Moffett: AT&T Caps Herald 'Next Generation of Communications' > what a special guy this is

what a special guy this is

Its just a matter of time. Get the popcorn ready!

What special, wonderful people we have here. We don't like someone. Let's get criminals to gang up on them and give them a beating and then run away and hide! I'll just sit here in front of my computer and egg them on. Because, of course, since I don't like them, they deserve massive punishment, especially when I don't have to be the one giving the punishment or paying the penalty if caught.

Thats anonymous for ya. And lulz will be lul'd.

reply to MyDogHsFleas

reply to MyDogHsFleas
Good and bad are only perceptions.

I believe that what the companies are doing is wrong, someone should put them in their place.

I give up. Please reread the posts. I'm not going to spell it out for you. What difference would it make?

OK I'll try it, without sarcasm, because that seems to confuse you. I thought it was pretty obvious what I was saying.

My point, from the OP, is that it's pretty low to sit back, anonymously, and advocate that some other group beat down the people you don't like, using extralegal means.

It's like asking a gang to beat up someone you hate then run away while it happens.

So I take it you think it's OK, even "heroic", for anonymous to attack websites of people you/they disagree with? Isn't this the opposite of free speech?

Well, being a "hero" and doing the right thing has nothing to do with being legal and free speech.

Secondly, they have never physically hurt anyone, and even comparing it to that is outrageous.

Lastly, every cause I've seen Anonymous take up, I've completely agreed with. Basically defending the liberty of average Americans.

So yes, I don't understand your position at all.

Including trying to cause epilectic seizures via website attacks? That's not intended to cause harm?

Not to mention the uncounted thousands of dollars they cost legitimate, legal entities cleaning up after illegal attacks?

This is heroic?

It's essentially destructive vandalism. This is a crime.

If you had a neighbor who didn't like you, and damaged and defaced your house in the middle of the night, and then acted like you couldn't pin it on them, wouldn't you be angry? Would you consider them a hero? Would you not call the cops?

Read the article the next time you do random Google searches:

Anonymous, peacefully campaigning against the Church of Scientology, condemn this attack. There is also little doubt that those who would attack a site such as this [EFA], and unprovoked, are the same 'Unnamed People' who covered the anti-Church of Scientology Campaign wiki page, … with the most horrendous filth porn and human gore imagery to be found online,” another Anon post adds.

“Sadly anonymity is a catch all, literally anyone can and will say, "I am Anonymous", even The Church of Scientology is "Anonymous" when they connect to public FTPs. You can not have the security of anonymity both inside and out, without the problems of defending against anonymous insurgents, just ask Wikileaks. Condolences to any harmed. This attack, as any violent attack, is condemned by Anonymous,” the posting concluded on Slashdot.

Gee there's an unbiased source. Slashdot. Talk about your random Google searches.

So, how different is it to attack site A vs. site B? Who made you judge, jury, and executioner? You are on an extremely slippery slope. Apparently you get to decide on who should and should not get anonymously attacked. This is simply vigilante justice.

And you see what happens with vigilantes. They start squabbling about how, when, and who they attack, and there is internal strife within the group, as some of the crazier ones go "outside the lines", whatever they are. This is why we have a society of laws, and protect people (and websites) against attacks from those who want to take the law into their own hands.

You claim you are for free speech. This is exactly the opposite of free speech. It is attempting to destroy other, legitimate, sites and suppress their ability to speak, simply because you disagree with them.

Grow up and take responsibility for your actions. Treat others as you would be treated. Think about how you would feel if someone who disagreed with you attacked you anonymously like this. Have some empathy. Work with the society you live in, and take benefit from, to change things.

You provided the link, and you either misrepresented it in the hopes nobody would read it, or you just you just didn't read it yourself.

Anyone even remotely familiar with the group would know it has regular channels it releases attack info with.

Again, they have never caused physical harm to anyone, and even a comparison like that is a total mis-characterization.

OK they are "inspired by anonymous". Whatever. My point remains the same. They are causing harm illegally to valid, legitimate, out-in-the-open Web sites and costing their owners a bunch. It's just vigilante vandalism, with no opportunity to respond by the victims. What the hell difference does it make that they have not caused "physical harm"? If someone picks your pocket and steals thousands of dollars from your cash/credit/ATM, they haven't done you "physical harm", but that doesn't make it OK, even if you are a rich guy that people don't like.

Free speech does not mean you get to pick who you like to have free speech and you don't, and suppress those you don't. In fact that's the opposite of free speech.

And your "good debate" isn't happening because you are only picking on a small point I made. Where'd you go?

reply to DataRiker

Yes to those who don't care about personal liberty, I guess it would be.

The real ANON is a pretty stand up group in that I've always agreed with their cause 100%.

What is this, Brave New World? "Personal Liberty" = suppressing others' free speech through anonymous, illegal attacks? This is a very messed up value system you have.

And I'm so glad that you've identified the "real" ANON. (note: that was sarcasm -- you seemed to have trouble with that before).