Attacked By Anonymous, HBGary Pulls Out of RSA 415
itwbennett writes "HBGary Federal cancelled a talk the company's CEO Aaron Barr was planning to give at the BSides San Francisco conference on his investigation of WikiLeaks. 'I was receiving death threats,' Barr said in an interview Tuesday. 'There was lots of talk that was being made of in the Anonymous IRC channels of harassing us at our booth and sending people to heckle [HBGary speakers at the conference].' The company has also decided to pull its booth from the RSA Conference floor after it was vandalized on Sunday, said Jim Butterworth, HBGary's vice president of services. 'We... came back the next morning and it was very apparent that the group responsible for the activities in the news had decided to make another statement,' he said."
Anatomy of the Hack (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anatomy of the Hack (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Right a few things are evident from what has happened so far.
1. HB Gary is run by people who are arrogant, fool hardy, and hope to seek a public rent scoring themsevels a government security contract or two when they clear have nothing of value to add.
2. HB Gary as an organization is incompetent. When computer/network security is your business and you get hacked no matter how clever the hack is its a FAIL on your part. In this case while not exactly crude Anonymous ow3n4g3 of their site was not the most
No, still not getting it (Score:5, Insightful)
You are still in Fox mode, trying to see the conspiracy behind events because your mind cannot grasp that shit just happens.
Anonymous has no organization, it cannot by its very nature. Some people who HAVE grouped together have used the name for themselves BUT by that they have seized to become Anonymous.
Is it really that hard to grasp? Just because you know the identity of ONE A. Nonymous author doesn't mean that every other book written under that name is linked to it in anyway. Anonymous, the concept to give a mystic to the random actions of people that sometimes seem to work together and groups calling themselves anonymous are NOT the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction is meaningless. If you kill/imprison the people calling themselves Anonymous the attacks stop either way regardless if they're one group or many groups.
Re:No, still not getting it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The people calling themselves "Anonymous" isn't some rebel movement willing to die for the cause, most of them are kids doing it for the lulz, do you really think anyone of them wants to be a martyr?
Re:No, still not getting it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you kill/imprison the people calling themselves Anonymous the attacks stop either way regardless if they're one group or many groups.
I am Spartacus!
Re:Anatomy of the Hack (Score:5, Interesting)
Just read the article. Is this guy for real? He sounds like he stepped out of a webcomic about wannabe-hacker IRC lurkers.
It's very frightening that someone could get 3 (potential?) innocents arrested with little to no evidence.
I mean honestly, using badly thought out heuristics to analyze social networking data and guaranteeing "100% Success"? This guy obviously never attended a CS class.
P.S. I am not condoning the actions of Anonymous in any way, this guy just seems like he could use some more schooling. (and he got some schooling in the great college of Real Life!)
Re:Anatomy of the Hack (Score:5, Informative)
I liked this article [arstechnica.com] better. Not very technical, but it does show what kind of person Aaron Barr really is. The greatest part is that he tried to play Anonymous just to drum up government business and seemed to think there would be no repercussions.
He also got caught managing a dirty tricks campaign to smear Wikileaks and critics of the US Chamber of Commerce. He was disseminating personal information about the people he wanted smeared, but threw a crybaby fit when his name came out in connection with it.
Re:Anatomy of the Hack (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that putting a "large paper poster" on their booth doesn't really count as "vandalism".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. It's terrorism!!!!!11
it doesnt excuse that, that doesnt excuse this ... (Score:2)
we are not excusing ourselves as people, and not doing anything that the current law would shun as criminal, but those people whom you speak about are doing all the inexcusable criminal acts as government contractors, and getting away with it. this ranges from torture to censorship.
no. there is a certain point of assness at which things can be excused.
Re:Anatomy of the Hack (Score:4, Interesting)
While I generally agree that taking the law into your own hands is inexcusable criminal activity, I also understand that under certain circumstances, vigilante actions may be excusable. This is as true today as it was in the American Far West back in the days following the Civil War, when roaming bands of outlaws with cavalry training and deadly-crazy cases of PTSD were preying on isolated farms and ranches a day's hard ride or more from the nearest lawman.
Vigilante activity may be excusable when
There is a widely held belief that these conditions exist on today's Internet. Something new in the way people relate to each other is definitely happening there, and the law is definitely too far behind the technological advances to be able to do anything useful. The people who are spending time forging things like Tunisia and Egypt on these new and lawless fringes of society have to protect themselves and what they are trying to build, because the law is not yet capable of doing that.
Now whether this argument holds in the specific case of Anonymous' attack on HBGary Federal is something that historians will argue over after the dust is settled. I certainly won't venture a guess. The thing is unfolding now, and there is no way to judge who is right and who is wrong, under laws that do not yet even exist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats because the America Revolution wasn't "domestic terrorism".
From 1770 to 1776 the colonies had public conventions, meetings and publicly complained about their problems with the United Kingdom's rule. The colonies in today's Canada, Barbados, Bahamas and Florida (Florida wasn't part of the US until 1819, and not a state till 1845) were told and invited to send delegates.
While the colonies were complaining the United Kingdom kept turning up the heat by passing more laws and taxes designed to piss off th
Re: (Score:3)
Thats because the America Revolution wasn't "domestic terrorism".
From 1770 to 1776 the colonies had public conventions, meetings and publicly complained about their problems with the United Kingdom's rule. The colonies in today's Canada, Barbados, Bahamas and Florida (Florida wasn't part of the US until 1819, and not a state till 1845) were told and invited to send delegates.
While the colonies were complaining the United Kingdom kept turning up the heat by passing more laws and taxes designed to piss off the colonies.
It wasn't a bunch of men sitting around in a basement deciding what building to blow up, it turned into a civil war in North America and spawned European wars between the powers there.
I think the parent poster's point had nothing to do with British rule, and everything to do with how the native people were treated.
OK, so it's probably not entirely correct to call them "domestic terrorists." I suppose "foreign invaders" is a better description.
military-industrial-security complex snake oil (Score:5, Informative)
Why should the cybersecurity market be any different?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT200 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro_Tracker [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniffex [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_6 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Government fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this ridiculous sort of mob justice tolerated ? We've all been in the playground, we've all seen mob justice in action, and we all know what WILL happen. So why do these people get any support whatsoever ?
Are we truly such hypocrites ? Insist on rights, when it's about us ... And then demand and defend swift illegal and criminal action against anyone we don't like ? Is that what is meant by "internet protest" ? Because if it is, frankly, it must be squashed with any amount of violence necessary.
I can't say I'd participate, but I can certainly understand the frustration of seeing an incompetent government security firm in action. Think about the last 12 years for more than a second, and the word 'security'... well, a shiver runs down my spine. The *immediate* surrender of the country's principles and well-being following the bombings in 2001 while dissenters are booed from the spotlight and ostracized. All the things done in the name of security that made us less secure, all (all!) of the money spent on endless, fruitless military operations and grandma groping. Like many /.ers it troubles me deeply, and I see the country breathe a cheeto-stench sigh of disinterest while all but a handful of legislators jerk off on their bases while doing nothing to manage the cancerous meme of security uber alles, all out of cowardice and greed.
Maybe some people think mob justice is the closest they'll ever get to the real thing.
Huh. Guess I'm a little more pissed off than I thought... I'm going to go get some coff... eh, decaf.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this ridiculous sort of mob justice tolerated ?
Because, in cases like this, it's the only sort of justice that there is likely to be. It's not like a government that protects torturers will do anything, even if it wasn't that very government who recommended HBGary in the first place.
Now, that doesn't excuse "death threats". If there were in fact any (those might merely be a face-saving excuse for backing out of the conference).
Re:Government fraud (Score:5, Informative)
I am at RSA, I was part of a long conversation with Art Coviello last night and he did not mention it. It his his confernce and it is a security conference. If the ckaim was true and had been reported i would have expected it to be mentined.
I think it rather more likely that they did not have the courage to show their faces.
They have been punked for a start. That is an embarrassment. But what would make them pariahs was the proposal to engage in criminal attacks and political misinformation. Many of us are ex law enforcement or ex intelligence. Others work closely with them. You cant do that if you are committing criminal acts yourself.
If i thought there was a chance he might show his face i would have gone to his session earlier. But that was never likely.
Last year he was talking about hacking online games and club penguin.
Earth First! (Score:2, Insightful)
So Anonymous is kind of like Earth First folks. Loosely organized, with sociopathic tendencies.
Except instead of burning down construction sites and SUVs, they crash websites and break into systems.
They both apparently make death threats.
Re: (Score:2)
So Anonymous is kind of like Earth First folks.
Have you ever seen them in the same room? Maybe they're the same person!
Vandalized? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Vandalized? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice tidbit.
So a "security company" is afraid of a sign?
I'd sooner place my bets they're in the Long Con to paint "Anonymous" (there can be only one, right?) as a Threat. Then everyone in power profits when draconian measures come along.
Re:Vandalized? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is just another perfect example of just how full of himself AND how much of a crybaby Mr. Barr is.
Re: (Score:3)
They were in the long con. Now they're outed and everyone's so sceptical when they cry "threat!" that people investigate, find out things like the nature of the vandalism, and they come out looking even stupider than they did before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HBGary is not in the business of preventing or withstanding attacks. They're the guys who will investigate events after the fact, compiling nice piles of evidence to hand over to the FBI/police/whomever.
The sign on the booth is a threat. Note that "vandalized" was ITworld's chosen word. The message is clear: "Anonymous is here, and has the same utter lack of respect in real life as online." Given that there were many threats ranging from harassing the booth staff to heckling the speakers, and even up to dea
Re: (Score:2)
the sign potentially serves as a last warning: Let Anonymous ravage whatever they want, or die.
No, the sign means that some kid on 4-chan saw that he was coming to his area and decided it would be funny. People who portray anonymous as some sort of sinister agency just don't understand what it is. There is no anonymous. There are no leaders or plans. There is only an anonymous forum where random strangers occasionally post suggestions. If enough people think they are funny they happen.
Re:Vandalized? (Score:5, Informative)
HBGary is not in the business of preventing or withstanding attacks.
From their website title [hbgary.com]:
HBGary :: Detect. Diagnose. Respond.
Anonymous intruded on their network for several days without being detected, eventually just plain revealing themselves. Here's a totally-real testimonial on their front page from the esteemed research organization "Research Organization":
Greg Hoglund and the team at HBGary provide some of the most innovative products in cyberdefense. Our advantage in staying ahead of the evolving threat is HBGary's predictive knowledge of the entire malware culture and ecosystem. Their capability goes well beyond the usual, reactive response to individual exploits. We consider them one of our best partners.
Also from their front page:
HBGary, Inc., a leading provider of next-generation threat intelligence solutions for Fortune 500 and government organizations, announced Inoculator, a innovative, patent-pending enterprise agentless appliance solution designed to detect, remove, and, with its breakthrough Digital Antibody technology, PREVENT re-infection of known malware.
Anyone who hires them after this incident is an idiot who likes bright lights and noise. Amazon, a book store, was totally secure against Anonymous' attacks. There's no excuse for a security firm not to be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A sign that says, 'in it for the lulz' is a death threat? Do you really think that? If so, you must also think that Nelson on the Simpsons, going 'Ha Ha' is a death threat.
Re:Vandalized? (Score:5, Insightful)
HBGary is not in the business of preventing or withstanding attacks. They're the guys who will investigate events after the fact, compiling nice piles of evidence to hand over to the FBI/police/whomever.
Did you not read the leaked emails? All the slides about pre-emptive attacks, infiltration, planting of fraudulent documents, etc. Interesting use of the word 'nice' to try and paint HBGary as one of the 'good' guys instead of a company planning criminal acts.
The sign on the booth is a threat. Note that "vandalized" was ITworld's chosen word. The message is clear: "Anonymous is here, and has the same utter lack of respect in real life as online." Given that there were many threats ranging from harassing the booth staff to heckling the speakers, and even up to death, the sign potentially serves as a last warning: Let Anonymous ravage whatever they want, or die.
Ok now we know you are astro-turfing for a snake oil security company. Some kid drops a note on a stand with the standard Anon catch-phrase, known by all apart from yourself, and you try and hype up some massive imaginary drama. Pathetic.
It makes sense for HBGary to step out of the line of fire, just in case somebody's crazy enough to act on those death threats. Death is not their business.
Or maybe they've been busted, and have the decency to leave out of shame?
I expect that the sign is being checked for fingerprints, the conference attendee list is being subpoenaed, and security cameras are being reviewed.
Again the melo-drama. I am sure the whole attendee list is quaking.
I'd also expect that HBGary will use this incident to paint Anonymous as a group of people who constitute a real threat
Did you miss the Anon arrests that have already happened?
They stalk and harass a target organization for as long as they're interested, with expenses and lost income costs rising daily.
Do you even read Slashdot? Try doing a search for 'scientology'
This dedication is as much a problem to Anonymous as to their targets, and HBGary is now playing a great game: they're trolling the trolls. With every public move HBGary makes, Anonymous is drawn into acting. That's another 4chan post, another analysis, another page in HBGary's final report on Anonymous, and another customer impressed by the company's thorough attention to detail.
No, HBGary are screwed.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. Three posts in a row claiming I'm somehow in the employ of HBGary. Since yours is surprisingly the most complete, I'll respond to you.
I'm not connected to HBGary in any way (that I know of). I'm a software developer who's had projects sit on the receiving end of DDoS attacks, and has a bit of experience in the tactics used to investigate them.
After any initial threat comes investigation. In my case, I had a list of timestamps and IP addresses. A quick Perl script compiled a list of the most offensive I
Re:Vandalized? (Score:5, Funny)
Whew!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd sooner place my bets they're in the Long Con to paint "Anonymous" (there can be only one, right?) as a Threat. Then everyone in power profits when draconian measures come along.
Right - and some Machiavellian government bureaucrat is sitting back in his high-backed chair, petting a white cat, repeatedly saying "excellent."
I'd call it differently. Barr has an idea - using public information gleaned to expose relationships and additional information. It's not entirely a bad idea. However, plenty of good ideas have met a sudden end when implementing them effectively proves to be difficult. Barr ignores warnings that his implementation is lacking and generates publicity. As thi
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, while that certainly could be called harassment, calling it 'vandalism' is an out and out lie.
Let sleeping Agent Smiths lie. (Score:4, Funny)
Let sleeping Agent Smiths lie. Even if they don't have cool matrix moves, there are a lot of them, they are functionally identical for most e-combat related purposes, and of course, they have a record of pulling this kind of stuff off.
Some_Group: Hey guys, let's attack Anonymous! It'll make us rich if we can hack them, an our security can stop their counterattack, right?
Anonymous: No it can't. I'm putting all your embarrassing/incriminating email messages onto the net.
Some_Group: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUU-
Drama Queens (Score:3, Insightful)
For supposed 'security experts' they do seem pretty weak.
Also I suspect this might well be a publicity stunt to get more attention.
Right..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Option 1: Members or associates of a loose-knit group of hackers who are likely subjects of federal interest after illegally penetrating and utterly humiliating a private-sector spook shop decide that it would be a great idea to show up, in person, at an event with some amount of security likely to be in the vicinity, just to heckle somebody they have already pwned good and hard. They think that this is a good idea because showing up in crowded areas and making a disturbance is an excellent way to remain anonymous.
Option 2: Aaron Barr and the rest of the losers at HBGary really don't want to show their faces at RSA, after having been ruthlessly punked by a bunch of amateurs; but decide to cry about "security threats" in an attempt to look less than totally pathetic.
Y'know, I don't think that this is a terribly difficult decision...
Re:Right..... (Score:4, Interesting)
The great thing about Anonymous is that, had I been at RSA and placed that sign, I would have been in Anonymous for that time, despite having never been associated with them in any other way. It's an ideal, not a club you apply to join.
If you still don't get that, you don't get Anonymous at all.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd bother to post a rebuttal to this that had some kind of insightful analysis of what anonymous is, why "it" does what it does, and what it means, and what it's point is..
but then "they" would make fun of me and troll me, because, after all, its all for the lulz, and i sound like a moralfag.
So i'll give you a really short version of how i understand things to be.
there are people out there -- authorities in the "old world", the meat-space world.. who want very much to project their authority onto the inter
Re: (Score:2)
They think that this is a good idea because showing up in crowded areas and making a disturbance is an excellent way to remain anonymous.
Your post seems to suggest that Anonymous is smart enough to not show up in person, and that HBGary is only using this as a scapegoat. You seem to think that Anonymous is logical and believes that staying online is the best course of action to preserve their anonymity.
I think [wikipedia.org] you [boingboing.net] have [indybay.org] some [tampabay.com] reading [slashdot.org] to [infoshop.org] do. [azcentral.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While there are horders of kids doing things for the lulz, it will probably stop being funny if there are real life consequences and the subset of people involved in these activities with real technical skills is probably vanishingly small although they should be a bit harder to get hold of (As they should be smart enough to use proxies and whatnot)
You don't really need to try to dismantle the movement called Anonymous as such, you just need to harshly go after anyone involved in illegal activities.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* do people still not get anonymous?
Any action taken by people claiming to be anonymous is really just them acting alone. Maybe others inspired or encouraged but the simple fact is that no one represents anonymous and the actions of one individual do not represent anything other than themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
If no one represents Anonymous then everyone represents Anonymous. With no command and control structure to say "that wasn't us" anyone flying the Anonymous flag is (to use some tautology) acting under the Anonymous flag.
Not having a leader doesn't make the group as a whole immune from responsibility, in fact, it makes the group more vulnerable as it is entirely the members' actions that determine what the group is responsible for.
Don't agree with some action Anonymous has taken? Too bad. By being a member
Re: (Score:2)
Almost certainly a sympathizer that happened to be at RSA. As long as Anonymous keeps doing things that are morally right as far as many (most?) people are concerned, they will keep getting this kind of support.
Sigh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Death threats and vandalism = NOT okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Protesting is one thing but wanton destruction of property is another. Death threats are well over the top.
These are not things responsible protests groups do in a situation like this. Next time, keep it to rhetoric and, if you are willing to be !Anonymous, picketing in person.
Re: (Score:2)
The only evidence of an actual death threat comes from the "security expert" who had his ass handed to him by a bunch of amateurs. He needed some kind of excuse to keep his embarrassed ass at home.
Re:Death threats and vandalism = NOT okay (Score:5, Informative)
This doesn't look like destruction of property:
http://yfrog.com/gzbvtllj [yfrog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Property = NOT destructed (Score:4, Informative)
Protesting is one thing but wanton destruction of property is another
Do you want to see how much property was "destroyed"? Look here [yfrog.com]
That's it, what they call "vandalism" was a piece of paper with something written. If someone could prove they are "Anonymous" they would have grounds to sue HBGary for libel.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, it looks like they vandalized HB Gary's booth about as much as Joe's lawn service vandalized my home by hanging their flier on my door knob.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, it appears Anonymous at least believes they're fighting for freedom of speech and open democracy wrt the wikileaks stuff. It's not the first time Americans have threatened to kill people for those rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Turn about is fair play. Government pressure has cost Wikileaks donations and Assange has been the target of death threats by American officials for months. Let's not pretend Anonymous threw the first stone here.
You can't beat the crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
The best example of what one of these organized systems could do is a story by Bruce Sterling called Maneki Neko. [tqft.net] It is what happens when people get organized but maintain some level of anonymity. We are not to this level yet, but I suspect it right around the corner. It will do strictly good at first, but eventually it will ruin someone's life. Just as Anonymous has ruined some people's lives, they've done a little good for some, like a great birthday [urlesque.com]. It doesn't justify the destruction, but it's bored kids on the internet, so what are you going to do?
The news media will make a big deal about future 'attacks', but some will be harmless kids having fun. But if you start to push that everyone involved in these groups must be destroyed, those people who are marginally involved will suddenly get VERY involved in your destruction. So be careful.
Re:You can't beat the crowd (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I suspect that if a number of "Anonymous" "Ringleaders" got caught by the FBI and sentenced to pretty hefty sentences the overall membership of their activities will probably sharply decline.
Most of them are in it for the lulz after all and lulz are not worth several years in prison or higher fines then you can pay off in your lifetime.
Re:You can't beat the crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I suspect that if a number of "Anonymous" "Ringleaders" got caught by the FBI and sentenced to pretty hefty sentences the overall membership of their activities will probably sharply decline.
Most of them are in it for the lulz after all and lulz are not worth several years in prison or higher fines then you can pay off in your lifetime.
Yes, because the "war on drugs" worked so well its tactics must be adopted everywhere, right?
Re: (Score:2)
The government folks never learn. We are still after "al-Qaeda"
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that Al-Qaeda was basically destroyed and currently used mostly as a scarecrow to wave around whenever someone questions military involvement.
Irony of Anonymous' position (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't comment on what kind of snobs HBGary folks are, but the actions of Anonymous seem quite hypocritical to me in general. So "Anonymous" fights for wikileaks, which is expressly set up for the purpose of sharing secrets and revealing things. Then I read about how someone tried to expose who various members of Anonymous were, after which Anonymous got all upset and attacked him for doing the very things that wikileaks does, which they work to support. Seems like they value secrecy above everything else, kind of like the people that feel the most threatened by wikileaks. Ironic.
Re:Irony of Anonymous' position (Score:5, Insightful)
When you are in a position of authority over other people, you must be held to a higher standard. With your greater authority comes greater responsibility. Responsibility requires transparency. Therefore, the more power you have, the less secrecy you should be allowed to have, because secrecy allows you to abuse your power.
All of the above applies to groups as well as individuals. Churches and their clergy, goverments and their bureaucrats, corporations and their executives, military and their officers, ALL have great power over people and therefore must be held accountable for their use of that power. However, private individuals who do not exercise power over others should have no requirement for higher transparency. If you aren't in a position to harm others, any exposition of your private affairs won't do anything to help anyone else. It can only be used to harm you, and is an abuse of power. Therefore, you in fact should have a right to privacy.
Consider the issue of gun ownership. If you choose to own a gun, you are taking some power. With that power comes responsibility. That gun's characteristics should be on file with law enforcement, so they can potentially match crime scene bullets fired from your gun. Make sense? More power = more transparency.
No Irony there! (Score:3)
Wikileaks, as you mentioned, works to reveal secrets. As a part of that work they also have to keep some secrets however, for example about their sources.
This is not the great paradox you make it out to be.
There is a difference between trying to reveal crimes/unethical behavior/corrupt and all that stuff, and to reveal personal information just out of spite or to harm someone. Not all secrets are bad, but those that are must be exposed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. I made no analogy.
What. The. FUCK (Score:4, Informative)
...is wrong with editors here?
Having a sign put on your booth is not being 'attacked', you goddamn fucktards. Nor is it a 'threat'. I know the article claims that,but it's clearly insane nonsense.
What the fuck is wrong with you, CmdrTaco? Why are you repeating lies?
And what is wrong with the people who here repeat the 'vandalism' claim without actually look at what was done? Laying a poster on top of someone else's table is not even legally vandalism, and that's a crime with a pretty low bar.
Perhaps, you know, we shouldn't be repeating claims that HGBGray makes, an organization that has been demonstrated they will lie about people they are paid to lie about.
Re:That's War (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an all-out war between the forces of good and evil that has never stopped and will never stop.
Wait, is that part of the Green Lantern Corps creed or something from the Thundercats?
I could take stuff like this more seriously if people didn't have such cartoonish perceptions of what "good" and "evil" actually mean, and stopped trying to pretend they are some sort of freedom fighters when all they are is vandals and bullies who get off on what they are doing
If *real* fascists ever took control in this country, most of these people would shit themselves on a continuous basis before the secret police killed them, their families, their pets, burned down their houses and killed a few others standing around just to send a message.
Re:That's War (Score:5, Insightful)
If *real* fascists ever took control in this country, most of these people would shit themselves on a continuous basis before the secret police killed them, their families, their pets, burned down their houses and killed a few others standing around just to send a message.
Which is why attempting to foil incremental steps in that direction, before they reach fruition, is sort of a good idea, no?
Re:That's War (Score:5, Insightful)
If *real* fascists ever took control in this country, most of these people would shit themselves on a continuous basis before the secret police killed them, their families, their pets, burned down their houses and killed a few others standing around just to send a message.
Which is why attempting to foil incremental steps in that direction, before they reach fruition, is sort of a good idea, no?
Yes, but there is the whole "boy who cried wolf" aspect to constantly calling everything you don't like "fascism." Not everything presages the immanent collapse of American civilization. And the AC has a good point about people's cartoonish perception of good and evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Totally agree - what does this guy think that everything is flowers and puppies and then one day all at once the fascism starts?
No, it happpens incrementally, just as it is happening here, just as it happened in the Weimar Republic transition to fascist Germany, just as it happened in Italy and Spain, (though in addition to economic crisises there was post war faction/partisan street violence at times which helped stoke a lot of public fear and a desire for strength and stability in government) - now days
Re:That's War (Score:4)
I have no wish to claim that every member of anonymous(to the degree that there are "members") is some sort of heroic altruist. I strongly suspect that many of them are just pranksters, vandals, or dumb kids. Similarly, I would be wholly unsurprised to discover that Assuage is a creepy attention whore with serious grandiosity issues.
However, judgement-by-personality is only relevant for people I have to deal with personally. In this realm, I only care about results. I care what they are doing, not why they are doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
let me put it in cartoon context : (Score:4, Interesting)
anyone trying to prevent me from knowing what my government is doing with my money, for ANY reason : evil
anyone helping me know what my government is doing : good.
anyone defending those who are helping me know what my government is doing : good.
at our time and age, with the point our societal corruption has hit, unfortunately things are as black & white as this.
and talking about fascism and lack of freedom - dont worry. fascists already have taken over your country long ago - you are just being repressed willingly, living only in proportion to your material wealth, while the rich has cornered the economy before you and controlling you through their bigger wealth, and you think that as freedom. you have nothing to fear - you are already willingly participating in what you fear.
Re: (Score:3)
me knowing what my government is doing with my money : good.
anyone trying to prevent me from knowing what my government is doing with my money, for ANY reason : evil
anyone helping me know what my government is doing : good.
So if the government relocates a witness for their protection using your tax money you need the line-item details that could give their location away or can we abstract it to a budget for witness relocation used by the Marshals Service? At what level of abstraction does the flip immediately switch from Good [tm] to Evil [tm]? Do the motives for someone leaking what the government is doing with that witness (because they want the witness killed or because there's some sort of government scam) matter or is
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's how the world works, and it how the world *should* work. You're an asshole in a bar? Someone kicks your ass. You drive/park like an asshole? Someone keys your car or slashes your tires. Actions have consequences. Most of us learn that at a very young age, and therefore don't give in to our asshole urges.
Re:That's War (Score:4, Interesting)
Want to mess with the NSA, DOD, CIA, and FBI? People talk about when dealing with Anonymous that you shouldn't "poke the bear".
In this case if they want to go to war it would be wise to take a good look at the bears that Anonymous is poking. So this is war... The problem is they are starting a war with people that fight wars for a living and have real guns.
Across the world thousands of basements will soon be going dark.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the FBI that keeps being proven to have just plain MADE SHIT UP to go after people?
I don't think you understand the whole poking a bear concept. Your response is akin to saying "You mean the same bear that ripped a dude's arm off and ate it for NO REASON?!?" Yes kind sir, that is indeed the bear you should think twice before poking.
Re: (Score:2)
Humiliating a corporation is not "poking the bear". The FBI may or may not be interested in persuing this. This sort of problem is why there the likes of the RIAA and MPAA are running amok in the civil courts.
Sometimes, the G-Men just don't care. It's not glamorous enough or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep and they don't get it. You should see the post that anon if they went to war would start blowing up stuff and taking out infrastructure. They fans live in a fantasy world.
Re:That's War (Score:5, Funny)
The CIA doesn't operate inside the USA...
Hahahahaha!!!!
But who is good and who is Evil? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anonymous good?
Is making death threats because you do not like someone is going to say at a conference good? Is heckling and yelling them down good? Funny but I have seen those actions in old news reels from the 30s and from old news stories from the 60s. The folks using those tactics where the ones in the brown shirts and the white sheets.
I don't think MLK or Gandhi ever made any death threats to people or hecked them when they presented papers at conferences. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure about th
Re: (Score:2)
Death threats sounds like a good way for him to try and save face.
I doubt if anyone actually threatened his life. That would be stupid and these people seem to be anything BUT stupid.
I can imagine a lot of heckling and embarrassment during the talk.
For someone with his ego that might seem worse than death!
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but people intend on actually doing you injury tend not to leave signs around saying they're in it for the fun of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No you didnt fix it
No really I did, your'e just a clueless moron, trying to put a spin on hiding the truth. You have a long history of this kind of bullshit.
They are behaving like a corporation or gov't (Score:4, Insightful)
What happened when Assange started releasing diplomatic cables? Oh, that's right: he received public death threats from US officials. What happens when an individual starts complaining about a corporation, or about scientology? Oh, that's right: they get bullied by a team of lawyers that cost more per hour than the individual makes in a month.
I don't support making death threats or using baser harassment to get a point across, but the only thing newsworthy about the tactics of Anonymous is that now it's regular citizens making the threats and engaging in bullying tactics instead of governments and corporations. If governments and corporations only respect the law when they aren't the ones in power anymore, fuck'em.
Re: (Score:2)
he received public death threats from US officials
You make me laugh. Thanks for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that anonymous does the things it does as retaliation for what it perceives as attacks on it and internet freedom.
The protesters in Egypt were peaceful, but when they were attacked they took up arms, attacked back, and set up neighborhood watches, detaining people that it deemed were "thugs" -- vigilante justice, in other words. Maybe you'll be on the moral high ground when you die as a martyr because you didn't defend yourself, but that doesn't mean that it's not incredibly stupid to just s
Re: (Score:3)
The question becomes how does one judge a movement. Was the civil rights move
Re: (Score:3)
Thought experiment: Of the thousands of people who call themselves Anonymous, one guy claiming to act in Anonymous' "name" assassinates a world leader. Does this act make all the others assassins, even though they had no knowledge, and the one acted with no conspiracy or direction? By your logic, it does. So, wer
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous is trying to suppress information using death threats.
And you know this because HBGary said so, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, they put a paper sign on a table at HBGary's booth saying that they were there. That's it. That is not even legally vandalism.
Only in HBGary's deluded universe is this a 'death threat'.
Meanwhile, HBGray actually planned a campaign of harassment against friends and family of the people it was trying to 'take down'.