Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Helps Turn In Hacker Who Targeted Charity
netbuzz writes "A hacker who defaced and disabled the website of a New Zealand film company known for helping poor children could find himself in legal hot water in his home country of Spain after his attack spurred a Facebook/Twitter posse that included members of Anonymous, who the hacker may have been trying to impress. 'Apparently, one of the (Anonymous) rules is you don't hack charity sites, you don't hack sites of people trying to help kids,' says the owner of the damaged site. 'This guy was trying to impress them, to try and get into their group and boasting about what he'd done — but they turned on him, they chased him.'"
The idea that "Anonymous" is a single entity is false. There isn't some supergroup called "Anonymous" anyone can (and does) call themselves "Anonymous" simply because its the "cool" factor. In then end, I'm anonymous, you're anonymous, the guy down the street is anonymous. That's the big thing with "Anonymous" there is no leader, its just a bunch of people moving in roughly the same direction. There is no one philosophy either morally or politically, just a couple of common interests. Join the swarm and leave.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
And when our founding fathers found these truths to be self evident, and the oppression of their native land unbearable, they did what they knew in their minds and hearts to be moral and just. The disobeyed the despots. They fought for that, which they knew was worth of living and dying. Our society has ceased to stand even for itself let alone its posterity. Is it not long passed time to say, enough, you may not rob me of another right or personal freedom, in fact I'm taking what's mine back and you cannot have it. Not now, not ever.
A 35 year old script kiddie, no less. Who lives with his mother.
That's actually true.
Its perfectly normal for guys to live with their parents that long in Europe. Its traditional in mediterranean (Greece, Spain, Italy. etc)
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Or you could dismiss the 'truths to be self-evident' thing as just some powerful rhetoric, because those things are *not* self-evident. There is no great trancendent book of rights. The only natural law on such matters is the law of the pointy stick in the ribcage: Whoever has the power to enforce their will by force is the natural ruler. America didn't win its independance because it was morally better, or because of the strength of their arguments: They won because they had the advantage of some good leadership and fighting on their own turf against an enemy with severely stretched supply lines and political infighting back in Europe.
Don't generalize that too much, though. Mediterranean maybe, but here in Belgium, and our neighbors France, Germany and the Netherlands (which, you'll have to admit, is a sizeable part of Europe), we generally move out after university, or as soon as we find a job.
Jesus saves... the rest takes full damage.
As a Spaniard I can tell you that you have no idea what you're saying.
How can it be traditional? 20 or 30 years ago people were working, married with children and owning (paying 10-year mortgages) a house at 18.
With the rise of people going to college things changed nowadays, but you're regarded as a failure and mocked if you live with your parents at 30.
It's true that many people lost their jobs and now they're living with their parents but that's obviously not a tradition.
I cannot speak for Greece but I know a lot of people from Italy and it's the same.
I don't see how the post above can be modded +5 insightful, it is literally the opposite of insightful:
The grandparent post Pubstar is responding to:
"Insisting that you'll just follow your own code instead of the law works great as long as you have the "right" morals. Funny thing about that, everyone seems to think their morals are the right ones.
Maybe I think it's immoral for my daughter to have a kid out of wedlock, so I kill her and her boyfriend as an honor killing. After all, it's my morality, and how dare your laws condemn it? Maybe I think abortions are immoral, so I won't let my employees have them, and how dare the law say otherwise? Maybe I think it's moral to drive drunk so long as I'm super-duper careful. How dare you take away my right to drive? Maybe I think it's moral to lynch murderers, and whoops, turns out that guy was innocent. How dare you make me follow your "due process"? Maybe I see no problems with dumping toxic waste in your water supply. How dare you fine me for it?"
Grandparent poster is illustrating the mindset of the misguided as an example of how a society without law enforcement and only individual moral judgement can lead to chaos. The Grandparent does not actually believe in these things, but is pointing out a series of hypothetical stances that other people may use in their individual moral judgement to do terrible things.
Thus, the parent poster above, responding to the grandparent poster has completely and totally missed the point and is flat-out NOT insightful.
Quoting the parent poster: "At this point, I stopped reading. Actually, I should have stopped reading at the above example."
I think you should have kept reading, otherwise you might have realized your mistake.