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.'"
Doesn't that make up a rather large portion of each anon movment? Also, every time I hear someone refer or imply to anon being a group or organization I cringe a little.
Remember when anyone at all could join Anonymous, claim its name for themselves, and could probably find some others in the group interested in pursuing their idea for an attack, even if it wasn't sanctioned by the group as a whole?
Oh wait, that's how it still is.
Change the law, how does one really do that? You can write to your senator or representative, only to get an automated response. I remember back in the early days of the DMCA, I wrote to my senator to urge him to oppose it, I got a prompt response assuring me that he was -supporting- the DMCA and not to worry because he would make sure that it would pass... You could try running for senate yourself, but unless you have the budget and the required charisma, you are likely to accomplish nothing but wasting a few thousand dollars. You can vote, but that doesn't do a whole lot, especially if you don't want the Republican or the Democrat challenger, and voting for the "lesser evil" never works out.
About the only thing you can do is disobey the unjust laws and do the right thing secretly or move to someplace more free.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Blindly following the law is much worse than opposing it.
If you name the worst crimes, the worst tragedies to occur in human history, the Killing Fields, the genocide in Rwanda, the holocaust, etc. were all committed by people simply "following the law", soldiers just "following orders". If you name the biggest heroes in the world, chances are they were breaking the law.
But, its your life, you have to live with your own decisions. I for one will do what is moral, even if its not legal. I'm not going to break the law simply to, but I'm not going to blindly follow some law just because its the "law". When the current events today have become the textbooks of tomorrow and my children or grandchildren look at the tyranny that exists and asked if I opposed it, I can look at them in the eye and give an honest answer and not be ashamed.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I think this is very smart.
At a time when all social institutions are failing us, when all leaders - religious, political and business - are failing us, when the very rule of law has been perverted to turn all but a very few into slaves, one needs to give a "higher law" some serious thought. It needn't be a religious thing, as many philosophers and our very experience has shown, but if we're going to avert the inexorable march of dystopia, it's something to be considered.
The "rules of society" have been thoroughly turned on their head, and it's time to look very closely at oneself and decide what's right. The slogans of what's coming can be seen very clearly in advertising every few minutes on television. Unless they're recognized and carefully examined, and their wrongness discerned, we'll just end up going along with them.
One thing about anonymous: they make people talk about what's right and wrong outside of the usual framework of the corporate hegemony that passes for "the rules of society" in 2012. Laws are for more than just making things orderly so sheep can be slaughtered with minimum fuss.
In that regard, I'm glad anonymous exists. In a real way, they're kids, muddling through the confusing mess of what we are told is "right and wrong". They're figuring it out for themselves rather than just accepting the "work hard, don't rock the boat and pay the man" morals of today.
What's important about anonymous is not what they do, what they decide, but what we do - what we decide. They're sort of an unintentional crucible - a lab for how society forms and how it fails. There is a lesson there for those that care to see it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
who is a firefighter? anyone who fights fire, or anyone wearing the uniform?
Bullshit. You immediately jump to the worst incidents in history, and point at them as though they're representative examples. They're not.
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?
You're a child. Anyone with the slightest idea how the world works would realize that if you tell people to ignore any law they don't like, you get chaos. Sure, if you ever find yourself working as a Nazi death camp guard, disobey those orders. But such disobedience is warranted as the exception, not the rule.
In much the same way a bunch of people at a bus stop are a group or loose affiliation... all going in the same direction... yeah.
Actually hitler broke many many laws both locally and internationally in his actions, if he had followed the law he would not have been able to do much of what he did. What he did do though is retroactively change the law to make his illegal actions legal.
Form an organization. Raise money. Hire a lobbyist. Donate money to candidates who agree with you and run ads against candidates who disagree with you.
Lose horribly to well-funded PACs with hidden deep-pocket donors who can afford to run extensive and expensive media saturation campaigns telling the voters how their candidates are "more conservative" than your candidates. As though being "more conservative" or "more liberal" was all that was required to represent the voters' best intererests.
21st Century America, post Citizens United. One Dollar, One Vote. Ayn Rand would be so proud.