130 replies to this topic

[Eurysilas]

Oh. OK then. Glad that got cleared up.

(re-rails thread)

Though, I will say that I entirely agree with those who feel Lulzsec is getting too cocky. Anyone can see their antics aren't going to have lasting repercussions- hence "doing it for the lulz". But winding up in federal prison seems like a poor return on lulz. If it were me, I'd make sure that the mayhem inflicted upon a given target was more long-lasting and consequential, if the stakes were as high as prison. Unfortunately, in the virtual world that's generally not possible. Data is backed up in several places, at least half of which will either be physically separate from the internet (ie optical disc or solid-state storage) or off-site entirely.

[Xenix]

well, the day after tomorrow there may be some people finally going outside and saying "I...I'm free.I'M FREE! It's been so long, I felt as if I was in some sort of trance!" lol that is, if they succeed.

Edit: I was really tired when I typed this. Ugh, rough night, I woke up great though!

Edited by Sepulcher, 04 November 2011 - 05:01 AM.

[Adem]

You mean...the day after tomorrow?

I'm not too worried. I think it's possible some of the recent Facebook changes were in hopes of counteracting this. If it does happen...Well, goodbye main form of non-verbal communication.

[Nathaniel]

November 5. To me, it will just be Saturday, as it should be for everybody.

[Hunter P Brown]

Meh Anonymous is dealing with Wall Street, those noobs are probably still gonna be doing that on that day knowing they won't be able to take down FAcebook.

[Geoffrey]

I agree with what Anonymous has done and is going to do.

Anonymous believes that once you buy something, it should belong to you. Ownership implies the right to tamper with or modify. Geohot was punished for utilizing this right when he was sued by Sony for jail breaking the PS3. That is why Anonymous took down PSN.

It was claimed that Paypal was withholding donation money from Wikileaks. An act which is wrong and essentially theft. Lack of funds has since caused Wikileaks to temporarily disband updates. Wikileaks was dedicated to releasing official documents exposing corruption. That is why Anonymous attempted to impair Paypal's website.

Facebook provides personal information to separate entities including governments and corporations. The form of consent is given in an ever-changing privacy policy which the user may have agreed to years ago when it was in an entirely different state. That is why Anonymous is going to attempt to kill it.

I believe that their reasons are good and any damage caused to a third party as an effect of their actions is justified as the entity which they are associated with is corrupt to start with.

[Taco Chopper]

It was claimed that Paypal was withholding donation money from Wikileaks. An act which is wrong and essentially theft. Lack of funds has since caused Wikileaks to temporarily disband updates. Wikileaks was dedicated to releasing official documents exposing corruption. That is why Anonymous attempted to impair Paypal's website.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so whenever Wikileaks releases information lately, the stuff that isn't really threatening to governments is reported in the mainstream media, and the more damaging stuff is ignored totally by the same media?

Facebook provides personal information to separate entities including governments and corporations. The form of consent is given in an ever-changing privacy policy which the user may have agreed to years ago when it was in an entirely different state. That is why Anonymous is going to attempt to kill it.

I believe that their reasons are good and any damage caused to a third party as an effect of their actions is justified as the entity which they are associated with is corrupt to start with.

As big a Facebook whore as I am, I think that the fact that Facebook handing out information to third parties is stupid and careless. We have privacy settings supposedly, but why don't they affect the police and ASIO (our equal to the FBI here), and in the US, the aforementioned FBI and CIA?

I think it's mainly to do with "preventing terrorism"/being Big Brother and watching over all of us. I think what Anonymous is planning on doing is the right thing, even if it means Facebook goes offline.

[Radien]

Really, what with everything that's been happening in the months since they declared this future attack, I think that anybody in Anonymous who still focuses the brunt of all their efforts on Facebook is really not paying attention.

Anonymous members were the ones who started the Occupy Wall Street movement -- or at least they were prominent in it -- and that has had a FAR better and more profound effect on the country (and the world) than any piddly cyber attack on a free social networking site.

I'm not saying that Facebook doesn't deserve to get flak for their policies. But give me any one middle- or lower-class individual in America, and among all the things that are negatively affecting that person's life, I can guarantee you that corrupt banking institutions and an unfair economic system are hurting that person FAR more than Facebook's privacy policies.



For anyone who didn't know: the reason I'm comparing the two isn't just because both involve Anonymous. It's because the Occupy movement has come together to declare that November 5th is "National Bank Transfer Day." They are encouraging everyone to move their accounts to a credit union or a local bank, to make a statement against the huge banking conglomerates who caused the financial meltdown.

I'm much more interested in that movement, because I do a lot more with my life than just mess around on Facebook and play video games. Mark my words: if Facebook goes down at all, it'll be back up within hours, whereas the "other" movement will still be continuing months from now.

[Smiles the Death Bringer]

Losing Facebook wont be too bad for me, but my Mom will be devastated, I will be seriously peeved though, freakin' hackers thinking they own the internet, if people don't wanna be "spied on" (if they even are) then just don't join Facebook.

[Lemon]

Anonymous members were the ones who started the Occupy Wall Street movement

Even with the side note, I have huuuuge issues with this statement.

Right now the occupy movement appeals to anon users because it's chaotic, and (increasingly due to police action) becoming anti-authority. The actual start of the movement doesn't have any roots in these folks though. Sure, they encourage it, but it's the actual people who go to these occupations that deserve praise, not a collective body of bored teenagers.


I'm personally hoping the protests escalate, as we really do have a very serious issue with the distribution of wealth in the states, and really all around the world right now, and it's becoming increasingly clear that politicians ain't going to do s*** to stop it. I try not to be completely politically cynical, but money completely and totally buys elections nowadays (see any of the recent Wisconsin elections, in particular Walker and Johnsons campaigns, most of which were built off straight forward lies and ignorance). Obama slipped through thanks to the political landscape being relatively anti-anything remotely resembling Bush and also because Unions were able to raise enough funds to make him a contender. It's not terribly surprising unions have been under vicious attacks since that election by Republican state governments all over since... but I digress.

The system is kinda f***ed up right now, which makes sense because the system is over 200 years old. The supreme court is a joke at the moment, half of Congress acting as a self-destructive force*, and the President stuck trying to please everyone at the same time. We really do need some sort of external force to break this deadlock, and these occupations have become the closest thing to it. I wish them the best of luck.


*(for as long as I can remember Congressmen associated with whatever party isn't in complete control of two or more branches don't do their jobs at all. Instead of working towards representing their constituents interests they try to make every major policy of the opposing party fail or at least try to fight it. I get that they may disagree with major principles of policy, but I think the actions they take to defy such legislation show a complete disregard for compromise. Not just talking about health care here )

[Geoffrey]

Anonymous members were the ones who started the Occupy Wall Street movement -- or at least they were prominent in it -- and that has had a FAR better and more profound effect on the country (and the world) than any piddly cyber attack on a free social networking site.

Any step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction. I support the Occupy movement and agree with what I know of what the participants stand for, but I doubt a peaceful protest will convince "the 1%" to reprimand themselves. But as I said with the concept of killing Facebook, it's still a step in the right direction.


EDIT:

Losing Facebook wont be too bad for me, but my Mom will be devastated, I will be seriously peeved though, freakin' hackers thinking they own the internet, if people don't wanna be "spied on" (if they even are) then just don't join Facebook.

First off, they do not think they own the internet. They think that the wrong people own a portion of it and I ten to agree. Furthermore, Facebook's privacy policy is subject to change without notification:

Facebook provides personal information to separate entities including governments and corporations. The form of consent is given in an ever-changing privacy policy which the user may have agreed to years ago when it was in an entirely different state. That is why Anonymous is going to attempt to kill it.

Edited by Ornlu, 04 November 2011 - 10:46 AM.

[Adem]

As I believe I said earlier in this topic, regardless of Anonymous' reasons, the whole "vigilante justice" thing sickens me. While I have to wonder if the legitimate authorities would do anything themselves, it's not my place to decide whether a mass corporation should suffer for it's faults or not.

It goes without saying that Facebook has its share of issues, but I don't see how a social networking website distributing bits and pieces of information to advertisers should be at the top of the "To Eradicate" list. I'm not just saying that because I'm a Facebook user, either. It really is completely and utterly ridiculous.

[Lemon]

While I have to wonder if the legitimate authorities would do anything themselves,

They haven't, despite people complaining for almost ten years now. Hence, the occupation movement.

it's not my place to decide whether a mass corporation should suffer for it's faults or not.

It's not that they should suffer, it's that they should pay their fair share. If you're a tax payer, you have every right to be pissed off. I can send you linkys if you want to get mad, because if you aren't, you're not paying attention

[Sheik]

I support Occupy "in spirit" I suppose, though I haven't read up on it enough and my idea of it is really vague. From what I gathered, it's mainly about solidarity in any shape or form, at least that's what I've been told. If anyone can elaborate on this I'd like to hear some details.

Radien, can you give me a source for the claim that Anonymous started Occupy? I actually don't quite believe this to be true. And just because they agree on Ocuupy's goals doesn't mean anything yet. As Erich Kästner put it: "There's nothing good in the world unless you do it."

I'm sort of with Timothy here. Anonymous seems to be a rather pathetic buch of angry teenagers. It's vandalism from what I gather and such is seldomly any good.

Any step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction. I support the Occupy movement and agree with what I know of what the participants stand for, but I doubt a peaceful protest will convince "the 1%" to reprimand themselves. But as I said with the concept of killing Facebook, it's still a step in the right direction.

"Believers never die." Peaceful protest is the only way to bring forth peace. You are not contributing to the cause of peace if you yourself are one of the agressors. Go and learn from Gandhi (who's not beyond question but much more so than many). An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Edited by Yoshimi, 04 November 2011 - 12:00 PM.

[Adem]

They haven't, despite people complaining for almost ten years now. Hence, the occupation movement.
It's not that they should suffer, it's that they should pay their fair share. If you're a tax payer, you have every right to be pissed off. I can send you linkys if you want to get mad, because if you aren't, you're not paying attention

I was speaking of the whole Facebook situation with Anonymous, not Wall Street. That's a totally different issue that I can't say I disagree with. But, at least to me, there's a difference between protesting, and just...exactly what I said earlier. Vigilante justice. Anonymous seems to think it's the Dexter of technology, taking care of what authorities have overlooked. It makes for a good TV show, but I really feel it's incredibly juvenile. Call me naive, but...eh. To each his own!