Anonymous takes down DoJ, UMG websites—attack on Whitehouse.gov underway

Safari can’t open the page “http://www.justice.gov/” because the server where this page is located isn’t responding.

http://www.justice.gov/ works just fine.

I just tried justice.gov on safari and no go.

It comes and goes. Whoever is attacking doesn't have enough distribution in their Distributed Denial of Service attack. The server is getting a chance to reset and then be blocked again.

At least that's how I think it works.

Bookmarked! Thanks Tyler!

I like Anonymous...wait there's a knock at my door...BRB

███ ██ trust █ ██████ your ████ █ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ███government███ ████ ██████ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █everything█████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ is ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████ fine. ███ ██ █ ██████ ████ █ nothing ██ ███ ████ ██████ to ████ ███see███ ████ ██████ here. █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █move█████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ along ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███now█████

[Portions of this comment are in violation of H.R. 3261, (S.O.P.A.) and S. B. 968, (P.I.P.A.) and have been redacted for your protection.]

I actually bought that for a moment Kyle, thanks.

I would steal that comment from kyle but I can't afford the bail! :0(

I would steal that comment from kyle but I can't afford the bail! :0(

LOL! Feel free to borrow it. :-)

I'm taking it. Pirated comments, stolen jokes, a rebel I am. ;)

Mike, LMAO, kyle, good one.

backroads

anonymous is a bunch of sociopaths sitting in ill-informed judgment.

AGREED ... Even the name "anonymous" sounds sinister.

I enjoyed listening to an NPR interview with a member of that bunch. He revealed he lived in his parents' home and that they had no idea what he was up to.

anonymous is a bunch of sociopaths sitting in ill-informed judgment.

Agreed. I have a serious problem with a bunch of domestic terrorist wanna-be's that have ZERO regard for our Constitution and our troops. They compromised the passwords and financial information of our troops. There is question regarding they were involved with the STRATFOR hack and compromising the credit card data of over 9,000 average, hard working citizens. They have total disregard for freedom of religion and have proudly announced their desire to wipe out Scientology.

And they are apparently cowards, too. As they can't seem to bring themselves out from behind their juvenile and theatrical V for Vendetta masks.

Sorry. I just can have a shred of respect for a group of spineless ninnies who hide behind masks to attack our troops when our troops face people who want to kill them every day and do it with no masks and with their very names emblazoned on their chests.

All speculation Pat.

Agreed. I have a serious problem with a bunch of domestic terrorist wanna-be's that have ZERO regard for our Constitution and our troops.

I agree but for some reason people keep electing their congressmen. They think its everyone else's congressmen that is the problem. Meanwhile, these wannabe terrorists ignore the Constitution and put our troops in danger in third world countries while not giving them the pay and benefits they deserve.

Wow, rhazes, talk about desperately hijacking the topic.

All speculation Pat.

Speculation?

Here's where they violated the Consltitutional right to privacy of our troops:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/hacker-group-claims-it-obtained-military-data-in-breach-of-booz-allen-systems/2011/07/11/gIQAqadL9H_blog.html?wprss=checkpoint-washington

The hacker group that calls itself Anonymous claimed Monday that it had infiltrated the servers of Booz Allen Hamilton and obtained tens of thousands of e-mail addresses and other sensitive data for military personnel.

In a new post on PirateBay, a site that hackers use to distribute vast caches of data, the group dubbed the leak “Military Meltdown Monday.” It claimed that it was surprisingly easy to hack into Booz’s systems and secure “90,000 military emails and password hashes.”

As for their attack on people's 1st Amendment rights:

https://whyweprotest.net/anonymous-scientology/

Our short-term goal is to advocate rescinding the Scientology organization’s tax exempt status, ensuring that the organization remains unable to perpetuate its history of intimidation, disconnection and other illegal or otherwise unethical activities.
While we are prepared to work towards dismantling the Church of Scientology as an organized entity, we do not attack individual Scientologists’ beliefs.

Most of you don't have a clue, just repeating what you have been told. PirateBay, yeah that is what they are using, if they are trading music. Nevermind.

PirateBay, yeah that is what they are using,

That is pretty funny I highly doubt they are using any commercial programs.

Pat N

Speculation?

Your Chicken Little hysterics lost any validity once you tried to portray Scientology as a alleged victim.

As nutty as the Scientology cult is, it's dangerous to say illegal activities are OK as long as they're conducted against something you don't like. Because there just might be someone out there who hates something YOU do. There are legal ways to try to get the tax exempt status removed.

And I have no good thoughts for a bunch of people who expose people's personal information; identify theft is serious business.

Your Chicken Little hysterics lost any validity once you tried to portray Scientology as a alleged victim.

That is truly hilarious. The link I supplied you regarding Scientology and Anonymous was DIRECTLY FROM Anonymous. Had you actually clicked it and read it, you would know this.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but find it hysterical that you're calling Anonymous's own words "Chicken Little". But hey...at least it's the first time we've agreed on something.

Well, heck. I tend to think that future generations will perceive "Anonymous" as a positive force for individual freedom and transparency in government. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that brouhaha......

Anyhow, I like these kids. Hack and Monkey Wrench away little miscreants.....

I also get the feeling that the Feds interest in PIPA/SOPA might be more of a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of an "Arab Spring", or "Goober Spring" if you will, in this country than the profit loss of antiquated business models....

Anyhow, I like these kids. Hack and Monkey Wrench away little miscreants.....

Just for clarification...you APPROVE of a group that steals the passwords and e mail information of soldiers that volunteered to risk their lives during a time of war and then distributed that information?

Pat N:

Howdy pard. Well, personally I'd be more comfortable had Anonymous restricted their collections to Military Brass, Politicians and Corporate F*cks. So, in essence, I would have to state that perhaps I do not APPROVE yet, approve.

In the field, the cluster bombing of wedding parties and the slaughter of civilians are considered "collateral damage". This seems to fit within the same nomenclature. Considering the nature of the two versions of "collateral damage" I would have to say that the lesser of the two evils resides with scarfed email and passwords.

best your way.....

cha togar m'fhearg gun dioladh

I'm no Anonymous supporter, Pat, but I don't know if coward is the right label for people who are criminal hackers. Doesn't really lend itself to identity.

I think it fits like a glove. Let take a look at what we know about them..

• They hide behind masks.
• One proudly admits to doing his dirty work from him mommy's house and mommy doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
• They can't even use their real voices.
• They thumped their chests about taking on a Mexican drug cartel and when that cartel fought back, they decided that gee...maybe they weren't so concerned about the cartel afterall.
• They steal the personal information of everyday citizens to make their point.
• It's still up in the air whether or not they hacked STRATFOR. They claimed credit until some of their own members said it was the wrong thing to do. Then they suddenly started saying..."umm...wasn't us. Really"

That smacks of cowardice to me. I will grant them their superior computer skills. But I find it excessively spineless that they don't believe in their message enough to stand up and say so without hiding behind masks and altering their voices and that they feel a need to attack hard working Americans to get their point across.

Understood, sorry.

Most of you have a clue. (((((Hugs all around)))))

TR:

I beg to differ.

I have no clue......

That is why I said most buddy.

AGREED ... Even the name "anonymous" sounds sinister.

In what civilized or educated society does the fact that something 'sounds bad' count for anything?

#5.18: Villains wear masks, but so do heroes.

So true!

As for "Anonymous," I do believe it is mostly on the side of the angels. We need someone (some entity) that can keep the government from even more intrusion than usual... you know, those Constitutional "checks and balances" as rendered by our Congress, Judicial and Executive branches... and which desperately need checks and balances from we, the people... and if Anonymous can do just that much, then I'm all for it. Our government is wayyyy out of control. Until it gets back to where it serves US, you and me, I'm rootin' for Anonymous.

What's the checks and balance for a bunch like anonymous? Who polices them?

#18.24: What's the checks and balance for a bunch like anonymous? Who polices them?

Good question, but the answer is... our lousy government. This whole thing reminds me of those old Godzilla flicks where the monsters battle each other...

Imagine if they came up with their own stuxnet and decided to punish our electrical grid in the middle of winter.

#5.26: Imagine if they came up with their own stuxnet and decided to punish our electrical grid in the middle of winter.

Oh, crap... I don't even wanna go there...

I'm sure your main beef isn't about their accountability but what they're actually doing.

Actually, it IS the accountability.

Picture 2 young men. Get a clear picture in your head. Envision them any way you want. Lets say they are each 19 years old.

The first one knows that he has said and done some things that have pissed people off. He may have broken laws of the country he's in, but his message is so important to him, he continues. Some people may even want to cause him harm. So in order to continue his message that he believes firmly in...he dons a mask, disquises his voice and does not reveal his name. He then sits behind his computer to destroy his enemy.

The second one has spent the last 3 days in a trench in near freezing conditions, with no running water and no heat. He has said and done some things that have pissed people off. He may have broken laws of the country he's in, but his message is so important to him, he continues. He wakes up every morning, know the people he faces not only want to cause him harm, but want to see him dead. In order to continue the message he so firmly believes in, he dons his US Military uniform making his affiliations known, washes his face, has his name emblazoned on his chest and FACES his enemy.

So. Which one is a coward and which one is a hero? And the funny thing? The first young man, il all his...(ahem)...."bravery" has attacked the second young man, thinking it was super cool to hack into his personal information while that kid was in that trench.

So basically, you described many people who work for the government who help to bring down terrorists and destabilize rogue regimes. @!$%#, you even described in a way people who helped defeat Hitler and the Japanese in WWII. Cowards????????? Uhhhhhm ok.............. just because you despise someone and what they are doing does not make them a coward. Refer to the actual definition of the word, please. Words do actually have meanings. Using one's skills to attack that which they are against is not an act of fear. It's actually quite smart regardless of whether or not you agree with their purpose or actions. Just because there are people in trenches fighting for something doesn't mean that everyone else who takes action for their cause but isn't in a trench is therefore a coward. They are still putting their freedom and life at risk by standing up and taking action for their cause. I guess we should put all our military analysts in trenches because that would make them less cowardly. LMFAO.

you even described in a way people who helped defeat Hitler and the Japanese in WWII. Cowards?????????

Newsflash for ya, AT...it was the guys who show their faces, face their enemies, look them in the eye and wear their name on their chest that defeated Hitler and the Japanese. Not the dude in mommy's basement, wearing a cheap, plastic mask from a Hollywood movie.

Given your previous posts to me lately, the ones that have essentially been off-topic "neener-neener, PatN is a doodie-head" type posts,...(I can supply links if you don't remember)...I do have to say thanks for responding intelligently to me here. What a coincidence that it happened in Tyler's thread.

just because you despise someone and what they are doing does not make them a coward.

Oh, I don't despise them. I just don't respect them. And I think they're cowards. If you don't like *coward*, we can go with *spineless ninnies* if you prefer. I'd have a lot more respect for them if one of them...just one...came out from behind the silly mask, spoke in his normal voice, and stood up for his/her own cause.

Refer to the actual definition of the word, please.

Sure thing. Here's what the dictionary says:

• a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

Yep. I'd say that pretty well describes someone who hides in their mother's basement, behind a mask and can't even use their own voice because they're afraid of difficulty or opposition that might arise from their actions.

Newsflash for ya, AT...it was the guys who show their faces, face their enemies, look them in the eye and wear their name on their chest that defeated Hitler and the Japanese. Not the dude in mommy's basement, wearing a cheap, plastic mask from a Hollywood movie.

Newsflash for ya, Pat, it was also the people behind the scenes who were using the technology of the time to gather intelligence, decode messages, perpetrate sabotage and other means of warfare that did not involve being in the trenches.

Given your previous posts to me lately, the ones that have essentially been off-topic "neener-neener, PatN is a doodie-head" type posts,...(I can supply links if you don't remember)...I do have to say thanks for responding intelligently to me here. What a coincidence that it happened in Tyler's thread.

PatN, with all due respect, you should check out your posts sometime for they often come across as the neener neener variety. Anyway, your welcome, and yes it is a coincidence.

• a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

Yep. I'd say that pretty well describes someone who hides in their mother's basement, behind a mask and can't even use their own voice because they're afraid of difficulty or opposition that might arise from their actions.

You might feel that way, but it is actually not true in face of the fact that they enter into this sort of sabotage knowing that there is a high chance they could be caught someday and in this situation could very well mean "disappearing" and being tortured. Again, you've disparaged them for doing what many of our military analysts and computer experts do everyday. That does not make them cowards. They are fighting for what they believe using their skills the best way those skills can be utilized for their cause. They don't need to be on a battlefield to wage their battle as that would be ridiculous to even suggest and counterproductive to their mission or objectives. Courage and Cowardice involve much more than just being in a battle involving guns or weapons. For the individual, it is more about a state of mind of standing up for what you believe in despite the dangers involved. For a society, these concepts are about what the society sees as righteous or necessary based upon its struggles and the history of its conflicts. From wikipedia:

Cowards are usually seen to have avoided or refused to engage in a confrontation or struggle which has been deemed good or righteous by the wider culture in which they live. On a more mundane level, the label may be applied to those who are regarded as too frightened or overwhelmed to defend their rights or those of others from aggressors in their lives.

These saboteurs are facing their enemy in just the way their skills require them to do so. Like I said, if these people are cowards by your characterization of how they are using these skills to stand up for their cause, then so are all of the people who do the same for our government and have been essential in us fighting the War on Terror as well as historical conflicts such as WWII.

And BTW, Aristotle has written some very interesting books involving the subject of courage and cowardice approached from a much more in depth philosophical point of view than most people in our society who end up abusing both words and their concepts.

You might feel that way, but it is actually not true in face of the fact that they enter into this sort of sabotage knowing that there is a high chance they could be caught someday and in this situation could very well mean "disappearing" and being tortured.

Again...out troops live this every day. Yet they don't wear masks or hide their voices.

Again, you've disparaged them for doing what many of our military analysts and computer experts do everyday.

My daughter's original MOS was 35N - SIGINT. She was 19 at the time. The Army never issued her a mask. Nor did they tell her that if she speaks in public, she has to alter her voice. A gal the graduated that AIT before her was killed when she was changing a camera on the front lines. Guess what? She wasn't wearing a cheap plastic mask from a Hollywood movie when she was making that change.

As I said, AT...I will grant them their superior computer skills. But that's about it. They are indeed, cowards. If they want lessons on how to be brave...tell them to study our troops. Oh. Wait. They already did that. And stole those very same troops personal information.

I see something very wrong with someone coddling these ninnies and supporting their decision to hide while they compromise the personal information of our troops. But hey...if you think that's "brave" and you think stealing the credit card information of everyday citizens is "brave", more power to ya.

Uhhhhhm ok thanks for the rant that completely missed my point. I hope you feel better.

In other words, to make this really simple, a coward is someone who takes no action for what they believe is right for their cause, particularly out of fear.

I supplied you with the definition of "coward" in post 5.30. And it's not what you just said.

Not only does Anonymous lack courage in facing danger, they've also displayed timidity and were easily imtimidated when they thumped their chests, saying they were going to take on a drug cartel. When that cartel fought back, Anonymous retreated like their tails were on fire.

In the actualy definition of "coward"...(not your definition)...both of those things (lack of courage in dangerous situations and timidity) exist.

If it walks mike a coward, talks like a coward and looks like a V For Vendetta mask...it's probably a coward.

The link I supplied you regarding Scientology and Anonymous was DIRECTLY FROM Anonymous.

There is no one person that speaks for Anonymous.

Again...out troops live this every day. Yet they don't wear masks or hide their voices.

When you have a tank and guns to back you up it's easy to be a hero. Take away their weapons and the military is running scared.

These comments are way over the top and laughable in some cases! What would be the advantage for Anonymous to reveal themselves? They would immediately arrested and jailed. Comparing a collection of hackers to the largest military complex in the world is simply insipid. Apples to oranges!

Take those 5 soldiers that pissed on the dead Iraq and give them a plastic mask and send them back to Iraq for their trial! Show us how brave they are, when in actuality they are no better than a common criminal. They are nothing without their guns and bombs.

I'll tell ya what, you send out billions of dollars of weapons to hide behind and we'll get rid of the masks and hide behind the weapons like the military does. Anonymous doesn't have governments handing them new weapons to hide behind either, they make their own weapons.

If you put 800billion dollars a year into Anonymous they could take over the world, but it won't keep our military going for even a year or enable them to find one person. Take away their weapons and give them a plastic mask to hide behind and see the soldiers run like scared rabbits!

Lucky for us all that Anonymous is peaceful! What would happen if we get this many people with weapons this angry? The riots would be in the streets instead of on the Internet.

I find it hilarious that our government and their military complex can't even find what some people call "kids hiding in parents basements." They sure do get a bang for their buck from the military! Anonymous has NO budget, and is able to stay hidden for years, We spend millions every year trying to locate the different Anons and have only caught a few to date, and when they get to trial charges are being dropped for lack of evidence! FBI raided 75 homes last year and arrested only 16 people!

Chasing Anonymous is like chasing ghosts! To catch Anonymous means that you will catch an idea. Spend all ya can to catch them! Waste all the dollars you want, it will NOT stop an idea.

Anonymous is merely an idea, that has been around since ancient times, and will never die! Military will die as soon as the funding ends. Take away the money from the military and the bravery will die along with funds. Soldiers kill for money with weapons they get handed to them for free. I have not heard of one story where a soldier volunteers for service and doesn't want paid, none of them use their own weapons. They do a JOB, just like every other red blooded American, they work for our government. Like it or not, that is the reality of it.

Lucky for us all that Anonymous is peaceful!

So their attacks have hurt no one?

When you have a tank and guns to back you up it's easy to be a hero. Take away their weapons and the military is running scared.

Ummmm Sammy? You DO know that I was addressing SIGINT and HUMINT specialists that AT was talking about, right? You'd be hard pressed to find a SIGINT specialist holding an M16 or riding in a tank.

Also, what are you basing your asumption on that they are "running scared"? I've seen plenty of vets speak publically against terrorists. Guess what? They weren't wearing a mask when they did it. They didn't disguise their voice. They announced their name.

What would be the advantage for Anonymous to reveal themselves? They would immediately arrested and jailed.

Who said anything about "advantage"? We're talking about cowardice here. And you just proved my point. They are cowards and easily intimidated regarding the opposition they will face for their actions.

I'll tell ya what, you send out billions of dollars of weapons to hide behind and we'll get rid of the masks

Ah. I see why you're being so sensitive. You fancy yourself part of the group. Didn't you just say at the beginning of your post that "no one person speaks for Anonymous"? I believe you just spoke for them.

No, they ARE facing danger and possible pain in taking on their opposition. And again, by your definition of coward, all the people who work for our government in the same capacity to take on terrorists and rogue governments are also cowards. Not taking action at all for your convictions is cowardice. Again, I refer you to Aristotle. It will be an educational experience.

I've seen plenty of vets speak publically against terrorists. Guess what? They weren't wearing a mask when they did it. They didn't disguise their voice. They announced their name.

I have seen many Anons protesting in the streets without their masks in New York last year There are thousands of them in Washington DC right now.. They have also done television interviews and showed their faces. You just want them to be able to be caught and that won't happen. Just like the military will not go to war without their body armor and weapons. It makes them safe not scared. Same with the masks, if their identies are revealed they will be jailed or killed! So if you think that staying safe is a cowardly thing then so be it.

The military has a vast complex of weapons and tools of destruction that they hide behind constantly. Nobody ever mentions the individual soldiers any place outside of the family, it's not on the news when they invade a country who the soldiers are. Is it because they are scared? No it is to keep them safe. Anonymous has shown no fear towards anyone! They announce their operations in advance to let everyone know they should expect them.

Problem is the leaderless movement has everyone worried. No one person to go after. No one way to stop it.

Yes, maybe I did speak out of line saying that Anonymous would trade their computers for guns. Most probably wouldn't do it anyway because they are peaceful and do not want to kill people like the military does. When the military see a problem they reach for their guns and force the people to submit to them by killing and intimidation. How very @!$%#in brave. It is amazing how brave a person becomes when they have thousands of others with guns and weapons of destruction behind them!

Why did the police officers here in Houston cover their badges and names when we closed the port? Because they are afraid of what Anonymous will do to them.

And No, I do not claim to be a part of Anonymous. I merely support the idea.

No, they ARE facing danger and possible pain in taking on their opposition.

Yep. And according to the dictionary definition of "coward", it is a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.

I view wearing a mask, hiding and altering their voice as lacking courage. Again, by contrast, our troops ARE facing danger and possibly DEATH, yet they don't feel a need to hide behind masks. Hell, they even walk around in public in their uniforms, identifying themselves as being affiliated with the military.

And again, by your definition of coward,

FYI...It's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition.

all the people who work for our government in the same capacity to take on terrorists and rogue governments are also cowards.

Oh? Can I see ytour examples of people who work in Intel for our goverment cowardly not admitting that they work for the government? Or hiding behind masks when they are in public?

Not taking action at all for your convictions is cowardice.

No. Giving the impression that you're too embarrassed by your convictions by hiding behind masks when you talk about them and retreating when you meet the slightest bit of resistence is cowardice.

And No, I do not claim to be a part of Anonymous. I merely support the idea.

Sure you did. You said: "WE'LL get rid of the masks". If that isn't claiming affiliation, I don't know what is. Don't you guys have some sort of rule against admitting your affiliation in public?

One of two things are occuring here. And they're both bad. Either you're claiming affiliation and exposing yourself and the group which is a no-no according the secret handshake (or whatever it is) that Anonymous has...or you're speaking for a group of people and giving the perception that you're affiliated with them when you're not. Which is also a no-no.

So which is it?

No it is your application of the definition. Again, applying it the way you are one must actually be engaged in face to face combat in order to to not be a coward when taking action for your cause. That is ridiculous. That disparages, like I've said numerous times, those who work in the shadows for our government against its enemies. These people also maintain their anonymity and enjoy the protections that our government can provide in that regard. If they need to use masks to hide their identity in order to achieve their goal while operating in their mission that is not cowardice that is probably being smart. It's like saying a soldier is a coward for wearing combat gear that might save their life and that someone who confronts them with only rocks and civilian clothing is more brave. Are our soldiers cowards when they wear masks to protect their identity as well then? Of course not. Cowardice is about whether or not one has the heart to do what they can for their cause as they see right.

One of two things are occuring here. And they're both bad. Either you're claiming affiliation and exposing yourself and the group which is a no-no according the secret handshake (or whatever it is) that Anonymous has...or you're speaking for a group of people and giving the perception that you're affiliated with them when you're not. Which is also a no-no.

Let me get out the official rule book for Anonymous, or no I'll go ask the leader or check their official website or maybe their official chat room?!

There are millions like me that support the idea of Anonymous! Am I a part of them? That is up to you to decide I suppose. I have done nothing against the law and have nothing that I am ashamed of and certainly nothing that is illegal.If I did let them come find me! I'm the one without the mask. lmao

Look if someone says they are "part of Anonymous" Then they are, but if they say they aren't then they aren't! There are NO RULES! ZERO accountability. Everyone is an equal and nobody is "in charge". There is NO members!

and while we were typing here they hacked CBS and rooted their servers!

No word if they wore masks or not!

You just do not understand the way Anonymous works and what it stands for Pat, we have been down this road before.

Please, please please read this page to get a better understanding of Anonymous! http://theevilhackerz.com/magazine-01-low.pdf

CBS is gone from the web, servers rooted, needs some work to restore if server isn't trash. I just seeded the link. and now Brazil is under attack. Stay tuned for more to come. same bat time, same bat channel! Why CBS and not fux? ;) makes no sense at all! LMAO!

Do you know who is using your computer? ROFLMAO These kids are ruthless! Well over 6000 cannons blazing! It's an FBI free for all! They can't possibly have any days off for years, look at the jobs they are creating!

Anonymous has done more this weekend to help America than the D or T/R have in the last 30 years!

HEY YOU KIDS, GET OUTTA MY YARD!

ZERO accountability

Yep. And therein lies the problem. Zero accountability.

Cowards, in other words.

Chasing Anonymous is like chasing ghosts! To catch Anonymous means that you will catch an idea. Spend all ya can to catch them! Waste all the dollars you want, it will NOT stop an idea.

There's an interchangeable statement. You can say that same thing about the Taliban.

Both are terrorists with a cause whether it's right, wrong, or indifferent.

Yep. And therein lies the problem. Zero accountability.

Have you ever heard of personal responsibility? No one is accountable to any other person. No person is better than any other. There are no rules to break.

Cowards, in other words.

Nope. Not cowards nor killers.

...

There's an interchangeable statement. You can say that same thing about the Taliban.

Both are terrorists with a cause whether it's right, wrong, or indifferent.

Anonymous doesn't kill people. Taliban kills people.

Anonymous uses computers. Taliban uses guns and bombs and planes.

Anonymous is peaceful. Taliban is not peaceful.

Saying that Anonymous is a Terrorist is a stretch and very misleading. Using that logic so are parents and teachers and most employers. They make threats to get someone to submit to their will. work or be fired. do your homework or fail the class. clean your room or get a spanking. Terrorists kill people, Anonymous kills computers and servers.

Saying that Anonymous is a Terrorist is a stretch and very misleading. Using that logic so are parents and teachers and most employers.

Hmmm. I don't see parents, teachers and employers on the DHS's terrorist list. I DO see Anonymous. So officially...they ARE terrorists. Why do you support terrorists, Sammy?

First let me say that I am sympathetic to the cause. But let me respond to your remarks one at a time so that hopefully you will understand the likeness I refer to.

Anonymous doesn't kill people. Taliban kills people.

You don't have to kill people to be considered a terrorist. Any purposeful act that causes hardship of any kind can be considered terrorism.

While I'm sure that a lot of us have no problem with causing a little confusion and chaos in the White House (more than usual that is), you need to think about the consequences of such a stupid act.

A truly intelligent person would consider all the possible negative consequences (not just what they think might be the positive outcome) of doing such a thing. They didn't ask themselves the question: "What's the worse that can happen and who's really going to suffer if I do this?"

Anonymous uses computers. Taliban uses guns and bombs and planes.

Oh really? You might want to give that a little more thought. If you seriously believe the Taliban doesn't use computers to accomplish any of their goals then you truly are naive.

You can cause just as much hardship with computers as you can with weapons if you know what to do and how to do it.

Anonymous is peaceful. Taliban is not peaceful.

I suppose that depends on your point of view and who you ask. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who does something that is considered to be an "attack" (of any kind) on another person or entity IS a terrorist. They are using their skills to BULLY the establishment into submitting to their own ideals and beliefs, and that is exactly what the Taliban is doing.

Why do you support terrorists, Sammy?

This is completely uncalled for.

This is completely uncalled for.

Why? Sammy stated earlier that he supports Anonymous. Anonymous is listed with the DHS as a terrorist organization. Therefore, Sammy has already admitted to supporting terrorists. How is it out of line to ask him why?

No, he has not admitted to supporting terrorists, and you know that. He stated quite clearly

And No, I do not claim to be a part of Anonymous. I merely support the idea.

Personally speaking I think the DHS should put themselves on their own list.

Philosophically I support Anonymous. May I please be referred to as a Terrier-ist in lieu of a Terrorist? I am attempting to keep my karmic debt level down to bargain basement prices in the hopes that I will not return in the next life as a Honey Dipper. No offense to Honey Dippers. It is honorable work. It just does not appeal to me.

You can call me a terrorist if so it suits your reality map but I gotta tell you I am too nice for the tag. In fact, if I had to take on work as The Beast 666 I am guessing that my minions would be calling me The best 333 behind my back....

Anyhow,

Cha Togar M'fhearg gun dioladh......and such.

No, he has not admitted to supporting terrorists, and you know that. He stated quite clearly

OK. So you're telling me it would be better to ask him why he supports terrorist ideas?

Pat N, if you are going to make slanderous accusations such as another Newsvine User supports terrorists, when they clearly stated their position then you should go ahead and take it as far as contacting the feds and then Sammy can report back to us about how far that goes, since ya know, giving support to terrorists is illegal. For you to take this as far as you have with such an accusation completely lacks civility, especially considering the fact that Sammy has been nothing but civil with you. And you wonder why people often don't take you seriously enough to respond to your comments with anything other than mockery.

Pat N, if you are going to make slanderous accusations such as another Newsvine User supports terrorists,

How can it be "slanderous" when (A) He freely admits to supporting them and (B) DHS lists them as terrorists? I didn't classify them as terrorists. The government did. I even asked you if it would be preferable if I asked why he supported terrorist ideas instead. I'm not going to tiptoe around the word "terrorist" simply because it's PC. That is, afterall...what they are.

when they clearly stated their position then you should go ahead and take it as far as contacting the feds and then Sammy can report back to us about how far that goes

That seems a little over the top to me. Especially since I simply want to know why he says he supports terrorist ideas.

For you to take this as far as you have with such an accusation completely lacks civility, especially considering the fact that Sammy has been nothing but civil with you.

Again...how is calling a spade a spade "lacking civility"? He said he supports them and their ideas. I want to know why. Like it or not...they ARE terrorists. I realize it's a politically charged buzzword. But there's really not a whole lot I can do about how they've been classified by the federal government.

By the definitions and usages you guys are throwing out for terrorist the kid that takes down band posters from the cork board at the supermarket is a terrorist. The moderator that removes a comment would also qualify.

Personally I can't take this discussion seriously.

By the definitions and usages you guys are throwing out for terrorist the kid that takes down band posters from the cork board at the supermarket is a terrorist.

Nope. Because he's not listed with the federal government as a terrorist or a terrorist organization. Anonymous is.

With all of the unconstitutional crap they have been trying to impose on us, the federal government should list itself as a terrorist organization.

From above:

Address comments, don't make it personal.

:)

Pat N

Why do you support terrorists, Sammy?

#5.52 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:46 PM CST

WTF? Personal attacks?

I'm not going to stoop to your level Pat N. I am so much better than that.

I'll let the discussion thread do the deciding on who is right.

Good seed Tyler, you sure do know how to pick the good topics!

I gotta get to work...

:)

Sammy -

It wasn't intended as a personal attack. For the record, I actually agree with some of the RESULTS Anonymous has accomplished. I DO however, disagree vehemently with their tactics.

You happen to AGREE with and support their tactics. They have been classified as terrorists. So I'm interested in why you support the actions of a group that has been classified as terrorists. There's really no way to ask you that question without using the word "terrorists".

I have explained that I'm just calling them what the federal goverment calls them. And your avoidance of answering the question of WHY you support their methods...(such as stealing credit card information, stealing the personal info of our troops, etc)...is beginning to look like avoidance on your part and you can't articulate WHY you support their ideas and methods. So instead, you're going to try and turn it around on me for using the exact same word the government uses.

I don't seem to recall Anonymous supporters getting this bent out of shape when someone on the Vine pointed out that DHS classified the TEA Party as potential terrorists. Why the faux outrage over the word now?

For example...this latest SOPA?PIPA victory would have had the exact same result WITHOUT Anonymous hacking into the FBI. That is a terrorist act, by the strictest definition of the word. I applaud the American people for their efforts in this case. You applaud the act of Anonymous. One last time...Why do you support activity and ideas that have already been defined as terroristic in nature rather than promoting other methods to achieve the same results?

Good man Sammy, way to follow the COH. Ignore the attacks & move on(1 & 5 may come into play on this one.)

Anybody that doesn't like the government and what they are doing is labeled a terrorist. That word is so played out. Just like racism or racist. They are used so often they lose their meaning.

#5.65: They are used so often they lose their meaning.

That is just so true! Years ago, the word, "terrorist," lost its sting as far as I was concerned, because the very word was overused before it became the word du jour! Anything or anyone that strikes "terror" in the heart of just one other person is, by definition, a "terrorist." Kidnappers, robbers, home-invaders, political activists using guns... all of these can be called terrorists. Leave it to us humans who like to think of words pretty much like those coat-hanger trees: anything to toss the coat on and keep it off the floor... a convenience, and so commonplace that no one even notices it any longer.

Apologies for assuming. But then that begs the Impossible Hypothetical: What if these folks all had real identities? That wouldn't make it okay, right? We know Julian Assange's name.

Assange is a great example. I loathe the man. I don't agree with his practices. My ideology is the polar opposite of his. But the man doesn't hide behind voice synthesizers or a mask and has the courage to look people in the eye and say what he believes.

As despicable as his message is, he at least has courage. Anonymous loses all respect in my book, when they don't have the courage of convition to take personal accountability for their acts.

.

Avoid the if-you-think-this-you-are-[insult] stuff, Al in Oregon.

Apologies.

tyler

Just so you know, although I apologized for using the word "Naive" in the comment you scolded me on, it was not meant as an insult. Here's a link to the definition (which I'm sure you're well aware of).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/naive

Or more precisely:

na·ive or na·ïve

(n-v, nä-) also na·if or na·ïf(n-f, nä-)
adj.
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
b. Unsuspecting or credulous: "Students, often bright but naive, betand losesubstantial sums of money on sporting events"(Tim Layden).

It should not be considered an insult simply to call to one's attention the possibility that they apparently do not have enough "worldly experience and understanding" to realize that terrorists actually do use computers in terrorist activities. Bin Laden used computers extensively to at least monitor his terrorist activities.

I am "naive" to gambling odds and how they work (as well as many other things), but I don't feel "insulted" if someone calls that to my attention.

Same thing with the word "ignorant". If you tell someone they are ignorant to the fact that terrorists use computers as well as guns and bombs in their terrorist acts, it does not mean they are stupid, and it shouldn't even be taken as an insult. It simply means they have not been educated to that fact, nothing more and nothing less.

Anyway, there was no insult intended but apologies given just the same.

Great (and important) seed Tyler. Hope to see many more.

Would you say you respect him, or just respect that he's identified?

I can't say that I respect him. Because that would be the same as saying I respect the person, ideology and all. I respect certain attributes that he has...but not him.

For example...I respect the fact that he doesn't feel a need to hide his identity like Anonymous does. I respect that he knows people want to do him harm, yet doesn't run from them like Anonymous does. I respect that he has courage of conviction in his message, no matter how wrong I think that message may be. I respect that his methods are directly tied to the goal he's trying to accomplish, unlike Anonymous who will go for the convenient target, wether it has anything to do with their goal or not.

Never mind, I keep typing a bunch of stuff & then just deleting it.

Never mind, I keep typing a bunch of stuff & then just deleting it.

That has kept me out of so much trouble lol

That's a big part of why they're ineffective, sammy sezso. We've been over this.

Yes, we have been over this before Tyler, Yet some still do not seem to understand why a leaderless collective is so good! It's is hard to tell the downfalls from the advantages, and it works very well for Anonymous. They gain support as it is needed, but nobody can be held responsible for the actions of Anonymous. The "hivemind" is difficult for me to explain, but a leader or spokesperson could never be named. We are all leaders and we are all followers. Those within the collective all have an equal voice, but some are respected more due to their expertise. When everyone has an equal standing, no one can be a leader. Anyone can make suggestions though, and from the discussions come the way they do things, and ops that they undertake. If you think a cause is worth fighting about you jump in and fight if you want, but nobody has to do anything that they do not want to do. But everyone does something.

Pretty good discussion, y'all. Restored #5.49 - not the first comment I'd show to a newbie, but it's about this discussion. Would have benefited from actually quoting the support, though. Connect all the dots.

So, that wasn't a personal attack? We can all Google the DHS warning, it's out there on the net uncensored. I do not deny that fact. What I referred to is that Pat's comment was directed towards ME and not my comments. Fine, let's rock this then! Let's connect ALL the dots in the discussion!

WTF? Personal attacks?

I'm not going to stoop to your level Pat N. I am so much better than that.

I apologize for falsely accusing you of a personal attack Pat. Tyler seems to think that it is ok in this case. I did not.
I thought that the CoH said that we had to be respectful of each other and keep comments on the subject, and accusing me of supporting terrorism isn't very respectful, but it was "in the discussion" if you "connect the dots", I guess that's where I was wrong. So it looks like I can stoop as low as your comments after all, and be safe, as long as I use "what is in the discussion" to jump to conclusions, which is so unlike me.
There are also many other things "in this discussion" Pat, I was not going to go there, and normally I wouldn't, but since it is "part of this discussion", it's fair game!
Your comments seem to take low shots at people all the time and I can play that way when it is necessary. I just don't like to, but for you I'll give it a go!
Let's discuss.

Pat N

Saying that Anonymous is a Terrorist is a stretch and very misleading. Using that logic so are parents and teachers and most employers.

Hmmm. I don't see parents, teachers and employers on the DHS's terrorist list. I DO see Anonymous. So officially...they ARE terrorists. Why do you support terrorists, Sammy?

Terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Why do you support terrorists, Sammy?

Pat that is one of your "connect the dots" statements that I never actually said, but you deduced from the discussion by "connecting the dots". So, do you think that only DHS can classify terrorists, and only entities that DHS classifies as terrorists, are terrorists? I don't think so, DHS isn't the final word on who is or isn't a terrorist. Many have been terrorized by people that are not called terorists by DHS.
If you check the Global Terrorism Database The collective known as Anonymous isn't on there anywhere! Not every government is terrorized enough by them to list them on some agencies terrorist list. Iran is threatening to use their military force against hackers.

So apparently not everyone thinks of Anonymous as terrorists because they aren't even on the global terrorist watch list, and I do not think of them as terrorists either. Some foolishly do though, as you do. Why you feel terrorized by them I do not know. Maybe you are in their sites and don't realize it and it terrorizes you to think of the damage that they could do to you if they wanted. It is a shame that you are forced to live such a terrified life.
Everyone saw yesterday that Rand Paul was terrorized by the TSA! Are they on the DHS list of terrorists? Not yet? How about george bush's that started 3 illegal,unethical wars over oil between the 2 idiots? (that we lost and are trillions in the hole over) How many died over there? Are they terrorists for killing the innocent people the enemy lived among? Why aren't the bankers on wallstreet that crushed our economy listed as terrorists by DHS? The tea party is probably on their list of terrorists for holding the American citizens hostage during the budget debates! The damn dems must be making the list for DHS! You might feel terrorized by just about anything, kids feel terrorized by their parents all the time. Being a terrorist is a pretty big deal and I am surprised you use the term so loosely. But DHS said so, and that's the gospel word in your good book..... (websters dictionary)

DHS called Anonymous terrorists because DHS is terrified by Anonymous. Anonymous scares the hell out of our government because they uncover and expose the government secrets and expose their corruption and wrong doings. Our government's fear is justified and Anonymous is closing in on them and governments are getting more and more fearful of what will be uncovered, so DHS and FBI and CIA are all actively trying to take down Anonymous or even any one of the many Anons individually, but because Anonymous is smart and doesn't reveal their identities and locations, the government is powerless over them! The government fears very much that which it does not control. Even with having the largest military in the world the government is totally powerless over Anonymous and have no way to defeat them!

IF the government has nothing to hide and doesn't try to police the Internet, then they have nothing to fear. Governments that censor the Internet are very afraid of Anonymous and definitely feel terrorized by them, hell terrorized isn't even a strong enough word! They are scared @!$%#less beyond belief and raising the Anonymous threats to "national security" levels! The government fears Anonymous without a doubt, if they didn't then they would not be spending so many tax dollars just trying to locate them. So yea, I'll go along with you that by the definition of the word Anonymous uses terrorism, but so do many others! I do not support terrorists that kill. I do support what some have called terrorists that have NEVER killed. You on the other hand, have supported terrorists that DO regularly KILL innocent humans! Why pat? Why do you have such a low value for human life?

You also say how government workers are so proud of their jobs, and NEVER hide their identies, but try to go into the NSA some time and see how many people you get to identify! You can't even get close to their building and would get arrested just for trying! But they're not hiding right? You just aren't allowed to see them that is all! Even their budget is kept secret from the taxpayers that pay for them! Where are your demands for them to show their faces to Anonymous and identify themselves? *crickets*

It's only ok to hide if YOU say so though. The old "you're right because you are here" theory huh? You just run with that thought. Knowing that NSA monitors every keystroke we all make doesn't seem to terrorize you. Funny how that is and how you put so much trust into people you know absolutely nothing about and pay every one of their bills without question.

But Anonymous is the problem, and the subject, for shutting down the government websites. The government issued security warnings and couldn't even defend themselves against what you call "children hiding behind masks in their parents basements." So those darn kids beat the United States government and the government has no idea where to even start looking for them! Yea, put you trust in the government, they'll protect you even though they can't protect themselves from children. Good thinking.

How about that military that you so love? They also fit the meaning of the word terrorism. Don't they terrorize people? The survivors of their invasions would probably say that they felt terrorized, I'll have to see if I can get a source for that to confirm it for you because you undoubtedly think the military isn't terrorists! Your comments have no problem supporting those people who that KILL innocent civilians and call it "collateral murder," Your comments have no problem supporting the military that pisses on the people they murdered. In fact, your words almost encourage this despicable violence by the way you glorify the murderers as being brave. But hey, their not on the DHS list! The list of all lists! Oh, and just so you know they hide the DHS lists of terror suspects from pubic view. Are they cowards for not revealing the identities of the suspected terrorists. What are they afraid of? Show us the names on the list!

The military are not brave hiding behind their guns under hundreds of pounds of body protection. There is nothing brave about killing other humans. They are scared kids facing death because they didn't have a JOB to go to, following orders because they have no other alternative in this country. Puppets of a corrupt, out of control government!

Your comments stated that you raised your daughter to be a part of that killing machine! Yes, the military murders innocent civilians and does it without a mask, how brave those men are to kill civilians and to piss on the bodies of those they murdered! Your daughter is a small cog in a huge killing machine. You foolishly said so right in your comments that she is in the military and bragged on how brave you think she is.

Pat N
My daughter's original MOS was 35N - SIGINT. She was 19 at the time. The Army never issued her a mask. Nor did they tell her that if she speaks in public, she has to alter her voice. A gal the graduated that AIT before her was killed when she was changing a camera on the front lines. Guess what? She wasn't wearing a cheap plastic mask from a Hollywood movie when she was making that change. #5.33 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:49 AM CST

Now Pat, I know that we have discussed this in other threads about how foolish it is to bring family into a discussion, but you did exactly that right here! Your comment, brought the subjects into the discussion. Seems pretty foolish on your part, but let's continue the discussion.

Your comment said that you sent your child off to war to be trained to kill and to have their friends killed at the tender age of 19? Every soldier is trained to kill. Do they not have gas masks in the military for protection? Or do the "brave" ones not wear them?
You openly support the military that murders of innocent civilians.
You support the military, that has desecrated the bodies of humans, by pissing on them.

The reasons why you support the military do not matter near as much as that fact that you do support them in their mass destruction and murders and disrespectful acts against other humans both living and dead. Your comments reflect a very low value on a human life. But they are typical for most tea party/republicans it seems. What's the word... compassion, look that one up!

Maybe if your daughter's friend went out and got a job in the private sector instead of feeding from the teets of the government, she would be alive today. Being stupid is not brave. She was stupid and died because of it. She should have gone to college and trained for a profession in computers instead of training to kill innocent people. Nice to know that your daughter is a trained killer though, I hope she doesn't see this and terrorize me! Ask her if she knows the camera person that filmed the military people pissing on those dead bodies?

Then you have the nerve to ask me why I support terrorists? You have got to be @!$%#ing kidding me. That is laughable. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Holy crap!
Someone who supports murder and violence and destruction of other nations, asking me why I support people fighting on a computer for a free uncensored Internet? Holy hell, I've heard it all now! Your comments are just hysterical, and way off base and are really insane. ....connecting the dots.....

How the hell can anyone be terrorized by a computer? Just turn the damn thing off if it scares you! I can point my computer at anyone and they don't feel terrorized one bit, BUT when the military points their guns at anyone it definitely terrorizes them!

So who does that put supporting "terrorists" Pat? Looks like the terrorists that you support are murderers,and then piss on their victims literally, but the terrorists I support are computer nerds that have never killed anyone! Any difference there in your mind? Your comments seem to have things backwards, the cowards are the ones that are sending the children to war, and killing before being killed, and hiding behind billions of dollars of military equipment made for mass destruction just to get a paycheck. The brave ones, (and smart ones,) are risking their freedom so everyone can stay free and they aren't being paid to do it at all! They don't hide behind anything except a $2 plastic mask and a computer and their self taught skills and abilities!

I support the peaceful actions of Anonymous that is working for a free and uncensored Internet. If you or anyone else see them as terrorists or are terrorized by them in any way, then tough @!$%#, get off the net and out of the way. I do not give a rat's ass what you think, do or say about me, and I doubt very much if Anonymous collectively gives a fiddlers @!$%# about what you think, say or do either! (I'll ask them at the next meeting) What some government agency calls Anonymous doesn't really matter at all. Yes, the leader told me to tell you that.

So tell me Pat, why do you support murderers and people who piss on their murdered victims? My, how brave they all look while they ruin what is left of this countries reputation.
Why do you train your children to kill and send them to war pat?
Your comments are just so wild it is unbelievable how bad they stretch the truths! Just connecting the dots here. How'd I do so far?

Anonymous does not kill anyone!(never has). The military killed thousands of innocent people!
Anonymous "hides" behind a mask. The military hides behind hundreds of pounds of body armor.
Anonymous uses computers. The military uses guns and bombs and weapons of mass destruction that kill innocent people.
Anonymous people train themselves. The military are trained to kill by murderers.
Anonymous is self supporting. The military uses hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year.
Anonymous wants people to be free. The military wants people to obey their orders.

Support who you want.
You can go ahead and support people who murder innocent humans and piss on their dead bodies, I'll support people who do not kill and fight for a free and uncensored Internet and world.

There has been some confusion among the media about who/what Anonymous is/represents. There have also been questions asked about the input from Anonymous during the current Global Revolution.

Anonymous is an online pool of consciousness, sometimes we create a force towards a similar direction which would mamifest in revolution. Anonymous has no leader. We are one. We are many. One does not speak for the many. Many do not speak for all. No one speaks for all. We come from all walks of life. All age, race, sex, places.

Anonymous have no ideaologies. Anonymous have every ideology imaginable. Anonymous have no goals. Anonymous have every goal imaginable. Anonymous can not be labeled, blamed or made a scapegoat. To blame Anonymous would be to blame the citizens of the world. There is no discrimination in Anonymous unless you do not have an Internet connection. We do not work with post. No one speaks for Anonymous. Nothing is official. No videos. No operations. Not even any press release. Every video, press release was created by a number of Anonymous at an Anonymous time in an Anonymous place and uploaded Anonymously, it does not speak for Anonymous.

Anonymous is everywhere. Anonymous sees everything. Anonymous never sleep, while one side of the world slumber the other awakens. Anonymous are active, always. Anonymous do not take sides, Anonymous do not believe in sides. Anonymous are not followers. Anonymous are our own leaders on our own journey. Many Anonymous uphold the law of the land, human rights and freedom of speech, but we are many.We can not speak for all. We know that the following countries Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bahrain, Canada, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela and Yemen are all under protest and are watching them. Anonymous are not terrorists. Anonymous are freedom fighters, helping to give voices to the voiceless.

Anonymous hackers are more than you think. Trying to stop Anonymous is like trying to stop a tsunami with a surfboard, to try to hit a lightning bolt with an umbrella, to douse a fire away with petrol, or to fist fight the earth.

The time has come for the people of the world to unite. You can not wait for a revolution. You are the revolution. Anonymous hackers are the revolution. Their strength is in numbers. The time is now. Every time you decide not to exercise your rights, every time you do not deny ignorance, every time you give your money to a corporate business you are contributing to the oppression of the human race. Anonymous is calling for your help. The people of the world are calling for your help. They do it because they can. They do it for the future, of our children and all life on this planet. They do it because they see lies and deceit. They do it because every digital account is fuelled with the strength of human emotion, but mostly we do it for the lulz. Anonymous are the people. The people are Anonymous. Now you can be Anonymous.

They are the Internet heros, hackers and hijackers, information rebels, revolutionaries and resisters. They are you, me, the grunt in the next cubicle, the geek that fixes your computer. They are Anonymous, an informal collective of interactivists that last year virtually armed protestors in Tunisia and Egypt with the necessary knowledge to topple governments: How to keep safe during protests. How to bypass censors. How not to leave an online trail. How to keep posting Youtubes when the dictators have pulled the Internet plug. http://theevilhackerz.com/magazine-01-low.pdf

Check the link to get a better understanding! No, on second thought don't bother, your comments sound confused enough as it is.

Why do I feel like I'm about to be terrorized by Tyler or Sally over this? :)

Via con dios.

G'night everyone!

;)

TR-421173

Never mind, I keep typing a bunch of stuff & then just deleting it.

I know the feeling.

Yea, well, what can I say.... I didn't delete the last time!

;)

#5.77 - - - Very Kaczynskiesque. Got any property available in Montana?

Sammy

Relax dude! Chill out, have a beer, and walk away from the computer before you get yourself in trouble.

northern girl

Sammy

Relax dude! Chill out, have a beer, and walk away from the computer before you get yourself in trouble.

Trouble for what? I just connected a few of the dots. Sorry but I do not tolerate ignorance and condescending opinions very well. Tyler seems to think that it is o,k, as long as it is "in the discussion" so I responded to what was said and "connected a few dots" to jump to conclusions that have been stated previously in the thread. All within the CoH, but not a model comment to show someone that is new to Newsvine. Lets try to stay on the topic Instead of attacking each other with "connected dots" and it will be more fun for everyone.

The attacks began as Anonymous' Sabu called for people to boycot paid media in all forms and supporting torrent and file sharing sites. "This new, massive operation, will target on SOPA/PIPA in a way that the government was not expecting," he posted on Twitter."We are going to starve the beast." In response to the arrest of Megaupload.com's founders, he said, "This is the governments way of saying: 'How nice of you protest SOPA/PIPA. But we still are in control.' @!$%# this."

At just before 4PM CT on January 19, both the websites of the Department of Justice and Universal Music were made unavailable by denial of service attacks. Anonymous' Barrett Brown told RT.com that "It was in retaliation for Megaupload, as was the concurrent attack on Justice.org." Both sites are still down, and more attacks are being mounted; Anonymous members have now targeted the sites of the Motion Picture Association of America and the White House, and other government sites.

There you have 2 members of Anonymous that are well known and without masks, speaking out, but cannot be found by our government or proved guilty of any crimes. They are not hiding behind masks, they are right out in the wide open Internet and on television but our government and it's agencies are too stupid to stop them apparently. Our government has already been trying to catch them for years, using military force against them has already been threatened in other countries. Our government says that they already have mug shots for these people, and Barrett Brown and Sabu have both been rumored to be very respected names within Anonymous! The government has no evidence to charge them with any crimes.

There have been others interviewed by RT too. It sure is funny, but Russian Television (RT) seems to have better knowledge of America than our own news stations, and give better and more accurate news too! That is a shame that our news outlets are allowed to lie to us and call it news, They all do it, but fux news is the worst and actually have sued in court to protect their right to tell us lies and call it "news." There is no law against lying, if you call it "news"! Clinton proved that. Remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? The tea party members all lied to us when they said they would represent the will of the people if they got elected too. Then they held us all hostage and gave us the "Tea Party Downgrade" to our credit rating.

It boils down to if our government was able to stop Anonymous they would, but they cannot. It's not for a lack of effort, they are spending millions to find anyone that is connected to Anonymous. They simply are not smart enough to catch them! The Internet just isn't built for security and nobody can ever change that! Not even our government.

LOL, damn Sammy, you crushed it right there. Good work, bro. Way to demonstrate. Superb skills, indeed, my man.

It ain't that hard. But he makes it very clear that he's not involved in, y'know, illegal stuff.

I doubt very much that you find anyone within Anonymous that will freely admit to anything illegal. Isn't withholding information a crime? Is aiding in a cybercrime a crime?

Link to our government saying they have mugshots of Sabu? Pretty sure their identity hasn't been confirmed.

Anons dox each other out for lulz! Sabu claims to be the disinformation king! I guess he hasn't really been arrested yet, so there is no government link to a picture. The jester put on a pretty good show when they outed Sabu, but there is no way to comfirm anything, but if you "connect the dots" on the Internet he is there. The government also has a psychological profile of Sabu that matches what the jester has showed pretty close.

But nobody knows! *jazz hands*

Just because you don't know doesn't mean that nobody knows.

I do know that Sabu types stuff like this:

17:49 <&Sabu> we could rape these @!$%#s

Which really does not endear me to anything they're involved in.

You cannot judge Anonymous on the statement of one person in a chat room. Weather he is perceived to be a leader or not. Not one of them is as cruel as all of them! They are friends talking in a chat room if it's the "N" word you refer to it is a valid slang term in the chats.

The Internet just isn't built for security and nobody can ever change that!

I think this is the only thing you wrote I agree with.

I'm glad we could find something.

Ipv6 is supposed to be more secure, the switch is taking too long though, If we allow the government to just close down some websites, they can resell the ipv4 IP addresses. :)

abolish taxes

LOL, damn Sammy, you crushed it right there. Good work, bro. Way to demonstrate. Superb skills, indeed, my man.

Thanks for your support, but it isn't about being able to crush one out. I hate having to stoop so low as to insult anyone personally and label them with names. It did not have to come to this, but it was allowed to. I think the dots connected pretty well in this case.

What is worse is that this type of behavior is allowed to happen here all the time. If you get offended, they label you as being thin skinned.

The CoH is supposed to protect the viners, but in this case it failed epically. Maybe Tyler and Sally are getting us primed for the elections coming up, let us thicken up our skin.

If we could all just argue the topics instead of trying to ruin someones credibility by labeling them as a supporter of terrorism Newsvine would be a more enjoyable place. Labeling people and painting the world with a wide brush just isn't me and is just out of line in my book as a general rule. Sometimes it is necessary to do when others do it first.

In this case rules were meant to be broken.

;)

Was completely unfounded, I suppose.

Not completely unfounded, I made a mistake and for some reason I thought that Sabu had been caught at one point. Maybe I was thinking of Topiary at the time? I was wrong and sabu hasn't ever been caught. They do have the mug shot for Barrett as you said. They also have many other mugshots from Anons that have been arrested around the world.

Do you think you violated the CoH?

No Tyler, I don't, if you allow the use of anything in the discussion and jumping to conclusions to connect the dots in the discussion and painting the world with the widest brush in the box, which I think should never be done. I normally try to avoid doing those things as much as possible. That is why I waited for you to weigh in on this discussion before I gave any response at all.

I did not reply until I saw that you were going to allow Pat to get away with making comments like that. Even the others in the discussion thought pat was over the line. When you restored her comment and said what a good discussion we were having, I felt that I needed to reply to state my position in the same way she stated hers. The results are just as I expected.

I do feel that when she accused me directly, and not my comment, and she tried to ruin my credibility and reputation by saying that I support terrorism, which I never said, and is not true, that was a violation of the CoH. I am not the topic of the discussion.

In my eyes Anonymous are not terrorists, even though by definition of the word they do use "terrorist tactics" against computers. They do not attack people, they attack computers and servers! Computers can not be terrorized. Maybe it's just me, but, I have always associated terrorists and terrorism as acts against humans, not machines.

I really do not see our military as terrorists either, but they do fit the meaning of the word very well and they do kill and terrorize humans. So when the "dots are connected" and "conclusions are jumped to" there are many organizations that could be called terrorists if you use the strict definition of the word.

Every time you suspend someone from Newsvine they feel terrorized, but I would never ever say that anyone with Newsvine are terrorists, even though they use the threat of suspension to force us into being civil towards each other and to uphold certain rules.

I would bet that Pat feels I violated the CoH just as much as I feel that she did. I am good with that though. Is that what we are supposed to get from being here on Newsvine?

If I were the moderator on this thread Pat would have been kicked for violating the CoH and a response like I wrote would not have been necessary. But I am not the moderator, you are, so I respect the decisions you make and work within them.

Do you think that I violated the CoH by responding to pat's accusation against me the way I did?

If this were my thread and the community collapsed pat's comment and I deleted it, would you have restored it and reprimanded me for deleting the comment unjustly?

Pat has been suspended for toeing the line before this, and continues to do so. But this time I think she went over the line by addressing ME instead of my comment. I prefer to stay back from that line and not risk getting suspended all the time. I have only 1 one day suspension and that happened not long after I signed up. It gave me a chance to read the CoH!

Are we supposed to be discussing each other here or the seeded article?

Should we be commenting on the people in the discussion or the topic of the thread?

Are we supposed to be discussing each other here or the seeded article?

After having been absent from this article and not making a comment for well over two days, I see you choose to still make me the topic, sammy. From a single question from Tyler to you about whether or not you feel YOU violated the CoH, you managed to respond with over an 8 paragraph dissertation on me.

Would suggest you practice what you are stating above. Certainly your prerogative to decide whether you want to or not.

I made my question quite clear. You stated you support Anonymous. A visit to your column supports that. Reading your comments here supports that. The DHS, and multiple other government entities around the world, have Anonymous classified as terrorists. Asking you why you support terrorists is not a CoH violation. Calling you a terrorist would be.

.

I see you choose to still make me the topic, sammy.

No Pat, I was responding to a question. Everything isn't about you. If you are relevant to the question I have been asked, I will say that in my answer. I am not the topic of this discussion. My beliefs are not the topic of this discussion. Why the hell do you insist on making this about me personally? I am NOT the topic here. You are NOT the topic here either.

I made my question quite clear. You stated you support Anonymous. A visit to your column supports that. Reading your comments here supports that. The DHS, and multiple other government entities around the world, have Anonymous classified as terrorists.

I provided a VERY thorough answer to your question at #5.77

You ignored it. Please read it!

Asking you why you support terrorists is not a CoH violation. Calling you a terrorist would be.

Pat, If I would say that I am IN Anonymous instead of just a supporter of the idea, would that make me a terrorist? Would you say that Sabu was a terrorist? Or Barrett Brown, Would you call him a terrorist? Sabu is active within Anonymous and believed to be very respected and very knowledgeable of their activities and "close to the core", Mr Brown is the "self proclaimed spokesperson" for Anonymous. Both are believed to be solidly within Anonymous. Are they terrorists?

Pat, If I would say that I am IN Anonymous instead of just a supporter of the idea, would that make me a terrorist?

I'm not sure how DHS classifies individuals of a group that they have classified as terrorists. But it's really a moot point, since my question wasn't why you supported a lone individual classified as a terrorist, but why you supported a group classified as terrorist.

And even if you were a member, it still wouldn't be a CoH violation since I had no knowledge of your affiliation prior to making the comment. We had this discussion before in another of Tyler's threads. My daughter and her active duty military status was the example that was used. At that time, you claimed that if a person had no prior knowledge of a Viners military affiliation, it wouldn't be a violation to say that soldiers are brainwashed, uniformed mercinaries. Have you now changed your mind and decided that if a person has no knowledge of another Viner's affiliations, it IS a violation if they say something deemed negative about that group?

Would you say that Sabu was a terrorist? Or Barrett Brown, Would you call him a terrorist? Sabu is active within Anonymous and believed to be very respected and very knowledgeable of their activities and "close to the core", Mr Brown is the "self proclaimed spokesperson" for Anonymous. Both are believed to be solidly within Anonymous. Are they terrorists?

In my opinion? Yes. But my opinion isn't the issue here. Like it or not, Anonymous has a governmental classification of "Terrorist Organization". To call them 'terrorists' is no different than calling the KKK a racist hate group. It is what it is.

Would you consider it a violation of CoH if someone stated they support the KKK, was posting all kinds of glowing justifications for the KKK's actions and I asked them: "Why do you support a racist hate group"?

Not worth wasting your time Sammy. I said something about some people not having a clue & got warned, AL got scolded for saying people are naive. We're all just terrorists anyway, you support or are a member of Anon & mine is supporting Vets (DHS lists returning Vets as a possible threat - they might not be happy with their treatment in the military & join militia groups)), they have also listed the tea party & far right & far left as a threat, and a lot of other people & groups, so feel free to call me whatever you want. Tyler has shown that Pat can say what she wants (just connect the dots). Might as well walk away, you can't fight "circular reasoning".

Sweet.

Yea, I figured you'd be happy that I submit to the terrorism of commenting in a moderator's seed. You do have the final word Tyler. If we appeal the mail gets ignored, been there done that. Your final word is gospel. What you say goes. You are always right, simply because you are. Goes with the job. I have been very polite until I was accused of supporting terrorism, check out my comments, I know you could if you wanted to.

Maybe #5. I think it's a pretty obvious exercise in line-dancing but I prefer not to suspend until a line's actually crossed.

#5 is a judgement call on YOUR part Tyler. I feel that you should not have allowed it to escalate to this point. It's your seed though. You're the boss. If you want this type of discussion then here we are. #5 could also apply to #5.49 along with #1 the comment is right on the line for either rule, or no rule as it turns out. Depends who the moderator is.

Impossible hypothetical - column moderators can't delete collapsed comments.

(splitting hairs) O.K. then suppose I deleted it right BEFORE it got collapsed and they contested the deletion. Would you have restored it still? (details, details) YOU can delete collapsed comments in this discussion can't you? You can also give suspensions too for comments that do not comply with the CoH can you not?? You're dancing around the answer here Tyler. If this wasn't your thread, would that comment have got restored? Be honest now, we all know that the you and every newsvine moderator are overworked and spend most of the time on the msnbc articles. Would you or any newsvine moderator have come to an article that I seeded and restored that comment after reading the discussion? I have never, ever seen it happen yet on any of my seeds. Not one of the appeals that I made to have one of comments restored has EVER been acknowledged by any Newsvine employee. Happened here in 1 day, nearly record time. Funny how that works isn't it?

The only time I was able to get a response from Newsvine was when I told you about the vulnerability in this website. Yall Never did let me know if the problem was addressed either, all I got was a mail saying it didn't apply to the Newsvine server, but the scan I was sent and forwarded to you proved otherwise!

On the subject of comments, I have never received a reply!

Depends. Sometimes the issues and arguments include Newsviners - in this case you expressed your personal support for Anonymous a few times. #5.49 was pretty on-topic.

I'm glad you brought that comment up Tyler let's revisit it for clarification:

Pat NRestored

Saying that Anonymous is a Terrorist is a stretch and very misleading. Using that logic so are parents and teachers and most employers.

Hmmm. I don't see parents, teachers and employers on the DHS's terrorist list. I DO see Anonymous. So officially...they ARE terrorists. Why do you support terrorists, Sammy?

• 5

• !

#5.49 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:51 PM CST

I'm sorry but the topic of this seed has nothing to do with what is said in 5.49! I said Anonymous are not terrorists and Pat said the government said they are, and asked ME why I support terrorism! The topic of this comment is ME! The only question in this comment is about ME, not what I said, but me personally and what I support. That makes it personal for me. The topic of this seed is the websites that were attacked by Anonymous.( nothing to do with me ) How do you come to think that who I support, and why, is a topic of this discussion? Me and my personal feelings and beliefs are not a topic of this discussion or the seeded article. Knowing that I support Anonymous does not make me the topic of a discussion!

There is ONE word in that comment that has anything to do with the topic of this seed, "ANONYMOUS".

When did I, or my beliefs of who I support, become a topic for discussion?

Are you somehow trying to bait me here Tyler? I know you have that CoH memorized. Anonymous may be considered a topic here, but not ME. I am far from Anonymous on the web! You know that. I do support the idea of Anonymous. Does that make me a topic for discussion? NO it does not. Does that make the fact that I support Anonymous a part of this discussion? NO it does not! If I was a bleach blonde tea party republican, would that be any part of this discussion? NO, it has nothing to do with the seeded article. It is irrelevant to this seeded article and this discussion and is off topic, not to mention that I found it to be inflammatory.

sammy sezso, I don't moderate according to how people feel. If I did, there'd be a lot of discussions with what are currently #1 violations standing, and a lot more users banned.

You cannot moderate according to how people feel. That isn't even possible! You have no idea how I, or anyone else not with you, feels right now! I believe that you should be moderating according to what people say, or type in this case. The rules are there for a reason, to make newsvine enjoyable for everyone to openly discuss the news, and it is your job to interpret and enforce the rules when needed. I believe in this case a simple friendly warning would have been enough at first, but you chose to allow it to escalate, why I do not know. So here we are. The rules failed because they were not used or enforced.

Though I disagree with them, I find your arguments in favor of Anonymous a lot more persuasive than your critiques of my moderation.

Thank you. (I think) I didn't come here to test your moderation techniques Tyler. You have the final word though. There is nowhere to go above you for clarification or appeal as far as I know. You ARE the final sayso.

You know where this will go from here. your call!

Holding for now....

...watching my mail

;)

Bounce or bump?

Just my two cents and we already have a price tag on what that is worth:

• I have had my comments collapsed and restored by the Admins. I've also had the collapse ignored even though they did not violate the CoH. I guess it depends really on how many other more pressing concerns there are at Newsvine. I also know that weekends play a big part in what slips through the cracks and I personally would hate to see the email inbox of either Sally or Tyler on Monday mornings!
• You are right sammy sezso, there is no appealing the Moderators call when it is an Admins column. I would be a little afraid of Multiple Personality Disorder if there were and what that would say about their mental stability in the first place.
• Pat N technically did not cross the line of the CoH when she questioned why you support a Federally designated Terrorist Group. The best response would have been to refer her to the DHS memo's and question why she supports the Terrorist Group of returning Vets. When she explained that she only supports those who deserved support, you could have replied with a "Ditto" on Anonymous and their actions. I personally don't support their releasing of all of the soldiers personal information that they did, but I do support many of the attacks that they have launched against Bankers and financial institutions.

This is an argument no one can win. Probably best to walk away before someone gets themselves in real trouble or feelings get so bruised that it creates long-lasting resentments that could lead to worse problems in the future. Like I said, JMHO...

P.S. Pat N., I also support Anonymous but then I also support Vet's as well. It is possible to do both.

OK, so now you support terrorists too? ;) Damn, there are a bunch of terrorists & terrorist supporters on here, I had no idea.

Don't take the bait

Considering that all of the U.S. is now a batlleground and that according to the DHS all of us are Potential Domestic Terrorist and therefore qualify for indefinite detention under NDAA, yeah.. I'm a "terrorist supporter" I suppose. :o)

BRB There is someone knocking at the door...

When did I, or my beliefs of who I support, become a topic for discussion?

To the time machine we go. You, in September 2011, on a very similar topic:

Do you realize that Anonymous stands for freedom and liberty and transparency in governments?

That's about me, or my beliefs, or support, and it's a fine comment. It's on-topic. It was addressing something I've stated in the discussion, it's not disrespectful.

Tyler, That comment does not address you personally at all! How do you see that it addresses you personally? What word makes my question to you personal?

In that comment I am questioning your knowledge of what Anonymous stands for. It asks if you understand (realize) something. Realize: to grasp or understand clearly.

Put it into context and read it again. I specifically question what you SAID and not your personal beliefs or you personally. That's why it is a good comment and you didn't question it at the time! I then went on to explain what Anonymous stands for, just to be sure you were aware (realized) of what they stand for. (There is also a typo in the comment I made and I will correct it here by adding a line to cross out the word that I mistakenly added for clarity.)

Tyler said: Wouldn't mind seeing Anonymous fall by the wayside, though. More harm than good.

Sammy said: Why would make you say that? Do you realize that Anonymous stands for freedom and liberty and transparency in governments? They stand for human rights and freedom of speech for the common people of the world.

...

#2.2 - Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:06 PM CDT

I question what you said in your comment. I did not question your beliefs or you personally. I just asked why you would say that you feel that Anonymous is doing more harm than it does good. My comment was a question about your statement, and I just wanted to be sure that you understood (realized) what I think Anonymous stands for. Nothing personal about you in there at all.

Also, in the next comment in that discussion that you made, mentions nothing of you personally or what you believe or support. We stayed on topic and the thread wasn't derailed and we had a good, clean discussion. We both walked away without feeling slighted or verbally abused. There were NO personal attacks.

tyler

Do you realize that Anonymous stands for freedom and liberty and transparency in governments?

Anonymous doesn't stand for anything. It's decentralized to the point where legitimacy of claims is nigh impossible to distinguish. There's no mission statement.

#2.3 - Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:53 PM CDT

The topic is ANONYMOUS and that example mentions nothing about you or I personally.

That is a very poor example you chose Tyler, and is nothing like what was said here. I think you're reaching on this now, the proof is when you fired up the time machine.

While we have the time machine out Please visit here: This shouldn't have to be said, but when engaged in a debate in either the comments or the chat, please refrain from ad hominim attacks - keep on the subject, don't get personal.

There are also many examples here. They aren't moderators of course, but were instrumental in making Newsvine what it is today and seem to be very respected on Newsvine. Here too.

It's unreasonable to expect you or I not to comment on other users' support/beliefs/etc.

B.S.

Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

Any comment about a users beliefs or anything else about us personally is a "personal" comment, an ad hominem if you will, as it does not address the discussion, it address the beliefs or personality traits of the people in the discussion.

The topic is set by the seeded article, NOT by who comments and their personal beliefs, which have nothing to do with the subject.

You can try Mike but I don't think he's ever overruled us.

Sounds like a waste of time to me. You saying he never overrules proves that.

Don't take the bait

Too late. :(

Did you get the NV mail I sent to you Tyler?

I'm not certain the government is aware that a true coordinated attack is even possible.

Oh, they're aware. Many government agencies are moving their websites to the cloud - I wonder if the White House and DOJ sites are out on something like Amazon. I'm guessing not, and I wonder how much extra protection against DOS attacks that architecture would provide.

With the new "tools" that are out Anonymous can take down cloud servers easily too.

Is that cause to do it?

no.

http://www.fbi.gov/ wasn't gone very long, then.

It's not loading here.

Heh... I must've just been lucky when I tried it the first time.

It's broke now...

I just pulled it up - it took a while though. I'm on safari.

Quick, everyone go to the sites under attack and check their status (increase the already high loads on the sites).

I have wondered that also & would say sometimes it has to help it along. I mean sites get knocked off on accident when they are put up on some news site or tv for having whatever of interest (from "naked pics of so & so", to video of _____. But for the most part I think it is the LOIC's especially when the "Hivemind" feature is used & control is turned over to another. Or so I have heard.

I have heard that their new HOIC is even better than LOIC.

Tests show it is more effective and uses less resources.

Staying Anonymous while using the cannons is a problem in itself, because the packets of information being sent can be used to identify the computer they came from.

If enough people hit F5 at the same time it can cause a website to go down for a short time! HOIC and LOIC just do that hundreds of times a second. Just like a protest of the website, when the protesters go home the site comes back!

Frankly I expected a much larger attack and more information dumps! A few sites actually got hacked over this. It looks like cbs.com is down now and got rooted! Who will be next?

;)

So is Whitehouse.com...

;)

So is Whitehouse.com...

Is whitehouse.com still a porn site?

Made that mistake before... :-(

They didn't just black out, blacked out sites had links to information about why they opposed the legislation and links to communicate your concerns.

I said it would be clarifying if they came out with a collective statement. A united front against infringement of the freedom to information would be nice.

One statement to be ignored? No, I think they elevated awareness far above what would have happened with a simple statement. Chris Dodd's apoplexy alone over the blackouts is a good indication that the message was effective.

One statement to be ignored?

It may have well been ignored. But it certainly would not have hurt the cause,
apoplexy considered.

Well, since they not only got a LOT of attention, but also managed to inform people why the bills are lousy at the same time, its a win. In essence I think they did what you want, just not quite how you wanted.

There have been letters and petitions to congress by some serious tech types, ignored. Google tried to make the case before congress, basically mocked. The laughing quit and sponsors are bailing.

Nice list.

Excellent point, OOV!

Bravo!

It is illegal to own an assault weapon in California. That's a law that infringes on the second amendment. Now only the criminals can own an assault rifle because they obey no law. The second amendment was put there so the citizens of the country could own any kind of firearm that would protect them from an invading force or an overbearing government. It was not put there with limitations saying that the citizens can only carry guns that cannot hurt people and they can only use them for hunting food.

So technically under the second amendment of the constitution, if I want to have an F16 fighter jet fully equipped and loaded parked in my driveway, I can. (providing of course I could afford it)

I would also like to say that I am proud of all those who helped stop the violation of our freedom of information!

The second amendment was put there so the citizens of the country could own any kind of firearm that would protect them from an invading force or an overbearing government. It was not put there with limitations saying that the citizens can only carry guns that cannot hurt people and they can only use them for hunting food.

This is a portion of the 2nd ammendment tend to forget.

Exactly, overbearing government also includes local police forces. State sponsored militias, and the U.S. military.

It is a valid simile. They want the mere ownership of each of the items to be illegal let alone committing an actual crime.

SOPA/PIPA are obvious attempts at infringing upon the rights of American citizens by limiting information. They are too broad in scope to be limited to piracy protection. Some information gathered on the Internet is instrumental in keeping our gov't on the straight and narrow path. This web site is one example. Knowledge is power. That being said, there is a relation to the second amendment. The Americans' ability to protect themselves from external and internal threats. If the government limits your ability to collect particular kinds of weapons, then you are vulnerable and cannot protect yourself efficiently. If the threat comes at you with a machine gun and all you have is a pitchfork then you're in trouble. If the government limits or controls what information you are allowed to have, then your in just as much trouble. If you let them take one right you might as well give up them all.

It's not a big leap for me. All 3 can be used as a valid defense against an overbearing government.

well, one is the ownership of a service for distributing pirated content.

Megaupload had a faster download and no advertising for it's paying customers.

Others could watch videos online for 72 minutes at a time, if you tried to see a 2 hour movie it will pause at the 72 min. mark for 30 minutes then it allowed you to finish watching. Or you could simply download and save the file without interruption.

As far a file sizes, I do not think they were limited at all.

There were many people who had back-ups of their hard drives and files stored there also. it wasn't ALL copyrighted material, but some it was.

Youtube has a ton of copyrighted material on it, the way the laws read now though if you see your material on a website then all you have to do is file a DMCA and have they have to remove it. You can file a challenge to the DMCA and then the one that claims the copyright has 5 days to either file charges against you or the material goes back online.

Copyrights are very easy to obtain, I have one for a video I made a couple years ago. It's just a worthless piece of paper, that nobody is in charge of enforcing except me. I got a copyright for the video even though I ripped off the song from Paul Shanklin and rush limbaugh! Clear channel threatened to sue me for it, but backed down when they found out they won't get anything from the lawsuit. So essentially I own a copyright for work that I didn't create! All I did was assemble the pieces to make it a video and that made it MY work, even though I ripped off everything I used! It's a joke and has been the whole time through! I purposely did what I did to show how dumb the whole copyright laws are, and it worked, I have the copyright to prove it.

How many times should a person be paid for doing a job?

Should a person be able to make something and sell it several times, claiming it to be new each time?

So essentially I own a copyright for work that I didn't create! All I did was assemble the pieces to make it a video and that made it MY work, even though I ripped off everything I used!

And you seem so proud of this. Sad.

Born an analog boy and now a man in the digital world. On the cusp. Heh. Back in the day, some people made money on bootleg tapes from live performances. A whole lot more made change from cassette tape of vinyl albums.

These days with bit for bit downloads, it's not necessarily easier. But I'll tell you what. I was always proud of the vinyl I bought with my money back then, and to hell with anyone who bitched about my taping a mix on cassette for a lady friend.

I say give me the whole package, clean and clear with the liner notes and the cover art, and shut up if I want to share with friends.

And you seem so proud of this. Sad.

All perfectly legal! So how do you feel that it is sad for me to have a copyright on a video that I made? It is MY work in the video and I used a song as a parody. Big deal. happens every day. The copywrong isn't worth the paper it's are written on!

Get over it.

I say give me the whole package, clean and clear with the liner notes and the cover art, and shut up if I want to share with friends.

I agree with you on that magz. I hear that vinyl is coming back too! I still have the old turn table and a hundred or so albums. Still use it regularly! Cassettes are getting harder to find though! I transferred all of my albums to my computer just because it is so much easier to play the music that way.

I guess pirated material happens more than I ever figured it would as far as the Internet is concerned. I don't agree or approve of anyone copying material they haven't paid for but I really can't blame them. I have never downloaded music or videos off the Internet. I would rather go out and buy the disk and load it into my MP 3 player. But I guess that's just me.

Software piracy has been around since the 70's at least. While some software companies were smart enough to figure out that if you price your product right you'll sell more software. Instead of testing the market to see what price range would sell best, many (if not most) software companies dumped millions into copy protecting their software directly.

It was a constant battle between the writers and the hackers. As soon as new copy protection was applied to the software, the crack was figured out and dispersed all over the country. In some cases the hacks (or cracks) actually hit the consumer before the software did.

Here it is 40+ years later and the mindset has not changed that much. Only difference being that audio and video has fallen into the mainstream.

Some companies have learned that selling their product at a cheaper price doesn't actually "cheapen" their product, but rather puts "more" of their product into the consumers hands. This not only acts as a great advertising tool, but it also leaves the consumer happy, and eliminates the need to spend millions on direct copy protection. What a concept.

I do believe Anonymous has a valid point since it's been an ongoing issue for decades, but I think their approach is a bit misguided.

We do NOT need more government intervention into the Internet. There have been laws in place for decades that protect intellectual property. We just need to apply the ones we already have instead of trashing up the Internet with more of them.

Personally I think Anonymous could make better use of their skillz by directing their attacks on known terrorist websites. Who knows, they may even be able to save a life or two in the process. But that may be too much of a challenge for them :)

#15.6: Personally I think Anonymous could make better use of their skillz by directing their attacks on known terrorist websites. Who knows, they may even be able to save a life or two in the process. But that may be too much of a challenge for them :)

I really do like the way you think. That was an extremely well-written comment.

I really do like the way you think. That was an extremely well-written comment.

Thanks bitemore :)

Anonymous members seem to like dog's cock too much to be able to do anything useful.

LOL!

So what truths have you exposed and "publicly" shared lately? After all, truth works best when "everyone" knows it, not just a chosen few who deem themselves intellectually superior to the rest of the world. I wonder if you fully realize just how that statement sounds.

The truth is, all information pulled out from these successful hacks, have been provided, and are being provided through postings to everyone on pastiben, and the critical
information is being relayed through Wikileaks and other independent on line journalist throughout the world via the Internet.

While I appreciate the skillz required to hack into the DOJ's system, simply stealing information and sharing it amongst the members of your "loosely" knit organization does NOT make you a hero in any since of the word. It may make you out to be many things, but a hero is NOT on that list.

No, not I or any hacker, is a hero to the world..those willing to do so, are merely willing tools to fight for what is they feel is right. And again I believe you misunderstand the whole concept of what and who the whole anonymous network is...what it is about and what it actually stands for....much less the things it HAS accomplished with it's successes.

If your organization used those skills to actually save lives, or help find cures for terminal illnesses, or even to figure out a way to lower the price oil so the world could start it's climb out of the pit of poverty, THEN I would say you were worthy of being referred to as a hero.

Anonymous is NOT MY organisation, nor is it any organisation in anything more than an extremely loose definition of the word. Anonymous has opened access to the Internet throughout the world from Egypt, when the Egyptian military started killing the peaceful protesters and cut off the Internet...Anonymous turned it back on.

Anonymous has found solutions for much of the mental illnesses throughout the US and EU and the rest of the world..

Anonymous has fought for human rights and injustice throughout the world...saving countless lives by opening closed off populations putting live feeds, pictures and information into the open view of the world; thus, forcing human rights preservation from many governments in many cases.

The WHOLE (world wide) Occupy movement is INFORMING YOU of a way to cut oil prices throughout the world...to feed the starving throughout the world... To take control back from those running your government through money and corrupt influence.......and many other viable solutions and the definitions of the REAL problems ...........

...........if you just get out of the MAIN STREAM MEDIA's programming agenda and do a little research and consequential thinking for yourself, you would see these things

Until that day comes, the anon "collective" is nothing more than a loosely knit group of highly skilled, misguided, arrogant, narcissistic individuals with way too much time on their hands (IMHO).

Again a lack of accurate intellectual information is showing, as you spout uninformed main stream media misinformation and lies about a thing you do not even comprehend.

Like I said in an earlier post, I just think all those highly developed and finely honed skillz could actually be put to a much better and more productive use than simply hacking and trashing websites, whether they be government or private.

If you want to be called heroes, then do something for the betterment of mankind and stop acting like a bunch of spoiled child prodigies.

you have no concept as to what is actually being done: but to give you a hint...I will say this:

The defacing of websites, and the DDOS attacks along with the tons of information being posted for laughs is similar to the acts of civil disobedience, done by those who feel it is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to protest, be it on the web......whether you agree with it of not is irrelevant to those who do it.... but those who do so are heros in that they are the distraction necessary for the real work from the REAL hackers....the ones who are getting the TRUE INFORMATION on what is REALLY GOING ON FRIEND!!!

Bitch about the kids running their kiddy scripts all you want.....They are as much a hero as Manning or Assange.

Those of us who are AWARE of what is going on, the hows and whys, have a different perspective from those who are lied to by the criminals trying to hide their crimes through controlling legislature, governments, economies and the very freedoms of speech and human rights ...down to controlling the very information by censorship .....down to the level of the individual.

Just because many are awake, does not mean your among them.

the veil before your eyes has been woven throughout your life time with much effort...it does not fall with as much ease for some as it does for others

Nicely said :) and I really do understand.

Thanks for jumping in Tyler.

I've been working with computers for over 35 years. I retired from a VA Medical Center in 2006 where I spent the last 15 years as a Network Systems Administrator defending our network from all sorts of outside attacks from people just like we're talking about here.

Computer and network forensics was my main focus, and I got very good at back-tracking attackers, so I really do know at least a tiny bit about the subject.

Mindsets such as the one we see here are nothing new to me. I just don't have much patience with arrogant people whose response to any challenge is almost always something like:

"Just because many are awake, does not mean your among them".

What makes that statement particularly humorous is the idea that if a person is going to make such an eloquent sounding statement they should at least make sure they are using the correct words.

Anyway, have a great day Tyler.

The defacing of websites, and the DDOS attacks along with the tons of information being posted for laughs is similar to the acts of civil disobedience

Civil disobedience my ass! More like criminal vandalism, breaking and entering, and theft to me. I dont care if its cyber or not, dont @!$%# with things that dont belong to you!

What do you think of the Sabu saga, anonymous refugee? Is it a blow to Anonymous or just a minor setback?

do you really think the Sabu situation has had any definitive affect on the Anonymous movement, as a whole?....other than to reinforce to those who have become too secure in their position to be more aware of their own vulnerabilities?

I remember a day when the BBS and the PACK RAT system evolved into the Dot Com ERA.....I am one who was there in the very beginning,,,,,were you?

Funny how a thing which belonged to all us INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE CITIZENS is now the PRIVATE PROPERTY of the corporate enterprise....

funny how they think it is ok to walk into someone,s computer and sabotage the exe files because they feel like THEY HAVE A RIGHT, but to do the same to those corporations it has now becomes an act of breaking and entering or vandalism....

funny how perspective changes right along with who has the money to buy your legislature.

The real criminals are those who have violated your rights to privacy with your willing acceptance......and acceptance bought with LIES!

go ahead and back the criminals in their pursuits .....in the end, we will win. take it away from the people and the people will it away from you.

Maybe Tyler wasn't around in the beginning of the computer revolution, but I was.

While I will agree that gathering and sharing information that should be free to ALL people should not be a crime, I also believe it should be done with at least some level of intelligent discretion.

If you're going to make statements as bold as this:

The Fact is, the police sting operations, coercive threats by FBI, CIA, and even local police...have definitely caused criminals to turn on their fellow criminals...

and this:

Another Fact, is that they have frightened or coerced those afraid of criminal accusation and consequence of false accusation to turn in and/or on innocents to save their own neck, as well.

you should back them up with references to "real" events, otherwise your so called "facts" are nothing more that opinionated rhetoric. I'm sure there are thousands of cases where DDOS attacks have saved innocent lives so I'm sure you can come up with at least a couple of confirmed cases.

I take particular exception to this comment because it just goes to show how uninformed your logic is:

blocking the access to a server with DDOS is nothing more than sitting in a doorway with no permanent damage when one gets up and leaves or the DDOS ceases.

Let's expand on that comment a little. Let's say you've been in a terrible car wreck and the EMT's are trying to get you to the Emergency room so the Doctors and other care providers can save your life. When the the EMT's get to the ER door they find it's completely blocked by a bunch of protesters, and as a result of that blockage the care providers are unable to help you and as a result, you die.

I worked in a Veterans hospital for 20 years. Fifteen of those years was spent building, upgrading, supporting, and defending the network and servers that supplied patient information to the care providers who took care of our Veterans. Believe me, I am no stranger to DDOS attacks by so called heroes with a cause.

I have seen "many" occasions where Doctors were unable to retrieve critical health information on their patients simply because some (insert appropriate expletive here) didn't realize that blocking access to servers in a Hospital would or could cause permanent damage.

What you and anon don't seem to understand is that it's not JUST the servers you or they are attacking. It's also everyone involved with supporting those servers, as well as every single human being whose very life may depend on that server being accessible. Those people have done nothing to earn those attacks, and yet you defend those attacks with a vengeance while you claim they are innocent, harmless, and heroic.

Aside from all that, there's the massive amounts of man hours spent by thousands of System Administrators to keep those servers and networks accessible and shielded from all those "innocent"and "harmless" attacks being launched by all the so called "cyber heroes". Those Sys Admins (including myself) have no involvement in whatever it is that anon is protesting, and yet THEY, and everyone whose lives are dependent on accessible information are the ones who suffer the consequences of your so called "cause".

Sorry, but your dog just don't hunt.

Those people have done nothing to earn those attacks, and yet you defend those attacks with a vengeance while you claim they are innocent, harmless, and heroic.

Actually they are contributing, by not voicing sanity. Take your example above with a hospital looking up patient information, why? What is the compelling reason to have this lookup happen over a public network?

Would it bother you if your home power went down because of a DOS attack? Would you be angry at whomever initiated the DOS, sure. Would you also be angry at the idiots at the power company that put controls for said power on the internet?

The base concept of putting critical information on the internet is the dog that just won't hunt.

I made a pretty bad typo due to being in a hurry. Sorry about that.

I seriously doubt that the much needed fix would cost too much and only serve as just another target for the "cyber heroes"

Should have read:

I seriously believe that the much needed fix would cost too much, and only serve as just another target for the "cyber heroes".

However, how do we fix it? How do we pay for fixing it? More importantly, WHO is going to pay for fixing it?

My first thought would be to take a step back and put it back into hospitals and the patients hands. Perhaps the hospitals should pay for it since they are the ones that profited from the change in the first place.

I still have never heard a legitimate reason why they hook med centers up to the internet to start with. Providing access like a coffee shop does so that your clients are happy makes sense, running your cash register on the internet doesn't.

If a network is private and physically isolated from the internet then said cyber heroes would have to physically touch said network, which is a problem that has been solved repeatedly in the past.

So basically you are saying that the VA is run by just as many idiots as the rest of the world?

So basically you are saying that the VA is run by just as many idiots as the rest of the world?

Considering the key word as being "run", and considering that it's the politicians in Washington who make the decisions regarding VA policies, procedures, and financial support, then my answer would be yes. It's the Veteran patients and those who are caring for them that are not only the real heroes, but the real victims of those idiots.

But who are the real idiots? Politicians for making idiotic decisions that keep this country broke, or the people who for whatever reason choose to leave them in office?