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!

Anonymous Organizes Global Protests For WikiLeaks

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the sun-it-burns-us dept.

Censorship 275

pafein writes "Internet collective Anonymous launched a global protest for January 15 in support of beleaguered WikiLeaks. Anonymous has a history of defending Internet freedom, beginning with Project Chanology against the Church of Scientology. The group gained recent attention for itself with DDOS attacks on Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and the government of Tunisia."

cancel ×

275 comments

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

War (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822094)

Yep. They are organizing their army for the war against nation-states.

Off-topic (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822294)

Directly commenting on the consequences of the topic of the article is apparently off-topic.

Re:War (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822954)

I guess that a tiny nation or region(say a small island somewhere) targeted by a sufficiently massive ddos could be more or less entirely locked out from the internet for the duration, with rather noticeable economic consequences.

I didn't launch anything (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822096)

I'm a coward.

Hmmm (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822100)

These snotty 4chan teens might think they're tough but what'll happen when they get arrested? They'll start crying for the mummy who they say doesn't understand them.

Re:Hmmm (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822190)

Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something. More, I always get a kick out of how we say things like "Americans are too fat and lazy and content with their sports teams and iced coffees to bother ever standing up to their government or taking real action beyond singing songs while standing in a circle with rhyming picket signs", but the truth is that if you or I voiced any dissent against our government or even took some sort of action and were given the hell of a boot, we'd be bawling like little bitches, too.

We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.

That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.

Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).

Re:Hmmm (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822354)

"sidearms in our heads"

I think you're doing it wrong...

Re:Hmmm (4, Informative)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822382)

We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.

WWII was 70 years ago. People in the US today are a lot different than back then. I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle. Even in their elections, the driving theme is are you better off today than you were four years ago, when the real question is where to we need to be tomorrow.

That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.

Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).

Anonymous is winning small battles in what they are doing, but ultimately will lose the war in whatever their perceived purpose is. The more they attack business interests, the more there will be laws enacted to crack down on actions like theirs. Before long, they will be labeled cyber terrorists with all of the negative government attention that will bring.

It's good to stand up for what you believe. It's even better to choose your fights carefully. Otherwise, you are really just being irresponsible because the consequences set in motion by indiscriminate action affect a lot more people than than the ones that signed on for your cause.

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822538)

If push can to shove and someone like hitler really did appear the response now would be the same as it was then. ignore it until they directly threatened us, and then mobilize in ways never before seen in warfare.

American's don't care about Afghanistan because it doesn't affect the average american. If you go for all out TOTAL War then you would be in for a surprise at just how not lazy American's can be when pushed hard enough. The thing is even Vietnam wasn't a Total war.

American's are lazy because they can be. We don't have to work hard. Just hard enough to maintain what is. When What is no longer exists we will moan and cry and then build it again.

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822664)

Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.

It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.

Re:Hmmm (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822760)

I think my point flew over your head.

People say things about how if they had been alive when the Nazi party was taking over Germany, they "would have done something". In reality, if you or I or anyone else who talk big about how much we'd stand up to oppression and violation of liberties and just plain "wrongness" would do no such thing if we stepped back in time.

If we were on the street and saw some brown shirts hauling a jewish family out of their home, making them get on their knees, and putting a gun to their head, you know what we'd do? We'd shut our fucking mouths and look the other way, because we don't want to be next.

My point with that given example was that we do an awful lot of talking about how we should stand up to injustice and fight on principal to retain those ideals that we've lived on for a couple hundred years (and of which many are now considered general "human rights" by the UN, even) . . . but none of us would ever be willing to take the risk of doing anything about it. Except maybe putting a bumper sticker on our cars, a little button on our websites, and if we're really "rebels", going out and standing outside a building with signs . . . on sticks!

Re:Hmmm (0)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822506)

Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something.

The second line right there is your problem. When the "something" that is being done is counterproductive, you are not helping.

No matter how justified we are in our principles and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose.

OK, side note first: would you people PLEASE learn to fucking spell already? Thank you.

As to the "something to lose"? Very good point. By comparative amount, the risk-to-reward ratio for protesters in the "golden age" of the "civil rights era" was far greater. The right to vote, the right to an equal seat at the table, being fought for by people who were already poor in terms of material wealth. If they went to jail, well, they went to jail. They had a network to ensure their families were taken care of, and they had a network to ensure they could get back on their feet when they left jail.

Compare to today. Look at the lives ruined by corrupt prosecutor Johnny Sutton in Texas who would rather go after border agents rather than a known drug smuggler and salesman who got shot while illegally in the country, running from arrest, and pointing a gun back at the border patrol. These guys had their lives completely ruined for doing what they were trained to do in the line of duty, because of corruption in the US government and a prosecutor and corrupt Bush administration that wanted to play favorites to the drug cartels from Mexico...

Re:Hmmm (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822904)

Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something.

The second line right there is your problem. When the "something" that is being done is counterproductive, you are not helping.

Promoting protests around the world is counter-productive? It's about the most rudimentary form of protest.

DDoS attacks may certainly be petty and even juvenile (though I do believe it's known that our own government commits them or would), but you use what tools you have in your reach, I guess. Certainly brings attention to your cause (sometimes negative, here, I guess -- sometimes not so negative, when against Scientology). At any rate, I didn't see any mention of DDoS on January 15th. The page I saw linked to in this submission just showed videos of people protesting on the streets, which is still legal.

. . . Though not sure if it's still legal to wear masks while protesting. Certainly not in all states.

. . . And with the caveat that you may need to be restricted to conducting your protest in a barbed-wire chain-link "free speech cage".

Wikileaks isn't even necessarily the most worthwhile reason to get oneself rousted. There are plenty of things which either individually or cumulatively should have rousted more than "meh, that sucks" from the collective population, by now . . .

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822666)

Maybe it isn't laziness: Did you ever thing that maybe Wikileaks isn't getting a lot of support from the public because the public isn't that excited about lots of classified documents being leaked on the internet?

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822952)

You're right, it's just Wikileaks. Every other violation (suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind, among many others) has been met with such active and significant response by the informed and caring American public. It's just this one isolated incident of Wikileaks where Americans said "you know, I usually put it all on the line to defend our liberties, but I'm gonna take a break today".

We're all part of a government that commits heinous violations on its own people and - often - even worse violations on others. As long as we have Starbucks, Jersey Shore, Facebook, and our mini-vans, we're content to permit it. Neigh, even to justify and defend it.

Re:Hmmm (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822916)

but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess.

You weren't forty years ago.

http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=vietnam+war+protests&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=iRUrTc-uD6qAhAe7zszcCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CGYQsAQwBg&biw=1345&bih=930 [google.co.uk]

Re:Hmmm (2)

Xelios (822510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823002)

Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game.

This is called maturity. I didn't realize this when I was young. I thought a big part of maturity was caring enough and having the will to change things for the better. Boy was I wrong. We all like to pretend it's not like this, but the truth is you're considered mature when you've given in to the status quo. You've accepted the world for what it is, realized there's not a damn thing you can do about it and decided to just try to make the best of it for yourself and your family.

It's sad really. I think we could all do with a little more of those 'immature' rebellious tendencies we had when we were going through "that phase" as teenagers. But without millions of others standing by your side, ready to do the same, you just end up making life difficult for yourself.

will they now (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822196)

'snotty 4chan teens' identification puts forward your morondom. you have no understanding of the internet. go post in digg or facebook or someplace else.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822448)

This isn't 4chan's doing.

There are at least two large groups who use the "Anonymous" name - the 4chan /b/tards, and the whyweprotest (anti-scientology) website. It's not cool on 4chan to have anything to do with the "moralfag" protests, i.e. anything for the greater good of humanity.

That makes it easy to figure out who is responsible for what nowadays. This protest is obviously from the anti-scientology Anonymous faction. 4chan would be much more interested in spamming Youtube with Justin Bieber porn.

You dun goofed... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822106)

Consequences will never be the same!

It's sad. (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822122)

I think it's a sad comment on modern reality that my response to anything counter-culture or pro-liberty and freedom for the past 30+ years would have been a fist in the air and a "fuck yeah!" and, today, my gut response is "some people are going to be disappeared" and "better to keep my mouth shut and not even give vocal support or encouragement to anything which might seen to dissent from my government, because I can't afford the hassle of being eyeballed or investigated or put on a list somewhere". Not just for this, but things with even more credibility.

Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

Re:It's sad. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822164)

Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

Only if the United States government institute a policy of rounding up stupid people. Although to be fair you'll have to wait until they round up all the Tea Baggers first.

Re:It's sad. (5, Insightful)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822198)

To be fair, that shift of perception is usually a sign of getting older.

then you deserve to be told the below (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822206)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Re:then you deserve to be told the below (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822260)

If I got a penny each time someone mentioned that quote in a crowd of people who have all seen it mentioned a hundred times before, I'd be able to buy all the liberty I wanted.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822302)

If I got a penny each time I heard some idiot interviewed "man on the street" fashion who said "we have to give up some freedom to be secure", I'd be richer than you would be.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below (2)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822512)

Screw that...if you had a penny for every time someone quoted it different than the last guy did, you'd be rich.

Seriously. It has to be the most differently-quoted quote to ever exist.

Re:then you deserve to be told the below (0)

I_Voter (987579) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822968)

Mod up. Mod way up!

The vast majority of the U.S. population has little political power compared to most other democratic nations. I wonder if many of the people who promote standing up for "liberty," ever consider the relationship democracy has to "liberty" or "freedom." Are liberty and freedom defined by, and stem from, democratic principles or elite principles? We no longer have any real jury nullification power in the US. The terms liberty and freedom mean nothing. You must explain who has the right to define the laws relating to them.

Politically speaking, if freedom only means "nothing else to lose," then you are fairly free in the U.S. - it could include our large prison population.

Citizen's Political Power in the U.S. [tripod.com]

Re:then you deserve to be told the below (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822338)

How many of us throw that quote around along with "Give me liberty or give me death!" and really mean it? And if we haven't acted on your principals against the actions of our own government by now, exactly what is it going to take for us to ever do something? I mean, for fuck's sake, we slept through the suspension of Habeas corpus and endured several years of corporate welfare to provide economic speculators a safety-net that we've never before offered. We've tolerated questionable wars in our name, with shifting justifications given. One could generate a nearly endless list of significant concerns just from the past decade and while we still throw around quotes, we do nothing (I'm lumping myself in here as well, of course).

why (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822344)

is the above downmodded. are some of you unable to comprehend what is the above, or, value your life over your freedom.

Re:why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822456)

Because your quote was from someone who A) specifically wanted to rouse the rabble and B) rode out the rebellion in France being a horn dog.

Re:why (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822710)

oooh, so franklin was a horn dog. i guess the 'rabble' would be able to make it against the royal army if the french navy was not patrolling eastern seaboard and keeping royal navy, and the french volunteers and generals bolstering rabble's ranks. all of which have been possible thanks to franklin's and lafayette's work in france.

no sir. you are another one who doesnt deserve freedom. because you talk shit while not knowing anything. despicable. deplorable. no wonder america is in such a shitty state, with freedoms being taken away so easily all the while a charade is maintained.

Re:It's sad. (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822236)

Say again?

The Libertarian party is alive and well. Actual libertarian-focused groups like the EFF do just fine, too.

The problem you've got is that the Libertarian platform got co-opted by the other "big two" parties in such a way that Libertarians can't find a focus to get their foot in the door. Either they focus on social issues and get lumped in with the extremist wing of the Democrat party, or they focus on a number of law and tax issues and get lumped in with the extremist wing of the Republicans.

It'd be far better if we abolished the "direct election" of the US Senate and re-instituted state legislature appointment or even better, turned the Senate into a parliamentary body where the smaller parties (green, libertarian, etc) could actually get a minority voice with real representation present for debate. But that won't happen because the republicrats and demicans (who the fuck can tell them apart most days anyways while they betray their constituents?) don't want to give up their institutional stranglehold on the election process.

The difference between the US's "democracy" and the Chinese "democracy" isn't as great as we think these days. The Chinese get to vote in elections with only one candidate, US citizens get to vote in elections where both candidates are the two faces of the same fucking coin. The illusion of "choice" is about all we get.

Is EFF libertarian? (0)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822370)

Did EFF ever campaign for cutting social services? Did EFF ever said they're libertarians?

Re:Is EFF libertarian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822438)

Did EFF ever campaign for cutting social services? Did EFF ever said they're libertarians?

Who said that cutting social services was a cornerstone of the libertarian ideology?

Please become familiar with this phrase: Civil Livertarianism [wikipedia.org] .

Namely, straight from the wiki:

In the past 20 years, with the advent of personal computers, the Internet, email, cell phones, and other information technology advances, a subset of civil libertarianism has arisen that focuses on protecting individuals’ digital rights and privacy. The organization most closely affiliated with this sort of civil libertarianism is the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Re:Is EFF libertarian? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822542)

Livertarianism

Mod me offtopic (the post fully deserves it), but I couln't resist
Is it something related with the liver?
Le'me try:
"Civil liVertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liVerties, or who emphasizes the supremacy of liver-rights and personal liverdoms over and against any kind of authority."
Nah, doesn't sound right. It is a typo for sure.

Re:Is EFF libertarian? (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822678)

What are they supposed to do, spread themselves thin over every single possible principal? The E stands for "Electronic".

And yes, it's essentially a libertarian organization which was founded by John Perry Barlow (a libertarian) and Mitch Kapor (also a libertarian, I believe?) and initially financially supported by John Gilmore (a libertarian) and Steve Wozniak (who, if not a registered libertarian, is awfully close to being one).

Of course, even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that the causes they work toward are any different.

Re:It's sad. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822392)

Alive and well, but you can't be blind to how obvious the efforts are by the government to slowly identify "libertarian" with things like "fringe" and "terrorist". It's still a stretch, today, but for how long? After all, who dissents with the direction of our current government more than a libertarian?

Hell, Napolitano has been making comments just recently that while taken for being directed at lunatics who bunker down in crazy fringe camps in the middle of the mountains, stockpiling guns and writing manifestos would also seem to greatly apply to most libertarians. Associating our mere dissent and dissatisfaction (not even to mention political activities) as suspect.

Re:It's sad. (2)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822430)

The problem you've got is that the Libertarian platform got co-opted by the other "big two" parties in such a way that Libertarians can't find a focus to get their foot in the door.

Nothing new here. This has been happening for years (and by years, I mean centuries). It used to be the purpose of a 3rd party to have their platform adopted by one of the two big parties, now it seems the two big parties exist to trivialize the platforms of smaller more relevant parties. People simply assume that they need to either vote republican or democrat based on social policy that isn't going to change or tax issues that are just going to get worse. It's really a perception that needs to change pronto. I, for one, would like someone who had an ounce of common sense, but rest assured, they'd never get elected.

Re:It's sad. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822258)

I’m Canadian, so what happens in the US doesn’t directly effect me, however the shit that happens “down there” tends to roll back up here so this stuff tends to make me nervous.

What really disturbs me is that I suspect all these "slippery slope" arguments are about to be put to the test. The recent twitter thing is just the start. All the privacy issues that paranoids have been spouting about for years are becoming a reality. Admittedly I’ve made several snide “oh get a life” type comments to the whole “the government will use your social network posts to identify you as counter to their views and have you dealt with” type mentality, but things really are approaching this.

I just hope that enough people realize what this all means on the grand scale before it is too late.

In the words of Martin Niemöller (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822262)

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Re:It's sad. (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822336)

Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

Have you ever been fired for being a suspected libertarian? Have you ever been fired, and then all your potential employers informed that they shouldn't hire you because then they might be suspected as being libertarians too? Have you ever been called up in front of a congressional investigative committee for being a libertarian? Have libertarian leaders been imprisoned? All those things were happening to suspected communists during the 1950's: For instance, my grandfather went from being a highly respected academic musicologist to teaching a dozen piano students in his living room.

And if you want to know what the most risky group to be affiliated with right now in the US, it's not libertarianism, its Islam, which subjects you to regular harassment at airports, hate crimes, and in a few cases being disappeared.

Re:It's sad. (-1, Troll)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822636)

its Islam, which subjects you to regular harassment at airports, hate crimes, and in a few cases being disappeared.

Not only that but if you join up with Islam you have to worship a prophet who was a rapist and pedophile.

And don't forget you have to join up with all Islam's hatred, too:

"The declaration of faith, there is no god but Allah, requires you to love only for the sake of Allah, to hate only for the sake of Allah, to ally yourself only for the sake of Allah, to declare enmity only for the sake of Allah; it requires you to love what Allah loves and to hate what Allah hates[1]
Ibn Taimiya, al-Ihtijaj bil-Qadar, p.62
'

Indeed there has been an excellent example for you (muslims) in Ibrahim and those with him, when they said to their people: "Verily we are free from you.. and whatever you worship besides Allah: we rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone
Qur'an 60:4

This isn't to say there aren't good Muslims out there - but the more devout the Muslim, the less likely they are to be peaceful!

And before you start crying about "waah waah but xtianity but judaism but but"... I'm an Atheist so fuck that too.

In the words of Farnsworth: "I pray to all-powerful Atheismo..."

Re:It's sad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822982)

And there is every chance that that can happen again. There was no constitutional amendment to prevent another McCarthy. And even if there were, politicians will always, always have the power to subvert the constitution in times of "crisis" which they can hype up at any time. Look at how the US got into wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. And look at how that one guy took over Germany in the 1930s and then went on to invade much of Europe. He was just a politician at one time.

The only way we can ever be assured of safety is to get rid of the politicians entirely. Look up "open source governance" and see if you can help.

Re:It's sad. (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823150)

Considering what Islamic countries do to those not, or insufficiently, Islamic, there really is logical ground to oppose people affiliated with it and consider them enemies. There is zero evidence, anywhere, I defy you to find it, of Islamic governments enhancing freedom by ensuring secular law and trying to keep religion out of government.

There is an ideological imperative in some quarters to consider religion "different" so one can ignore the outcomes its believers produce when they run the show.

Want a taste? Bring a stack of Christian literature through Saudi customs and inform them you intend to convert the heathens.

You can buy all the Qurans you like in the US, and even sects like Louis Farrakhans Nation of Islam are free to demonstrate on the street.

Re:It's sad. (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822576)

Howzabout if you try and grow a pair? Yeah some people are going to be disappeared. Yeah you might be one of them and once you go through the mirror the best you can hope for is to one day be dumped back, naked and stark raving mad, on some roadside in outer Albania. So? You're losing your freedoms because you're not using them. Being afraid won't help.

Re:It's sad. (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822594)

"Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

No, its not even close. Been a lifelong Lib and I've never felt threatened.

Re:It's sad. (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822598)

Where do you live, North Korea?

Christ I live in CCTV land (the UK) and don't share these concerns. Things aren't good, but they're certainly not that bad.

Re:It's sad. (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822778)

Then, you are part of the problem.

Nope, no buts. If you know of something, and you let it pass silently and without protest, you are agreeing to it. If you think it's wrong, speak up. Now if you're truly at risk from doing so, by all means, speak up quietly and don't put yourself at unneeded risk. But don't be afraid to put yourself at needed risk.

I'll say it right here, and I've said it by writing to the President and Congress under my own name. What Wikileaks did was correct and necessary. We have every right to know what our government is doing. If it would be ashamed of what it's doing under my name, and a lot of other people's, well, the solution isn't to do those things anyway and cover them up a little better next time, the solution is to refrain from doing them. There are certain things that, if you want to claim to be the Good Guy, and claim you're governed according to ethical and moral principles, you never get to do regardless of provocation.

So speak up or shut up. And if you shut up, you're no better than anyone else watching TV and eating Cheetos or whatever the hell it is they're up to. You're rationalizing your inaction just like they are.

We still have at least the semblance of freedom and the right to protest. Don't waste them.

Re:It's sad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822906)

it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

You don't know how true that could be. [youtube.com]

Re:It's sad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822946)

[...] "some people are going to be disappeared" and "better to keep my mouth shut and not even give vocal support or encouragement to anything which might seen to dissent from my government, because I can't afford the hassle of being eyeballed or investigated or put on a list somewhere".

That is a good point. After all, a hosting company was DDoSed pretty harshly simply because they had a similar name to a hosting company a bunch of 14-year-olds didn't agree with that week. Mob rule IS swift and painful, you're right.

Wait, that's NOT what you meant?

Re:It's sad. (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822994)

"some people are going to be disappeared"

Please list at least one person who has been "disappeared" in the United States over the last 10 years for supporting "anything counter-culture or pro-liberty".

No one? Yeah, thought so.

Re:It's sad. (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823012)

i don't understand what you are trying to say. all i see is someone who has grown ashamed and cowardly about their own views

real life tyrants depends upon the reaction you seem to have developed recently

Please don't. (4, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822128)

It would be better if Wikileaks, which actually serves a valuable (although controversial) role, is not associated with Anonymous and their juvenile DDOS attacks and Rick-rolling.

and ? (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822214)

anonymous is people. wikileaks serves people. anyone who tries to separate people with what serves them, are against people.

Re:and ? (2)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822334)

anonymous is people. wikileaks serves people. anyone who tries to separate people with what serves them, are against people.

Oookaaaay... would you like some Soylent Green with that? I have my copy of "How to Serve Man" right here if you want to refer to it.

Re:and ? (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822720)

I don't buy it. Anonymous serves themselves and whatever issue happens to be the flavor of the week. They protest in favor of wikileaks this week, next week they'll be back to DDoSing Scientology and Gene Simmons. I can speak for myself just fine, thanks.

Re:Please don't. (2, Interesting)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822218)

I think the initial statement by Anonymous by attacking Mastercard and Paypal and such was a powerful one. However, the problem is that with a decentralized entity like Anonymous which lacks any chain of command or hierarchy to speak of, is that it always tends to go rogue. Maybe not even under the Anonymous banner.

In the Netherlands, the website of the ministry of justice has been attacked because police arrested a scriptkiddy that was involved in DDoS attacks. It is arguable that Anonymous' attacks on Mastercard have some grounds of morality, but attacking a website of a ministry that simply does it's job does not. It's these kinds of uncontrolled offshoots of an initiative like Anonymous that kills the credibility of Anonymous.

If Anonymous really wants to continue to have any impact then it should evolve beyond scriptkiddies firing TCP packets at websites and especially distance itself from uncoordinated rogue attacks which often are done out of sheer spite or a desire for vandalism.

You don't understand what "Anonymous" is (2)

just fiddling around (636818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822308)

Being born in 4chan, Anonymous is much like a great party: it has no definite direction, no leader and will just keep on rolling as long as the people in it like what happens. Given that, Anonymous will continue having an impact for as long as it will, and after that everybody goes home and remember the good time they had.

The fact that Anonymous exists is a relief, because it shows that there is still a part of the people that can not only see that we have taken a wrong turn, but will act to change the course.

Re:You don't understand what "Anonymous" is (1)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822434)

I understand the nature of anonymous in that it is not a definable group of people. Anonymous is basically everyone that cares to act.

However, a herd can also be defined as the sheep that decide to stick around. As long as the sheep decide to bite the farmer's hands when he tries to "steal" their wool, it's understandable and maybe even a noble effort. However, when the sheep start stampeding Mr. Joe's shop because he sold the sacks the farmer uses to store the wool, then the sheep have gone too far.

At this point, the sheep should return to thinking as individuals and decide that, hey, as fun as it may have been, it wasn't right to do so and shouldn't happen again.

My point is that in the case of Anonymous, the individuals that feel they are somehow connected to the movement shouldn't go and do things because you can simply hide behind a mask [knowyourmeme.com] .

p.s. Sheep analogies are far better than car analogies.

Re:You don't understand what "Anonymous" is (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822612)

I believe that when the sheep bite, the farmer has lamb chops.

Re:Please don't. (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822250)

Unfortunately, no matter how tenuous or even non-existent the association, it's trivial for the government and media to link them in the mind of the public.

Re:Please don't. (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822270)

It would be even better if Wikipedia wasn't associated with this - its 10-year anniversary will be celebrated at the very same day [wikipedia.org]

Such coincidence seems like a purposeful effort at creating confusion...

Re:Please don't. (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822610)

This.

The whole "Anonymous" group is a bunch of idiot fourteen year old superhackers that downloaded a portscanner and used it to DDOS someone by having five of their friends run it with nmap -T5.

I have met these people on the net. They are basically huge assholes. The fact that scientology attracts huge assholes both as members and as bitter enemies does not change this. They're jumping on any big issue they can whine about so they can cry for attention.

Well...okay (1)

Kireas (1784888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822152)

To be honest, it means that (if nothing else) it'll make non-governmental attackers of the site a bit wary. After all, who want's to be DDoS'd into oblivion? I'm not sure what anon are going to do about the US Government though.

"Defending internet freedom" via DDOS?!?!?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822162)

In order to save it, we had to destroy it.

Where have I heard THAT before?

A history for defending Internet freedom? (5, Insightful)

prezkennedy.org (786501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822168)

I thought they had a history of DDoSing anyone they disagree with.

Re:A history for defending Internet freedom? (0)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822266)

Of course, the people they appear to be DDoSing also have a history of DoSing "freedom", by denying people access to their funds, services to transact funds, their domain names (a pretty effective DoS). Not saying that mimicking bad actions makes a right action, but they're hardly targeting anyone with clean hands, it appears.

Anonymous is not for moralfaggots (3, Insightful)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822322)

Anonymous has a well known history of cyber-bullying (do you like pizza and strippers?), vandalizing myspace and facebook pages etc. even though it might not qualify as DDossing.

Re:A history for defending Internet freedom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822992)

They only targeted websites, the transactions were working fine the entire day. You're an idiot.

Freedom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822174)

How are DDOS attacks considered "defending freedom"?

I musta not got the manifesto...

Re:Freedom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822330)

Not that I am endorsing this or anything. But one can think of it as an act of civil disobedience.

Re:Freedom? (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822440)

The best offense is a good defense.

Re:Freedom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822560)

Rally against the government... by attacking private enterprise!

Re:Freedom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34823090)

Yes, and?

*sigh* (4, Informative)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822212)

I hate it when people say "Anonymous" are doing X. It makes it sound like its some sort of static group with a single leader who determines what the group will be up to this week.

Its never as simple as this. Anonymous are a bunch of individuals who decide whether doing X 'for the lulz' is a good idea or not. Who their leader is changes and doesn't really matter as much as in other cases.

Its pretty much a case of a totally distributed system which forms links on the fly.

The person who decided on the DDOS, and the people who followed him/her could be totally different from the people who will be out protesting.

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822346)

It makes it sound like its some sort of static group with a single leader who determines what the group will be up to this week.

Yeah, the media still doesn't understand how Anonymous works. Or how the internet in general works for that matter.

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822520)

..or how *anything* works. Seriously, the media either comprehend then skip the details or spout the least accurate bits they seem to believe.

I'm not in America, so it's something to say that even *my* news media is half-baked and mindless drivel pumped out by underpaid, 25yo just-pay-my-wage journalists for Mr Murdoch and friends.

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822410)

Anonymous is a largely unorganised group of roughly 6.9 billion people where an infinitesimally small sub group performs DDOS attacks in support of wikileaks. The only recognisable sub division is between those who know they are part of the group, and those who don’t. While I only agree with a tiny fraction of what “Anonymous” says, I believe in their right to say it.

Re:*sigh* (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822496)

Not to mention, I don't see anything in the page this submission links to that mentions DDoS. I see a video full of people in Guy Fawkes masks protesting in meatspace with signs, like every other group has been allowed to do (though, some of them relegated to "free speech cages", recently). As far as I know, protesting with signs on the street is still legal (though I thought wearing a mask in public -- especially in an assembled protest -- was illegal in most places in America, now).

I guess that's the next step, though. The only avenue allowed to people who dissent these days is "peaceful protest" and even then you tend to need to petition the government for a permit to do so. And even then, what possibly be more impotent than a peaceful protest? Next step would probably be to somehow associate protesting with "radical dissent" and who are therefore a threat to the government and freedom and are therefore domestic terrorists yadda yadda yadda.

Re:*sigh* (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822772)

But flying under the banner of a group by your own admission (as many people do) is basically adjoining yourself to that group and (partly) condoning their actions and (certainly) being tarred with the same brush as everyone else in the group.

I don't support Anonymous because (apart from the fact that I think they are all idiots and follow pretty much only idiotic causes) if, tomorrow, they all decide that the issue of the moment is that nobody should have central heating, and they start DDoS'ing my energy provider, then that's not something I agree with. With a changeable "group" such as Anonymous, condoning ONE of their actions is pretty much condoning the others too (or you'd be forming a splinter group that *DOESN'T* DDoS those people you don't want to, and thus supporting THAT group instead of Anonymous).

The fact that different people who BOTH claim membership of the group can do two opposing things isn't my problem. It's just a convenient banner, then, to hide under whenever you do something, no matter what that is and whether the rest of the group condone your actions. But *joining* that group or *condoning* that group (or even acknowledging it's existence as anything other than a vague moniker under which to attack people) is *recognising* that group and thus agreeing with its policies and actions to some extent.

If people don't want to be associated with those actions, they would be handing in their "membership" of such a group, or clarifying exactly where the boundaries of the group lie - every group has extremists who want to use it to stamp on the good name (just look at certain Muslim extremists) but their actions are always condoned and the separation between "Muslims" and "Nutters who want to blow people up in the name of Islam" is always made clear.

Anonymous isn't a group. They don't have a cause. They don't have an agenda. They don't really have "members". It's just like saying "God made me do it" or "*THEY* made me do it". And just as convincing.

Any group that's too shy to name it's member (e.g. British National Party), too scared to disown its own member when they do wrong, or in which ANY action is tolerated isn't a "group" at all. It's just a convenient moniker for doing shit that you want to hide.

Re:*sigh* (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822774)

Who their leader is changes and doesn't really matter as much as in other cases.

Its pretty much a case of a totally distributed system which forms links on the fly.

The person who decided on the DDOS, and the people who followed him/her could be totally different from the people who will be out protesting.

Who takes charge DOES matter. Otherwise, your enemy may as well initiate any action in your name, that is, take charge and associate your cause with mob disorder. The aim and net effect of this would be to raise public opinion against your cause in order to push for web censorship policies...

Oh wait...

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822908)

Except you should replace individuals with high school students because that's about the level of maturity, threat, and organization they're able to regularly muster.

Then the problem with Anonymous is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34823056)

that we don't know who they are.

vital liberties (1, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822234)

Members of a free society must not allow information to be suppressed simply because it inconveniences those in power. We share the responsibility to defend vital liberties.

The vital liberties of being able to max out your credit card at Walmart, watch reality tv, become obese, go into debt slavery and work for the rest of your life.

Re:vital liberties (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823036)

Members of a free society must not allow information to be suppressed simply because it inconveniences those in power. We share the responsibility to defend vital liberties. The vital liberties of being able to max out your credit card at Walmart, watch reality tv, become obese, go into debt slavery and work for the rest of your life.

The trick with a free society: if one wishes all the above, why not? However, in a true free society:
a. only because one wishes so this doesn't imply that all the others must choose the same.
b. if one wishes so, the one should be absolutely free to do it without being affraid to be ridiculed! (works both ways, actually)

I DOSSED paypal (3, Funny)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822242)

But I did not DOS the government...

Re:I DOSSED paypal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822648)

And they say it is a capital offence!

Re:I DOSSED paypal (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823074)

But I did not DOS the government...

Should have done it the other way around.
I mean, who's actually the sheriff? (hint: who tells you to kill it before it grows?)

You're a pirate (4, Funny)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822274)

Do what you want, ‘cause a pirate is free,
YOU ARE A PIRATE!
Yar har, fiddle di dee,
Being a pirate is alright to be,
Do what you want ‘cause a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!

Song [youtube.com]

Re:You're a pirate (2)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822428)

Please, something more... epic next time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0QfVDebLFg [youtube.com]

Re:You're a pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822546)

Woosh.

skip wiki get soldier (-1, Troll)

SirLanse (625210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822626)

Julian did NOT swear to defend the United States, his job was not to protect the US and its valuable data. He should be persona non-grata and never get a visa into the US. The soldier who betrayed his country's trust however, should meet a firing squad as quickly and publicly as possible. The secrets he revealed, do not point to massive crimminal activity by the US government and/or members of the government. They merely embarrass embassy officials and those who told them things in confidence. Our ambassadors will not get as much honest information from others any more. It has had a chilling effect on our relations with other countries. For this BETRAYAL OF TRUST, he should be shot.

Re:skip wiki get soldier (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34822998)

I hope you're trolling, because if you're not then I'm truly sad for this country and I no longer feel it's worth being a part of when someone who stands against atrocity and deceit and misuse of authority should be crucified for doing the right thing. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Because surely with the increasing loss of sanity in this country and the tightening of the authoritarian noose around our necks someone needs to start reigning the fools in before they hang themselves.

Re:skip wiki get soldier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34823006)

Fuck you.

Re:skip wiki get soldier (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823050)

Julian swore nothing, but his actions were fundamentally the same as a foreign agent controlling a network of spies. It would be hard to imagine a result where a conviction of espionage against the US were not returned, as it ultimately will be. He'll be a fugitive the rest of his life, if not in prison.

The rest, I can agree with.

Re:skip wiki get soldier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34823070)

How about jail? Don't you think shooting people for a trust issue is overrated? People like you go around and shoot everything that doesn't share your ideas, right?

Re:skip wiki get soldier (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823082)

Actually, the solider who passed off the information was acting as a spy in a time of war:

Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the Unites States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.

YES (1)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823080)

WE MUST KNOW EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON IN THE GOV'T SO WE CAN CONTINUE OUR REIGN OF MALICIOUS GOSSIP AND INACTION.

(Not everything needs to be transparent to the average citizen people - you CAN DO something by voting for the candidate whom, after researching thoroughly and not because he or she is the right color (blue/red/black/white), you think is the most fit for the position. Go away anonymous, we don't nee you.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?