Wikileaks Hacktivists: AnonOps
In case you didn't already read about it, AnonOps has started attacking websites as a backlash against the WikiLeaks suppression. This is their website: http://anonops.net/
How far do you see this going? WikiLeaks couldn't be taken down legally because they hadn't broken any law, but this organization has their own website where the claim that the current target is mastercard.com and are encouraging people to attack it. That is clearly illegal. I would expect that site to be pulled down.
Do you expect more hacktivists to attack other sites even if this is shutdown? I do. Information on the internet should be unrestricted.
to a point I agree with you. However, if it comes down to something that can affect the security of millions of people, I do not think this information should be freely available.
That is like saying someone who shops online with their credit card are just asking to have their identity stolen.
Why allow a rampant bull charge through the streets when you could stop it?
Yes much of the information on the internet should be free, that does not mean that everything should be. What if someone got a hold of your personal information and used it to become you? What would you want done then?
Technology should be free. Peoples lives should not be "open sourced".
This hacktivist bullshit is where the move Hackers came from. Don't get me wrong, I love Jolies boobs as much as the next guy, but the media eats this shit up. Giving true hackers a bad name.
If you want to take down a credit card company, do it with style. Long live Project Mayhem.
AldarHawk wrote:
That is like saying someone who shops online with their credit card are just asking to have their identity stolen.
What if someone got a hold of your personal information and used it to become you? What would you want done then? Well, I don't think the situations are that similar. I wouldn't expect any of the information released by Wikileaks to aid in performing identity fraud. The general argument seems to be to protect the identity of the sources who were promised anonymity. While I'm fine with that level of censoring, I think the other parts of the document should be released.
Corporates ostracizing WikiLeaks due to governmental pressure makes it looks we're on our way to China-styled regulation.
gregorian wrote: Well, I don't think the situations are that similar. I wouldn't expect any of the information released by Wikileaks to aid in performing identity fraud. The general argument seems to be to protect the identity of the sources who were promised anonymity. While I'm fine with that level of censoring, I think the other parts of the document should be released.
How do you say that they are not the same? Anonymity is anonymity, period. If you want to stay online and use your information and not have it thrown out there to the world you should be able to without a fear of being exposed to much worse things that can be reciprocated from the information. The release of the private information that WikiLeaks provided did nothing but enable people who do not need to know certain pieces of information to gain access to them.
Corporates ostracizing WikiLeaks due to governmental pressure makes it looks we're on our way to China-styled regulation. This part just made me laugh. What do you think the bill that will allow the US government to censor your access is? The United States of America is heading down that path already my friend.
I said they weren't same because you cannot perform identity fraud using the WikiLeaks information. You're right about the analogy while referring to anonymity - I wasn't disputing that.
I'm not familiar with America's laws, but I was thinking that it would suck if they used WikiLeaks as an example to support internet regulation.
gregorian wrote: I said they weren't same because you cannot perform identity fraud using the WikiLeaks information. You're right about the analogy while referring to anonymity - I wasn't disputing that. I did not state that you could use this information. It was a comparison between the two. It is not really the anonymity that is the problem. It is the fact that some of the information could cause unsavory people to get their hands on information that was not intended to be public for that exact reason. My post was just an example of things that you would not want to happen, like the leak of your personal information. WikiLeaks just happened to leak the governments personal information is all.
I'm not familiar with America's laws, but I was thinking that it would suck if they used WikiLeaks as an example to support internet regulation. I do not think they are going to use WikiLeaks as an example, though they may. However, it does create a good case for the courts to push it through.
AldarHawk wrote: That is like saying someone who shops online with their credit card are just asking to have their identity stolen.This analogy would make sense if you had said something along the lines of a person buying a child for sex. In other words, doing something ILLEGAL.
Why allow a rampant bull charge through the streets when you could stop it?Wtf is that even supposed to mean? The "rampant bull" is our government and the people who are buying ($$$) it.
AldarHawk wrote: [quote]goluhaque wrote: Ontopic though, I couldn't care either way. My support depends on the side I am on. What in gods name does this even mean? You could not care either way but you support what ever side you are on? What are you a mattress?[/quote] That means that I am on neither side(the sides being the government & the people who want free information and all that stuff).
fashizzlepop wrote: [quote]AldarHawk wrote: That is like saying someone who shops online with their credit card are just asking to have their identity stolen. This analogy would make sense if you had said something along the lines of a person buying a child for sex. In other words, doing something ILLEGAL.[/quote]
okay, so basically what you are saying is what the government was doing by keeping information close to their chest was illegal? No it is not. What was illegal was the leaking of the information. You are looking at my argument from the wrong side of the fence my friend.
[quote]Why allow a rampant bull charge through the streets when you could stop it? Wtf is that even supposed to mean? The "rampant bull" is our government and the people who are buying ($$$) it.[/quote]
It means that WikiLeaks was a rampant bull. They took information and illegally published it on the internet. What part of that was hard to understand?
I understand how people want to have the information available for free. However, some of the information that could jeopardize the safety of tens of thousands of lives is not something to trifle with. I also know that the "awesome uber hackers" that were taking part in this project to take down all the fun companies that make money were a real waste of time. Yes there were some skilled people in the group, but many just knowingly joined their computers into a bot-net and clicked a button to "hack" these companies.
Yes Information should be free. However, not all information should be free. If this free information removes from an individuals, or groups freedom it should not be. So yes, a lot of the information on WikiLeaks was publicly available on the internet. There was some that went over the line though and that is why it was taken down.
Anyways, that is my rant for today. Let me know if you have anything else you wish to discuss on the topic and I will gladly chat :evil:
The main problem I have with all this is that the media keeps calling them "hackers". Yeah, there's hackers hanging out in IRC and getting involved, but for the majority of people "cyber picketers" are the best they deserve. And, really, that's all this is. Cyber picketing.
Personally, I agree with it. It's getting attention from the media, which is in turn helping the cause. I agree, not all information should be released, but governments definitely do need to be more transparent. People have a right to know that their soldiers are shooting down innocent civilians and being told to ignore acts of brutal torture. Not to mention I have yet to actually hear of any of the released information leading to the endangerment of someone's well being, although I could just have missed that.
Not to mention this is all fun to watch unfold. Although I think it's pretty much done now (last time I checked the "hivemind" had less than 300 active participants), which is why that attack against Amazon failed.