Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Angles On Anonymous

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the nature-of-my-game dept.

Censorship 383

A number of readers are sending in links related to Anonymous, the Internet phenomenon — don't call them a group — behind the controversial DDoS attacks on commercial entities that fail to support WikiLeaks. The best insight into Anonymous comes from the Economist's Babbage blogger, who hung out in one of their IRC channels. Reader nk497 points out that UK users looking to join Anonymous's DDoS army should be aware they could face a jail term of up to two years; simply downloading the LOIC software used in the DDoSing could suffice to earn a conviction. One 16-year-old has been arrested in The Netherlands and is charged with participating in the DDoS. Reader ancientribe sends in coverage of a claim by one security outfit that several existing criminal botnets have joined forces with Anonymous's Operation: Payback. And reader Stoobalou notes a Thinq.co.uk story on a manifesto of sorts that purports to come from "ANON OPS," even though Anonymous disclaims any central spokesperson or entity (press release here, PDF).

cancel ×

383 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The most successful trolls (5, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515648)

The most successful part of their trolling is that major news outlets still don't understand the joke. They're anonymous. They're not a group. You could just as easily say "bunches of people who have never met"

Re:The most successful trolls (4, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515702)

The second most successful part of their trolling is convincing people that they're actually some kind of hacker group when 99% (at least) are nothing more than skiddies with no empathy and a healthy dose of misogyny.

Re:The most successful trolls (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34515736)

They have a healthy dose of hating women? Do you mean a health dose of misanthropy? Or maybe Anonymous just hates women, I don't know. I'm too scared to be anonymous.

We do not hate women. (5, Funny)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515742)

Now, TITS or GTFO.

Re:We do not hate women. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34515924)

Cool story, bro.

Re:We do not hate women. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516202)

Cool story, bro.

shut up, newfag!

Re:The most successful trolls (5, Funny)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515760)

No, I’m guessing he did mean misogyny. He apparently hasn’t figured out that it’s mostly for show, just like the racism and hatred of furries.

I take that back, the hatred of furries is real.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515860)

Where is the line for show and reality drawn?

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515964)

Whoosh.

If you wanted a serious answer, there’s not one. There’s all sorts of people, and some probably really are racist, but my guess is that for most of them it is for show. So I said mostly.

Re:The most successful trolls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516068)

Hope your mother/sister gets raped by an angry negro looking to get his AIDS filled cock wet.

Re:The most successful trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516106)

No, no, you're the one who didn't get it.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515986)

The internet is essentially for show. 4Chan is essentially for show. It is all essentially a satire on western philosophies of life. 4

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516038)

And the joking about child pornography. Anonymous revels in the violation of social rules. It is precisely because these things are socially unacceptable that members of anonymous celebrate them.

Re:The most successful trolls (5, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516208)

We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I.
A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy.
I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand.

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

We've known each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it
And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

(Ooh, give you up) (Ooh, give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give
(Give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give (Give you up)

We've know each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it
I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

Re:The most successful trolls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516292)

He apparently hasn’t figured out that it’s mostly for show,

Actually, it's you who haven't figured out that beneath the superficial racism and misogyny, much of 4chan is substantively racist and misogynist. As an example, /co/ swung from loving Kate Beaton (of Hark a Vagrant) to hating her the instant she mentioned sexism.

Re:The most successful trolls (4, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515788)

XKCD [xkcd.com] . They need to watch out who they troll though. It could backfire.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515942)

4Chan (or more specifically, /b/) is not Anonymous, though they are anonymous. I think that capital A is starting to become the real point of distinction between the two terms.

Honestly though, if Anonymous decided to make Stephanie Meyer their next target, I would not have any problems with it.

Maybe I should hop on IRC and build a case against her...

Re:The most successful trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516366)

remember rule 1 and 2! you failed

Re:The most successful trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34515956)

The time flow of the comic doesn't work .... I don't get it... the "author" incorporated the "attack" into her plot?

Is that it?

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515992)

... Are you reading left to right, top to bottom?

They decide to troll the Twilight forums. The author comes on and asks them to stop. They say no, with attitude. She then writes about THEIR sanctuary in her next book.

Suddenly all the fans that they hate are frequenting the spot where the trolls would meet up, so its almost like trolling on their site.

Re:The most successful trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516018)

The author made 4Chan "cool" in her books, so her fans decided it'd be cool to invade 4Chan. So the place got flooded with Twilighters.

Re:The most successful trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516046)

The point being that both sites are populated by the same type of person: Teenagers who want to be extreme.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516050)

It's simpler than that. By namedropping the website in her book, she would indirectly get millions of tween girls to turn 4chan into basically a big twilight fan board, as 4chans normal chatter (if you can call it that) gets crushed under the threads like "Edward/Jacob, which side are you on?"

On the other hand, Pedobear would have a field day if that happened.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

Optali (809880) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515978)

You made my day, lol... well you and Randall Munroe, of course ;)

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515808)

The second most successful part of their trolling is convincing people that they're actually some kind of hacker group when 99% (at least) are nothing more than skiddies with no empathy and a healthy dose of misogyny.

In my opinion, I think thats what makes them more dangerous.

Re:The most successful trolls (0)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515836)

No, the most successful part is that a handful of hackers have convinced thousands of script kiddies to willingly slave their PCs to a botnet for the express purpose of breaking the law.

That indicates a central intelligence with charisma. It may be a group intelligence, but there's something there that is irresistable to disillusioned youths.

Re:The most successful trolls (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516054)

Charisma? Seriously? No. They are all just a bunch of like-minded people. Teens especially have a need to rebel in some way or another. It's all part of creating a sense of identity for themselves and all quite typical. It doesn't take charisma to "convince" a kid to take a firecracker and put it in a mail box. All you have to do is give them a firecracker and say "hey! put it in a mailbox!" Same thing here. Now if the same person said, "hey, firecrackers in mail boxes is wrong, don't do it!" you would probably see even MORE firecrackers in mail boxes. You get what I'm saying?

Unified beliefs (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516062)

I think that the one thing that really unites the majority of the internet culture is open access of information. And because of that, the internet as a whole likes the fact that the government's "dirty little secrets" are now out in the open. Despite there being a wide range of political viewpoints ranging from communist, to libertarian, to socialist, to anarchist and everywhere in between, much of the internet can agree that open access to information is an essential thing to have.

Re:Unified beliefs (3, Insightful)

Optali (809880) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516100)

What 'dirty little secrets' exactly? That the French prez is a swollen toad ? That there may be or may no be nukes on Dutch territory? One thing I have to admit: Assange is the biggest scammer since Madoff, or maybe even bigger.

Re:Unified beliefs (1)

NanoGeek (1951202) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516360)

That's not completely true. Take for example the most recent diplomatic leaks. While they have provided a fascinating look into the world of international politics, some of the info they posted was down right dangerous. For instance, Iran now knows that its neighbors wants the U.S. to attack. What is that going to do to the already dangerous situation there? On the same token, North Korea has been told that China, their biggest ally, would consider abandoning it. Assange really should not have leaked some of these documents. We don't need to know everything, and we shouldn't know some things.

Re:The most successful trolls (2)

callmebill (1917294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516102)

Did you say "yoots"?

Re:The most successful trolls (2)

Agent0013 (828350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516150)

That indicates a central intelligence with charisma. It may be a group intelligence, but there's something there that is irresistable to disillusioned youths.

That is like saying when a site gets slashdotted, there is a central intelligence with charisma behind it. It's just a bunch of people who want to jump on the bandwagon and cause trouble for something they think is a good cause.

The Sixteen Year Old that Was Caught... (2)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515918)

...was their oldest member. They're like a bunch of chipmunks without an Alvin.

Re:The Sixteen Year Old that Was Caught... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516262)

He's actually the youngest part of Anon I've ever heard of, pretty much everybody I know who associates with the group is in their 20s (though that wasn't always true).

Anecdotal evidence of course.

Re:The most successful trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516328)

just because a target happens to be female doesn't mean they're misogynists.. please spare us the capt save a ho routine.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515712)

Yeah. I did a major double-take when I read “the Internet phenomenon — don't call them a group” on a kdawson story. I had to go back up and check again.

kdawson has actually posted something that is very much not seeming like FUD.

Re:The most successful trolls (0)

thewils (463314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515732)

Don't call them "bunches of people who have never met" or the US Govt. will give them a name like Al Qaeda or something.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

AKMask (843456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515820)

Don't call them "bunches of people who have never met" or the US Govt. will give them a name like Al Qaeda or something.

replace 'al Qaeda' with '4chan' and you've pretty much nailed it.

watch the Feds scramble after this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516280)

al Qaueda doesn't have members who work on nuclear power plants.

Re:The most successful trolls (3, Insightful)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515744)

I dunno, I'm getting very tired of the continual 'news' regarding anonymous on the bbc website. It's typically involves some random 'source' who is apparently affiliated with anon, who hasn't been involved with any of anon's activities, doesn't speak for them, but feels compelled to spout some non-newsworthy opinions. It's not news. It's just 15 year olds on 4chan. Enough already.

Re:The most successful trolls (5, Insightful)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515774)

It's not news. It's just 15 year olds on 4chan. Enough already.

They’re feeding the trolls. It’s hilarious. Laugh.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516094)

By that I assume you mean me? Seeing as I'm one of the many people who actually pay for that news service?

Wikileaks, Co$, and any other campaign that anon has decided to act upon *are* causes worthy of bringing some serious media attention to. Do you really think having a 15 year old as the spokesperson for that cause (of which it is obvious they have no understanding) is a good idea? If you knew nothing of the wikileaks organisation, the most you will find out in the British media about it, is that some 15 year olds are doing some hacking for the LULZ, and their leader is a rapist.

So no. I am not laughing. Anon is getting the media publicity, whilst the causes they are fighting for are being brushed under the carpet.....

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516216)

I'm one of the many people who actually pay for that news service

You pay for news?

Do you really think having a 15 year old as the spokesperson for that cause (of which it is obvious they have no understanding) is a good idea?

Some anonymous person on the internet saying something doesn’t make them a valid spokesperson for a cause.

and their leader is a rapist

Only in Sweden, where having consensual sex is rape if the condom breaks. Or something like that.

Do they have to figure out who really broke the condom? I mean it might not have been the male, it might have only broke because of the friction caused by the vagina. Since the condom is to protect the male just as much as it is to protect the female (STDs aren’t choosy), isn’t it just as possible that she raped him?

Or you could just conclude that the whole thing is ridiculous slander drummed up to discredit him for political reasons.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

Chakra5 (1417951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516342)

I would further that point by saying that even when the is on Wikileaks itself, it is mostly focused on JA as a person. And either of this levels of focus misses what SHOULD be the focus if all this is actually worth it. The actual information is just tertiary right now to everyone but foreign governments and such who are no doubt lapping this up.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516312)

Great, now we're gonna have a bunch of obese trolls. ;)

Re:The most successful trolls (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516064)

It's standard journalistic procedure to seek a representative. In this case, they desperatly try, but there just isn't a true representative. So they go for the best they can find.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515796)

The correct term is a movement. Much like the tea-party. I think Anonymous is the tea-party of the internet.

Re:The most successful trolls (2)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516084)

No, they are more like the Earth First people:

  Loosely affiliated, no central control or organization. But prone to random acts of violence in the name of their twisted philosophy.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516304)

I can't follow that at all. There is no infighting for one thing, and those who participate have common, predictable goals and means. Like the tea party movement, Anonymous participants are rebelling against government and the established order.

Re:The most successful trolls (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515828)

Must be a pretty quiet irc channel if no one has ever met another member.

Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515684)

Or they'll DDoS you.

Who laugh? Hmmm? Who was it? Speak up so you can be added to the list. We'll see to it that your internet connection never functions right again.

I heard [slashdot.org] that if you post something bad on Slashdot, CmdrTaco hands over your IP address to Anonymous -- where do you think all the GNAA/Goatse trolls went?

Did somebody just sneeze? That's a DDoS. Who laughed when the witnessed testified that Assange has a smaller than average penis? That's a DDoS. If you're replying to this post? Oh, boy, you better believe that's a DDoS. In fact, if you're reading this right now let's just say there's not a lot you can do to stop from being DDoS'd by Anonymous for trying to find out more information about that particular group %*&#$^#%@#$ no carrier

Re:Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515706)

Strange, I'm replying to this post right now an@$&#$%^#!*! NO CARRIER

Re:Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515810)

Apparently if you talk smack about Anonymous, they'll install a 56k modem. What good is an Internet connection if you can't.... download?

Re:Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! (2)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515950)

The first rule of Anonymous club is "you don't talk about Anonymous club".

The second rule of Anonymous club is that you don't talk... oops sorry the second rule of Anonymous club is "No Smoking"

The thir....^%&$*NO CARRIER

Re:Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516074)

I thought the second rule was "No Scientologists".

Re:Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516170)

No, it's ~*~nO NoT bElieVin' in YoUrSeLf~*~.

Well how about if I post as (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34515756)

Anonymous.

Recursion?

Very easy explanation (4, Insightful)

oic0 (1864384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515696)

Bored people looking for a little excitement and a cause. Not a bad cause really, if nothing else it has brought attention to the fact that these companies bent under the governments will and cut off funding to wikileaks even though our government hasn't figured out anything to charge them with yet.

Re:Very easy explanation (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515724)

Good idea, crappy implementation. All this does to the public perception of Wikileaks and their supports is make them look like a bunch of hackers and deviant cybercrooks. It won't make a damned difference in the long run.

I've always found it sadly ironic that Anonymous, who very much wants to keep online anonymity alive, is doing more than almost anyone to destroy it. Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Way to go, idiots!

Re:Very easy explanation (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515844)

Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Way to go, idiots!

Politicians don't need reasons to clamp down on the internet, they are going to do it either way. Just like they have with airline security, it's gotten worse over the years despite nothing happening after 9/11.

Their antics are at least trying to bring about some change or awareness before the internet gets clamped down. Think about it, some script kiddie in junior high has contributed more to the world situation these past few months than you might ever in your life. If you think they are idiots, why don't you try and stop them for ruining things for you?

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516112)

The problem with those kids is that they have no idea how to pick their targets. Yeah, they brought down www.visa.com, that's great. Visa doesn't fucking use their website for anything! It's purely decorative! If they were smart, they'd try to go after the servers that are actually used for transferring financial data. Which, of course, would be highly illegal and a grave threat to our liberty and our way of life, and I'd never, ever advocate that sort of thing.

Re:Very easy explanation (0)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516174)

Because DDoSing people over Wikileaks is the only nefarious thing that Anonymous has ever done, right?

Politicians will try to screw with everything, but Anonymous has done PLENTY over the past few years to hand them excuses and rationalizations on a silver platter. This isn't about awareness. For the vast majority of Anons, this is about hopping on the bandwagon to do some damage. That's it, really.

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516302)

Because DDoSing people over Wikileaks is the only nefarious thing that Anonymous has ever done, right?

Uhhh, I don't remember saying that. But It's definately the issue that's brought them to the spotlight, isn't it?

Politicians will try to screw with everything, but Anonymous has done PLENTY over the past few years to hand them excuses and rationalizations on a silver platter. This isn't about awareness. For the vast majority of Anons, this is about hopping on the bandwagon to do some damage. That's it, really

Then you didn't read the article nor do you really understand how it works. Yes - for a vast majority of them, its just about doing something when you're bored. Hop on the net, run your LOIC, pretend you're a leet hacker, totally cool. But these Skiddies aren't really running the show. They are just the assembly line workers, they don't decide what gets made. The ones who propose targets, build cases, and participate in debates, those are the ones who essentially "Run Anonymous" (in any sense that you could try to apply it, even that has a hard time sticking).

For a majority of Anonymous, it's not about principles or values, but they're activities are promoting someone elses (or even multiple people's) values.

Are you actually trying to argue that Anonymous has made the net a worse place? How many new laws over cybercrime have actually been a result of Anonymous' activities? Because when I hear actual changes getting applied to the internet, I hear it about Child Pornography and Chinese Spies. Internet Kill switches to stop the oncomming cyber war.

Almost NOTHING has changed because of Anonymous, the only clamping down thats taken place of it is police arresting it's members.

Re:Very easy explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34515874)

Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet.

There is a whole list of things wrong with what they're doing, but this doesn't make much sense. Wikileaks is also giving politicians a reason to clamp down on the internet; practically every form of online dissent does.

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516192)

I'm not saying that Wikileaks isn't giving politicians rationalizations, but they're a recent development. Anonymous has been giving them rationalizations and excuses on a silver platter for years now, and very little of it was any kind of rational dissent.

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

AKMask (843456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515876)

Thats the most bullshit argument ever. I mean really, it flabbergasts me that its been used. Even Joe Strummer called this one out... You have the right to free speech, as long as your not dumb enough to actually try it.

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516206)

Because DDoSing people over Wikileaks is the only nefarious thing that Anonymous has ever done, right? Newsflash, pal: Most of what Anonymous has done (at least outside that cancerous rectal cavity known as 4chan) has not been any kind of "free speech".

Re:Very easy explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34515912)

Yeah, we should all just protest quietly in our studies when our governments overstep their bounds, so we can look like sophisticated scholarly people. That will make them change their ways, and will surely make a difference in the long run. Or better yet, we could be a damper on any attempts to protest by complaining about implementation details. How would you suggest we "make a difference in the long run"?

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516240)

So DDoSing a few websites will do...what, exactly? Nothing. Nothing at all. It's not a "protest". It's flagrantly illegal. A few websites deal with DDoS attacks, they come to and end after a short time, and the ONLY thing it does is make Wikileaks look even worse because now the supporters of this site are making themselves look like a bunch of criminal hooligans. It doesn't even take opportunistic political asshats thumping their chests to do that.

People have every right to protest sites that have trying to screw Wikileaks. They have every right to boycott and criticize the hell out of them. They do not have the right to DDoS these sites. When they do, they cross the boundaries of the law, and that doesn't exactly make them look rosy to the public at large.

Re:Very easy explanation (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516246)

And you want to help? Want to make a difference? Work to get more mirrors of Wikileaks up. Keep the information out there and make sure that new info has a place to go. What you can do is show these organizations that their attempts to shut down Wikileaks will not succeed. DDoSing is nothing more than a revenge tactic. It solves NOTHING.

Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515922)

What you have done, on your part, really ? at least, these people are implementing a good idea, with a crappy implementation. that's something there. nothing on your side to show for it yet ?

Re:Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516060)

Doing something isn't always better than doing nothing.

so (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516350)

we should just keep doing nothing, because doing something is not always better than doing nothing.

and when we actually do anything, we should go back to doing nothing, because there will always be someone who himself does nothing but comes up saying "doing x is better than doing the thing you are doing" ...

please, act, or shut up. world has enough people who never act, but talk.

Re:Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516258)

How is a DDoS a good idea? It's a bad idea, and it's WORSE than doing nothing because:

A) It does absolutely nothing to help Wikileaks. It's just a revenge tactic. The decisions have been made.
B) It makes Wikileaks and their supporters look like a bunch of hooligans.

So tell me how that's a good thing, please.

Re:Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516376)

A) It does absolutely nothing to help Wikileaks. It's just a revenge tactic. The decisions have been made.

it does.

paypal was at frist blabbering about 'tos violation' regarding wikileaks cut-off. after what anonymous did, they have come up saying that they did it due to political pressure.

other companies will probably follow suit or take similar routes to unload responsibility. this will put the blame where it lies.

this, if anything, is much more important in that it will make it clear that censorship is being attempted by politicians.

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

quintessencesluglord (652360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515952)

But one of the problems is more conventional means of protest are equally liable to garner negative publicity.

Either you are carted off to freespeech zones which are equivalent to no protest at all, or some instigator turns the whole event into a riot, garnering the derision of the public.

Even commenting to your congressman is pointless if the one topic that drew the largest public disapproval is passed anyway (bailouts).

So what options do you have left?

I'm just pleased that there are enough folks paying attention to do something like this rather than the apathy that marks most of the public. I am frightened to death that most of them aren’t old enough to vote.

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516272)

DDoSing is not the answer. You know what options are left? KEEPING WIKILEAKS ALIVE. Help get mirrors up and maintained. Make sure that info has somewhere to go and that the public can access it. Support sites like OpenLeaks that do largely the same thing. That's how you can show the politicians that their efforts will not succeed, because enough people will support these sites to keep them going and that the flow of information will not stop.

Re:Very easy explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34516168)

Sending cash, mirroring the site, and even reading the documents are deemed illegal, and thus give the politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Should they all send letters of disapproval?

I've always found it sadly ironic that the founding fathers, who very much wanted freedom, did more than anyone to destroy it. Their antics just kept giving England reasons to clamp down on the colonies.

I've always found it sadly ironic that the black community, who very much wanted equality, did more than anyone to destroy it. Their antics just kept giving politicians reasons to clamp down on protests.

They may be script kiddies, deviants, and botnet slavers, but they seem to care, and they're protesting. They're protesting in the only meaningful way left... economic impact through technological leverage. Violence is wrong, and everything short is curtailed by law or ignored by the media and targeted parties to the point of laughable inefficacy. Like those before them, they've been forced to express themselves through conscious violation of the law to even be noticed.

If there is one activity that does absolutely nothing to defend a particular freedom, it is sitting quietly while the rich and powerful strip it away, bit by bit. The belief that politicians need reasons to gather power and impose draconian order on the weak is a belief that hands them power on a gilt pillow.

Do the TSA molest our children because we've lost planes to fourteen year old girls with bombs and box cutters taped to their labia? No, they molest our children because we let them. The media don't need examples as proof of necessity. They can make do quite well with groundless assertions, hand-waving, and mixed zealotry.

I don't intend to participate, but everyone I've talked to about the subject has smiled a little at the news that a credit leviathan or retail juggernaut was, even for the briefest of moments, crippled by people who had had enough of them.

It seems telling.

Re:Very easy explanation (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516308)

Sending cash, mirroring the site, and even reading the documents are deemed illegal, and thus give the politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Should they all send letters of disapproval?

[citation needed]

Re:Very easy explanation (2)

Chakra5 (1417951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516166)

So they bent to government pressure...when exactly did PayPal sign on to be revolutionaries. The key to living free is letting people (and thus their businesses) go their own way. This is not an act of freedom no matter how high the ideal, rather an act of repression because they don't agree with someones politics. You can shout at them, you can call them names and boycott them all you want. that's freedome of speech, but the second you impede them from their own freedoms, you are out of bounds as they have broken no law. And until their are boots in the street, we are still a country of laws. The culprit is the US government. That is the valid target that I see in this context.

Democracy? (1)

melki0r (1091827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515776)

Looks to me like The Economist's blogger mistook mob rule for democracy.

Re:Democracy? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515882)

I'd like to know how you are making the distinction - because a lot of people say that Democracy IS Mob Rule, and those who argue it's seperation would say that Anon's setup is more like Democracy than Mob rule.

Re:Democracy? (1)

SwordsmanLuke (1083699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515900)

What do you think pure democracy is? By *definition* democracy is rule by the biggest mob.

Re:Democracy? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515940)

Democracy is mob rule. The only thing that prevents democracies from becoming mob ruled is with limited government where the government has numerated powers and can't expand beyond them. Because we no longer have much limited government in the US, we have become essentially mob ruled.

If no one is in charge (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515814)

then how can you official say no one is in charge?

Re:If no one is in charge (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515896)

I don't follow.

anonymity should be banned! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34515870)

It's not useful for anything except abuse and copyright violations, of course.

Don't bother with the darkreading link (1)

Nigel Stepp (446) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515878)

I stopped after I got to "www.irc.paypal" being named as critical infrastructure. It's also reported that at least *two* ISPs have been found supplying an internet connection to Anonymous. Two! That's probably all of them right?

I swear this must have been written by a quick AWK script (not even perl)

Download LOIC ? hahahahaha (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515904)

All that one needs to do is to go visit those websites and hit F5 a few times to see whether they come up or not. like, sec, let me see .... nope, they are not coming up. and i even checked 4-5 times ...

Angles (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515920)

What does this have to do with Germanic-speaking people who took their name from the ancestral cultural region of Angeln? Are they saying all Germanic-speaking people who took their name from the ancestral cultural region of Angeln are behind this, or just some of them?

Re:Angles (1)

Patte_De_Lapin (1053464) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516160)

It's the one who invaded britain of course.

Who is Anonymous? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34515926)

Anonymous is everyone you depend on. They're the people who do your laundry and cook your food and serve your dinner. They make your bed. They guard you while you're asleep. They drive the ambulances. They direct your call. They are cooks and taxi drivers and they know everything about you. They process your insurance claims and credit card charges. They control every part of your life. "They are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday they'll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but they won't. And they're just learning this fact."

WikiLeaks hosts file for mirrors (0, Offtopic)

vinsci (537958) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515970)

Slightly off-topic: get your hosts file with IP-addresses for each of the WikiLeaks mirrors here:

WikiLeaks hosts file for mirrors [google.com]

This is a complete list of IP addresses and host names for all WikiLeaks mirrors, in standard hosts file format. You can add the contents of the file to the hosts file already on your computer. The advantage of this is that you are no longer dependant on external DNS service providers in order to access WikiLeaks, as the file provides the necessary domain name to IP address mapping needed to access the sites.

Not this s**t again (4, Interesting)

TideX (1908876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34515984)

I am so sick of hearing about /b/. Its not that I'm against wikileaks or julian assange, I'm all for freedom of speech and transparent government. I'm against how everyone misuses the name Anonymous constantly. They are not the only board on 4chan for gods sake. Every time the media focuses on them it makes the rest of us look like idiots. For the record pretty much every other board on 4chan is against this nonsense. Anonymous is not a terrorist organization, its just a name nothing more. Anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask doesn't know the first damn thing about freedom and just follows the trend of his fellow /b/tards and its been this way since project chanology. Conformism and ignorance is the very thing were against. Theres no reason why they do it except maybe for some false sense of righteousness. They disgrace our name and our website. Call them /b/tards, terrorists, idiots, but not Anonymous. That name belongs to us and were sick of being grouped with them.

Re:Not this s**t again (2)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516354)

The problem is, Anonymous is falling victim to a mis-applied "No True Scotsman". I get what you're saying, but the very nature of Anonymous allows the /b/tards to come in and co-opt it, ultimately becoming Anonymous in the process and rendering your defense moot.

And the winners are: Governments and businesses (2)

get_your_guns (1380583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516076)

All these skiddies are doing is providing fodder to the politicians to enforce more internet control. The governments will get more in bed with every internet hub and access point in their respective countries to monitor all traffic and block encrypted traffic (that they don't have the keys for) and traffic that looks like a hacking or DDoS attack. We will all be paying higher taxes and higher access charges to use what was the open internet. Don't get me wrong, I think the release of these docs is warranted but I don't think the hacking going on right now is doing anyone any good. What good is this going to do for internet users? And this is the problem, the juveniles doing what they think is hacking is just making things worse for the one thing they rely upon, open access.

Any news about charging anti-Wikileaks DDoS'ers? (1)

austinhook (656358) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516124)

I don't see much news on charging anti-Wikileaks DDoS'ers.

Angels on Anonymous (2)

BenihanaX (1405543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516134)

Am I the only one that misread the title as "Angels on Anonymous?"

Don't worry (1)

Optali (809880) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516190)

Don't worry about negative publicity, the whole mass media is supporting this circus. And if we have to believe Cryptome's Young, Mr Assagne has quite some support from US money and media(he cites Soros).

LOIC (2)

thisNameNotTaken (952374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34516294)

DOWNLOAD: loic.sourceforge.net

Works OK.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?