Anonymous Helps Turn In Hacker Who Targeted Charity

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Helps Turn In Hacker Who Targeted Charity

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday August 1, 2012 @02:26PM from the community-watch dept.

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.'"

54 of 234 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not Anonymous? by Haxagon · 2012-08-01 14:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Facebook/Twitter doesn't sound like Anonymous, it sounds like scriptkiddies and armchair activists who just want to look like the coolest kid in middle school.
1. Re:Not Anonymous? by cmwatford · 2012-08-01 14:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Not Anonymous? by Cl1mh4224rd · 2012-08-01 16:00 · Score: 3
  
  Sure, but I think saying that they're "Anonymous" lends them some credibility in the eyes of the mainstream media or consumers, when it's really undue.
  Anonymous isn't a group with a well- or even vaguely-defined membership. That's kind of the point. If you can easily identify who is a member of Anonymous and who is not, it's time for a name change.
  
  --
  People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
3. Re:Not Anonymous? by Tarlus · 2012-08-01 16:13 · Score: 2
  
  A 35 year old script kiddie, no less. Who lives with his mother.
  That's actually true.
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
4. Re:Not Anonymous? by Genda · 2012-08-01 16:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Not Anonymous? by citizenr · 2012-08-01 17:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:Not Anonymous? by upsideDownPuma · 2012-08-01 18:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  One of my friends works at a call center for an insurance group in Spain. He had a call one day from a frantic woman saying that her son who was studying in London had hurt himself playing soccer, when my friend asked for name, date of birth, etc. it turned out that the guy was 29. He then called the guy saying that he'd received a call from his mother on his behalf and needed an explanation of his injuries. It turns out instead of hurting himself playing soccer, he'd actually been doing handstands and fell over and hit his head on the dresser.
7. Re:Not Anonymous? by Kangburra · 2012-08-01 19:57 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You mean loser, or at least I hope you do!
  
  --
  Common sense is not so common
8. Re:Not Anonymous? by Boscrossos · 2012-08-01 20:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
9. Re:Not Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 21:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Not Anonymous? by curious.corn · 2012-08-01 23:23 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  Well, the reason is in your answer, "... as soon as we find a job..." which in many parts of Italy can often mean "never". I'm living in NL now and for what I can see, dutch kids are encouraged to move out by means of lavish (by IT standards) subsidies and a fairly inclusive and accessible job market. I'm pretty sure many Italians would be more than happy to carry their affairs away from their parents' home, if only they could...
  
  --
  Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
11. Re:Not Anonymous? by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2012-08-02 00:10 · Score: 2
  
  Same with the Asian culture. The children often stays with the parents even after university.
  The only MAJOR difference is the parent lives in the basement.
  My house doesn't have a basement. However I claimed my mom as a dependent on my tax returns.
  
  --
  New Economic Perspectives
12. Re:Not Anonymous? by fleeped · 2012-08-02 01:29 · Score: 2
  
  I can speak for Greece: you move out when you get married, or if you can make a living and have had enough living with your parents. The latter is more frequent when you go to a university in a different city, be forced to live by yourself, and then rediscover the 'beauty' of living with your parents. The crisis has been skewing the staying-with-mom age range, as you'd be a fool (or desperate) to start paying more than half of your wage for rent/bills while you have a house around already.
13. Re:Not Anonymous? by Kelbear · 2012-08-02 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed, asian family, stayed in my parent's house paying low rent. My wife-to-be even moved in for a few months near the end until we had finally saved up enough to buy a house and my parents gifted my rent payments back as an additional down payment on the house.
  Rent paid within the family stays inside the family. Rent paid outside the family is just gone. With money as tight as it is for young folks in this economy, keeping the family together can help save the family money.
I want to hate Anonymous by ancientt · 2012-08-01 14:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

I want to hate them. I believe in following the law. I believe in following the rules of society and government. I believe that doing bad things in the name of good is still bad. Still, it is hard for me to hold Anonymous as evil when they are doing good like this, fighting the evil (of child porn) and injustice (Sony.)
If you are an Anonymous member reading this, then know this, I am against you. I hold wrong what you do and how you do it, but what you are accomplishing... you have torn my ethical code. So here's to you, I raise a glass, may you be punished for your wrongdoing, may you suffer the consequences of your misdeeds, but despite that, may you accomplish the good things you aim for. If you have the balls to be willing to take the just desserts of what you have done and still have the guts to do what you feel is right, then kudos to you.

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
1. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by Darkness404 · 2012-08-01 14:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Laws do not equal morality. Immoral things are legal and moral things may be illegal. You are the one that has to live with your decisions, supporting the "law" blindly is foolish because it rarely leads to the correct (moral) decisions. There exists a law higher than the laws created by the thugs in power.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by artor3 · 2012-08-01 15:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Blindly disobeying the law is even worse. Most laws are pretty good. Vigilantism might feel good, but when adopted at a wide scale, it's terrible.
  Disobeying the law just because you're a mental teenager wanting to "fight the man" is stupid and harmful.
3. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by chuckymonkey · 2012-08-01 15:05 · Score: 3
  
  I wish I had mod points for you. This statement is so very much the truth, I also believe in the rule of law, however I also believe in ethics and morality. It's a large reason I left the military after two war tours. Just because I was given an order didn't make that order right or just despite the lawfulness of it. It's also why I believe in civil disobedience and standing up for what's right.
  
  --
  "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
4. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by Darkness404 · 2012-08-01 15:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by Darkness404 · 2012-08-01 15:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by PopeRatzo · 2012-08-01 15:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Laws do not equal morality. Immoral things are legal and moral things may be illegal. You are the one that has to live with your decisions, supporting the "law" blindly is foolish because it rarely leads to the correct (moral) decisions. There exists a law higher than the laws created by the thugs in power.
  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.
7. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by mcrbids · 2012-08-01 16:02 · Score: 2
  
  Doing things anonymously is a basic part of human history. The Boston Tea Party was an anonymous demonstration. I've performed acts of civil protest anonymously, in favor of what I feel was for the common good. I broke no laws, and was polite and careful.
  By simply stating "If you are an Anonymous member" you demonstrate your utter failure at understanding what anonymous is. It's not a group any more than "upset girlfriend" is a group. (I'm aware of no formal organization of upset girl friends, if there is any kind of official or formal organization thereof, realize that this is not the point) One upset girlfriend says "no" to her boyfriend, another whacks off private parts, but we can be pretty sure that the former girlfriend probably doesn't endorse the actions of the latter.
  Endorsement of any action by a group of anonymous persons is, in no way, endorsement of the other actions. I endorse some of the things done by anonymous people, I shake my head at others. That in no way discourages me from wearing the mask of anonymity when I feel the need arises.
  
  --
  I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
8. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by BeanThere · 2012-08-01 16:03 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  Agreed, though I think the path to do do so, is to use truth and reason, objectively, and at a high standard of clear and rational thought.
9. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by BeanThere · 2012-08-01 16:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” - Martin Luther King
10. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by Intropy · 2012-08-01 16:15 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with part of what you're saying. Law and morality are not the same thing. But I don't think you have a basis for the claim that "supporting the 'law' blindly is foolish because it rarely leads to the correct (moral) decisions." It certainly doesn't always lead to the correct moral decisions. It's not the best "moral algorithm." But I'd bet that blindly following the law does lead to moral decisions more often than not. Definitely more than, for example, blindly disobeying the law or behaving randomly.
  In any case I don't think that's at issue here. Most of the things done in the name of 'Anonymous' whether such a group exists or not are both illegal and immoral.
11. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by phantomfive · 2012-08-01 16:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Change the law, how does one really do that?
  In a democracy, your power is determined by your ability to convince other people. Obviously, if you can convince enough people to vote for you, then you win, but more importantly, if you can convince people of the correctness of your ideas, then the people in office will have no choice but to vote for you.
  
  I look at Milton Friedman as an ideal example. The guy never ran for office, never had any political power, but the power of his ideas spread throughout the world, until politicians began implementing many of his ideas. He moved the Overton window without ever holding any managerial authority.
  
  Williams Jennings Bryan is another example. He ran a poor campaign and lost the presidency, only to watch his opponent implement many of the changes he wanted to see. The changes got made because they were popular. His opponent didn't want to implement them, but he did because to not do that would mean losing the next election.
  
  There are plenty of examples like this. Of course, if you're the average person, your influence is limited to posting on Facebook, and everyone else but your friends rolls their eyes. Your influence in that case is limited to a single vote, assuming you even vote. Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Don't be that person.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by artor3 · 2012-08-01 16:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
13. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by Genda · 2012-08-01 17:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
14. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by Pubstar · 2012-08-01 17:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You were doing really good until
  
  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?
  At this point, I stopped reading. Actually, I should have stopped reading at the above example. I think you misunderstand what morality is and how you can impose it onto other parties. Your morals are a fine thing to live by and maybe even to break a law or two that goes against what you believe to be morally right, when it infringes on other peoples liberties then you are going to be in the wrong regardless of your morals. Pick better examples next time, yeah?
15. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by SuricouRaven · 2012-08-01 18:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
16. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by bloodhawk · 2012-08-01 20:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
17. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by rizole · 2012-08-01 21:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Bullshit. You immediately jump to the most contentious counter examples, and point at them as though they're representative. They're not.
  
  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.
  Stop polarizing, things are only so black and white at the margins.
  He didn't advocate ignoring laws you don't like, he was talking about following his moral compass and you don't get chaos by advocating people follow their moral compass. You do get conflict and the need to compromise if people do that but how is that different from what happens anyway?
18. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by equex · 2012-08-01 22:18 · Score: 2
  
  some of us rather have chaos than tyranny.
  
  --
  Can I light a sig ?
19. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by RabidReindeer · 2012-08-01 23:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
20. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by dkleinsc · 2012-08-02 00:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's worth pointing out that there's a step in between "I'll just go along with it" and "Shoot the tyrants": It's the step of quiet non-compliance and organizing, which the revolutionaries also took before the first shots were fired. The reason there were British troops in Boston is that the British government had no belief that their laws were going to be followed, and by the time they were trying to seriously punish the Bostonians the revolutionaries had about 1/3 of the population on their side. The reason the colonists won at Concord (after losing badly at Lexington) was because they had carefully organized a communications network which meant that word of the British movements was moving much much faster than the army.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
21. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by Hatta · 2012-08-02 01:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In a democracy, your power is determined by your ability to convince other people.
  In our democracy, the ability to convice other people is determined by access to the propaganda system.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
22. Re:I want to hate Anonymous by Kelbear · 2012-08-02 04:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
Re:Seizures by chromas · 2012-08-01 14:42 · Score: 5, Funny

They're trying to get better; that's why they started Anonymous Anonymous.
Re:Seizures by Anubis+IV · 2012-08-01 14:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Seizures by Darkness404 · 2012-08-01 14:52 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
"Anonymous"? Talks to the cops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 15:04 · Score: 2, Funny

PFFFT! "Anonymous" IS the cops!
1. Re:"Anonymous"? Talks to the cops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 16:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Vigilantes != cops.
  Vigilantes ==Freelance Police
2. Re:"Anonymous"? Talks to the cops? by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-01 16:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  who is a firefighter? anyone who fights fire, or anyone wearing the uniform?
3. Re:"Anonymous"? Talks to the cops? by kelemvor4 · 2012-08-01 17:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The one wearing the uniform. Firefighter is a job.
4. Re:"Anonymous"? Talks to the cops? by sco08y · 2012-08-01 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  Vigilantes != cops.
  Vigilantes ==Freelance Police
  Even Sam & Max kinda sorta worked for the police. Anonymous as vigilantes is pretty accurate, they decide what they think the law is, and they decide who they think has broken it, mostly based on their meteoric sense of self-righteousness.
5. Re:"Anonymous"? Talks to the cops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 01:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you are a Firefighter, you still are when out of uniform. If you are not, you are still not, even if you saved someone. It's really not that difficult. This doesn't diminish what you did. If I draw a plan of a building and someone uses it, I am still not an Architect. If I correctly diagnose my daughter has an illness, I am still not a Medical Doctor. And so on.
6. Re:"Anonymous"? Talks to the cops? by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-02 02:38 · Score: 2
  
  The one wearing the uniform. Firefighter is a job.
  I love the fact that you automatically assume "wearing the uniform = having gone through the training and not being an impostor" ^^
  But sure, I get your point. "Firefighter" is a job, not something one does. Same for cops etc. Then simply replace "being a firefighter" with "fighting fires". Then it becomes a rhetorical question: Who fights fire... those who fight fire, or those who have a piece of paper in hand, saying "I fight fires"?
  It all boils down to symbols and things, that authority is supposed to be earned by performance, and that titles can be but farts in the wind. And no, I didn't mean to imply "anonymous are the new cops now", just well done for them on this one.
7. Re:"Anonymous"? Talks to the cops? by ArsenneLupin · 2012-08-02 03:36 · Score: 2
  
  You should also mention that to all of the volunteer firefighters out there.
  Volunteer firefighters have uniforms/protective clothing too...
Re:Seizures by Anubis+IV · 2012-08-01 15:09 · Score: 2

I would have agreed (and not posted at all), were it not for his last sentence.
Re:Seizures by zbobet2012 · 2012-08-01 15:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is no one philosophy either morally or politically, just a couple of common interests. Join the swarm and leave.
Welcome to the future, a future where nations by common interests and some level of shared morality than national borders.
Re:Seizures by PopeRatzo · 2012-08-01 15:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Anonymous doesn't have morals
In that way, they are very similar to a corporation. They are an aggregate of lulz.
Anonymous are people, my friend.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
unfortunately by circletimessquare · 2012-08-01 15:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not every individual has a Sterling moral code. plenty do, but sone believe they do, and in fact have a "morality" far more screwed up than the law. Therefore, the law is far better than individial judgments of morality, because the thugs in power have a lot more to be accountable for rhan a random thug on the street. Plus the law gets considered, refined, corrected. The "morality" of some random Joe comes from what exactly? You trust him more than a governmental system continually refined and corrected?
So its a nice fable, the righteous vigilante, it makes for great Clint Eastwood movies or Batman movie. But its a fantasy. In reality, its more often about a deranged fool doing a lot worse than any cop force and judiciary.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:unfortunately by osu-neko · 2012-08-01 16:30 · Score: 2
  
  Not every individual has a Sterling moral code. plenty do, but sone believe they do, and in fact have a "morality" far more screwed up than the law. Therefore, the law is far better than individial judgments of morality, because the thugs in power have a lot more to be accountable for rhan a random thug on the street. Plus the law gets considered, refined, corrected. The "morality" of some random Joe comes from what exactly? You trust him more than a governmental system continually refined and corrected?
  You're basic mistake is to assume that law and morality have anything at all to do with one another. The rule of law is for preserving order and harmony in society. It's what's necessary for people to live, work, etc, and institutions to function, a set of rules make it all possible. It's not about determining and enforcing any idea of what's morally right and wrong. Often the law may make illegal what is also immoral, but that's not the reason it's making it illegal, that's just happy coincidence. Morality is an orthogonal concept. Someone who looks to the law for judgements of morality is avoiding thinking about morality entirely, and it's a very dangerous nation to live in where the government gets into its head that it should legislate morality, as unfortunately happens in some countries.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
2. Re:unfortunately by Genda · 2012-08-01 17:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You look, and you listen. Are you telling me you can't tell the difference between Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin or Franco from Gandhi, Mandela or Lincoln? Start with the words. Then observe the actions. A despot is easy to spot. When Mandela became President, he invited one of the men who guarded him in prison as a VIP guest. He spoke to his nation reborn and said that we must forgive, that until these men are forgiven, none of us is free. That is how you tell bloody brutes from men of faith and dignity. If the men who run your nation are not among the great men of purpose and humanity, then you must stand up and face them. If the media is owned by despots then speak in the streets like King. If your words are wise, and deep, and resonate in the human heart, you will be heard. You don't fight for fighting's sake. You fight to preserve that which is good and just. If in your struggle you break bad laws, then you pay the consequence gladly. Gandhi was arrested, and beaten many times. It didn't stop him, it didn't even slow him down.