This should be interesting. Would you trust it?
Somebody got butthurt real bad.
Yup.
But seriously, would you give your information over to a bunch of hackers just to join a social networking site?
Screw those ***hats, if they wanted to be my friend they wouldnta messed my Playstation 3 expirence all up!! Although I did get some free games out of it, so I guess it worked out.
See... they weren't all bad. They got you free games and saved you a few bucks.
Screw those ***hats, if they wanted to be my friend they wouldnta messed my Playstation 3 expirence all up!! Although I did get some free games out of it, so I guess it worked out.
See... they weren't all bad. They got you free games and saved you a few bucks.
Yeah, I guess. I gotta admit, I am diggin Dead Nation, blastin zombies is always fun! And I probably wouldnt of got it if it wasnt free.
But yeah, **** those guys. They make themselves out to be some sort of liberation movement standing up for the little man but in reality they're petty little brats that lash out against anyone that upsets them.
I like what they do I contribute to them.
So you like the "we're all for a free society, until you do or say something we don't like, then we hack you" mentality?
I do. But I don't approve of childish actions that negatively affect other people.
I don't either, but I won't let the actions of a few bad apples ruin something good. ps3 was hacked by one man using amazon's servers btw
It might be more than a few bad apples. PS3 was only one scenario. How about going after Visa and Mastercard for refusing to support Wikileaks? Or declaring their intent to go after corporations and government servers to expose classified information (good luck with that, btw)?
thanks, I think its fair game, they fight censorship so thats what they're doing.
It seems like a group of kids that know computers and nothing else. That at least explains why their actions are frequently at odds with their ideals.
thats the problem you have when theres no organization.
It might be more than a few bad apples. PS3 was only one scenario. How about going after Visa and Mastercard for refusing to support Wikileaks? Or declaring their intent to go after corporations and government servers to expose classified information (good luck with that, btw)?
thanks, I think its fair game, they fight censorship so thats what they're doing.
Attacking someone with whom you don't agree is censorship.
thats the problem you have when theres no organization.
It's one you may have, yes. But it's also a problem people that don't really know what it is they're talking about have. And that's what they seem like to me. Reactionary, idealistic kids with no plan. I mean, look at the Sun thing. Murdoch employs people that hack, they get pissed at him and hack him. They're all for the 'free flow of information' but only when it's something they like. For whatever reason, Murdoch's people increasing that free flow was bad to them. How does that even approach making sense? And then there's their fans. Morons actually stupid enough to ask them via twitter or email to hack their own personal information because they got cheesed at some game dev. I mean, how dumb can you possibly be? Meh, they get mad about Murdoch's people stealing private information from celebrities but have no qualms about stealing the personal information from people that can't afford it. Chumps, the lot of 'em.
Protip: If you want people to listen to your 'message', it helps to have one, it helps that if you have one it makes sense and it helps that if you have one that makes sense you listen to it yourself.
It might be more than a few bad apples. PS3 was only one scenario. How about going after Visa and Mastercard for refusing to support Wikileaks? Or declaring their intent to go after corporations and government servers to expose classified information (good luck with that, btw)?
thanks, I think its fair game, they fight censorship so thats what they're doing.
Attacking someone with whom you don't agree is censorship.
cen·sor·ship/ˈsensərˌSHip/
Noun: The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. More »
cen·sor·ship/ˈsensərˌSHip/Noun: The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. More »
cen·sor·ship/ˈsensərˌSHip/Noun: The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. More »
I had no part of the rupert murdoch stuff, I think its for the lulz.
what did they do to you?
It doesn't matter who had a part if the organization claims responsibility. They did it. Period. And 'for the lulz' isn't a valid revolutionary reason. It's what a bunch of idiot kids would do. And it directly contradicts their stated reasons for launching previous attacks. So either their clueless kids or they're just a bunch of a-holes causing problems for the lulz. Either way, not good.
What did they do to me? Stole my personal info from Sony, that's what. But don't anybody dare hack Lady GaGa's voicemail. Someone's gotta stand up for the little folks like her.
And I feel for you in that if you don't know the structure of anonymous then its hard to argue about.
So either their clueless kids or they're just a bunch of a-holes causing problems for the lulz.
QFT
thats the problem you have when theres no organization.
And I feel for you in that if you don't know the structure of anonymous then its hard to argue about.
Irony much?
thats the problem you have when theres no organization.And I feel for you in that if you don't know the structure of anonymous then its hard to argue about.
Irony much?
you can have structure without being an organization.
thats the problem you have when theres no organization.And I feel for you in that if you don't know the structure of anonymous then its hard to argue about.
Irony much?
you can have structure without being an organization.
But you can't have structure without having organization.
A french hacker named shark hacked psn NOT anonymous. Sony brought geohotz world down around him when all he did was help people btw.
And I feel for you in that if you don't know the structure of anonymous then its hard to argue about.
Didn't this French hacker also do it after AnonOps brought the network down? Didn't he use what Anon did to get in and do his thing? So wouldn't he have either been unable to do it or had a more difficult time doing it if they didn't hit Sony first? Remember, Anon posted youtube warnings to Sony. They started it. They are linked to all that happened because of their first action. They may not have thought about the possible consequences of their actions, but stupid kids never do.
I'd be more in favor and more impressed with Anonops if they brought down the mother of all censorships, The Great Fire Wall of China.
Why would they do that when there's celebrities to defend while also flying in the face of their own stated philosophy?
I'd be more in favor and more impressed with Anonops if they brought down the mother of all censorships, The Great Fire Wall of China.
I think it's actually called "The Golden Shield".
BTW, mud-grass horse in the Male desert!
thanks, I think its fair game, they fight censorship so thats what they're doing.
Like was already said, if you attack anyone that disagrees with you, you are trying to censor them.
Attacking credit card agencies that have every right not to support Wikileaks is an example. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with a bunch of immature brats trying to force their short-sighted vision on the rest of the world. There's no reason those companies should support an organization they disagree with and no one has any right to force them to.
Declaring an intent to expose classified information is just stupid and irresponsible. There's censorship and then there's national security. By their logic we should just declare all our weapons and their capabilities and how to counter them to all our enemies. Schematics of nuclear weapons should be on wikipedia for everyone to use.
And yet while they are happy to hack organizations in the US and the USG, where's their crusade against the truly oppressive regimes out there? Why not Iran? Why not China?
Well someone has to take the mantle of freedom of speech. It is certainly not private corporations who will do such a thing.
Just look at what happened to WikiLeaks when it released the US diplomatic info. Amazon, Visa, Twitter, Facebook, etc, they all stopped doing business with it or terminated WikiLeaks's accounts (and no WikiLeaks did not violate any law, it was protected by the Constitution, same thing that happened when the NY Times released the Pentagone Papers).
These are all American compagnies! Land of the suposedly free! Screw China, we have to look in our own backyards to protect freedom of speech and information.
Anonymous might be on the right track.
Wanna bet? They violated at least one law. Gimme a couple of minutes, and I'll have the specifics...
Also, as you just stated, Amazon, Visa, et al are private companies. There is no legal reason for them NOT to restrict what is done with their logos, servers, etc. and every legal precedent for them to do so.
Anonymous might be on the right track.
When your stated goal is the free spread of information, taking down systems that do just that out of spite for their owners with no regard for their users is doing exactly the opposite of that. They have no idea what track they're even on. Not to say there aren't major problems, of course. Just that Anon is in no way dealing with them.
Well someone has to take the mantle of freedom of speech. It is certainly not private corporations who will do such a thing.
Just look at what happened to WikiLeaks when it released the US diplomatic info. Amazon, Visa, Twitter, Facebook, etc, they all stopped doing business with it or terminated WikiLeaks's accounts (and no WikiLeaks did not violate any law, it was protected by the Constitution, same thing that happened when the NY Times released the Pentagone Papers).
These are all American compagnies! Land of the suposedly free! Screw China, we have to look in our own backyards to protect freedom of speech and information.
Anonymous might be on the right track.
What laws did those companies break by refusing to do business with Wikileaks?
18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:
"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...
18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Here we go! **** yeah!Here we go:
18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:
"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...
18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Yet courts judge that news papers who published sensitive info from the Pentagone Papers were protected under the frist amendment.
The US government still hasn't laid any charges against WikiLeaks and Assange.
The Warren Court was probably the most liberal Supreme Court composition in the history of the US. The Obama presidency is one of the most liberal in the history of the US. Eric Holder... Well, we won't go into that one. Just because charges haven't been brought doesn't mean that charges can't, couldn't, shouldn't, or can't be brought against him/them.
I never said they broke any, but it does mean that private corporations are not the guardians of freedom.
Nor have they ever been, ever be, or should be. What's your point?
But it is the right initiative. Hopefully spawning more credible ones or actually transforming Anonymous an making it more credible.
Somebody's been blowing sunshine up your
, apparently. I have learned never to underestimate the ass-hattery of people. Especially on teh intrawebz!!1!!!11!1The US government still hasn't laid any charges against WikiLeaks and Assange.
Probably because he is not a US citizen and doesn't reside in the US. Also, what is legally right and what is morally right are not always the same.
I find it worrisome, and hypocrite, that compagnies who say they embrasse American values (does any compagnie say otherwise?) just do the opposite.
How is not supporting an organization that violates US law the opposite of embracing American values? If anything, attacking them for their right to choose who they will support is the opposite of American values.
Alternatives have to be created, if not to provide an outlet to those who are marginalized, to at least make corporations think twice before violating individual freedoms, even if they can.
Alternatives to what? And those two corporations didn't violate anyone's individual freedoms by withdrawing support for another organization.
Let's face it, no government is close to legislate that internet compagnies, or social network here, cannot choose their customers (maybe the courts will...).
I'm not really sure what your point is.
Anonymous is not the proper organisation for this. Will they let scientologists have an account on their social network?
As batshit crazy as scientologists are, their organization doesn't (well at least not very openly, I have my own theories about what goes on behind closed doors) blatantly encourage members to break the law and infringe on the rights of other people and businesses.
But it is the right initiative. Hopefully spawning more credible ones or actually transforming Anonymous an making it more credible.
The right initiative for what? What are they actually doing other than lashing out without a clear direction or purpose?
I find it worrisome, and hypocrite, that compagnies who say they embrasse American values (does any compagnie say otherwise?) just do the opposite.How is not supporting an organization that violates US law the opposite of embracing American values? If anything, attacking them for their right to choose who they will support is the opposite of American values.
Hypocrisy. Freedom of speech and information is part of US values and one fo the most important and compagnies like Facebook and Amazon deal in freedom of speech and freedom of information on a daily basis.
Which would explain why Facebook has a "report" button, right?
Having the freedom to say things people do not like is the basis free speech.
And I have the right to swing my first wherever I choose. That right, however, ends at your nose. There ARE things that it has been established are not acceptable to be said, at any time, free speech, or no. "Making terrorist threats" is a charge in US courts. The Secret Service also looks into death threats against the POTUS very strenuously. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that everyone else bears responsibility for what you said.
Let's face it, no government is close to legislate that internet compagnies, or social network here, cannot choose their customers (maybe the courts will...).
I'm not really sure what your point is.
No government will legislate Facebook, forcing it to accept everyone as a member (maybe the courts will in the future, who knows).
Except that everyone is free to join, until proven an asshat. Are you really trying to say that idiots should bear no responsibility and face no consequences for their idiocy?!
Alos, you missed my point interely. Anonymous is very anti-Scientotlogy. If they trully want to create a social network open to all, they will open it to Scientologists and Scientology too.
Which was naga's point. If they don't open it to Scientologists, are they not guilty of the same thing "everyone who bans poor, poor them" is guilty of?
Yes, and since this is not a court and we are not lawyers, this is a moral discussion as usual for OTT.
Exactly. And laws aside, Wikileaks was irresponsible in leaking that information. Therefore, I see nothing morally wrong with any companies refusing to provide service to them. I do see something wrong with a group of people that claim to be all about freedom of speech attacking companies for disagreeing with Wikileaks and exercising their right to refuse service to a customer.
Extradition treates exist. And even if they cannot go get him, they still can press charges against him. They just have no case.
You are very ignorant of US law. He isn't an American citizen, he wasn't in America when the crimes were committed, and it wasn't a direct attack against American interests (if he had hacked into computers to get the information himself that might have been a different story). Therefore (unless there's a legal loophole I've misseD) they can't press charges against him, and since they can't press charges against him there are no grounds to extradite him. However, falling into a legal void doesn't make what he did morally right.
Hypocrisy. Freedom of speech and information is part of US values and one fo the most important and compagnies like Facebook and Amazon deal in freedom of speech and freedom of information on a daily basis.
Companies have the right to refuse service. Facebook is no more required to allow them than a newspaper is required to print every single letter that is mailed to them. It's not censorship. They still have the right to say whatever they want to say, just not on someone else's dime. Is WotC some evil censorship organization because they remove content here or ban people for things like advocating illegal activity?
Having the freedom to say things people do not like is the basis free speech.
And that freedom has not been taken away from them.
In no way having WikiLeaks as a member or a client is supporting it. It is providing a service. If they gave WL money or men power, then they would support it.
And a company can refuse service. It's not your place to tell them otherwise.
They were not supporting it. They were providing a service. Very different.
True, but that service was being used to support that organization. They do not have to provide that service. There is no legal or moral imperative to do so. They had every right to discontinue it. What gives Anonymous the right to determine what a business can or cannot do within the bounds of the law?
Alternative to what? To corporate social networking site, for example. Like Anonymous's initiative is an alternative to Google+ or Facebook.
Ok, you didn't really make it clear in your post what you were referring to. Obviously there are lots of alternatives, and anon is making their own, so I don't see what your complaint it.
No government will legislate Facebook, forcing it to accept everyone as a member (maybe the courts will in the future, who knows). So what is the solution to corporate censorship? Initiatives like Anonymous's social network site.
Nor should they legislate corporations in that manner. People are free to create their own sites just like anon did. What's the problem?
Alos, you missed my point interely. Anonymous is very anti-Scientotlogy. If they trully want to create a social network open to all, they will open it to Scientologists and Scientology too.
Yes I did miss it, but you didn't make your point very clear to begin with. And only time will tell if their network will be as open as they say. Their track record reeks of hypocrisy so I'm not holding my breath.
Again. For providing an alternative to corporate social network sites who are vulnerable to censorship.
Anonymous's initiative might not be the solution, but it is the right step in the right direction. Maybe others more credible and capable will follow it's example.
Again, what is the problem? There was no more censorship there than what goes on with any business. If they want their own site, they can make one. Anyone can. And anyone can censor their own sites too.
Is WotC some evil censorship organization because they remove content here or ban people for things like advocating illegal activity?
I plead the Fifth.
Is WotC some evil censorship organization because they remove content here or ban people for things like advocating illegal activity?
I plead the Fifth.
Hey I'm not claiming that their moderation is consistent or even makes sense or even that the company as a whole always makes competent business decisions. I'm just saying their not some evil bad guy out to attack our freedom of speech.
He says before taking a trip on the ban wagon.
Irony at its best.
They just now caught up for an earlier infraction, a tasteless joke that was removed a while ago but they just now brought the banhammer down for. It must be an intimidation tactic! The evil WotC censorship police are out to get us!
The post was deleted >12 hours ago.
WotC Customer Service at its best.
I thought it was a day or two ago. Well my sense of time sucks, the whole week pretty much blends together in one giant blur. In any case, 12 hours is still a good bit of time to wait before doing anything.
Well, I'm assuming it was the post in the "Party Teen" thread, and Chaos nuked a bunch of stuff from there about 12-18 hours ago, IIRC.
EDIT: it was ~25 hours ago. Which is even worse.
Oy! This is loooooooooong.Yes, and since this is not a court and we are not lawyers, this is a moral discussion as usual for OTT.
Exactly. And laws aside, Wikileaks was irresponsible in leaking that information. Therefore, I see nothing morally wrong with any companies refusing to provide service to them. I do see something wrong with a group of people that claim to be all about freedom of speech attacking companies for disagreeing with Wikileaks and exercising their right to refuse service to a customer.
How was WIkiLeaks irresponsable? It seked the help of 5 very respected news paper and they removed any names or didn't publish content that could have put people in arms way. Sounds very responsable to me.
The US government claimed otherwise but can't provide any example that such armed accured.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_n...
Is it so hard to believe that informants whose names where found in those documents could have been harmed?
I'm sorry guys I didn't want to start an argument that gets anyone banned
It's all your fault.
noooo D:
Thats what you get for posting high, you filthy stoner, btw could you hook me up?
noooo D:
Thats what you get for posting high, you filthy stoner, btw could you hook me up?
if you're in florida yeah
If you can't trust the secretery of defense (named by Bush and re-appointed by Obama), who can you trust?
Answer: Someone who isn't a career politician or "journalist".
I'm sorry guys I didn't want to start an argument that gets anyone banned
Yeah ok, you probably plotted it all out. You baited me with a controversial thread and then reported me. Jerk.
nooo I'm not smart enough! oh god the teardrops on my keyboard!!!..... akjnoawofhoiwehoaosdnfa;sfn;wenflw