Considering that there is no "membership" criteria to be part of Anonymous.. Anyone and Everyone who claims to be... IS. Therefore, I can go rob a bank and claim i'm part of Anonymous. It would be completely true.
That's the problem with an organization with no real structure or chain of command, there is no way to prevent people from doing things and claiming the group being responsible.
The difference is intent. Anonymous *INTENDS* to disrupt the flow of internet traffic. If you accidentally do so because you're downloading a movie, that's entirely different. That's a failure of the network to handle normal traffic.
A DDoS attack intentionally targets routers and other devices to take them down in a manner that is above and beyond normal traffic conditions.
If you can't understand that intent is the difference between a crime and an accident, then you've got some serious problems with your moral compass.
Peaceful protesters can (and morally should) get out of the way when they see (or hear) an ambulance coming. DDoS zombies can't do that.
Anything that uses the normal mail system, or any mail system at all can't be deemed an emergency.
And yes, lots of people have internet based phone systems, either via their cable provider, or vonage or other VOIP providers. Millions of people. And yes, they have 911 service via those phones.
Oh, please. Your examples are utterly ridiculous. I'll give you a concrete example of how this can affect human life.
Consider the case of VOIP, and Emergency 911 use. If a router gets knocked offline, or drops a large number of packets, someone may be incapable of dialing 911 if they are have an emergency.
If you think this is so far out of the realm of possibility, then you're being highly retarded.
This falls under the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater. If someone gets trampled and killed by your practical joke, you're guilty of at least manslaughter.
Basically, you're arguing that unless physical harm occurs, it's not violence. Abuse comes in all kinds of forms, including verbal and psychological abuse, all of which are considered forms of violence.
Let's face it, it's one of those terms that doesn't have a simple, single meaning. It's used in all kinds of ways throughout history.
Agression of any form is not "as non-violent as non-violent gets", and people like Gahndi would very much disagree with you.
You want to define things to justify your view of how Anonymous works. You may think nobody "got hurt", but you have no way of knowing that. Lots of services that can affect life and death occur over the internet, and even slowing some of them because a congested router is too busy fighting off attack can result in disasterous consequences.
Seriously? You don't think turning 10's of thousands of botnet pc's against someone they don't like to be exerting force or power?
You're just being deliberately stupid if that's what you are trying to say.
And the part about government is an example of the usage, not that it has to be government related. And you don't think the attacks against the DMCA isn't an attack against laws?
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. 6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.
Only one of those definitions mentions anything about physical force. And #3 is quite appropriate.
Boycots and sit-ins are not illegal. Some people involved in those activities go above and beyond the boycott or sit-in, and those actions can be illegal. Those are usually the ones that get the most press. Don't confuse those actions with the actual, legal boycott or sit-in.
As a comparison, it's legal to picket an abortion office. It's not legal to shoot the staff as they walk out the door, even if you're holding a picket sign.
Whether or not the local government "considers" something to be illegal or not is irrelevant. You can be arrested for doing nothing. Being arrested doesn't mean you've broken the law.
Were any of those people involved in the boycott or sit-in arrested and convicted of a crime? Or just the people who did the stupid shit?
Sure, you'll alway lose, and so will the people who have names similar to you, and people that happen to share the same subnets, and people who get in the way... and people who...
Actually, that's not what protected mode is. Nothing like it in fact.
Protected mode runs the browser at the bare minimum privilege level, and only allows the browser to interact with the browsers cache files. When a user loads a page or performs a download, the file is downloaded to the temporary internet files. Then, a new process with higher privleges is launched to copy the downloaded file to the users chosen location.
What you're referring to is the simple act of adding metadata to the downloaded file to let the OS know that the file was downloaded from the internet, that's what puts up the UAC like dialog, but there are no lower permissions associated with that.
So it would help if you actually understood what it was you were commenting on before being such a jack ass.
That's ridiculous. Mozilla provides no way to install plug-ins in any other way (other than user going to the plug-ins dialog and searching for one to install, not practical for many situations such as those where you install Java, Acrobat reader, etc..).
If Mozilla provided a way for them to do it nicely, and they went around it anyways that's one thing. But to not do it because they claim they won't use it and will bypass it is just plain whining.
Mozilla provides only one way for plug-ins to be installed by third parties, and that's the global plug-in folder. If Mozilla created a way for plug-ins to be installed via installer (rather than through the plug-ins dialog) that allowed users to opt-in or out then Apple, Microsoft, and Google would likely use them.
No, nobody but us geeks is taking notice of these actions. Nobody cares about a DDoS of a site nobody goes to. Now, if they DDoS'd the iTunes store, that might get some notice.. but probably not the notice they want because that will just alienate them from the public more.
Barack Obama received a large percentage of his campaign funds from the internet. And he was elected president by a great force of will of the people to vote for change. Sadly, he's made so many mistakes since he took office that any such change is highly unlikely to occur.
All you need is to find good candidates and people willing to spend $5 over the internet to support them.
Electing people who are pricinpled and are not beholden to corporate campaign contributions is the only way to bypass this.
Rosa Parks, who everyone loves to compare Anonymous to.. Did nothing but refuse to give up a seat she already had. This sparked The Montgomery Bus Boycott.
The boycott hit the bus company in their pocketbook.
That's the only way to get change is to deny them revenue in peaceful ways. The thing is, Rosa Parks didn't do what she did to get people to boycott the bus company, she just did what was right for her, and others took notice.
The only thing that will get them to change is if people stop buying their music or seeing their films because of their policies.
the purchase of the american government by corporations renders the government no longer a legitimate expression of the will of the people
Wow, hyperbole much? The peoples will can and has quite often been demonstrated. Sadly, most of the time the people choose someone to deomonstrate their will, they end up being ineffectual boobs (Jesse Ventura for example) or ineffectual incompetents (As much as it pains me to admit it... Barack Obama for example).
The only way real change happens is if the public maintains its vigilence of it's rights, electing only people who stand for those rights. All too often, the public gets together and does something major to say "We want change" and then sit back and wait for it to happen. That's not how it works.
Corporations don't own the government. We do. We're just asleep at the wheel and letting the corporations steer.
The first definition: swift and intense force defines wht O:P is doing.
The third definition is actually more appropriate: an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
In fact, of the 6 definitions, only one refers to any kind of physical force.
Since when is agressive attack equivelent to non-vilent protest? You seem to be quite confused about the methods used in those events, or confused by what a DDoS attack is.
What would be similar is if a bunch of individuals quietly sat down in the lobby of the IFPI and simply refused to move. Attacking them is the opposite of what Rosa Parks or the Greensboro 4 did.
No, it wasn't illegal. Sit-ins were non-violent and did not violate the law.
I hate when people who are little more than thugs trying to get their way try to wrap themselves the curtain of non-violent protests and pretend they're doing the same thing.
Hint: The word "attack" in DDoS Attack is not non-violent. It may not be injuring anyone, but it's still an act of agression, completely the opposite of Rosa Parks and The greensboro 4.
So no, the law was not wrong. There was no law being broken by either the sit-ins or by woolworth. It wasn't illegal to be desgrated, it was merely company policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that there is no "membership" criteria to be part of Anonymous.. Anyone and Everyone who claims to be... IS. Therefore, I can go rob a bank and claim i'm part of Anonymous. It would be completely true.
That's the problem with an organization with no real structure or chain of command, there is no way to prevent people from doing things and claiming the group being responsible.
No, the absurd position is yours.
The difference is intent. Anonymous *INTENDS* to disrupt the flow of internet traffic. If you accidentally do so because you're downloading a movie, that's entirely different. That's a failure of the network to handle normal traffic.
A DDoS attack intentionally targets routers and other devices to take them down in a manner that is above and beyond normal traffic conditions.
If you can't understand that intent is the difference between a crime and an accident, then you've got some serious problems with your moral compass.
SETAC ASTRONOMY?
Peaceful protesters can (and morally should) get out of the way when they see (or hear) an ambulance coming. DDoS zombies can't do that.
Anything that uses the normal mail system, or any mail system at all can't be deemed an emergency.
And yes, lots of people have internet based phone systems, either via their cable provider, or vonage or other VOIP providers. Millions of people. And yes, they have 911 service via those phones.
Oh, please. Your examples are utterly ridiculous. I'll give you a concrete example of how this can affect human life.
Consider the case of VOIP, and Emergency 911 use. If a router gets knocked offline, or drops a large number of packets, someone may be incapable of dialing 911 if they are have an emergency.
If you think this is so far out of the realm of possibility, then you're being highly retarded.
This falls under the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater. If someone gets trampled and killed by your practical joke, you're guilty of at least manslaughter.
Any form of attack is a form of agression.
Basically, you're arguing that unless physical harm occurs, it's not violence. Abuse comes in all kinds of forms, including verbal and psychological abuse, all of which are considered forms of violence.
Let's face it, it's one of those terms that doesn't have a simple, single meaning. It's used in all kinds of ways throughout history.
Agression of any form is not "as non-violent as non-violent gets", and people like Gahndi would very much disagree with you.
You want to define things to justify your view of how Anonymous works. You may think nobody "got hurt", but you have no way of knowing that. Lots of services that can affect life and death occur over the internet, and even slowing some of them because a congested router is too busy fighting off attack can result in disasterous consequences.
By the way, what part of "attack" in DDoS Attack isn't an expression of force? Gahndi just decided not to eat. He didn't force others to starve.
Did you read the recently posted article? Criminal botnets are being used as part of Operation Payback?
And a few hundred nodes would not be enough to kick Visa off the net, there are ceratinly more than that going on.
Seriously? You don't think turning 10's of thousands of botnet pc's against someone they don't like to be exerting force or power?
You're just being deliberately stupid if that's what you are trying to say.
And the part about government is an example of the usage, not that it has to be government related. And you don't think the attacks against the DMCA isn't an attack against laws?
Try here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.
Only one of those definitions mentions anything about physical force. And #3 is quite appropriate.
Boycots and sit-ins are not illegal. Some people involved in those activities go above and beyond the boycott or sit-in, and those actions can be illegal. Those are usually the ones that get the most press. Don't confuse those actions with the actual, legal boycott or sit-in.
As a comparison, it's legal to picket an abortion office. It's not legal to shoot the staff as they walk out the door, even if you're holding a picket sign.
Whether or not the local government "considers" something to be illegal or not is irrelevant. You can be arrested for doing nothing. Being arrested doesn't mean you've broken the law.
Were any of those people involved in the boycott or sit-in arrested and convicted of a crime? Or just the people who did the stupid shit?
I suggest you look up the definition of the word "violence". You might be surprised.
Sure, you'll alway lose, and so will the people who have names similar to you, and people that happen to share the same subnets, and people who get in the way... and people who...
Actually, that's not what protected mode is. Nothing like it in fact.
Protected mode runs the browser at the bare minimum privilege level, and only allows the browser to interact with the browsers cache files. When a user loads a page or performs a download, the file is downloaded to the temporary internet files. Then, a new process with higher privleges is launched to copy the downloaded file to the users chosen location.
What you're referring to is the simple act of adding metadata to the downloaded file to let the OS know that the file was downloaded from the internet, that's what puts up the UAC like dialog, but there are no lower permissions associated with that.
So it would help if you actually understood what it was you were commenting on before being such a jack ass.
I think there is a difference between "asking" someone to stop, and "telling" them to stop.
"If you wouldn't mind, would you please stop ramming your meatstick into me?" vs... "Get that fucking thing out of me". (pun intended).
asking implies giving someone a choice. Telling does not.
That's ridiculous. Mozilla provides no way to install plug-ins in any other way (other than user going to the plug-ins dialog and searching for one to install, not practical for many situations such as those where you install Java, Acrobat reader, etc..).
If Mozilla provided a way for them to do it nicely, and they went around it anyways that's one thing. But to not do it because they claim they won't use it and will bypass it is just plain whining.
That's a cop-out.
Mozilla provides only one way for plug-ins to be installed by third parties, and that's the global plug-in folder. If Mozilla created a way for plug-ins to be installed via installer (rather than through the plug-ins dialog) that allowed users to opt-in or out then Apple, Microsoft, and Google would likely use them.
No, nobody but us geeks is taking notice of these actions. Nobody cares about a DDoS of a site nobody goes to. Now, if they DDoS'd the iTunes store, that might get some notice.. but probably not the notice they want because that will just alienate them from the public more.
Barack Obama received a large percentage of his campaign funds from the internet. And he was elected president by a great force of will of the people to vote for change. Sadly, he's made so many mistakes since he took office that any such change is highly unlikely to occur.
All you need is to find good candidates and people willing to spend $5 over the internet to support them.
Electing people who are pricinpled and are not beholden to corporate campaign contributions is the only way to bypass this.
Rosa Parks, who everyone loves to compare Anonymous to.. Did nothing but refuse to give up a seat she already had. This sparked The Montgomery Bus Boycott.
The boycott hit the bus company in their pocketbook.
That's the only way to get change is to deny them revenue in peaceful ways. The thing is, Rosa Parks didn't do what she did to get people to boycott the bus company, she just did what was right for her, and others took notice.
The only thing that will get them to change is if people stop buying their music or seeing their films because of their policies.
Wow, hyperbole much? The peoples will can and has quite often been demonstrated. Sadly, most of the time the people choose someone to deomonstrate their will, they end up being ineffectual boobs (Jesse Ventura for example) or ineffectual incompetents (As much as it pains me to admit it... Barack Obama for example).
The only way real change happens is if the public maintains its vigilence of it's rights, electing only people who stand for those rights. All too often, the public gets together and does something major to say "We want change" and then sit back and wait for it to happen. That's not how it works.
Corporations don't own the government. We do. We're just asleep at the wheel and letting the corporations steer.
If it seems odd to you, perhaps you should check the dictionary for the definition of "Violence".
You have a very narrow view of "violent". Violence is equatable to agression. This is one of the key tennents of Libertarianism.
Check the dictionary for the definition of violence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence
The first definition: swift and intense force defines wht O:P is doing.
The third definition is actually more appropriate: an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
In fact, of the 6 definitions, only one refers to any kind of physical force.
Since when is agressive attack equivelent to non-vilent protest? You seem to be quite confused about the methods used in those events, or confused by what a DDoS attack is.
What would be similar is if a bunch of individuals quietly sat down in the lobby of the IFPI and simply refused to move. Attacking them is the opposite of what Rosa Parks or the Greensboro 4 did.
No, it wasn't illegal. Sit-ins were non-violent and did not violate the law.
I hate when people who are little more than thugs trying to get their way try to wrap themselves the curtain of non-violent protests and pretend they're doing the same thing.
Hint: The word "attack" in DDoS Attack is not non-violent. It may not be injuring anyone, but it's still an act of agression, completely the opposite of Rosa Parks and The greensboro 4.
So no, the law was not wrong. There was no law being broken by either the sit-ins or by woolworth. It wasn't illegal to be desgrated, it was merely company policy.