Anonymous

[paladin]

Anonymous doesnt collect money.

https://images.I am a turnip.se ... wchart.png

The truth about Anonymous. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Knowledge is free. The Corrupt fear us. The Honest support us. The Heroic join us. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not Forgive. We do not Forget. United by 1. Divided by 0. We are Anonymous. Expect us.

[mmm]

Anonymous doesnt collect money.

https://images.I am a turnip.se ... wchart.png

The truth about Anonymous. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Knowledge is free. The Corrupt fear us. The Honest support us. The Heroic join us. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not Forgive. We do not Forget. United by 1. Divided by 0. We are Anonymous. Expect us.

In that case....
"Even without money, they could use their wide support to bring attention to issues they find they need to change. Of course, this isn't a positive example but the Westboro Church certainly gets a lot of attention. If Anonymous behaves itself, they may actually bring attention to the issues at hand rather than themselves as a group."

[ghost 9]

I would've replied to that yersterday had my internet actually worked.

By doing what it does, Anonymous brings a great deal of attention to all manor of issues. Not all Anons actually want a revolution. Just a better system, and a higher power that keeps goverments and the like in line. And as a friend of mine once said:

"We don't really think that we will be able to change the world. We just figure, if we kick and yell enough, eventually it'll come to people's attention."

[mmm]

I would've replied to that yersterday had my internet actually worked.

By doing what it does, Anonymous brings a great deal of attention to all manor of issues. Not all Anons actually want a revolution. Just a better system, and a higher power that keeps goverments and the like in line. And as a friend of mine once said:

"We don't really think that we will be able to change the world. We just figure, if we kick and yell enough, eventually it'll come to people's attention."

I would say the general public primarily sees Anonymous as a hate group or immature bunch of hackers rather than a group that stands for distinguishable and appealing ideals. If they dropped the whole mysterious charade and stopped evading questions by saying "we are a collective," then they may actually bring attention to the subjects and not themselves. Everyone knew about Westboro Church already, for example.

Then again, a power higher than government isn't very appealing to those who aren't extremists, which may mean Anon's beliefs themselves are incompatible with the public.

But as you said, only "some" share those beliefs.

Anonymous is too inconsistent as it is to actually bring meaningful change to the government. They need to either change that inconsistency, or change nothing until the media bores of the self-serving hate group that they are and they disappear into oblivion.

[ghost 9]

I would've replied to that yersterday had my internet actually worked.

By doing what it does, Anonymous brings a great deal of attention to all manor of issues. Not all Anons actually want a revolution. Just a better system, and a higher power that keeps goverments and the like in line. And as a friend of mine once said:

"We don't really think that we will be able to change the world. We just figure, if we kick and yell enough, eventually it'll come to people's attention."

I would say the general public primarily sees Anonymous as a hate group or immature bunch of hackers rather than a group that stands for distinguishable and appealing ideals. If they dropped the whole mysterious charade and stopped evading questions by saying "we are a collective," then they may actually bring attention to the subjects and not themselves. Everyone knew about Westboro Church already, for example.

Then again, a power higher than government isn't very appealing to those who aren't extremists, which may mean Anon's beliefs themselves are incompatible with the public.

But as you said, only "some" share those beliefs.

Anonymous is too inconsistent as it is to actually bring meaningful change to the government. They need to either change that inconsistency, or change nothing until the media bores of the self-serving hate group that they are and they disappear into oblivion.

I don't think anyone who knows them thinks of them as a hate group. Perhaps immature, childish, etc. Anonymous is a collective, and as such no one person, or single group, can speak for them. Anonymous is not an organized organization. They are a collective. As such, it takes a massive number of them for the entire group to come to a consensus. But, as with any group, there will always be those who act without the groups consensus. An example would be Lulz Sec and the whole PSN hack.

The essence of Anonymous is purely an idea. Though some go behind the banner of the group that calls itself Anonymous. This group is made of various hacking groups. Lulz Sec, UGNazi, etc. Each one holds its own views on how to handle things. Each one acts of their own accord on various objectives, but all move towards a common end.

Is taking down a website in protest wrong? To many, it is. But in my opinion, I think taking down websites in protest of murders and atrocities of any kind, is a legitimate way of handling things. It's better, at least, than going out and killing said criminals.

Now, to my last point. Many of you believe Anonymous only attacks governments, and the WBC. That in itself is wrong. To those who are unaware, Anonymous has also attacked the Church of Scientology. Why? Because they stalked and sued anyone who didn't like them. Because of Anonymous, that's over. There was also the campaign of where Anonymous d0x'd thousands of pedophiles who looked at certain things, of which was illegal, on a corner of the internet that the government couldn't really touch. They exposed thousands of these pedophiles. "Unfortunately, only a few were arrested.

[mmm]

I would've replied to that yersterday had my internet actually worked.

By doing what it does, Anonymous brings a great deal of attention to all manor of issues. Not all Anons actually want a revolution. Just a better system, and a higher power that keeps goverments and the like in line. And as a friend of mine once said:

"We don't really think that we will be able to change the world. We just figure, if we kick and yell enough, eventually it'll come to people's attention."

I would say the general public primarily sees Anonymous as a hate group or immature bunch of hackers rather than a group that stands for distinguishable and appealing ideals. If they dropped the whole mysterious charade and stopped evading questions by saying "we are a collective," then they may actually bring attention to the subjects and not themselves. Everyone knew about Westboro Church already, for example.

Then again, a power higher than government isn't very appealing to those who aren't extremists, which may mean Anon's beliefs themselves are incompatible with the public.

But as you said, only "some" share those beliefs.

Anonymous is too inconsistent as it is to actually bring meaningful change to the government. They need to either change that inconsistency, or change nothing until the media bores of the self-serving hate group that they are and they disappear into oblivion.

I don't think anyone who knows them thinks of them as a hate group. Perhaps immature, childish, etc. Anonymous is a collective, and as such no one person, or single group, can speak for them. Anonymous is not an organized organization. They are a collective. As such, it takes a massive number of them for the entire group to come to a consensus. But, as with any group, there will always be those who act without the groups consensus. An example would be Lulz Sec and the whole PSN hack.

The essence of Anonymous is purely an idea. Though some go behind the banner of the group that calls itself Anonymous. This group is made of various hacking groups. Lulz Sec, UGNazi, etc. Each one holds its own views on how to handle things. Each one acts of their own accord on various objectives, but all move towards a common end.

Is taking down a website in protest wrong? To many, it is. But in my opinion, I think taking down websites in protest of murders and atrocities of any kind, is a legitimate way of handling things. It's better, at least, than going out and killing said criminals.

Now, to my last point. Many of you believe Anonymous only attacks governments, and the WBC. That in itself is wrong. To those who are unaware, Anonymous has also attacked the Church of Scientology. Why? Because they stalked and sued anyone who didn't like them. Because of Anonymous, that's over. There was also the campaign of where Anonymous d0x'd thousands of pedophiles who looked at certain things, of which was illegal, on a corner of the internet that the government couldn't really touch. They exposed thousands of these pedophiles. "Unfortunately, only a few were arrested.

You are either contradicting yourself or I need more clarification. How can such a diverse collective share a common goal? Anonymous has no stated or observable process of choosing targets- it appears to simply hack whoever offends them, or in the case of PSN, whoever the hell they want to. It seems to me that the only thing they share is a common methodology, which is hacking. If I'm mistaken, please tell me this goal.

Who said anything about killing criminals? I'm saying there are more effective and legitimate methods of changing things, whether they be concerning the government or society as a whole. IE gathering some sort of evidence of pedophilia or simply reporting their names to the police. If this was the case, then more of these pedophiles would have been arrested, would they not?

[paladin]

You are either contradicting yourself or I need more clarification. How can such a diverse collective share a common goal? Anonymous has no stated or observable process of choosing targets- it appears to simply hack whoever offends them, or in the case of PSN, whoever the hell they want to. It seems to me that the only thing they share is a common methodology, which is hacking. If I'm mistaken, please tell me this goal.
We share a common goal because we see it as right. How we share our goals is through different websites and IRC. We choose "targets" by seeing what has happened we don't like and spreading it through websites and IRC. Our never ending goal is Freedom of Knowledge. Information is free.
Who said anything about killing criminals? I'm saying there are more effective and legitimate methods of changing things, whether they be concerning the government or society as a whole. IE gathering some sort of evidence of pedophilia or simply reporting their names to the police. If this was the case, then more of these pedophiles would have been arrested, would they not?
Some people believe that arrests are just not simply enough. Some people believe that due to the perverse and outrageously disturbing manner of people - like paedophiles - they decide to ruin their lives as well. I personally do not take part in operations against paedophiles and whatnot, due to the incredibly fast nature that they can escalate.

[ghost 9]

You are either contradicting yourself or I need more clarification. How can such a diverse collective share a common goal? Anonymous has no stated or observable process of choosing targets- it appears to simply hack whoever offends them, or in the case of PSN, whoever the hell they want to. It seems to me that the only thing they share is a common methodology, which is hacking. If I'm mistaken, please tell me this goal.
A collective can share a common goal; simply have various other goals divided between them and going through various means to achieve said goals. The PSN thing was for operation Sony. Sony was suing customers who had mods that were originally on the playstation. Lulz Sec breached Anonymous' goals, and thus themembers broke off to form Lulz Sec.

Who said anything about killing criminals? I'm saying there are more effective and legitimate methods of changing things, whether they be concerning the government or society as a whole. IE gathering some sort of evidence of pedophilia or simply reporting their names to the police. If this was the case, then more of these pedophiles would have been arrested, would they not?
The Killing of criminals was not aimed at your or in a response to any post that's been made, it was the continuation of my post from the rest of the paragraph.They gather names and and so on about the pedophiles(Google what d0xing is), Also, apparently not. Thousands of pedophiles were d0x'd. Only a few went to jail..

[mmm]

You are either contradicting yourself or I need more clarification. How can such a diverse collective share a common goal? Anonymous has no stated or observable process of choosing targets- it appears to simply hack whoever offends them, or in the case of PSN, whoever the hell they want to. It seems to me that the only thing they share is a common methodology, which is hacking. If I'm mistaken, please tell me this goal.
We share a common goal because we see it as right. How we share our goals is through different websites and IRC. We choose "targets" by seeing what has happened we don't like and spreading it through websites and IRC. Our never ending goal is Freedom of Knowledge. Information is free.
Who said anything about killing criminals? I'm saying there are more effective and legitimate methods of changing things, whether they be concerning the government or society as a whole. IE gathering some sort of evidence of pedophilia or simply reporting their names to the police. If this was the case, then more of these pedophiles would have been arrested, would they not?
Some people believe that arrests are just not simply enough. Some people believe that due to the perverse and outrageously disturbing manner of people - like paedophiles - they decide to ruin their lives as well. I personally do not take part in operations against paedophiles and whatnot, due to the incredibly fast nature that they can escalate.

Freedom of knowledge is a foolish thing to fight for in today's society where so much information already is available. If we lived under an authoritarian regime that burned books or whatnot I would consider it a worthy goal.

Not to mention that making all information available would allow scumbags to wreck every aspect of our daily lives. However, I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe in freedom of information in this absolute form.

I would also argue that arresting someone would be ruining their life. And on that note, what right does Anonymous have to wreck individual's lives? They lack any sort of process and simply knee-jerk condemn whoever the flavor of the week is, which makes them worse than the government they criticize.

You are either contradicting yourself or I need more clarification. How can such a diverse collective share a common goal? Anonymous has no stated or observable process of choosing targets- it appears to simply hack whoever offends them, or in the case of PSN, whoever the hell they want to. It seems to me that the only thing they share is a common methodology, which is hacking. If I'm mistaken, please tell me this goal.
A collective can share a common goal; simply have various other goals divided between them and going through various means to achieve said goals. The PSN thing was for operation Sony. Sony was suing customers who had mods that were originally on the playstation. Lulz Sec breached Anonymous' goals, and thus themembers broke off to form Lulz Sec.

Who said anything about killing criminals? I'm saying there are more effective and legitimate methods of changing things, whether they be concerning the government or society as a whole. IE gathering some sort of evidence of pedophilia or simply reporting their names to the police. If this was the case, then more of these pedophiles would have been arrested, would they not?
The Killing of criminals was not aimed at your or in a response to any post that's been made, it was the continuation of my post from the rest of the paragraph.They gather names and and so on about the pedophiles(Google what d0xing is), Also, apparently not. Thousands of pedophiles were d0x'd. Only a few went to jail..

So basically, you say Anonymous has no common goal, just a bunch of individuals who may or may not share some, which supports my opinion that Anonymous shares nothing but a common methodology.

So by sticking up for a few of their special friends, Anon shut down PSN thereby inconveniencing millions of innocents. How generous of them.

I would like to know how Anonymous notified the police of the information they gathered. I would assume that they simply made it public with one of their video manifestos in the depths of the internet rather than notifying the police.

Lastly, the failed Anonymous Ineffective's attack on the "U.S government main site" has proved that the Irrespective Anonymous hacker group is no match for adults with day jobs and a lack of self-esteem issues.

[ghost 9]

You are either contradicting yourself or I need more clarification. How can such a diverse collective share a common goal? Anonymous has no stated or observable process of choosing targets- it appears to simply hack whoever offends them, or in the case of PSN, whoever the hell they want to. It seems to me that the only thing they share is a common methodology, which is hacking. If I'm mistaken, please tell me this goal.
We share a common goal because we see it as right. How we share our goals is through different websites and IRC. We choose "targets" by seeing what has happened we don't like and spreading it through websites and IRC. Our never ending goal is Freedom of Knowledge. Information is free.
Who said anything about killing criminals? I'm saying there are more effective and legitimate methods of changing things, whether they be concerning the government or society as a whole. IE gathering some sort of evidence of pedophilia or simply reporting their names to the police. If this was the case, then more of these pedophiles would have been arrested, would they not?
Some people believe that arrests are just not simply enough. Some people believe that due to the perverse and outrageously disturbing manner of people - like paedophiles - they decide to ruin their lives as well. I personally do not take part in operations against paedophiles and whatnot, due to the incredibly fast nature that they can escalate.

Freedom of knowledge is a foolish thing to fight for in today's society where so much information already is available. If we lived under an authoritarian regime that burned books or whatnot I would consider it a worthy goal.

Not to mention that making all information available would allow scumbags to wreck every aspect of our daily lives. However, I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe in freedom of information in this absolute form.

I would also argue that arresting someone would be ruining their life. And on that note, what right does Anonymous have to wreck individual's lives? They lack any sort of process and simply knee-jerk condemn whoever the flavor of the week is, which makes them worse than the government they criticize.

You are either contradicting yourself or I need more clarification. How can such a diverse collective share a common goal? Anonymous has no stated or observable process of choosing targets- it appears to simply hack whoever offends them, or in the case of PSN, whoever the hell they want to. It seems to me that the only thing they share is a common methodology, which is hacking. If I'm mistaken, please tell me this goal.
[color=#FF0000] [color=#FF0000]A collective can share a common goal; [/color] simply have various other goals divided between them and going through various means to achieve said goals. The PSN thing was for operation Sony. Sony was suing customers who had mods that were originally on the playstation. Lulz Sec breached Anonymous' goals, and thus the members broke off to form Lulz Sec.[/color]

Who said anything about killing criminals? I'm saying there are more effective and legitimate methods of changing things, whether they be concerning the government or society as a whole. IE gathering some sort of evidence of pedophilia or simply reporting their names to the police. If this was the case, then more of these pedophiles would have been arrested, would they not?
[color=#FF000000]The Killing of criminals was not aimed at your or in a response to any post that's been made, it was the continuation of my post from the rest of the paragraph.They gather names and and so on about the pedophiles(Google what d0xing is), Also, apparently not. Thousands of pedophiles were d0x'd. Only a few went to jail..[/color]

So basically, you say Anonymous has no common goal, just a bunch of individuals who may or may not share some, which supports my opinion that Anonymous shares nothing but a common methodology.
If you had read my paragraph, you'd no I specifically said no. Repeating from your first post is redundant..

So by sticking up for a few of their special friends, Anon shut down PSN thereby inconveniencing millions of innocents. How generous of them.
So suing kids families solely for modifications to the PS3 that were available in the first place is a tolerable thing...? Maybe it's just me, but I personally see that as a logical fallacy.

I would like to know how Anonymous notified the police of the information they gathered. I would assume that they simply made it public with one of their video manifestos in the depths of the internet rather than notifying the police.
It was sent to them via an email.

Lastly, the failed Anonymous Ineffective's attack on the "U.S government main site" has proved that the Irrespective Anonymous hacker group is no match for adults with day jobs and a lack of self-esteem issues.
They leaked quite a bit of information, bro... XD