Anonymous

[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.
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 the members 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?
[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

[

[Sylvia]

The main problem with this debate is that you're discussing Anonymous on a level it hasn't even reached.

It isn't the domestic terrorist, government destroying cyber entity the majority of it's members think it is. Taking these keyboard warriors down isn't the top priority (or middle, or end really) of any leading agency.

If a little kid wants to tell the firefighter there is a cat stuck in a tree, then he does. No problem.

If a little kid is going round trying to rescue cats out of trees because he thinks the firefighters can't do their job, the general public wants to see all the cats free to roam where they like, and firefighters are oppressing the cats in trees, then he does. No problem.

[ghost 9]

The main problem with this debate is that you're discussing Anonymous on a level it hasn't even reached.

It isn't the domestic terrorist, government destroying cyber entity the majority of it's members think it is. Taking these keyboard warriors down isn't the top priority (or middle, or end really) of any leading agency.

If a little kid wants to tell the firefighter there is a cat stuck in a tree, then he does. No problem.

If a little kid is going round trying to rescue cats out of trees because he thinks the firefighters can't do their job, the general public wants to see all the cats free to roam where they like, and firefighters are oppressing the cats in trees, then he does. No problem.

When the Egyptian leader(Whoever it was at the time) shut off the internet during the Egyptian rebellion, Anonymous had delivered over 800 dial up modems, organized people's twitter feeds, helped get people into the country, and much more.

Anonymous hacked into the USSC twice, and on the last time, turned it into a game of asteroids. The feds then took it down(Literally deleting it) then made anew one with a single page. The feds took it over and lost it, and never got it back. Now, they released a 9 MB file on something, and have 1.3 GBs of data in "warheads" which were distributed all over the place.

[GarthVader449]

The main problem with this debate is that you're discussing Anonymous on a level it hasn't even reached.

It isn't the domestic terrorist, government destroying cyber entity the majority of it's members think it is. Taking these keyboard warriors down isn't the top priority (or middle, or end really) of any leading agency.

If a little kid wants to tell the firefighter there is a cat stuck in a tree, then he does. No problem.

If a little kid is going round trying to rescue cats out of trees because he thinks the firefighters can't do their job, the general public wants to see all the cats free to roam where they like, and firefighters are oppressing the cats in trees, then he does. No problem.

When the Egyptian leader(Whoever it was at the time) shut off the internet during the Egyptian rebellion, Anonymous had delivered over 800 dial up modems, organized people's twitter feeds, helped get people into the country, and much more.

Anonymous hacked into the USSC twice, and on the last time, turned it into a game of asteroids. The feds then took it down(Literally deleting it) then made anew one with a single page. The feds took it over and lost it, and never got it back. Now, they released a 9 MB file on something, and have 1.3 GBs of data in "warheads" which were distributed all over the place.

Wow, they help Egypt. So did a lot of groups and countries...


One thing: all this is conspiracy, one persons word against the other. So neither side can be trusted. And is there any proof? You said it your self; "on something", on what exactly, tomorrows weather?

Another is, nothing can be free. Knowledge can't be free. You go to school to learn(gain knowledge). You pay tax, which pays for that education! Therefore it is not free! You go on the internet, to do things, gain knowledge. Oh wait, you paid for your broadband, that knowledge is not free! My point being, nothing in this world is/can/will be free! It just wouldn't work...

And this is when I realise... "Balls, It's 'freedom', not free. Whoops!" Haha

[mmm]

Too many quotes.

"We choose "targets" by seeing what has happened we don't like and spreading it through websites and IRC." Again, what this methodology proves is that Anonymous is less fair than the government they criticize, as they vainly believe that their beliefs are right and require no process to prevent abuse of their small amount of power.

me: "So by sticking up for a few of their special friends, Anon shut down PSN thereby inconveniencing millions of innocents. How generous of them."
Ghost: "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."
A logical fallacy is depriving millions of a paid service to try to protect a handful of kids. Surely, Anon's finest could have thought of a better plan then "Hack PSN and take customers' credit card information."

I didn't know that about the cops, Ghost. In place of taking the time to search the incident itself and see if the pedos fled or made bail, I'll accept that the police didn't do their part. Because I'm lazy.

"Anonymous released some information"
I didn't hear that, Ghost. I guess the media has already moved onto a more appealing group of pizza-faced teenagers (I don't consider you a part of Anonymous, don't worry). All we have to do is wait, and Anonymous will no longer exist because they either messed with the wrong people or got in fights over the Defective's one girl.

[Sylvia]

[paladin]

The main problem with this debate is that you're discussing Anonymous on a level it hasn't even reached.

It isn't the domestic terrorist, government destroying cyber entity the majority of it's members think it is. Taking these keyboard warriors down isn't the top priority (or middle, or end really) of any leading agency.

If a little kid wants to tell the firefighter there is a cat stuck in a tree, then he does. No problem.

If a little kid is going round trying to rescue cats out of trees because he thinks the firefighters can't do their job, the general public wants to see all the cats free to roam where they like, and firefighters are oppressing the cats in trees, then he does. No problem.

When the Egyptian leader(Whoever it was at the time) shut off the internet during the Egyptian rebellion, Anonymous had delivered over 800 dial up modems, organized people's twitter feeds, helped get people into the country, and much more.

Anonymous hacked into the USSC twice, and on the last time, turned it into a game of asteroids. The feds then took it down(Literally deleting it) then made anew one with a single page. The feds took it over and lost it, and never got it back. Now, they released a 9 MB file on something, and have 1.3 GBs of data in "warheads" which were distributed all over the place.

Wow, they help Egypt. So did a lot of groups and countries...


One thing: all this is conspiracy, one persons word against the other. So neither side can be trusted. And is there any proof? You said it your self; "on something", on what exactly, tomorrows weather?
Do you really want people spurting USSC secrets on FWG, getting the entire site shut down and also having FWG sued and possibly attacked by the US government? Neither do I.
Another is, nothing can be free. Knowledge can't be free. You go to school to learn(gain knowledge). You pay tax, which pays for that education! Therefore it is not free! You go on the internet, to do things, gain knowledge. Oh wait, you paid for your broadband, that knowledge is not free! My point being, nothing in this world is/can/will be free! It just wouldn't work...
Do you pay people when you talk to them and ask them a question? Information WILL be free in all forms. The Anonymous ideals will never fade until that point has been achieved.
And this is when I realise... "Balls, It's 'freedom', not free. Whoops!" Haha
Good. I'm not the only one that says "Balls" when they muck up! haha

[Sylvia]

Do you pay people when you talk to them and ask them a question? Information WILL be free in all forms. The Anonymous ideals will never fade until that point has been achieved.

Actually, in a way, yes. You have paid. Let's think of what you need to have achieved to be able to ask a question and respond, and understand the answer.

You need to understand a language - most languages are learnt from being brought up in a family who speaks a language. They've paid to bring you up.
You need to have communication skills - and you learn those skills by interacting. Also paid for as it's learnt in school, with friends, and money has certainly played a part in getting you there.

To answer the question you need to know the answer, which whatever the subject, has had to be learnt previously. They've paid for a school, for lessons. Everybody pays.

You can't make knowledge free - knowledge in itself is a currency many people underestimate.

[paladin]

Do you pay people when you talk to them and ask them a question? Information WILL be free in all forms. The Anonymous ideals will never fade until that point has been achieved.

Actually, in a way, yes. You have paid. Let's think of what you need to have achieved to be able to ask a question and respond, and understand the answer.

You need to understand a language - most languages are learnt from being brought up in a family who speaks a language. They've paid to bring you up.
You need to have communication skills - and you learn those skills by interacting. Also paid for as it's learnt in school, with friends, and money has certainly played a part in getting you there.

To answer the question you need to know the answer, which whatever the subject, has had to be learnt previously. They've paid for a school, for lessons. Everybody pays.

You can't make knowledge free - knowledge in itself is a currency many people underestimate.

Its more of a "did you hand Bob $30 to have a chat today?" -.-
And one does not have to pay to raise a child.
Where did we all come from?
They did not pay for us when we began.
In example - Cavemens.
There was no currency before knowledge.

[Sylvia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning