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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 __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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 kaliann · 2011-08-09 12:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Hey! Some of us saw that Natalie Portman movie!
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 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 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 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.

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: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

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

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.

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!

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 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 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.

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.

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

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: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

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 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 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?

..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."

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: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: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?

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: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

Slashdot Mirror

Anonymous Vows To Destroy Facebook

60 of 575 comments (clear)