It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Anon is at it again(68 posts)(68 posts)
(68 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 09, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: But they will not support PETA's good causes even when they agree with it because they don't like some members of PETA or disagree with their (members') past/current tactics?

Again, moving on from analogies to the actual situation: the cause in this case is supporting WikiLeaks, the people associated with that cause are members of Anon, the tactics they use are DOS attacks which cause bad publicity for Anon and bad publicity for the cause they support since they are the ones associated with that cause and the cause is now associated with those tactics.

Oh and which non-bad methods would these normal people use in support of this cause? ;)
avatar
GameRager: They might still find out about or already have found out about causes PETA supports which are good causes through other means and joined them that way.

As for Wikileaks, it isn't totally associated 100% with anon, and even if people thought it was the focus seems to be more on the content of the leaks and Assange's tactics in releasing them more than what anon is doing. I'd think the "bad" light is being shone by the haters on the tactics towards and on those who leaked the cables/etc....not the anons who supported Assange for whatever reason.

As for what "good" methods could be used...I dunno. In order to get such critical/top secret info most times such whisltleblowers have to break the law so.....
sorry made edits ... you may want to repost.
Posted February 09, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: But they will not support PETA's good causes even when they agree with it because they don't like some members of PETA or disagree with their (members') past/current tactics?

Again, moving on from analogies to the actual situation: the cause in this case is supporting WikiLeaks, the people associated with that cause are members of Anon, the tactics they use are DOS attacks which cause bad publicity for Anon and bad publicity for the cause they support since they are the ones associated with that cause and the cause is now associated with those tactics.

Oh and which non-bad methods would these normal people use in support of this cause? ;)
avatar
GameRager: They might still find out about or already have found out about causes PETA supports which are good causes through other means and joined them that way. Basically i'm saying that while stereotyping is real and a valid part of society(albeit a nasty one), associating a cause to be good/bad based on who supports it and not associating the cause with it's works and good deeds doesn't sound plausible to me to happen on such a regular basis as stereotyping does, and to such detriment as stereotyping does.

As for Wikileaks, it isn't totally associated 100% with anon, and even if people thought it was the focus seems to be more on the content of the leaks and Assange's tactics in releasing them more than what anon is doing. I'd think the "bad" light is being shone by the haters on the tactics towards and on those who leaked the cables/etc and what Wikileaks/Assange are now doing with them....not the anons who supported Assange for whatever reason.

As for what "good" methods could be used...I dunno. In order to get such critical/top secret info most times such whisltleblowers have to break the law so.....
Negative stereotyping does work really well in politics, just look at any major campaign ... or Fox News, yes I went there. :)

Yes sometimes whistleblowing requires breaking the law or at least company NDAs. You may want to check the debate between Navagon and I for my position on the wikileaks dump. However, if the worst that happens to a company/government is a minor DOS attack, i.e. people are never going to get enraged enough to boycott or vote differently then the whistleblowing will have no end effect. You say the legal actions to get those ends are not good enough but neither are the illegal actions (DOS) to get the ends, then we may as well throw out any reason for whistleblowing since there isn't a point.

We have a system in place to resolve policy issues; it doesn't always work; it can be slow and frustrating; but frankly while our various democracies may be the worst form of society or government in the world, that's only when excluding all the others to paraphrase Churchill. And I'm out. :)
Post edited February 09, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted February 09, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: Negative stereotyping does work really well in politics, just look at any major campaign ... or Fox News, yes I went there. :)

1. Yes sometimes whistleblowing requires breaking the law or at least company NDAs. You may want to check the debate between Navagon and I for my position on the wikileaks dump. However, if the worst that happens to a company/government is a minor DOS attack, i.e. people are never going to get enraged enough to boycott or vote differently then the whistleblowing will have no end effect. You say the legal actions to get those ends are not good enough but neither are the illegal actions (DOS) to get the ends, then we may as well throw out any reason for whistleblowing since there isn't a point.

2. We have a system in place to resolve policy issues; it doesn't always work; it can be slow and frustrating; but frankly while our various democracies may be the worst form of society or government in the world, that's only when excluding all the others to paraphrase Churchill. And I'm out. :)
avatar
GameRager: 1. It's getting people to NOTICE such bad actions of gov'ts/corporations/etc that's important....and that which boycotts/protests/DDOS/etc all try to achieve......yes most such attempts will fail but if they get enough people to open their eyes and take another look at things they normally wouldn't have then that is some measure of success in my book. As I said before such bad or good actions often fail but the indirect results of such actions and opening people's eyes makes the difference as to whether or not the action(Imo) was successful) or not in any way.

2. Paraphrase Churchill all you want. :P Basically he's saying we should be thankful for what we've got as it may seem bad but not compared to other systems. That doesn't mean we should sit on our arses and do nothing to improve our situation though. ;)
Aaannnd I think we've reached a place we can agree on. :)
Post edited February 09, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted February 09, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: Aaannnd I think we've reached a place we can agree on. :)
avatar
GameRager: Which one? Number one or number two?
Both ... I mean don't rate all of the efforts equally for 1) for all the reasons I've already stated but the general principle of opening people's eyes I don't disagree with. 2) I don't disagree with either although I would add that the very nature of (a well-functioning) democracy is to improve itself and change the system for the better over time.
Posted February 09, 2011
avatar
GameRager: No governmental system is ever perfect......regardless of their nature. That's why it's best to always keep trying to improve one's system even if it seems perfect on the surface.
Agreed
Posted February 10, 2011
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/how-one-security-firm-tracked-anonymousand-paid-a-heavy-price.ars

This was a great read, according to the narrative from his emails the man used his own abilities as an online stalker to attempt to sell a concept of detection like a cyber Columbo. Statements on his habitual creeping from ex lovers are sure to follow LOL
this dialog cracked me up....being told by his own muscle that he's got the mind of a dog sniffing a butt!

"Barr: [I want to] check a persons friends list against the people that have liked or joined a particular group.
Coder: No it won't. It will tell you how mindless their friends are at clicking stupid shit that comes up on a friends page. especially when they first join facebook.
Barr: What? Yes it will. I am running throug analysis on the anonymous group right now and it definately would.
Coder: You keep assuming you're right, and basing that assumption off of guilt by association.
Barr: Noooo….its about probabilty based on frequency...c'mon ur way smarter at math than me.
Coder: Right, which is why i know your numbers are too small to draw the conclusion but you don't want to accept it. Your probability based on frequency right now is a gut feeling. Gut feelings are usually wrong.
Barr: [redacted]
Coder: [some information redacted] Yeah, your gut feelings are awesome! Plus, scientifically proven that gut feelings are wrong by real scientist types.
Barr: [some information redacted] On the gut feeling thing...dude I don't just go by gut feeling...I spend hours doing analysis and come to conclusions that I know can be automated...so put the taco down and get to work!
Coder: I'm not doubting that you're doing analysis. I'm doubting that statistically that analysis has any mathematical weight to back it. I put it at less than .1% chance that it's right. You're still working off of the idea that the data is accurate. mmmm…..taco!"

btw, the company was about to sell its federal branch for 2 mil?!? THATS IT?Annual contract for security at a few malls in USA cost more than that, the people you typically read in Financial Times spend half a mil on catering a lunch at work.

now I know why each correspondence contain the phrase "dude".
Post edited February 10, 2011 by rs2yjz
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Anon is at it again(68 posts)(68 posts)
(68 posts)