Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Threatens Robin Hood Attacks Against Banks
gManZboy writes "Just in time for the holidays, hacktivist collective Anonymous has announced that it has teamed up with like-minded group TeaMp0isoN to donate to charity. The catch: they're using stolen credit data from big banks to make donations, in a campaign they're calling Operation Robin Hood. Is the #OpRobinHood campaign for real, or like previous threats against Wall Street and Facebook, just another hoax? Aesthetically, at least, the OpRobinHood video ticks all of the traditional Anonymous aesthetic requirements: a mashed-up 'p0isoaNoN' logo (green on black), a liberal dose of swelling choral music (via that movie trailer staple 'Europa,' by Globus), together with selected clips of Kevin Costner as Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves."
OK, so banks get screwed, but charities get screwed too. Unless they're "donating" to the RIAA charity fund, this seems pretty evil in itself.
People who frauded entire world by selling water vapor through deriving assets to 60x their value and then lending 10 times nonexistent cash over them are still sitting pretty and posting record bonuses and profits. Thats 599 times nonexistent cash lent as loans to governments, megacorps, factories, organizations, whereas there was only 1 unit of asset to back them. the correct amount of lending should have been 10x at maximum.
To simply put it in streetspeak - these people engaged in cash fraud. And they are drinking champagne in wall street. world suffers through their fraud. at this state noone can persuade me that what anonymous doing is wrong.
Read radical news here
They're stealing from tax payers.
They're going to steal money from the middle class to... theoretically... give it to the poor? And this is going to affect the people at the top, who probably don't even have a consumer credit card (and at the very least have people watching them, and charging back any unauthorized transactions), exactly how?
98% of the 99% are getting a little pissed at this bullshit.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I seriously doubt they're going to do much damage stealing from banks. They will attract a lot more attention from people who have no problem locking them up without trial however.
Lets screw up the system that the US dollar is based off of! It's not like the dollar is the global standard for currency in international trading or this would have deep impact on the global economy or anything like that. I'm personally kinda tired of crap like this. Yes, its fine to have a mission or a goal, but at least consider the ramifications of what you're attempting to do. Seriously.
Making threats doesn't really mean anything. If they do do it, good for them. However making useless threats just means potential attack vectors will close up.
I'm sure the big donation targets won't mind the hassle of dealing with angry people trying to get their money back... and likely police involvement. That's just what charities need.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
From a consequentialist view, this would be useful if it incentivized big banks to finally get their act together in terms of security. This would only happen, though, if the people whose credit were used were influential enough to change the laws or have the banks change their policies (i.e. they would have to be the very high value clientele).
From a moral standpoint, it strikes me as a little too equal-opportunity to be morally legitimate, even assuming that robbery is not a per se problem. To my mind, someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, or others less rich who have donated heavily, have no business being pilfered by Robin Hood.
is bringing up that terrible Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves movie. That's unforgivable.
If you haven't been watching the market, all this stuff is pretty well practiced. With the super high highs and the low lows there is a lot of speculation going on and. By golly doesn't it seem as if its planned. I say let em. It's better than breaking into a bank and shooting people. Furthermore, no body gets to see inside the brothel until you either pay up, or burn the house down. I will say this, as someone who classifies himself as poor, I'm not really affected (yet) by all this grandstanding, so I'm not worried.
So, they want to steal peoples' credit card info and use that to donate those peoples' money to charities. Then the banks have to reimburse the people whose info was stolen. There are a lot of things wrong with this. First off, for those people whose info gets stolen, they are out money until the banks go through the process of reimbursing them. With the numbers of people that would be affected by this, that could take a while. So, people will be short of cash at a time when they need it most: the holidays. This is not going to endear people to their cause. Also, what is going to happen to this data? I really doubt it's going to be deleted. Remember, Anonymous can be anyone. This information will end up for sale on black market sites. You should not be breaking the law and endangering innocent people/invading their privacy just because you don't like the bank. They are really showing themselves to be no better than the banks themselves; they are taking other peoples' money and doing whatever they want with it that servers their purpose, regardless of the consequences.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
So, given the demographic that most often uses credit, they're going to steal from the poor to give to the poor? Except they're not even going to give to the poor, but rather they'll give the stolen funds to people who normally help the poor, thus causing trouble for them. So really, they're going to steal from the poor to harass the people who help the poor. This seems poorly thought out.
If they somehow manage to steal exclusively from millionaires, and if they don't keep a dime for themselves, and if they do it in such a way that it doesn't cause headaches for the charities involved, then fine. More power to them. But somehow I suspect that none of those three criteria will be met.
Someone needs a lesson in credit card merchant agreements.
Wait till the charities they give to start getting their transaction fees raised or processing frozen for astoundingly high chargeback and fraudulent transaction rates. I'm sure they'll really enjoy that.
Big win.
If they send the money to honest charities like Oxfam, Unicef or Médecins Sans Frontières, they will probably just re-credit the transferred money back to the bank. And if they use some less scrupulous charity, well, that charity shouldn't be getting money in the first place. In any case, there's no real win here.
What would be really cool, though, is if Visa (to demonstrate their unbreachable security) set out a Hack-for-Oxfam challenge, in which any money that hackers manage to route to Oxfam would be stay with them and be considered a charitable donation from Visa. It would be great free publicity if the hackers failed, and a very good deed would be done if the hackers succeeded - plus, they could patch the exploited security holes.
Robin stole from the rich and gave to the poor.
Who, exactly, are they proposing to give anything to?
Bear in mind that knowingly receiving stolen goods is a crime.
And the fact that they've announced their intent preempts almost any excuse that a person who accepts something from them in the future didn't know it was stolen.... even at best, recipients who get funds electronically without knowing where it came from might just believe it to be a bank error, which account holders are fully responsible for anyways (that is, if a bank makes an error in your favor you cannot freely utilize any extra funds you might appear to have).
This isn't stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It is ensnaring poor people who don't know any better into doing something that is just going to land them in deeper financial trouble than they are in right now.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I think there's ample evidence to conclude that this could very well be an attempt by the DHS or the FBI to create more paper terrorists. You can expect some arrests around the holidays. They're almost stalinist in their punctuality of the trials, whether public or secret.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
All of the charities will end up paying out big bucks in chargeback fees. It is the merchants that are on the hook for credit card fraud. They'll be forced to return the money and pay a chargeback fee ($30 or more). They will end up doing more damage than any potential (and misguided) good.
It was called Sneakers.
But in the end, this sort of activism proves pointless as some govts guarantee the initial investment of bank customers.
All it would do in the end is destabilise the government and send some countries broke.
Unless that is the eventual goal.
So basically, steal money from the working class, give it to the "poor" or "charities", leave us without our savings through the winter season while we wait to get reimbursed from the CC company (those of us who actually read every transaction on our statements every month and catch it), get the feds involved, "poor" and "charities" forced to give the money back...nobody profits and everyone gets pissed.
I have yet to see anything resembling a reasonable argument that "anonymous" is anything more than a bunch of douches and criminals, in it for nothing but lulz and personal gain (rationalized by appealing to the mass' sense of hope and idealism), attributing their exploits to a faceless collective so as to (hopefully) not to get caught.
Nobody's blameless: CC companies, "anonymous" hackers, government, businesses, even your average person, but these people are no heroes.
Perhaps I'm just assuming the worst of everyone, but remember, the cynics are right 9 times out of 10.
Send the home addresses of stay-at-home wives of bankers to sexual predators getting out of jail. Since obviously 2 wrongs make a right, might as well go all out.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The point is to help the people at the bottom. You know, the ones who are homeless, living on scraps they fish out of the trash of idiots like you who don't give a damn about anybody but yourself.
What the fuck are you on about? I pay my taxes and I donate to charity when I feel like it. I assure you I'm far from the 1% the Occupy people are always talking about (otherwise I wouldn't have a one and a half hour commute, both ways, every day).
This operation is talking about taking money from stolen credit cards and donating it to charity. Let's disect that a bit.
First, you're stealing people's livelihoods. Credit cards are often attached to bank accounts. You could be bankrupting people, or putting them in a state where they can't pay their bills. I have a problem with that from the get-go. But it gets worse.
When the fraudulent transaction goes through, the banks will take an interchange fee averaging about 2% of the transaction value straight from the top before the charity even gets it. So the banks are already laughing their asses off at this plan, since what Occupy thinks is going to hurt them is going to GIVE THEM MONEY.
So when the unfortunate person owning the credit card sees that they've had their money stolen, they're going to try a chargeback. Their bank may refuse this, but especially if it's a credit card, they'll likely get their money back. In the middle of this, the bank will likely take a chargeback fee from the charity since they'd have a hard time taking it from the person who's had their money stolen.
Now, in this circumstance there are likely to be a large number of chargebacks against the charity, which may further increase their liability:
Currently both Visa and Mastercard require all merchants to maintain no more than 1% of dollar volume processed to be chargebacks. If the percentage goes above, there are fines starting at $5000 – $25,000 to the merchant's processing bank and ultimately passed on to the merchant.
All of that money goes to the banks and the credit card companies.
So what's the final score here?
Victim: Either has their money back after losing it for potentially several days, or if they're unfortunate, has simply lost their money entirely.
Charity: Probably doesn't have much extra money after most people chargeback their fraudulent transactions.
Banks: Got around 2% of every single transaction involved here, more in the cases of chargebacks. Stole money from both the target and the charity without being culpable for any of it.
I'd say I was shocked that nobody thought of this, but it completely matches with everything else Occupy has done: sitting on their asses, breaking the law when convenient to them, proposing no actual solutions, and splitting their focus in a million different directions without putting any real effort into a single one.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I guess stealing from regular people is easier than taking on the Zetas, eh Anonymoustards? Someone just needs to go to one of those conventions and just start mowing down any retard with a Fawkes mask on.
is that pretty much anyone can pretend to represent you...
Just switch the credit card numbers out for the numbers of there own personal cards . Then they can make there Christmas donations to the charity or there choosing.
Let's see Anonymous try that one. Only politicians are legally permitted to do that.
unlike the former games they have been playing where they take down services which take potential money, they are taking real quantifiable money. when you take real money and assets are lost, law enforcement gets very serious. this is going to be a zillion counts of credit card fraud and damn some people are getting a shitton of years in jail.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It should be difficult enough for anybody in a Big Bank to separate out whatever pennies Anonymous diverts to someplace they weren't supposed to go from the real money the Big Banks are routinely found to be diverting - but if Anonymous is still concerned about being caught, just tell 'em to put "U.S. Congress" in the transaction comment block.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
What else can I say that hasn't already been said, Anon's self delusion has gone completely nuts (nu7z?) the banks will not get screwed they get the money back, charities get teased and the Internet squeeze gets tighter, politicians get more fuel to fuck us with.
At least have the brains to wait until there is some sort of useful Internet Freedom legislation in place otherwise people like Senator Lieberman or MPAA/RIAA can go on and on about how hackers are the danger and we need more controls and laws and judges that pass laws without really knowing what they are doing (and admitting it).
Christ it's wrong on so many levels...rip off the banks and hire a decent publicist FFS, you may be great hackers but you suck at strategy.
This Has Been Another Pinot Noir Blather.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
they have the money to buy shit dumb fucks.
As much as I like their intention, I think this is crossing the line.
They're clever people - surely they can come up with a campaign that would be more respectful and probably more successful. I'd like to see the power of anonymous used in a clever/funny/positive way. Remember when 4chan thanked a 90 year old war veteran?
Personally I'd be looking into doing something to communicate the message that "99% can effectively support the 99% by being open, considerate and sharing". Why should they steal from the 1% when they really don't have to?
This campaign is also pointless on a practical level. They're not stealing gold which can only be in one place at a time they're stealing credit. The banks can just re-credit the rich bastards!
So...they will be responsible for a ton of charge backs from illegal charges to thevcharities....thus not helping anyone....sounds like the tards at anon...
They'll be not getting the money and dealing with banks and payment processors. In some cases they may deal with angry individuals who don't watch what happens. However more than likely these things will get noticed fairly fast, since it is easy to see what your CC is doing online, and the banks will be informed, and they'll stop payment. So the charity will think they are getting money, then not get it.
Then of course because of the level of fraudulent transactions, flags will go up on them as a merchant, so it'll get to the point where if someone makes a donation of any sizable amount, it'll generate a call immediately from the bank to verify. If that keeps up, the payment processors may get angry and shut down the account.
This kind of shit will work not at all. Having had my CC information stolen a couple times I can say that while it is a little inconvenient, it is nothing more. Call the bank, they stop the charges, fill out a little form on things and that it that. A new card shows up in the mail in about 3 days.
It's also not like you could give the charities all that much from a single source. Never mind CC limits, even if you find a really high limit CC, do too high a transaction to a place that doesn't usually get it and that'll have it stopped right there and then.
This plan has so much fail written all over it.
The idea is absurd. It's to risky that innocent people will be hurt. ANON should just go to the banks and collect the donations for the poor. or maybe travel to some poor countries to help the needy.
First, there is the question of whether or not this is even real and not a "TERRISTS COMIN' TA STEAL YER FREEDOMS" event.
Second, there are much better funded and staffed operations that steal credit card information en masse. Even if this group (assuming it actually exists) snags a couple, it will be a drop in the bucket compared to what organized crime pulls off every day. People who work in fraud prevention won't even feel a speed bump.
a) In the USA credit card issuers (issuing bank, not the interchange network) are liable for fraudulent transactions, losing 100% of the amount (as the customer will not pay, usually) is a loss to the bank even if they win 2-3% interchange.
b) They will chargeback to charities many of the fraudulent transactions which occur card-not-present (i.e. internet payments), so the charities won't get much or any of it. I don't know if there are any additional fees which may actually hurt the charity.
c) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, the issuing banks may start to notice it and block payments from all cardholders, hurting the charity's normal fundraising.
d) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, then that charity's bank (acquirer) is likely to drop its credit-card processing agreement, disrupting the charity's normal fundraising. There may even be some penalties if they do not have a sufficiently up-to-date website and on-line fraud detection software/procedures.
I work professionally in some aspect of credit card software (at a tech company and not a bank).
In sum, this proposed action is likely to create some extra work for bank employees, though it will probably not cause financially significant losses as many online transactions (not processing with "Secured by Visa" or MC's similar procedure) can be charged back. Charities are unlikely to benefit. They may be harmed.
Anonymous go away. No one wants you around. If you are so eager to give to charity, set an example by doing it yourself. The disparity between how cool you think you are and how stupid you actually are is amazing. Oh, and think something through once in a while. Don't just imagine headlines and use that to decide what to do next.
I have the feeling if this actually goes off the FDICI is going to be on the hook for most of it.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
I'm fairly certain that eventually the entire transaction is reversed then, which just is an expensive headache for whatever charity got the false donation. If this was for real, they'd contribute to a political campaign for someone they don't like. Then again, they don't seem very wise.
Isn't it Anonymous that came up with this ludicrous scheme? Anonymous does not control, own, rule, drive, steer, or otherwise control Occupy. The only thing they have in common is the use of the Guy Fawkes masks.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I have to agree with the commenter who said this sounds more like a DHS propaganda effort than anything. If Anonymous really wants to hurt banks, why not just use simple acts of vandalism. I would think that vandalizing branch locations across the country would have a bit more of a financial impact against the banks. How much money would a bank lose if its branch offices were closed up for a day or three? If ATM machine screens were smashed so they are unusable. What if it happened to five branch locations across the city?
Just hacking in and deleting mortgage and other electronic assets. Modifying accounts balances, shifting money from corporate accounts to private accounts etc. Alas, in the end, all this will do is piss off the banks and lawmakers enough to pass some retarded bills that require us as individuals to make up the "loss" and then some.
Ever heard of the civil rights movement? They cause change without ousting politicians or using force. It's called civil disobedience, and it's proved effective time and time again.
You have it exactly backwards. The civil rights movement succeeded when *voters* decided it would be an electoral issue. The viet nam war ended when *voters* decided it would be an electoral issue, and that decision was made when their lives were affected (increased casualties hitting the middle class) not because of radical anti-war protesters. The true currency of politics are votes not money, money is only useful when the voters are indifferent.
By making ourselves heard (me included) Occupy is waking people up from their fantasy land where government and corporations aren't screwing us.
All Occupy is on a path to do is create a perception of civil unrest and scare the swing voters into going republican, just like the radical anti-war protesters did during the viet nam war resulting in getting nixon elected. Occupy needs to realize that "camping" is going to backfire. Show up, protest, yell and shout, day or night, but when you tire go home or get a room ... repeat as necessary. The more the focus is on "camping" the more the middle will feel that Occupy does not represent them. Polls are showing that this is already happening. In the minds of many Occupy is looking more and more like the "professional protesters" that show up at G20, World Bank, and other meetings. Continue on this path if you wish to waste a great opportunity.
I've stood behind many of the things Anonymous has done in the past but this just seems stupid.
The only thing this will do is cost charities millions in audits, time, etc and make many lose services they use to collect donations. You know what will happen if a charity receives illicit funds through paypal? Their bank account gets frozen and paypal will in most cases never allow them to use their service again.
If they want to be dicks they should use these attacks through online services that the music/movie industries run / make money from, or big evil online retails like walmart and bestbuy or make payments to other banks customers mortgages / dept.
TruePunk | Games
The owners of the card won't be liable for the charges dumbass.
While the owner of the card may not be liable, the charity may still have to pay the fee for payment processing on the fraudulent charges. At a minimum the charity will be put on a higher fee schedule due to an elevated number of fraudulent credit card charges, so they will lose on all legitimate donations in the future.
They should have used Errol Flynn, or even Russell Crowe. Hell, Cary Elwes was a better Robin Hood than Costner.
Prince of Thieves has to be the only Robin Hood story where you're kind of rooting for the sheriff of Notingham.
... also, I can kill you with my brain.
You are talking about the army with worsed human rights record in history. Or does the eradication of the native Americans, also known as Indians, not count? What about the millions of civilians slaughtered by the US armed forces during the Vietnam conflict? Mass bombing of civilian targets and use of chemical weapons?
The US army unwilling to kill civilians? Pull the other one, it got bells on.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is stupid.
This is what happens when you create a fraudulent transaction:
1. You buy/pay for X with Y card
2. Y card is canceled and the transactions rolled back
3. Whoever you bought X from is now out both X and has to pay a fee to the bank for accepting fraudulent charges, what's known as a chargeback.
So if you do this a few hundred times to a charity, you're just going to make the charity refuse credit card payments, which hurts them.
The banks don't get harmed in the least. This does nothing.
Anonymous morons.
Marriner S. Eccles, Chairman and Governor of the Federal Reserve Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriner_Stoddard_Eccles
http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/99-06/martin.cfm
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
This has nothing to do with Robin Hood at all, they're using stolen credit card data so it also affects CC companies and the owners of the CC. Also this will hit the common people too, as banks loose money and need to compensate for it, which means lowering intrest, raising prices. If it's known the donation was done using a stolen CC the charity has to give the money back anyway, so there is no win situation as that'll costs a lot time too.. Anonymous aren't the smartest people, yes they seem to know a lot about how to hack stuff, but when it comes to anything else they seem to be as dumb as a pig's ass..
This Operation is real: it's been in progress for months now. Writer of this article needs to do a little research and /. needs to really examine what they put on frontpage. Get with it, /.
There's lots of arguing going on about whether this is good or bad. All very interesting, I'm sure.
Here's the thing though; whether we think it is good or bad is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. This is inevitable.
We are approaching a state of effective global government, through synchronicity of corrupting forces. All the major governments are toppling to corruption in roughly the same way; fear of dissidents, desire to quash "harmful" speech, global lobbying entities, fear of the Internet, using fear of child porn to manipulate public opinion, megacorps abusing fear of economic instability, etc. They are all falling over the same way, and they're all reading each others play books and imitating each others steps, incapable of recognizing the downward treadmill they are all running on.
As with every sudden spurt in the growth of top-down authority, there is a concomitant concentration of power (wealth, influence, information, etc). Those who are winning at the concentration game are those who are most willing to sacrifice everything for a little more power. Their fundamental nature is that they will continue to sacrifice everything for a little more. And they will continue to gain more. It is becoming self catalyzing. Once that iterative selection mechanism gets rolling, it does not stop quietly.
Look back through world history and ask yourself this question: What happens when power concentration becomes self-catalyzing? What happens every single time that happens? What happened in Rome? The United States? France? Russia? China? Egypt? Yemen? Tunisia? Libya? Those are just off the top of my head. What has happened every single time power concentration has become self-catalyzing?
This particular incident may be real, or not. It may be part of what brings about change, or not. In the long run it may be net positive, or not. What is not in question is this: This sort of thing is going to happen. It cannot be avoided, unless we find a way to stop the cycle without the upheaval.
And do you think that is going to happen? Do you think the machines in power can be smoothly depowered, or will choose to relinquish their self-fueling avarice? Do you have any doubt that they are rapidly becoming self-fueling organisms? Have you ever tried to talk to a cancerous polyp, and explain that it should not consume everything it can?
The question is not whether bands of renegades will commit acts of poorly aimed hostility against poorly selected targets. The question is how we can best navigate our society through this period where we are incubating that sort of dangerous antigen to combat these cancerous concentration machines. How we can get back to a place where the cancer of anti-social avarice is no longer doing more harm than the chemotherapy of civil unrest.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I agree with you for the most part but at least for most people it is not practical to save up the money to buy a house for cash.
Even if you can do so it doesn't mean that it makes the best financial sense to do so:
1) The money that you're paying in rent is enriching the landlord and not going towards your own capital investment
2) You're losing the capital gains of buying your own property (temporary financial crisis excepted real property goes up in value over time)
3) The money that you're keeping in the bank or under the mattress doing nothing is losing value over time due to inflation
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Three letter agancies grabbed all the capable folks 6 months ago. What is left is script kiddies. Remember how they vowed to destroy Facebook? Someone should remind them the 5th of November was weeks ago.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
People arn't going to close down their accounts because of a bunch of deluded self righteous script kiddies on a power trip.
This, precisely, is why a home loan is the only kind of debt (excluding a credit card paid off in full every month to build a credit rating) I ever intend to take out.
The problem to be avoided is not so much debt per se, but the interest that inevitably comes with it. And not even just interest, but more what interest is a special case of: rent. Interest is rent on money. So if your options are to pay rent on a home for a period of time while you save up to buy a home, or to pay rent on money with which to buy a home now and then pay back the money over that same period of time, the question is simply which has the higher rent, the home or the money. And even in this lousy market, interest on a home loan is lower than the insane raw profits extracted by landlords renting out property.
Rent is where you pay someone a permanent fee for the temporary use of something and so, when the transaction is over, they have what they rented you back again and you are out that money. This is how wealth accumulates in the hands of the already-wealthy! They have what we need (homes, cash, whatever), and they can hang on to it and "let" us use it for a fee, which then gives them further assets to rent out and further their illegitimate income. If they did not have this option, if rental contracts were not upheld by the law, then those assets beyond which they could personally use would become worthless to them except as things to sell; and they'll only be able to sell them if they offered terms which other people, people who don't already have such things and are in the market for them, could afford.
Simply invalidating rent (having the government refrain from doing something) would "force", by free market forces alone, a voluntary redistribution of excess (unused) wealth from the 'haves' to the 'have-nots' on reasonable terms, by making such sales the option which is most in the 'haves' self-interest (either that or let their useless assets rot), after eliminating the illegitimate option of charging for something and then getting to keep it afterwards. This is the kind of solution people need to be looking for, addressing the systematic problems which cause wealth disparities to grow, not looking to patch the system and simply cover up the symptoms of it!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The problem with OpFacebook was that most of those who call themselves Anonymous have already drunk the Koolaid. They didn't want to see their cherished timekiller threatened, so they turned on Facebook critics and even exposed one person's private data for proposing to attack Facebook. You aren't allowed to be anonymous in Anonymous if you don't agree with the sheeple.
They're changing some numbers.
The banks will reverse the charges, won't be able to cost either party for it, therefore the money comes out of the profits, and the CEO's windfall is reduced whilst the workers on the front-line get overtime pay.
There's nothing civil about stealing money? Tell that to the banks.
actually, the way the lending institutions do it is that. you lend nonexistent cash,showing your assets as collateral. in america you can lend up to 10 times the value of your assets. for every 1 unit of asset you can lend 10units of cash. it is nonexistent cash. its not an asset in cash. it is cash lent over asset as collateral. now imagine what happens when someone inflates that 1 units of asset to 60 times its value through hedge fund trickery and then lends 10 times the cash. now the safe lending ratio (10 was still too much in fact) has been circumvented to the rate of lending SIX HUNDRED times cash for 1 unit of REAL asset.
Read radical news here
1. you are advocating the rape of innocent people
2. you are advocating rape to achieve a political goal
3. if you were a commander in a war and did this, you would be guilty of war crimes
4. some 'moderators' modded you up. violating the root of the word 'moderator' (to moderate the extremes)
5. all of you should have a long, long talk with a psychologist
Since the problem is caused by the banks (they lost the information), they will not be able to charge the charities. If they try, a quick visit to the courts and any jury will defend the charity against being charged for a problem not their own.
Anon is just a bunch of sheep being led around by their noses by either nation-states or organized crime. They are going to take it to the next step and turn all their 'followers' into Oliver Twist-like characters. Wake up children, you're being had.
Anonymous, I am poor. My bank routing number is ...
Methinks that Anonymous' do-good originals may have been hijacked by evil-doing imposters. The tactics haven't changed, it's always been borderline "terroristic" (as a style, not a moral judgment), but has shifted from safe/clean attacks to ones that are going to have a lot of collateral damage.
When it gets SOO bad that you literally cannot survive, find yourself a rich person (Two SUVs and a jetski will seem rich to you at that point, no need to target Buffet) ..and kill them.
You will have your basic needs met via the prison system (or you'll die... wikipedia Thich Quang Duc, there are people that actually believe in the shit they spew)... one less rich person, a message similar to the one sent out during the times of public executions will go out.. something to the effect of "extreme greed will not be tolerated by society" and the problem will come into balance.
REALITY is
No one will make this statement. No one gets this desperate. "The system", imperfect as it is.. works well enough to keep the wolves at bay.
Reality is that the higher ideals of compassion, empathy, concern for fellow man, fuck.. common fucking sense! The tools that would allow systems like government, education and healthcare to be more than barely functional cash machines for "the 1%" do not yet apply to this society, and may never. Oh well. Maybe Applied Cryogenics and a 1000 year nap, but I don't have much faith..
Want a small step? Be an engineer or accountant or humanitarian and go into politics. ...yeah, that old adage about "too smart to go into politics"
Your best bet is bank local and be an evangelist for common sense... futile as that may be.
Then: "Let's march to protest bad laws".
Now: "Let's protest bad laws by committing petty crimes, providing convenient excuses to bring about more bad laws, but that's OK 'cos those laws were going to happen anyway, everything is futile and the world sucks, time to slit wrists, now which way were you supposed to do that, gotta check the internet..."
How hard would it be for Anonymous to filter the identity theft data and use only credit cards that belong to the 1%? Or to select corporations? I do not think that would be so hard. I doubt that the 99% have any reason to fear that Anonymous in that respect.
As to potential recipients of Robin Hood booty, these fall into two categories. One consists of "charities" like the RIAA, Church of Scientology, and white supremacist groups who are deserving of a multitude of $5 dollar donations that are sure to trigger "recipient pays expenses of reversal" rules. The other group contains charities like Doctors Without Borders, the EFF, child welfare support, and so on who would benefit from large contributions that fit the normal financial patterns of the "contributors" selected by Anonymous.
Com'on slashdotters, use yer noggins fer somepin more than hat racks. Anonymous has demonstrated that it has the skills to sort sheep from goats and to tailor their activities appropriately. More than likely, they have not made this public announcement without having first spent a few months in real world testing.
Will
This is dumb. You may be hurting the banks, but if my credit card data is going to be used, I am NOT looking forward to go wasting my time to deal with the bank. What do you guys think, I can start keeping my money under the pillow? Stick to hurting banks, not ordinary citizens, ffs.
If anyone honestly thinks this is going to hurt the rich in any shape, form or fashion, they've got more than a few screws loose.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Don't donate stolen funds directly to the charity, use the credit cards to buy from someone you also despise (Walmart?) and have the product shipped to the charity? I'm not sure if this would work, but I think if Anon put a little thought into the matter they might find ways that eliminate at least some of the problems posted in here. I mean, none of this is ever going to happen, but if it did, it could be done better.
While delving into the details of how it will play out is interesting... I dont think any of that really matters to them. I dont want to call what they are doing misdirection or overt lieing but the intent here is to throw fuel on an ever growing fire, how the flames lash out really doesnt matter (to them) all that much.
wahh the evil banks, oh boo hoo. Do what all the 60's radicals did, go into places of leadership and destroy from within instead of hurting innocent people. Wah whose afraid of the big bad banks, the big bad banks. When will you commie idiots ever learn you back water hill billies. Men bigger than you fought in ww11 to stop this stuff.
this could be true but, stolen credit cards are always charged to charity first to check to see if the card is working. if the card works, then they can buy whatever. This is not Anonymous. This practice has been done for a long time.
This one is dumb. A number of banks are already threatened in Europe and are posting losses. Banks have ordinary people's money in there.
Please go back to targeting evil Facebook - now that is doing a real social service.
Your pumpkin is showing.
It's like virtual particles. Particle (cash) and anti particle (debt) pairs can spontaneously pop into existence. So all we need is a black hole to swallow the debt and cash is the equivalent of Hawking radiation apparently emitted by a black hole. I surmise that the worlds current financial problems are due to the black hole(s) finally evaporating.
Robin Hood didn't "steal from the rich to give to the poor". He stole from an oppressive government which taxed its subjects literally into the poorhouse, and gave some relief back to those overtaxed subjects.
Anonymous, please just go away and leave us productive citizens alone.