Attacks by 'Anonymous' Not So, Well, Anonymous

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


It appears that that this did indeed cause a disturbance though, did it not? I only say so because the first thread I saw here was about people losing income through paypal. If I were to lose income due to your "peaceful" protest, you have caused me a disturbance, no?

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


No, because there is nothing violent about it.

Yes this is semantics because you are trying to use a word and force it to mean what you want it to mean because you feel that using peaceful to describe what they did won't carry the same emotional weight and people will be less likely to agree with your point of view on this issue. It is intellectually dishonest and just shows how weak you really feel your position is.

There is definitive criteria nouns, actions, etc. have to meet in order to be described by the words we use. There is nothing violent about their form of protest. To label it other than peaceful is hyperbole. Just because many people are annoyed with having to deal with something that doesn't fit into their daily regimen doesn't make this violence.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Oh, yes. People were disturbed. People were disturbed when these institutions stopped allowing their customers to utilize the service as they had been doing previously and they lashed back and made everyone join in the fun. So, if you are going to argue that this protest was violent because people were disturbed than you have to argue that the companies themselves struck first when they engaged in disruptive violent behavior.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


From Merriam-Webster

Violence -
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling

c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)



Not really trying to get into this argument but it seems what they did was violent according to the English language. They caused damage and disruptions. Innocent people suffered financial loss. I am not sure how this is arguable.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Oh, yes. People were disturbed. People were disturbed when these institutions stopped allowing their customers to utilize the service as they had been doing previously and they lashed back and made everyone join in the fun. So, if you are going to argue that this protest was violent because people were disturbed than you have to argue that the companies themselves struck first when they engaged in disruptive violent behavior.

Sorry but I am not following any of the logic in this post at all. When exactly did the companies themselves strike first? I actually use paypal as a means of collecting funds so I am quite interested in learning about my first strike. Thanks.

heh...

people never cease to entertain me with how much big dealing and cackling they insessantly do over the opportunity to bash a fellow herd member...

Let's THINK about the word ANONYMOUS...

To some it seems ANON represents:

WikiLeaks Staff
Assange Supporters
Hacktivists
Kids

Could it be...

The CIA?
Obama Administration?
DHS?
China?

I mean really, all the WL sites suffered DDoS attacks too, right? Then one by one all went down. Oh, with the exception of the one the CIA was running, which shut down promptly after it was exposed...

So if folks are worried over gov. internet control etc. they first must understand how it got to that point.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Ah, you don't even know what brought this on in the first place. This wasn't some random action.

www.newmoov.com...

This is what this is all about. Where it started and where its at now.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


I know exactly what brought this on. You seem to be going to a lot of trouble to miss the point. I use paypal. People like me were hurt by these actions. I am still waiting for you to explain how people such as myself struck first. If paypal was the only company to suffer from that attack on paypal, you would maybe have a point. Unfortunately the reality is that people like myself were hurt by the attack on paypal. According to the dictionary, this was a violent protest. You have presented 2 distinct half arguments and failed to support either. I hope you are not expecting me to go on for pages with you like this.

reply to post by Sinnthia


If you want to argue that the protest is violent because you were disturbed by it and lost money, it would follow that Gandhi was violent because the British were disturbed by it and British citizens and companies lost money. Yet, Gandhi's actions and tactics are referred to as exemplary forms of peaceful protest.

If you are arguing that it is violent for protesters to upset the flow of capital, we are not going to agree.

A lot of these anonymous may never get arrested but the target companies could make the attack a civil matter.

By posting in major news papers they can file a lawsuit against Anonymous 1 through 100.000
They then if they win the lawsuit send collections agencies to collect the winnings from all those that they can track.

So if you get a letter in the mail a couple years from now from a law firm demanding money you may find there is nothing you can do to keep from having the money seized from bank accounts or other property seized.

They can also put this on your credit records as you owe them a court judgement.

The could also use the courts to force your ISP to shut you down and off the internet.

Getting arrested is the least of the problem

such a big distraction, such speculation, such anger even. why cant everyone just develope aspergers and look at everything neutrally? next evolutionary step, i think. we still cannot fully prove rather its cia, mossad, or genuine, and you have to remember that the way to rule your followers is through their hearts.

wouldnt it then be HILARIOUS to find out that anonymous is for the promotion of free speech, but also attacking people that are pushing the (plausible) cia agenda? companies start trying to shut it down, and its going to do what EVERYONE expects. its going to get untold publicity, while at the same time providing more evidence that the cia isn't behind it. we get all of the intel AFTER them, so that means it would be much easier to adjusts for the next steps, and allow (more) "evidence" its not too lonely up here on this fence, but things are now starting to be a bigger push toward the government backed side.

maybe anonymous will actually be the first wave in the attack of people that are perpetrating such global dramas, and in the end have no idea. if it is so easy to seek out all of the anonymous' hacktivists" why would they have such a hard time systematically shutting down wikileaks. if you put all of the people that put the organization together out of the job, the movement would have to move back underground to recover/ stockpile/ build. thats just not the case, more are popping up. going from wikileaks to open leaks yet the "hackers" staging virtual sit-ins are the ones being hunted, and arrested. big middle finger from the cia for getting in the way, id say. people just think unbiasedly please, its what we have that is infinitely more revealing than going with the flow you have created around yourself, and will remove the blinders that emotionally attaching to "information"

"please be careful in any ordeal pertaining to investigation not to get too emotionally attached, some people do know that the easiest way to stop someone from putting a puzzle together is to paint over some pieces, to paint them black. yet with enough time you can still put said pieces together. you wont see the full picture, but the parts you can see only confirm that piece does go there, speaking metaphorically these black pieces are conspiracies, where there is a conspiracy, you can bet there is a reason this piece of the puzzle was painted black, or most often now painted to appear out of place, and you can bet that nobody wants someone snooping around to find that reason" quoted from my grandfather sammy terry in one of maaaaany chats. the man worshipped jfk, i think thats what started it

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by DerbyCityLights

 

No, because there is nothing violent about it.

Yes this is semantics because you are trying to use a word and force it to mean what you want it to mean because you feel that using peaceful to describe what they did won't carry the same emotional weight and people will be less likely to agree with your point of view on this issue. It is intellectually dishonest and just shows how weak you really feel your position is.

There is definitive criteria nouns, actions, etc. have to meet in order to be described by the words we use. There is nothing violent about their form of protest. To label it other than peaceful is hyperbole. Just because many people are annoyed with having to deal with something that doesn't fit into their daily regimen doesn't make this violence.

It is violent when a person cant feed his family because these asshats screwed up the only means of business payment that some of these people had. No, not physical violence but yeah CYBER violence since calling it what it is seems to hurt your feelings.

I can tell, you are one of those super heated emotional supporters of Julian and his Anon crew. Your Wiki glasses will continue to hide the reality of what these snot nosed punks have done because people like you see it as "stickin it to the man". Well buddy, your little friends are stickin it to the man, the every man. You, me and anyone else who believes in net freedom and all those who otherwise use some of the same institutions for payment of their businesses. Go ahead, support them for what they are doing, i.e. giving all the governments of the world every reason to monitor and track every movement of every person on the net. Cause thats what it boils down to. By hurting the financial stability of the companies and the people who use them, they have effectivly handed the keys to net privacy over. Yeah, I support that

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
It is violent when a person cant feed his family because these asshats screwed up the only means of business payment that some of these people had. No, not physical violence but yeah CYBER violence since calling it what it is seems to hurt your feelings.

Than you agree with the statement that Paypal engaged in violence.

I can tell, you are one of those super heated emotional supporters of Julian and his Anon crew. Your Wiki glasses will continue to hide the reality of what these snot nosed punks have done because people like you see it as "stickin it to the man".

I don't agree with Wikileaks, thank you very much. But, you tell yourself whatever you need to.

Well buddy, your little friends are stickin it to the man, the every man. You, me and anyone else who believes in net freedom and all those who otherwise use some of the same institutions for payment of their businesses. Go ahead, support them for what they are doing, i.e. giving all the governments of the world every reason to monitor and track every movement of every person on the net. Cause thats what it boils down to. By hurting the financial stability of the companies and the people who use them, they have effectivly handed the keys to net privacy over. Yeah, I support that

If we don't give them a reason, they will create one. This very well could be the scenario as its playing out. People have reported CIA involvement so it may not be "snot nosed punks" at all, but suit wearing professionals that have tricked you into targeting a loose affiliation of anonymous internet users.

You being upset about the loss of net freedom is warranted, but to target the protesters as opposed to the policy writers makes little sense to me. They can not pass policies like that if you use your voice and demand to be heard. I understand that it is easier to argue with me; however, and detract from the real issue at hand, but that will accomplish little.

These DDOSs have forced a reaction from the State. If you do not like that reaction than it is your responsibility to voice your concerns or accept it and live on. This event has put the ball in your court and now it is up to you and others who oppose censorship to be heard to put a stop to this.

All I can say is Hahahahahaha!

They deserve what they get, especially for being morons that did something they knew nothing about . . . I bet they jumped off a roof because their friend did to.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


First, why would I agree that Paypal is violent? Is that some sideways logic there?

Do you really think for one second that the "suit wearing CIA types" would be so stupid as to used DDOS software that was traceable? You and everyone else claiming its the CIA are grasping at straws. They may have been behind taking down Wikileaks but not the Anon attacks.

Im going to digress for a moment here. The Anon attacks...These were Cyber attacks no? Wouldnt an attack of any form be violent? ok, enough digressing.

As for us handing the Gov the keys to Net privacy, would you rather the people be responsible for providing them the reason to take this freedom or would you rather the gov take steps of their own accord? I would prefer it be the gov because then we would not have ourselves to blame for such idiocy and would know who to protest against. Of course, when dealing with teenage hacking punks, you usually are deluged by idiocy. Thats why we are having this discussion.

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

 

First, why would I agree that Paypal is violent? Is that some sideways logic there?

Paypal denied people their money and their lively hoods. So by your logic the action was violent.

Do you really think for one second that the "suit wearing CIA types" would be so stupid as to used DDOS software that was traceable? You and everyone else claiming its the CIA are grasping at straws. They may have been behind taking down Wikileaks but not the Anon attacks.

There is more ways than just the Low Orbit Ion Cannon to DDOS. I also never claimed it was the CIA.

Im going to digress for a moment here. The Anon attacks...These were Cyber attacks no? Wouldnt an attack of any form be violent? ok, enough digressing.

Internet language and "IRL" language seldom mean the same things. I attempt to limit my use of internet slang when I am communicating here and try to treat these posts as conversations I would be having face to face as best as I can.

This was not a conventional form of protest and so it probably won't meet conventional definitions. I also wouldn't classify this as an attack or hacking.

As for us handing the Gov the keys to Net privacy, would you rather the people be responsible for providing them the reason to take this freedom or would you rather the gov take steps of their own accord?

It isn't relevant to me either way. What happened happened and the government is now in the wrong. Time for action, no?

I would prefer it be the gov because then we would not have ourselves to blame for such idiocy and would know who to protest against. Of course, when dealing with teenage hacking punks, you usually are deluged by idiocy. Thats why we are having this discussion.

I don't care. Are we going to act because we both agree that internet censorship is wrong or are we just going to pick at each others differing opinions? Shall we get this show on the road?

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


I have acted and will continue to do so, but not to the point where I am affecting an innocent person and their lively hood. Your definition of acting involves to many innocent people having to bear the brunt of the consequences instead of the people who deserve it. That is why we are picking apart each others arguments.

And Paypal? Really? The only time I have ever seen them deny someone their money is if they tried to rip off someone. I use Paypal everyday and never once had issue because I do honest business with honest customers.

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

 

I have acted and will continue to do so, but not to the point where I am affecting an innocent person and their lively hood. Your definition of acting involves to many innocent people having to bear the brunt of the consequences instead of the people who deserve it. That is why we are picking apart each others arguments.

I'm talking about an actual in the flesh protest. We actually organize one and demand that the Government stop with this internet censorship crap.

And Paypal? Really? The only time I have ever seen them deny someone their money is if they tried to rip off someone. I use Paypal everyday and never once had issue because I do honest business with honest customers

Yes, really. I'm guessing you didn't read the link provided.

actually i know someone who has been involved in this stuff and he said something about adding your IP to the cause. Which i interpet as these attacks being sort of a petition just one that can actually do something.