Attacks by 'Anonymous' Not So, Well, Anonymous

reply to post by AdAbsurdum



My protest have been in the form of handwritten letters (over 35 to date) and phone calls to my congressman on a bi-monthly basis. Should you happen to live near Louisville Ky, I would gladly form a peaceful protest at my capitol.


And yes, I did read the link in the op. It was actually kind of a short artical.

For a number of days the websites of MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and others wre attacked by a group of WikiLeaks supporters ('hacktivists'). Although the group calls itself 'Anonymous', researchers at the DACS group of the University of Twente (UT), the Netherlands, discovered that these hacktivists are easily traceable, and therefore anything but anonymous

Other than that, the rest of the page below was blank and to the right were ads.



Edit: Meh, Chrome wasn't displaying the link. I opened the page in Firefox and got the link to the PDF.

So you are referring to how Paypal cut their payments to Wikileaks?

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

 

My protest have been in the form of handwritten letters (over 35 to date) and phone calls to my congressman on a bi-monthly basis. Should you happen to live near Louisville Ky, I would gladly form a peaceful protest at my capitol.

I don't so I guess that's out.

Edit: Meh, Chrome wasn't displaying the link. I opened the page in Firefox and got the link to the PDF.

So you are referring to how Paypal cut their payments to Wikileaks?

edit on 13-12-2010 by DerbyCityLights because: (no reason given)

How PayPal is locking people's accounts who have donated to Wikileaks.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum



I have read the article now three times and the only account that Paypal froze is the Wikileaks donation account. I also ctrl-F'd the doc for Paypal so I could find every instance the name was mentioned hoping that would narrow down any info I might have missed. The name came up only three times in the entire doc. Perhaps I missed it in the article?

I also searched Google using "Paypal freezes wikileaks donation account holders" as keywords and nothing of the sort came up on the first 6 pages. Only multiple accounts of how Paypal froze the Wikileaks donations account.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Yes yes...use this tool. Very good for covering your tracks on the web...

Use it!

www.torproject.org...

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


www.reddit.com...

Here is one example. There are many more.

reply to post by Sinnthia


By that token, any protest that disrupts anyone's business, be it VISA/MC, a government official's office, or your local barber shop which people decided to picket because the owner gave bad haircuts, is a violent protest. Which means there is no such thing as a peaceful protest.

Bah humbug. Cyber-violence would be hacking their database and releasing customer info, or actually breaking their site in some way. DDOS is the cyber-equivalent of a picket line or a sit-in.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by DerbyCityLights

 

www.reddit.com...

Here is one example. There are many more.

Hmmm.

I go to log into my business account, and it's locked. The girl on the phone told me it's because my account handles a large amount of money (it's a biz account), I recently sent a lot of money ($4000) overseas, and I also sent money to wikileaks. My account is being investigated for illegal activities and I have to account for what the money was used for. They want invoices and such.

I'd say it was legit. When you send that much money over seas to certain countries, your account gets frozen to make sure no unauthorized access to your account has been made. He also happened to donate to Wikileaks, but he is suggesting that is why his account got frozen and not cause of the large sum of money transfered. Show me where Paypal has released a statement saying they will no longer support account holders who donated to Wikileaks because I cant find it.

Originally posted by ANNED
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.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


As I said, that's only one example. There are many more if you look for them. PayPal hasn't made that statement and they aren't going to, it was this action in conjunction with locking the Wikileaks account and freezing all that money that brought about the DDOSs.

I was there when they planned it, but you'll have to believe what you choose in the end.

reply to post by riiver


You're answering this questions like you are one of Anon?

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by DerbyCityLights

 

As I said, that's only one example. There are many more if you look for them. PayPal hasn't made that statement and they aren't going to, it was this action in conjunction with locking the Wikileaks account and freezing all that money that brought about the DDOSs.

I was there when they planned it, but you'll have to believe what you choose in the end.

edit on 13-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)

So, you were there when they planned it? Are you referring to they being Paypal and it being the freezing of the accounts?

What I believe after years of dealing with Paypal is they only freeze accounts when there is suspicion of fraud on your account. Period. Unless you can show me some proof, your accusations are just speculation on your part. I have searched 6 pages of google using the keywords mentioned in my earlier post and not one single page linked to shows anything of the sort. And the best page you can show me is a rant from someone who may or may not have sent 4 grand to an unnamed country that may or may not be on the Paypal security watch list. Logically speaking, what you are claiming is making no sense.

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post 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.

When a mob of protesters breaks into your store and breaks all your saleable items, that is violent.

When a mob of protesters walks into your store and wastes all your cashiers' time by asking to be shown every item in the display case---thus keeping other legitimate customers from buying anything, and you from making any money---this is not violent. Even if they do it all day and keep you from making one penny.



When a mob of protesters throws bricks through your window and cuts your power lines, destroying your property and keeping you from opening your business till you repair the damage, this is violent.

When a mob of protesters stands on the sidewalk outside your business and blocks the entrance, keeping legitimate customers from entering your store, even if they do it from open to close three days in a row, this is not violent.



When a mob of protesters drag you out of your car and tie you up and keep you from going to your business, this is violent.

When the same mob stands in the street and blocks your way so that you can't go to work, this is not violent.



Do you see the difference yet? Hitting your person or your tangible property is violent. Hitting you in your pocketbook isn't.



...but it IS an effective way to get your attention.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


“PayPal has frozen my funds. These funds were deposited into my PayPal account by Ebay auction winners. They refused to tell me why when I complained. After filing a complaint with the California attorney General’s office they then told me that my account was frozen because I used the same checking account as another PayPal user. This other user is my wife. We use the same account because it is a joint account. PayPal insists that this is highly suspicious activity and will not let me retrieve my funds. I have researched this on line and found that there are thousands of people in the situation. I can not afford to sue individually but in a class action I believe the could be a huge case,” wrote an irate former PayPal customer.

Jason from PayPal explained the process to someone who complained about his company at “Get Satisfaction,” when he wrote, “Our User Agreement outlines the 180 day Hold Policy, as that is the length of time a buyer has to dispute a transaction with their financial service provider. Per the agreement, if there is a restricted activity on the account as outlined in the agreement the hold of up to 180 days can be put in place. Any available funds will be released to you after the 180 day timeframe is up.”

That's from my link were they talk about withholding funds. They are doing the exact same thing to people who donated to wikileaks. The guy from reddit sees his account get locked up, why didn't you see that when you googled? If you aren't finding any information I'd recommend changing your search results.

PayPal is a monopoly and Anon lashed out at it. I was there when Anon planned it and this was the reasoning behind it.

yeah they should all just run in and turn them self's in.. It would be real easy to deal with them. a bullet to the brain pan. I don't care who they are. won't matter when they die any how.. less stupid people on the planet.. better for the rest of us.

Isn't it odd that no one has been arrested for the DDoS attack on WikiLeaks.....I'm pretty sure the government doesn't work to investigate themselves, as well.

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by grey580

 

What these kids are doing is hardly "peaceful" protest. Though they may not be physically engaging anyone in their protest, they are still by way of collateral damage, hurting the very same people they are supposedly protesting for. Personally, I think each of these kids needs to have their arses kicked by Mom and Dad.

Let the Captain America reply to you

reply to post by Prince Of Darkness


Not really the people who attacked wikileaks are in possession of half a brain, look at how they executed and achieved what they set out to do.

PayPal is a monopoly and Anon lashed out at it. I was there when Anon planned it and this was the reasoning behind it.

They lashed out at paypal because they wrongly thought it was a monopoly?

Originally posted by riiver
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

By that token, any protest that disrupts anyone's business, be it VISA/MC, a government official's office, or your local barber shop which people decided to picket because the owner gave bad haircuts, is a violent protest.

Sad but that is how English works. Seems a bit over the top, I know. Perhaps calling on Merriam Webster to change at least how they define words will help you?

Which means there is no such thing as a peaceful protest.

I guess you are just not even going to pretend to acknowledge protests that do NOT disrupt? You know they exist, right? Violent is defined. I did not define it.

Bah humbug. Cyber-violence would be hacking their database and releasing customer info, or actually breaking their site in some way. DDOS is the cyber-equivalent of a picket line or a sit-in.

I never said anything about cyber violence.

Originally posted by riiver
When a mob of protesters breaks into your store and breaks all your saleable items, that is violent.

When a mob of protesters walks into your store and wastes all your cashiers' time by asking to be shown every item in the display case---thus keeping other legitimate customers from buying anything, and you from making any money---this is not violent. Even if they do it all day and keep you from making one penny.

The only way this argument holds any water is by changing the definition of "violence." I posted the ENGLISH definition just one page back. According to what the word actually means, your argument fails. Now when you get the word to mean something other than one it does, you might have an argument.

Is this what goes on here? People take English words, assign their own definitions to them, then use that made up definition as an argument?

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
PayPal is a monopoly and Anon lashed out at it. I was there when Anon planned it and this was the reasoning behind it.

Paypal is a monopoly? Is this a protest against the English language and words as they are actually defined? You should hurry up and inform Google that google checkout does not exist.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
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.

edit on 13-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)

Really? Do those same british that were disturbed by his actions refer to them as shining examples of peaceful protest or is it called "peaceful" by the people not disturbed? You are referring to this Anon attack as non-violent but just saying so does not make it so. The word is defined. I understand that you do not like how words are defined in English and wish to change what they mean to make an argument. Ghandi disrupted some folks. Thos folks that were disrupted and understand the English language might, can, and should refer to it as violent. You call it whatever you like. I lack the ability to pretend words mean whatever I want them to just to make a point.