You are way more "delusional" than most of us. You think there is an institution or group on this planet that is 'indestructable'? Almost laughing.. maybe, wishing it were true, but wondering, >what's the difference between having Zeta carved into your forehead or Anon or a Swastika? Not much, me thinking..
Not indestructible, for all I know the people who really contributed to the force of the 4chan-derived Anonymous are already dead.
I'm suggesting that killing Anonymous is a little less like slaughtering livestock and more like clearing a house of cockroaches... even if you burn the house down, they can still escape to infest again.
I think people enjoy, more, writing in mythical and mystical tones rather than actually saying something substantial that others haven't considered before.
I don't think I've ever once in my life said something no one's considered before. Have you?
I was commenting in regard to most of the other comments at the time. They were mostly "Hah they chickened out" and "shows you what they're really made of". Most people fail to grasp the unique nature of anonymity in action, which is understandable because without the internet the way it is today it was very hard for that kind of thing to happen before.
What I find interesting about this is that Anonymous, 4chan or not, depends on an already established and powerful society to function... particularly when it comes to talking shit on Slashdot about my mythical and mystical tones.
Yes, it's a bit of a slippery slope in terms of the government taking private property, but did you read the shit the drug cartels do? I fear my government like any good American, but I'm way more afraid of the drug cartels, And I don't live anywhere near the Mexican border.
You know that stupid argument people use to justify pot... like, "well, alcohol and cigarettes are way worse so weed should be allowed, too!" Just because we let one bad thing go on doesn't open the door for every other bad thing, even if it's objectively demonstrable to be less bad.
So, if drug cartels do horrible things without consequences, does that mean the next step is to allow the government to do terrible things because the alternative has the potential for being worse?
As much as I'd like to see the headline "Anonymous Takes Down Zeta, Infamous Drug Cartel In Tatters", I really don't think Anonymous threatens Zeta. If Anonymous reveals names, Zeta will just start killing people associated (even remotely) with Anonymous until they stop. Zeta doesn't seem to have any moral issues with blood and gore. Besides, if Anonymous reveals names, what will it matter if Mexico's often corrupt politicians don't act on it?
Well, it's true for anything. That's the problem with even trying to consider "Anonymous" as any kind of entity with any involvement, and even the qualifications for membership is shaky, philosophically or otherwise. Do I stop being a member if I say I am a member? If I say I'm a member of Zeta, it's the majority of that community that has the right to say I'm not or just cleverly show me I'm not with a bullet to the face. The majority of Anonymous can't make that decision so easily because there's no validity in membership because then... well, they'd no longer be "Anonymous" if they could at all identify each other not would they have any way to verify how many members there are and who are the originators.
That's where the power is. Zeta can try to kill anyone they think is Anonymous but, for all they know, they'll have to kill every person on Earth or even their own membership to annihilate those people who've chose to associate with Anonymous. Even after eliminating with any certainty every member of Anonymous, because it is an idea it would be entirely possible for another person to take up the vague title again.
As for naming the members of Zeta, anyone can just do what Zeta does to others. There's nothing barring a person who thinks they're following the will of Anonymous from murdering someone. For both groups, they may rely much in their lack of identification to persist, but Anonymous is at much less risk of actually being identified.
This is a serious question that's due for an answer, and I fear most people haven't begun to realize that.
Then don't buy pot from cartels, buy from domestic "hippies". We can hurt the cartels far more than anonymous by not sending our money to them.
People could just stick to the meth they get from the toxic house down the street, it'll kill faster the customer and producer both when the product is in greater demand.
Anonymous isn't a person, it's a meme. Even when you identify the people who participate and hold them responsible for the actions of the group, you're doing nothing to define what it is or keep it any less intangible. "We are legion" is another Christianity, another Patriotism, another The 99%, and it is indestructible because it has no body. It is only by the elimination of any memory and evidence that this kind of thing can be destroyed.
Even when governed it has no nature or goal. It is exactly as what each person who is aware of it decides it to be. The way those who call themselves Anonymous see themselves is just as much authority as the way those who do not call themselves Anonymous see them. It is the Ship of Thesius incarnate, My Grandfather's Axe in practice.
Don't bother judging the supposed declarations you see today. Just because you saw one collective of "Anonymous" back off doesn't mean another won't act differently. But still, we'll call them all the same. Every time they do something we appreciate or find unforgivable we'll still blame that same meaningless word.
Okay maybe political repression is more evil than crass economic repression. But it does give some China some excuse to say, "Hey, we're only censoring the Internet to give our country peace and stability. You're just censoring it to protect your bottom line."
With thought-provoking statements like that it's a shame you post as AC.
" typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server"
That's amazing. Obviously the users in question are not average. That's like taping a fake lock onto the front of the bank vault and saying as long as no one tries to break in, the money's perfectly safe.
It's more like placing a combination lock on a box full of free music, video and games and saying your average person doesn't know and probably won't be able to learn how to open it no matter how much time they're given.
Did the EFF thing a while ago, actually wrote my own message but I doubt the response wasn't the usual boilerplate:
Dear (Aphoxema):
Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011, S. 968. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
The bipartisan PROTECT IP Act, which was based on last year's Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, which passed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee, would authorize the Department of Justice to pursue court orders to take action against websites that are dedicated to selling pirated and counterfeit goods.
It is important to note that this legislation seeks to address a serious problem without inappropriately restricting Internet freedom. The Justice Department currently lacks tools to effectively enforce anti-piracy and counterfeiting laws against websites that are dedicated to distributing material in violation of these laws.
This legislation seeks to address this problem by enabling the Justice Department to target these websites through court orders, while also providing the websites with the opportunity to petition a court to lift an order. The bill is narrowly tailored so as not to include legitimate websites and it includes important procedural protections to prevent misuse of this authority. For a court order to be issued, the Justice Department must show that the website in question is directed at customers in the United States and that it harms holders of U.S. intellectual property. In addition, the Department is required to promptly serve notice of the action after the filing.
S. 968 provides a narrower definition of a website "dedicated to infringing activities" than the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. In addition, while the PROTECT IP Act would authorize the Attorney General and rights holders to bring actions against online infringers operating a rogue website or domain, the remedies are limited to blocking financial gains of the site but not blocking access. Also, this bill ensures that third-parties (e.g. Internet service providers, payment processors, advertising networks) are not overly burdened to comply with an order beyond what is feasible and reasonable.
In May 2011, this bill was approved unanimously by a voice vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and was reported to the Senate floor for further consideration.
Effective enforcement of intellectual property laws is critical to the encouragement of innovation and the creation of jobs. In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of Internet websites that are devoted to the unauthorized distribution and sale of pirated and counterfeit goods. These websites deprive innovators and businesses of revenue and result in the loss of American jobs. In addition, these websites present a public health concern when they sell counterfeit, adulterated, or misbranded pharmaceutical products.
I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers this issue in the coming months.
Sincerely, Richard J. Durbin United States Senator
RJD/vy
-----
It's not a bad response but it shows a failure to understand the technical impracticality of "DNS blocking". That's the problem; since an individual can't learn everything about everything, it is impossible to elect someone as a lawmaker who knows intimately the details of the laws they may face or even what someone needs to know to be a good counsel.
There should be a third congressional house; The Senate, The House of Representatives and The Rational and Scientific Place of People Who Understand The Technical Ramifications of Stupid Laws.
We'll never know if security amounts to anything if it isn't tested tenaciously. Evolution of any kind requires selective pressures; as new methods, protocols and cryptographic techniques rise they will need to be attacked to know if they're even worth pursuing, which ones are worth fixing.
Sony had poor security, but anyone could have speculated that... you don't know until you get hurt and someone's got to do the hurting.
The FBI found something they can easily win, inexpensively, and remain extremely relevant. Thanks to the witch hunt, they've been given the role of thought police and it is a very easy thing for the fearful public to back up. I look back at that and think for a moment I'm being ridiculous, but am I really?
Besides, where has it been shown and proven that the PSN break-in was conducted on a compromised console?
There's nothing indicating that this was even motivated by revenge...
4Chan attacked PSN. Someone realized they were dicks and said cut that shit out. Most probably did. This probably inspired someone to take advantage of the noise, a person or people already intent on gaining 70 million people's extremely valuable information. This is an accomplishment that could potentially be in the billions. Blaming this on gamers, "anonymous" and homebrewers is really convenient but a little bit of thought shows this is ridiculous.
Sony could remove DVD playback ability via a firmware update one day. While unlikely, it would NEVER give you the right to commit a crime and hack their servers. Just because you don't like something, does not give you the right to commit a felony. Do what normal Americans and people do, protest peacefully.
This is a really messy situation... Sony pisses off some people, then customers suffer. However, there's no evidence that this is directly related to pissing people off...
Black-hats act to disrupt or to take something. White-hats act on vigilantism, learning and for the good of the public. Sony made decisions that hurt customers. To enact revenge on behalf of the customers, Sony would have to be the target. Something was done to disrupt PSN service. This hurts customers and not as much Sony. Something different may have been done or the disruption was related to gaining valuable information. This hurts the customers. None of this serves the public good. None of this helped to improve the way Sony treats its customers. This was motivated by greed, not justice. With such power someone apparently had, they could have sent a warning, maybe even shut down the system to keep someone else from exploiting it.
If Sony had never removed "other OS" feature, they would never have encountered the focused rage of the entire enthusiast community.
That rage and/or animosity may very well exist, but this isn't dependent on that. Petty revenge is not a fair light to cast on the PSN community, they are the victims.
People don't rob banks because the bank made them angry. They rob banks because they want money (or attention, but that requires getting caught). Though that anger may be used to justify the act since no one really wants to be "the bad guy". This was for the value of the information that was attained.
This may and probably would have happened eventually. The exploit was probably something no one realized or if they did they failed to communicate the issue.
Regardless, whether Sony could help this or not, this is a catastrophic situation and they've already lost a lot of credibility with their otherwise unscrupulous history. This is at a time when they're really experimenting and just released some things people have waited a long time for. There's a small chance of this destroying them and a large chance of teaching them a hard lesson.
Think of other corporations recently that had to radically change and apply a face to their obelisk-like aloofness. Microsoft, Dell (sort of, and not that DUDE YOU'RE GETTING A DELL shit), BP... it might be incredibly fake but corporations are generally seen as suspicious with so many names around. A little bit of anthropomorphism is necessary.
The fact that my password and credit card number have been pwned sort of screws the PSN in my eyes.
Well... hopefully this means that maybe they've learned from their mistake and it won't happen again? Maybe? I mean, it's been tested so we know where the problem was! XBox Live hasn't so there could be a vulnerability in it still that's way worse.
See? When you think about it a little too hard and it starts to hurt, it's a feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course! The solution for every problem is to remind people that it could be worse; therefore, they should just shut up and take it. /SARCASM
Why are you complaining? You could be mute, deaf, blind and limbless and not be able to complain at all!
See? It even works to make people who have nothing to do with Anonymous get blamed for being a part of it.
You are way more "delusional" than most of us. You think there is an institution or group on this planet that is 'indestructable'? Almost laughing.. maybe, wishing it were true, but wondering, >what's the difference between having Zeta carved into your forehead or Anon or a Swastika? Not much, me thinking..
Not indestructible, for all I know the people who really contributed to the force of the 4chan-derived Anonymous are already dead.
I'm suggesting that killing Anonymous is a little less like slaughtering livestock and more like clearing a house of cockroaches... even if you burn the house down, they can still escape to infest again.
I think people enjoy, more, writing in mythical and mystical tones rather than actually saying something substantial that others haven't considered before.
I don't think I've ever once in my life said something no one's considered before. Have you?
I was commenting in regard to most of the other comments at the time. They were mostly "Hah they chickened out" and "shows you what they're really made of". Most people fail to grasp the unique nature of anonymity in action, which is understandable because without the internet the way it is today it was very hard for that kind of thing to happen before.
What I find interesting about this is that Anonymous, 4chan or not, depends on an already established and powerful society to function... particularly when it comes to talking shit on Slashdot about my mythical and mystical tones.
Well, son of a bitch. I'm out of ideas.
I followed all the links and I have found no evidence that those Anons have changed their minds.
There's no way to be certain that it was even "Anonymous" as we've come to know them who were responsible for the initial threats.
Yes, it's a bit of a slippery slope in terms of the government taking private property, but did you read the shit the drug cartels do? I fear my government like any good American, but I'm way more afraid of the drug cartels, And I don't live anywhere near the Mexican border.
You know that stupid argument people use to justify pot... like, "well, alcohol and cigarettes are way worse so weed should be allowed, too!" Just because we let one bad thing go on doesn't open the door for every other bad thing, even if it's objectively demonstrable to be less bad.
So, if drug cartels do horrible things without consequences, does that mean the next step is to allow the government to do terrible things because the alternative has the potential for being worse?
As much as I'd like to see the headline "Anonymous Takes Down Zeta, Infamous Drug Cartel In Tatters", I really don't think Anonymous threatens Zeta. If Anonymous reveals names, Zeta will just start killing people associated (even remotely) with Anonymous until they stop. Zeta doesn't seem to have any moral issues with blood and gore. Besides, if Anonymous reveals names, what will it matter if Mexico's often corrupt politicians don't act on it?
Well, it's true for anything. That's the problem with even trying to consider "Anonymous" as any kind of entity with any involvement, and even the qualifications for membership is shaky, philosophically or otherwise. Do I stop being a member if I say I am a member? If I say I'm a member of Zeta, it's the majority of that community that has the right to say I'm not or just cleverly show me I'm not with a bullet to the face. The majority of Anonymous can't make that decision so easily because there's no validity in membership because then... well, they'd no longer be "Anonymous" if they could at all identify each other not would they have any way to verify how many members there are and who are the originators.
That's where the power is. Zeta can try to kill anyone they think is Anonymous but, for all they know, they'll have to kill every person on Earth or even their own membership to annihilate those people who've chose to associate with Anonymous. Even after eliminating with any certainty every member of Anonymous, because it is an idea it would be entirely possible for another person to take up the vague title again.
As for naming the members of Zeta, anyone can just do what Zeta does to others. There's nothing barring a person who thinks they're following the will of Anonymous from murdering someone. For both groups, they may rely much in their lack of identification to persist, but Anonymous is at much less risk of actually being identified.
This is a serious question that's due for an answer, and I fear most people haven't begun to realize that.
Then don't buy pot from cartels, buy from domestic "hippies". We can hurt the cartels far more than anonymous by not sending our money to them.
People could just stick to the meth they get from the toxic house down the street, it'll kill faster the customer and producer both when the product is in greater demand.
Anonymous isn't a person, it's a meme. Even when you identify the people who participate and hold them responsible for the actions of the group, you're doing nothing to define what it is or keep it any less intangible. "We are legion" is another Christianity, another Patriotism, another The 99%, and it is indestructible because it has no body. It is only by the elimination of any memory and evidence that this kind of thing can be destroyed.
Even when governed it has no nature or goal. It is exactly as what each person who is aware of it decides it to be. The way those who call themselves Anonymous see themselves is just as much authority as the way those who do not call themselves Anonymous see them. It is the Ship of Thesius incarnate, My Grandfather's Axe in practice.
Don't bother judging the supposed declarations you see today. Just because you saw one collective of "Anonymous" back off doesn't mean another won't act differently. But still, we'll call them all the same. Every time they do something we appreciate or find unforgivable we'll still blame that same meaningless word.
Zeta made the mistake of having a name.
I'd be a lot happier with Unity if it didn't try to do away with a "Start menu".
Okay maybe political repression is more evil than crass economic repression. But it does give some China some excuse to say, "Hey, we're only censoring the Internet to give our country peace and stability. You're just censoring it to protect your bottom line."
With thought-provoking statements like that it's a shame you post as AC.
Or just change your DNS server to one not located in the US, which I expect will become practice for some after this bullshit passes.
" typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server"
That's amazing. Obviously the users in question are not average. That's like taping a fake lock onto the front of the bank vault and saying as long as no one tries to break in, the money's perfectly safe.
It's more like placing a combination lock on a box full of free music, video and games and saying your average person doesn't know and probably won't be able to learn how to open it no matter how much time they're given.
Did the EFF thing a while ago, actually wrote my own message but I doubt the response wasn't the usual boilerplate:
Dear (Aphoxema):
Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011, S. 968. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
The bipartisan PROTECT IP Act, which was based on last year's Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, which passed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee, would authorize the Department of Justice to pursue court orders to take action against websites that are dedicated to selling pirated and counterfeit goods.
It is important to note that this legislation seeks to address a serious problem without inappropriately restricting Internet freedom. The Justice Department currently lacks tools to effectively enforce anti-piracy and counterfeiting laws against websites that are dedicated to distributing material in violation of these laws.
This legislation seeks to address this problem by enabling the Justice Department to target these websites through court orders, while also providing the websites with the opportunity to petition a court to lift an order. The bill is narrowly tailored so as not to include legitimate websites and it includes important procedural protections to prevent misuse of this authority. For a court order to be issued, the Justice Department must show that the website in question is directed at customers in the United States and that it harms holders of U.S. intellectual property. In addition, the Department is required to promptly serve notice of the action after the filing.
S. 968 provides a narrower definition of a website "dedicated to infringing activities" than the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. In addition, while the PROTECT IP Act would authorize the Attorney General and rights holders to bring actions against online infringers operating a rogue website or domain, the remedies are limited to blocking financial gains of the site but not blocking access. Also, this bill ensures that third-parties (e.g. Internet service providers, payment processors, advertising networks) are not overly burdened to comply with an order beyond what is feasible and reasonable.
In May 2011, this bill was approved unanimously by a voice vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and was reported to the Senate floor for further consideration.
Effective enforcement of intellectual property laws is critical to the encouragement of innovation and the creation of jobs. In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of Internet websites that are devoted to the unauthorized distribution and sale of pirated and counterfeit goods. These websites deprive innovators and businesses of revenue and result in the loss of American jobs. In addition, these websites present a public health concern when they sell counterfeit, adulterated, or misbranded pharmaceutical products.
I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers this issue in the coming months.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/vy
-----
It's not a bad response but it shows a failure to understand the technical impracticality of "DNS blocking". That's the problem; since an individual can't learn everything about everything, it is impossible to elect someone as a lawmaker who knows intimately the details of the laws they may face or even what someone needs to know to be a good counsel.
There should be a third congressional house; The Senate, The House of Representatives and The Rational and Scientific Place of People Who Understand The Technical Ramifications of Stupid Laws.
We'll never know if security amounts to anything if it isn't tested tenaciously. Evolution of any kind requires selective pressures; as new methods, protocols and cryptographic techniques rise they will need to be attacked to know if they're even worth pursuing, which ones are worth fixing.
Sony had poor security, but anyone could have speculated that... you don't know until you get hurt and someone's got to do the hurting.
A big government can make big things happen.
taskman.exe is all the shell I need. The "notification area" is for wimps.
The FBI found something they can easily win, inexpensively, and remain extremely relevant. Thanks to the witch hunt, they've been given the role of thought police and it is a very easy thing for the fearful public to back up. I look back at that and think for a moment I'm being ridiculous, but am I really?
>
Besides, where has it been shown and proven that the PSN break-in was conducted on a compromised console?
There's nothing indicating that this was even motivated by revenge...
4Chan attacked PSN. Someone realized they were dicks and said cut that shit out. Most probably did.
This probably inspired someone to take advantage of the noise, a person or people already intent on gaining 70 million people's extremely valuable information. This is an accomplishment that could potentially be in the billions.
Blaming this on gamers, "anonymous" and homebrewers is really convenient but a little bit of thought shows this is ridiculous.
Sony could remove DVD playback ability via a firmware update one day. While unlikely, it would NEVER give you the right to commit a crime and hack their servers. Just because you don't like something, does not give you the right to commit a felony. Do what normal Americans and people do, protest peacefully.
This is a really messy situation... Sony pisses off some people, then customers suffer. However, there's no evidence that this is directly related to pissing people off...
Black-hats act to disrupt or to take something.
White-hats act on vigilantism, learning and for the good of the public.
Sony made decisions that hurt customers.
To enact revenge on behalf of the customers, Sony would have to be the target.
Something was done to disrupt PSN service. This hurts customers and not as much Sony.
Something different may have been done or the disruption was related to gaining valuable information. This hurts the customers.
None of this serves the public good. None of this helped to improve the way Sony treats its customers.
This was motivated by greed, not justice. With such power someone apparently had, they could have sent a warning, maybe even shut down the system to keep someone else from exploiting it.
If Sony had never removed "other OS" feature, they would never have encountered the focused rage of the entire enthusiast community.
That rage and/or animosity may very well exist, but this isn't dependent on that. Petty revenge is not a fair light to cast on the PSN community, they are the victims.
People don't rob banks because the bank made them angry. They rob banks because they want money (or attention, but that requires getting caught). Though that anger may be used to justify the act since no one really wants to be "the bad guy". This was for the value of the information that was attained.
This may and probably would have happened eventually. The exploit was probably something no one realized or if they did they failed to communicate the issue.
Regardless, whether Sony could help this or not, this is a catastrophic situation and they've already lost a lot of credibility with their otherwise unscrupulous history. This is at a time when they're really experimenting and just released some things people have waited a long time for. There's a small chance of this destroying them and a large chance of teaching them a hard lesson.
Think of other corporations recently that had to radically change and apply a face to their obelisk-like aloofness. Microsoft, Dell (sort of, and not that DUDE YOU'RE GETTING A DELL shit), BP... it might be incredibly fake but corporations are generally seen as suspicious with so many names around. A little bit of anthropomorphism is necessary.
The fact that my password and credit card number have been pwned sort of screws the PSN in my eyes.
Well... hopefully this means that maybe they've learned from their mistake and it won't happen again? Maybe? I mean, it's been tested so we know where the problem was! XBox Live hasn't so there could be a vulnerability in it still that's way worse.
See? When you think about it a little too hard and it starts to hurt, it's a feature.
I make the answers junk, never needed that particular... Security unfeature
Assuming you don't look at logs, and they aren't closing your session on you, Would you even suspect something?
Whenever someone says something like this I suddenly want to change all my passwords for some reason...