Anonymous threatens Justice Department over hacktivist death(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Anonymous threatens Justice Department over hacktivist death
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/tech/anonymous-threat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
10 comments
Hang on. I thought the "justice" system was the problem. The attacks are only dangerous because the people who are under "attack" are the people who control the "justice" system. Get it? Its a closed loop. We aint part of it.
But, OK, not a problem. You live in a democracy, right?
Oh. That is broken too, isn't it? Are lots of representatives bashing Obama to sort this out? I live in the UK, so perhaps I missed that?
Assuming that not happening either, now what are you left with?
OK, Protest. Hit the streets with banners and loud hailers.
But, when was the last time that worked? All I know about that sort of thing was that in the UK, 1 million people out of a population of 60 million marched against the Iraq war. Its achieved nothing what so ever. Has the US had 1 million people protesting in DC? If so, what was the out come?
What's left now?
Well, I don't know. The cards left to play, once the courts and democracy are out, range from disruption to, and I hate to say it, violence. Well, dear old anon are disruption. Not great, but the right side of the worst scenario.
Although, I suspect people will move on and forget, while the corporate government grip tightens around the American people's throat. In the end, the poor bloke will have died for nothing.
Don't vote me down, prove me wrong with action. Get those laws sorted out. Redefine your relationship with government. Government should belong to you, you are not possessions of your government.
But, OK, not a problem. You live in a democracy, right?
Oh. That is broken too, isn't it? Are lots of representatives bashing Obama to sort this out? I live in the UK, so perhaps I missed that?
Assuming that not happening either, now what are you left with?
OK, Protest. Hit the streets with banners and loud hailers.
But, when was the last time that worked? All I know about that sort of thing was that in the UK, 1 million people out of a population of 60 million marched against the Iraq war. Its achieved nothing what so ever. Has the US had 1 million people protesting in DC? If so, what was the out come?
What's left now?
Well, I don't know. The cards left to play, once the courts and democracy are out, range from disruption to, and I hate to say it, violence. Well, dear old anon are disruption. Not great, but the right side of the worst scenario.
Although, I suspect people will move on and forget, while the corporate government grip tightens around the American people's throat. In the end, the poor bloke will have died for nothing.
Don't vote me down, prove me wrong with action. Get those laws sorted out. Redefine your relationship with government. Government should belong to you, you are not possessions of your government.
>I am sick of hearing about Anonymous and its vigilantism. We have courts and a justice system for a reason
So much irony. You didn't watch the video did you?
So much irony. You didn't watch the video did you?
I have a right to disagree. I have a right to put what I want on a web server, at my own expense, without fear of DoS attacks or website defacement.
If anarchy rules, any person group can do those things without fear of reprisal. That's basically what Anonymous does, and that's why they have to be stopped.
If anarchy rules, any person group can do those things without fear of reprisal. That's basically what Anonymous does, and that's why they have to be stopped.
Anarchy doesn't have to mean chaos. The government and individuals could easily defend themselves from anonymous attacks if they utilized proper information security.
Anarchy doesn't have to mean chaos.
anarchy |ˈanərkē|
noun
* a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority: he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy.
* absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
[New Oxford American Dictionary, Dictionary.app, OS X 10.7]
If you want to convince me that this definition is wrong, show me why it's not a valid concept to hold, given the facts of reality.
anarchy |ˈanərkē|
noun
* a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority: he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy.
* absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
[New Oxford American Dictionary, Dictionary.app, OS X 10.7]
If you want to convince me that this definition is wrong, show me why it's not a valid concept to hold, given the facts of reality.
There is a distinction between the commonly held meaning of anarchy (as chaos) and the political philosophy (which is why there are 2 asterisks).
Anarchism the political ideology believe that order doesn't not have to come from a centralized state via force. Rather it can happen organically... since the vast majority of humans desire order. We all value security, eatting, etc.
The difference is that order is maintained not via coercion by a central authority but by individuals, communities or markets (depending on the various branches of anarchy).
This book explores the concept very well and is heavily cited in philosophy circles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
One of his arguments is that a sort of minimal state will eventually begin to appear in an anarchist society (minarchy).
Anarchism the political ideology believe that order doesn't not have to come from a centralized state via force. Rather it can happen organically... since the vast majority of humans desire order. We all value security, eatting, etc.
The difference is that order is maintained not via coercion by a central authority but by individuals, communities or markets (depending on the various branches of anarchy).
This book explores the concept very well and is heavily cited in philosophy circles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
One of his arguments is that a sort of minimal state will eventually begin to appear in an anarchist society (minarchy).
Anarchy means WITHOUT MASTER , it never meant WITHOUT RULES OR LAWS, i'm sick of people using that word not even knowing what it means ! or the novlang machine worked so well you are all brainwashed ?
>>> The word "Anarchy" comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, from ἀν an, "not, without" + ἀρχός arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without rulers").
>>> The word "Anarchy" comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, from ἀν an, "not, without" + ἀρχός arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without rulers").
>Their tactics are both dangerous to freedom and to justice.
You could say the same about the Justice department.
You could say the same about the Justice department.
Did anyone grab a mirror or better screenshot of the page?
UPDATE: Google Cached it: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sV8dPXf...
UPDATE: Google Cached it: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sV8dPXf...
Wow, CNN, the opposite of Hacker News. What an ignorant comment:
The "warhead" names appeared as links, most leading to 404 error messages of pages not found, but some leading to pages of raw programming code.
The "warhead" names appeared as links, most leading to 404 error messages of pages not found, but some leading to pages of raw programming code.
"Swartz was facing up to 50+ years in prison and a $4 million fine". 50 years from now, people will relate this saying that he was facing death penalty
"Reform or we'll release this incriminating stuff."
Clearly, the better way to get them to reform is to release the incriminating material and have a scandal about it. If it's really bad enough to be worth this headline, it'll do a lot more good when it's not a threat. Of course, that means it's probably irrelevant and/or useless.
Clearly, the better way to get them to reform is to release the incriminating material and have a scandal about it. If it's really bad enough to be worth this headline, it'll do a lot more good when it's not a threat. Of course, that means it's probably irrelevant and/or useless.
[deleted]
I'm sure the mainstream news outlets were begging for a more status-quo-friendly angle to take on the Swartz story, and this just gives it to them. If Anonymous takes the spotlight, all the discussion about prosecutorial overreach could come crashing down, and (to extend the metaphor) at best we'll be back to preaching to the choir while the congregation starts throwing stones.
[deleted]
In addition, while a few of the things they're against are actually bad things, not all of the causes they fight are just. And their illegal methods serve mainly to hurt the good fights (such as the fight against Scientology) rather than help.