said by fatness: said by Blackbird:
If the three-letter agencies are only half as capable at swallowing the digital ocean as many tinfoil-hatters suspect, and if Anonymous turns out to be only half as skilled as they pretend to be, there's a predictable train-wreck coming for many of those hiding behind the Guy Fawkes masks. If you twist a lion's tail, you run a risk; if you twist the tails of a pride of lions, you invite disaster. Just sayin'...
How many years have we been hearing this now? That Anonymous had bit off more than they could chew, that they'd be stopped by the government or a cartel or the mafia or some such? ... This isn't a movie with a clean resolution in 2 hours. ...
It's also far from a good guy / bad guy situation. Governments work with far worse people than Anonymous in order to obtain, or hide, the information they want.
Absolutely! But the issue really revolves around whose ox gets gored, how often, and how badly. For as long as governments have existed, they've all
made quiet use of reprehensible, corrupt, or brutish individuals, at home and abroad... either directly or by exploiting the predictable foibles and consequences of what such individuals do and how they do it. As long as the benefits derived exceeds the damage associated with such individuals, their behavior will generally be tolerated, ignored, or sometimes even encouraged. But at some point, if that behavior is perceived as becoming dangerous to the particular government itself, actions will be taken (or encouraged to be taken by others) so as to render the individual(s) no longer capable of presenting the danger.
Every time Anonymous acts out another drama, it adds to the data pile being quietly accumulated by the "listeners"... data and correlations about who, what, how, and when. For a variety of reasons, that data and its correlations for a long time span may be of greater interest and value to the powers-that-be than any damage costs involving the "issues" being specifically targeted by Anonymous. How long that might continue unchanged is anyone's guess. But one thing I've observed over the years is that when the unauthorized revelation of guarded state secrets becomes part of the "behavior," the attention of three-letter agencies perks up - enormously. More significantly, those who are ostensibly giving orders and setting strategy for three-letter and many other agencies start issuing new orders and directives.
Whatever one believes about the players' innocence or guilt, the reality is that Assange and Manning, after the Wikileaks release of all that secret material, are both arguably worse off than they were before it all went down. And their futures look to be anything but carefree and joyful. Life is complex... lots of things happen in life. Lots of things that are supposed to happen, don't necessarily. There are many situations where a hidden finger or two can tip some balance scales. Or not tip those scales when they should be tipped. Put another way, there are many ways to make somebody's life a living hell without ever showing one's own hand in it. The mark of a truly successful covert action is when nobody outside the direct effects ever realizes it occurred, and especially if the target himself never grasps the "why" of things that have occurred to him. The object is simply to neutralize his continuing activity that's been perceived as harmful, and usually that means finding a way to neutralize him or his personal power or freedom. In a vital contest, one of the greatest dangers is mistakenly assuming the lack of visible, provoked action is an indication such action won't or could never occur.
Indeed, this isn't a movie plot... life rarely is. But all of human history is replete with the covert, creative settling of political "scores" or the neutralizing of people whose activities rose to be considered ultimately damaging to the politically powerful. Sometimes it came quickly... sometimes it took years... but come it did. One's own mileage may vary.--
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. A. de Tocqueville