08-09 13:21 · Score: 1

rm -rf?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Paranoia vs. Naivity? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 13:22 · Score: 1

> They certainly don't have my most intimate thoughts, ...

I would be cautious about making such claims. I think you would be surprised at how much of your intimate thoughts "leaks out" via your everyday actions, and how your thoughts can be reconstructed given a complete enough description of your everyday behaviour. A simple example is the study in which researchers, with a fair degree of accuracy, predicted peoples movements based on the past movement of their mobile phone.

I think you would be surprised how much small things, like word choice in your social networking updates, indicate about your "intimate" thoughts.

Even worse is when third parties fill in the missing parts with conjecture and supposition, and people assign intimate thoughts to you whether you have them or not. For example, you are happily married, but your buying habits, social network updates, and movements add up to provide circumstantial evidence that you are having an affair. As far as the Internet is concerned you are an adulterer, and the reputation grows behind your back from there, until one day it gets confused with reality.

Re:a show of power by Dunbal · 2011-08-09 13:24 · Score: 1

A show of power? Haven't read many tweets from lulzsec since that guy was arrested in the Shetlands.... That's the problem with "power". If power is bragging rights then the more you brag, the easier it is to find you and take you out. The old saying is still true. If you're going to do a crime do it once, do it to someone who doesn't know you far away from where you live, and keep your mouth shut. You break those rules you're going down.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Pass the buck.This way i mean. by hebertrich · 2011-08-09 13:36 · Score: 1

The so called free services are not so free.All of them are just as sick as the other.
They make money off of our data , the little it cost them to host any data versus the money they make is fantastic.
It will be interresting how soon they will have to fork out real dough to the users to use their data.
But for that .. it will take quite a change in user behavior.Because that's what happens.They are using your data.
They also are opening it to law enforcement and of course to the intelligence services.
Unless you don't care about privacy , do what i did . unplug.
Facebook is so like so yesterday , sorry .. last month .. anyways Good night

OMG by Osgeld · 2011-08-09 13:39 · Score: 1

I am sure Mark is pissing his pants ...

Facebook doesn't need the help by junk · 2011-08-09 13:49 · Score: 1

Wait a week and their mantra of "move fast and break things" will take them down again anyway. The piss poor engineering practices in that company are a liability to themselves and anyone who monetizes off of them. The reason Facebook has such a large infrastructure? They ignore resource utilization in their infrastructure and compensate with vast amounts of hardware. If they wait for Facebook to take down their app servers and then focus on the border network, they could likely keep them down for a while. Facebook pukes out multiple releases a day and many of them are bad. Anon will have ample opportunity.

I'll sit back, with some popcorn, and root for the %s guys... I can't figure out who are the bad guys and who are the good guys in this case. Regardless, I'm rooting for Anon on this one.

I'm getting bored now. by Severus+Snape · 2011-08-09 13:55 · Score: 1

The anarchist inside me just wet himself a little bit at the idea of them launching a sophisticated attack bringing Facebook down..Back in reality but they will launch some crappy DDOS attack which will now fail that they have given some warning which some people will then get arrested for. Is it just me these little hypocritical script kiddies are starting to piss off?

Oddly by Anarimus · 2011-08-09 14:11 · Score: 1

Anonymous thinks the majority of people really give a shit about their own privacy. People want to be advertised the point isn't to protect one's own privacy the focus now is to broadcast one's self to the world. We have reality shows that take us into the private lives of ordinary if not often ridiculous people. Why should reality reality be any different. People want to be advertised. They want to post every sordid detail of what they do, where they go and who they do for the world to see. The self is the celebrity.

Re:Bunch of self-important pompous kiddies... by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-08-09 14:12 · Score: 1

I'm not worried about the Facebook buttons.

It's the 'http://' in every URL. It's being used to TRAAAACK US AAAAALLLLLL!

Don't get me going about what ampersands are being used for.

Re:that's been the model of free services by Aeiri · 2011-08-09 14:12 · Score: 1

That would be absolutely brilliant if Anonymous' plan is to release their own anonymous social network that date. I'm serious. It would show they actually had intelligence.

Dumb by Hatechall · 2011-08-09 14:13 · Score: 1

Step 1: Go to /b/ and post rambling about destroying the media darling Facebook
Step 2: Write an article about your anonymous posting.
Step 3: Profit.

Re:Bunch of self-important pompous kiddies... by ErikZ · 2011-08-09 14:14 · Score: 1

Well geez. Where do I go for my slave duty? apparently I've been totally neglecting it.

Also, being used for a profit? Also known as "A job".

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.

Happy Days by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-08-09 14:16 · Score: 1

And with this.... Anonymous jumps the shark.

Ah, Mister Anonymous Fonzarelli...

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!

A good excuse... by odirex · 2011-08-09 14:22 · Score: 1

for everyone I know to actually start using Google+. Most people just signed up and let the account sit there doing nothing. Everyone's waiting for everyone else to move off of facebook.

Re:If Anonymous is in any way sucessful by Pete+Venkman · 2011-08-09 14:29 · Score: 1

Maybe it's a false flag...that would make sense.

If they can disrupt service for a few days... by SpeZek · 2011-08-09 14:32 · Score: 1

If they can disrupt service for a few days, I know more than a few narcissists that will jump over to G+ to spout their drivel and never turn back.

Re:If they can disrupt service for a few days... by Dan541 · 2011-08-10 00:58 · Score: 1

Anonymous can't even take my $14 a month (hosting costs) website offline, and they have tried along with some SQL injection attempts. Also an epic fail.
Anonymous are no threat to anyone. Except corporations with a half assed approach to security.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"

IMA CHARGIN MA LAZERZ by DMFNR · 2011-08-09 14:33 · Score: 1

Maybe Google wants to take a shot at their competition and have installed LOIC on their server farms.

Anonymous VS Facebook by Maintenance+Goof · 2011-08-09 14:37 · Score: 2

It is pretty clear what this is really about. Facebook is the natural enemy of Anonymity. You can not use Facebook and remain anonymous. You can not even have a friend use Facebook and remain anonymous. Anonymous finally realized who their natural enemy was and that they would be assimilated eventually if things remained as they are. Facebook is the Borg of computer identity. Personally I fear Anonymous Coward, while the Anonymous Coward group never does anything, they can be amazingly snippy.

Re:Anonymous VS Facebook by hort_wort · 2011-08-10 01:50 · Score: 1

It is pretty clear what this is really about. Facebook is the natural enemy of Anonymity.
You're right, it definitely isn't about what they're claiming. From their message:

Your medium of communication you all so dearly adore will be destroyed. If you are a willing hacktivist or a guy who just wants to protect the freedom of information then join the cause and kill facebook for the sake of your own privacy.
How is destroying Facebook protecting freedom of information? Didn't Facebook help organize events bringing about a couple peaceful revolutions recently? Isn't that what freedom of information is all about, letting the voice of the people change the world? I'd think these guys would have issued a statement that they were pleased if anything.
Are these guys really the same hacker group? Something is definitely wrong here....
Re:Anonymous VS Facebook by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 06:48 · Score: 1

Facebook is a threat to the freedom of information. They strip certain censored items from Facebook chat (and "wall posts" IIRC), such as TPB links.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:that's been the model of free services by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-08-09 14:42 · Score: 1

How could one be anonymously social? Seems like anyone who craves that can just use IRC over Tor.

This is what happens when you don't have marketing by NicknamesAreStupid · 2011-08-09 14:48 · Score: 1

Too much engineering testosterone and not enough PR estrogen. Very bad.

Difficulty involved in deleting a Facebook acct? by Xacid · 2011-08-09 14:51 · Score: 1

Seriously - as annoyed with facebook as we all are the fallacy that it's "difficult" to delete facebook needs to stop.

http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Re:that's been the model of free services by cgenman · 2011-08-09 15:02 · Score: 1

We need one more player with BUCKS to Show them how it's done and shut these guys up.

Bucks usually means investors, and investors means doing the safe thing. We need one hundred more players with very little money, and one hundred odd new ideas about how we can interact.

--
The ______ Agenda

Choice indeed by SuperMog2002 · 2011-08-09 15:08 · Score: 1

It is not a battle over the future of privacy and publicity. It is a battle for choice and informed consent.

So you're going to try to take away my choice to use Facebook?

--
Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016

Re:Choice indeed by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 06:50 · Score: 1

On the other hand, consider that Facebook isn't big on choice or informed consent...once you make the choice to use Facebook, you're Facebook's bitch.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Hey, Great. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 15:14 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, innocent people are being slaughtered in Syria, the US government is paralyzed by gross incompetence, and the MPAA/RIAA continue to abuse the legal systems in order to line their pockets.

But, hey, great. Mildly inconvenience a company that provides a valuable service to people all over the world. I'm sure that'll make them feel sorry.

Wouldn't it be great if Anonymous actually did something that mattered? As far as I can tell they have not had any lasting impact on anything.

Re:funny, and I here thought 4chan was a free webs by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-08-09 15:19 · Score: 1

The gold account is for newfags. Diamond is where it's at.

Diamonds fags can't triforce

^ ^ triforce ^ ^

Unicode challenged /. is challenged

If it REALLY happens then... by Janvitos · 2011-08-09 15:20 · Score: 1

Anonymous = Google

Re:Could Anonymous be GOOGLE by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-08-09 15:22 · Score: 1

I bet anonymous is Apple......they copy and take your money for fakes and now going after others and threatening them! Sounds like Apple to me!

I bet anonymous is Oracle......they copy and take your money for fakes and now going after others and threatening them! Sounds like Oracle to me!

I bet anonymous is Microsoft......they copy and take your money for fakes and now going after others and threatening them! Sounds like Microsoft to me!

Oh you were trying to stain that particular Corp, carry on.

What a post by k4b · 2011-08-09 15:33 · Score: 1

Stay off the porn sites dude and you won't have problems like that.

A ploy by Facebook for attention by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-09 15:39 · Score: 1

Facebook's really behind this as a ploy for attention. They want everyone to log in on 11/5 or 11/6 to see if it's still there. With so many users who created accounts but have stopped using them, this will allow Facebook to record a lot of usage, before they file for an IPO.

Solution? Just ignore Facebook and it's pathetic plea for attention. I've been off of FB for a year now. The one exception during that time was to respond to someone who'd lost my email. Before that, FB sent me emails asking me to come back. After I logged in, I got "welcome back" emails from FB. Whatever kiddos. I have better things to do than play Farmville, look at a bunch of crappy photos by friends, and see who's reading or watching what. (Hell, I use Slashdot more than FB, and I need to cut that out, too.)

What? by formfeed · 2011-08-09 15:41 · Score: 1

Movie? Comic book? What are you talking about? How does that have anything to do with Anonymous celebrating the of birthday of Art Garfunkel ?

oh nov 5 by Chuby007 · 2011-08-09 15:55 · Score: 1

Thanks guys at least I'll have till nov 5 to backup all my stuff... Oh wait.. it's Facebook !

Remember remember the fifth of November by phoebe · 2011-08-09 16:10 · Score: 1

So Facebook are actually the good guys and on the 5th Anonymous are going to be all rounded up and hung, drawn and quartered?

Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...

I think they lost some credibility... by davevr · 2011-08-09 16:31 · Score: 1

...by posting this on the official Anonymous FaceBook page.

Re:I think they lost some credibility... by Z00L00K · 2011-08-09 18:13 · Score: 1

Anonymous was hacked by Anonymous, and then the message was posted.
But I would never notice if Facebook was down or not, it's similar to Siberia to me - I know that it exists and I can visit it but it's nothing special.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.

Responsibility of privacy by Chewbacon · 2011-08-09 16:42 · Score: 1

Don't forget Facebook only know what information you put in your profile or on your wall. If Anonymous wants something to be mad about, they should get mad about people lacking a concept of confidentiality.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.

Re:Responsibility of privacy by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 07:00 · Score: 2

They understand the concept of confidentiality, what they completely lack is an understanding of the mosaic effect.
It's this bad: They could use the same username on a sex toy shopping site and a forum where they have links to their Facebook page. They'd write a review for the Tentacle Monster Dildo with Jizzing Action on the sex toy site, friend their boss on their Facebook page, and post pics of themselves doing bong rips on the forum. And see no problem with any of this whatsoever, because they don't see the big picture at all, just the individual pieces. Nothing short of posting their full contact details with an itemized list of things they're ashamed of on one publicly visible page would set off the Average Joe's alarm bells.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Maybe it'll be a judicial DDOS by knorthern+knight · 2011-08-09 16:44 · Score: 1

Imagine if 10,000 sets of identical twins file lawsuits for $100 million in separate courts, claiming that Zuckerberg stole their idea. That would be well in excess of even Facebook's valuation.

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user

Re:that's been the model of free services by arth1 · 2011-08-09 17:05 · Score: 1

How could one be anonymously social?

Shouldn't you ask that at /soc/?

Hmmm... by Cyno01 · 2011-08-09 17:54 · Score: 1

Lets say anonymous creates a google+ account for everyone who has a facebook page, imports all their pictures, friends, etc and PMs them the password.

Or heck, if they just sent every facebook user a google+ invite...

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."

Re:Hmmm... by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 06:45 · Score: 1

Wow, a move from one centralized data-mining social network that requires a real name to another! What an improvement!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:If Anonymous is in any way sucessful by Kagura · 2011-08-09 17:54 · Score: 1

Maybe you're an idiot.

You are not thinking AWESOME enough by subreality · 2011-08-09 20:14 · Score: 1

Outcome n+1: A small but dedicated Anonymous raiding squad wearing Guy Fawkes masks is tunneling under Facebook's data center as we speak and planting dozens of barrels of ANFO. Come the 5th of November, Facebook is quite literally destroyed.
Overall: l33t++. Probability: It will definitely happen in my dreams tonight.

More likely scenario... by Muskstick · 2011-08-09 20:17 · Score: 1

Facebook will patch it's application and gateway servers the day before to prevent any known exploits. "Anonymous" will sit around on November 5 waiting in vain for someone to find a new 'sploit and update whatever the hacker version of metasploit or backtrack is or attempt a DDOS against a site designed to handle millions of concurrent users and fail. Either way I don't see anything happening.

Ah! 5th November! by calculon102 · 2011-08-09 20:51 · Score: 1

The day Casimir III the Great, king of Poland died in 1370 a.d.. Now that rings a bell!

not true by jojo_it · 2011-08-09 21:31 · Score: 1

Anonymous denied that.

Deputy Fife by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-08-09 23:54 · Score: 1

Perhaps it is a distraction from a different target they intend to hit on the same day,

This left me with the impression of Barney Fife being deployed to the wrong part of Mayberry when the unsmiling Yankees in suits roll into town. Thank God for Opie.

Implying all services should be paid? by tomxor · 2011-08-10 00:25 · Score: 1

When a service is "free," it really means they're making money off of you and your information.

That is the nature of most free services... it's also the nature of most successful and innovative services. If this was so wrong then useful things like advanced search engines would never have come about.

Services that are free to use have the advantage of being highly accessible, and if they are useful or fun then it can also make them popular, that popularity generates revenue one way or another and allows that service to be developed innovated and flourish into something even more useful or fun for it's end users.

People have started regarding their privacy with these free services too highly - or at least they have been persuaded that it matters for what it is currently being exploited for. All Facebook, Google or any other company use your freely submitted information for is generate better advertising, they really couldn't care less otherwise. This may come to a shock to some people but You aren't that interesting.

I remember a while ago it was revealed how facebook created a "loophole" that allowed them to use private information for 3rd party advertising... by not allowing the 3rd party to ever see the private information. Well what the hell is wrong with that ! oooh nooo i'm looking at an advert in the margin of my spacebook account and it knows that i like to eat cheatos, SpOoKy..... -_- who gives a fuck seriously.

All this because there's no delete button. by geekmux · 2011-08-10 00:40 · Score: 1

Seriously, all of this frustration and anger over the lack of a true delete button when it comes to a Facebook account. That's pretty much what this boils down to, and I'm not really sure what to think, because there's no guarantee that sites that DO have a delete capability are actually eradicating your data off their systems...or more to the point of once something is put online, is it every really truly gone? Somehow, with monsters like Google out there indexing the entire online universe, I seriously doubt it, and yet, Anonymous is all up in arms over it.

Don't give me a delete button, or give me a delete button and then I find out later that my content was never really truly deleted. Ever wonder which one pisses you off more?

Either way, the answer is simple. Much like every other online service, if you don't like their policies, don't use it. Plain and simple. Anonymous is being rather ridiculous about it, they should learn to choose their battles a bit more wisely.

Remember, remember... by Denogh · 2011-08-10 00:47 · Score: 1

Always Guy Fawkes with these guys, isn't it? The can stab at the beast, but they won't kill it. Maybe a couple of lulzy "Pool's closed" moments and then they'll get tired and go elsewhere.

Re:Didn't work on Scientology by geekmux · 2011-08-10 00:49 · Score: 1

Anon said they were going to destroy Scientology. They are still around. Facebook will be too.

In short, nothing will come of this but a bunch of talk.

The sad part is in XX years (months?), Facebook will no longer be the "in" thing, and will likely go away, or be replaced by the next fashionable "in" thing to belong to...whereas Scientology, solidly (and factually proven) being founded in nothing more than pure science fiction, will continue to "convert" the ignorant who still hold blind faith in organized religion, and will likely never go out of "style".

I don't care. by pinkeen · 2011-08-10 01:06 · Score: 1

I don't care if facebook is taken down. Yes I use it, but any part of my life doesn't depend on it. In case it would have been taken down, I would move to the Next Big Thing or just forget it. But I would really, really like to see a high-profile target taken down. Just for the sheer fun of it. Just to see it can be done by script kiddies. I imagine an event of this scale would really rise awareness about security on the web. Keep building sand castles...

As far as the method is concerned I suspect that the only method to do it, would be to publish some incriminating evidence involving facebook, spinning up a media scandal, but probably not prosecution (how do you call it - 'fruit of the poisonous tree'?).

The best kind of fight is between two enemies by tgeller · 2011-08-10 01:17 · Score: 1

This brought a smile to my face. Two groups that are bad for society -- one a dictatorship, the other an ignorant mob -- expending their energy on each other.

I feel like the neutral dwarf army at the end of The Last Battle, standing by while the armies of Lord Tirian and Shift the Ape beating the crap out of each other. (Not to get too nerdy with my allusions....)

The only downside would be if the battle increased the visibility of either group. I just hope the media ignore them while they scratch and pull hair on their playground.

--
Tom Geller

hello by shentino · 2011-08-10 01:18 · Score: 1

Hey Geohot, how does it feel to be working for Facebook now?

Remember by charleste · 2011-08-10 02:13 · Score: 1

Remember, remember the fifth of November facebook, DDOS and plot I see no reason why Anonymous treason Should ever be forgot

Doesn't have the same ring.

Their plan is as follows by KiwiCanuck · 2011-08-10 02:20 · Score: 1

Destroy Facebook. ...... Profit!

Farmville is closed. by Alex+Belits · 2011-08-10 02:32 · Score: 1

Due to AIDS.

(actually breaking Zynga games will be both spectacular and somewhat effective)

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

Re:Farmville is closed. by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-10 07:04 · Score: 1

There is AIDS in the corn.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-08-10 02:49 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You've completely missed their point. by CountBrass · 2011-08-10 03:42 · Score: 1

They have two points, both of which you seem to have missed.

Firstly that it is impossible to effectively delete your Facebook account.

And second that people are not properly informed about the consequences of creating an account- i.e. that Facebook will make money by selling their personal information. This makes it impossible for them to make a proper decision about whether or not to use it.

--
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.

Anon - I implore you.... by gosand · 2011-08-10 03:52 · Score: 1

I absolutely abhor FB, I have a fake account I check once a month or so, just because I have a couple of friends in other parts of the country/world. But they all just post drivel, so I'm not missing much. At first I thought it would be great if FB was actually destroyed.

But do you know how many moms, dads, and people my age (in my 40s) rely on FB for spewing their constant, horrendous banality? If FB is destroyed, they might start talking to me about this crap again.

Anonymous, please - PLEASE - let FB continue, it's just a Darwinian tar pit.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

GITS: SAC by Krojack · 2011-08-10 04:04 · Score: 1

Their entire letter reads as though it was taken right out of an episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. I couldn't help but laugh. I'm shocked they aren't using The Laughing Man logo as well.

i can't pick a side, but i'm curious. by shadowrat · 2011-08-10 04:07 · Score: 1

I don't care that facebook sells my "private" information.

I don't care if facebook gets destroyed.

I am curious to see what it means to destroy facebook though. are they going to delete every possible restore point and all of the source code? are they going to make it so i never said my coworker's puppy was cute? are they going to destroy my relationships with all my friends? make it so my niece was never born and there are no baby pictures of her? is it going to be impossible to ever host anything under the domain facebook.com again?

or is it just going to be slow for a day?

Re:that's been the model of free services by Yvan256 · 2011-08-10 04:48 · Score: 1

You can still be anonymously social. See ArcadeForums, CNCZone, SparkFun, etc. Not everyone is using his real name, yet they share common interests and projects.

Re:If Anonymous is in any way sucessful by Pete+Venkman · 2011-08-10 10:10 · Score: 1

Thanks for adding so much to the conversation.

Millions off me? by akayani · 2011-08-10 21:11 · Score: 1

"while they then make millions off of you"

Good luck with that one. I've been trying to make millions off me for years.

Question! by DaVince21 · 2011-08-11 04:51 · Score: 1

Who's anonymous?

Seriously, how about saying "a mostly disorganized group of random strangers on the net"? It doesn't roll off the tongue, but at least it doesn't give you the impression we're talking about some secret underground group that's out for anarchy.

--
I am not devoid of humor.

Slashdot Mirror

Anonymous Vows To Destroy Facebook

358 of 575 comments (clear)