Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the FBI raided Anonymous

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#161

Post by JonnieCache »

rimantas wrote: post #160
JonnieCache wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the spark for the tunisian uprising was the revelations in the US embassy cables about the billionaire lifestyle of their rulers. Same in jordan.

Oh, so tunisians had no idea about the lifestyle of their rulers prior to wikileaks? I don't buy it. And frankly, there was a lot more news about Assange's swedish affair than about anything leaked.

They had an idea, but I imagine total access to explicit description taken from private US diplomatic correspondence galvanised preexisting public sentiment somewhat.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#162

Post by roel_v »

steveklabnik wrote: post #157
roel_v wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Are you serious? Are you saying that murder is illegal 'to make it easier for the populace to swallow'? Are you saying that measures against capital offenses, various forms of assault, protection of private property and enforcement of contracts "do not represent your morality or ethics"? Pray tell, then what are your ethics? (with claims as outrageous as these I feel like I'm being trolled, but there are at lea…

> Are you saying that murder is illegal 'to make it easier for the populace to swallow'? No. I'm saying that by using 'morality' as the reasons for outlawing murder is used that way. In reality, it's very simple to derive the reason that murder is wrong: if we're all allowed to go around murdering each other, we'll have to watch our backs the entire time, and collectively, humanity will never move forward. Very utili…

@1, It's not because there is one reason for something, that that is the only reason. Law is an amalgamation of practical and moral considerations. It would be much more utilitarian if we'd neuter or euthanize everybody with an iq under 90 at age 18 or 25, yet we don't. Is it because of some other utilitarian reason? No we don't because it's a violation of a moral right to self-determination.

@2, I shouldn't say this but I'm getting downvoted left and right today anyway: why aren't you posting from North Korea if it's so great?

@4, this is in the margin. This discussion started with you claiming that "America's (presumable, most of the West's, or even most of the world's) set of rules don't even come anywhere close to representing your ethics", but the only thing you disagree with is some implementation detail (an implementation detail, oh irony, where the tradeoff between morality and utilitarianism was made more in the direction of utilitarianism - statutory rape serves to make prosecution easier).

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#163

Post by steveklabnik »

roel_v wrote: post #162
steveklabnik wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying that murder is illegal 'to make it easier for the populace to swallow'? No. I'm saying that by using 'morality' as the reasons for outlawing murder is used that way. In reality, it's very simple to derive the reason that murder is wrong: if we're all allowed to go around murdering each other, we'll have to watch our backs the entire time, and collectively, humanity will never move forward. Very utili…

@1, It's not because there is one reason for something, that that is the only reason. Law is an amalgamation of practical and moral considerations. It would be much more utilitarian if we'd neuter or euthanize everybody with an iq under 90 at age 18 or 25, yet we don't. Is it because of some other utilitarian reason? No we don't because it's a violation of a moral right to self-determination. @2, I shouldn't say this…

This really isn't the place or the time to debate most of these things, but I'll leave you with one last reply before this goes even further offtopic:

I'm not saying that I'm utilitarian. Its just that morality can be used as a tool to produce policy that has nothing to do with morals: see the invasion of Iraq, for example. I think we're actually agreeing here.

North Korea is nothing like an anarchist society, and "if you don't like it, move" is not an argument anyway.

In this case, I brought up something that's an implementation detail, because it's an easier segue into the topic. There are other things that are larger, such as the mentioned private property issue.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#164

Post by gojomo »

steveklabnik wrote: post #150
gojomo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the rules against sabotaging others' commerce are good rules; a moral person would follow them even if they weren't written down. Also, even if you get the desired headlines and attention, I don't think you score points against bad rules by violating good rules. I believe more people concluded Anonymous/Wikileaks are vandals and bullies from hearing about (or being affected by) the DDoS attacks, than came aro…

> I think the rules against sabotaging others' commerce are good rules; a moral person would follow them even if they weren't written down. I agree with your statement on its face, but there are certain times when it's okay to break the rules. Sometimes you have to do bad things to achieve good ends. No action is ever white or black, there are only shades of gray. > If the 'sit-in' directly blocked the objectionable…

You're misreading directly blocked to mean something else, what you want it to mean, general disruption.

Directly blocking the objectionable activity would be something like blocking a disputed eviction, or preventing the deployment of people/resources that are necessary to enforce a bad law. The disruption actually stops or reverses the objectionable activity, for the duration it can be maintained. That's targeted, and far more understandable as a (possibly) principled, non-hypocritical tactic.

Disrupting other things, because you hope to break your opponents with discomfort inflicted through uncivil means, is what crosses the line, a line beyond simply 'law'.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#165

Post by catnipers »

roel_v wrote: post #128
sesqu wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. If it's a paper in the mail that says "we know it's you", I'd be pretty scared. If it's a policeman at the door saying "come in for questioning", I'd be shitting my pants. If it's three policemen saying "we've come to take all your PCs", I'd be confused and seriously contemplating future involvement with the group. If it's a bunch of thugs breaking the door, grabbing my pcs, iphone, xbo…

Entering with an armed team is SOP, mostly to protect policemen. These are just guys doing a job, in the vast majority of cases a good and just job, who want to go home to their wives and children in the evening. Some (most) raids could theoretically be done by just knocking on the door; but sometimes some crazy man will start shooting back, or running away, or try to destroy evidence. Rush-entry raids with flashbang…

I'm dead serious if I saw a swat team coming to my house I would start shooting with my ak-47 well that's what I think I would do I wouldn't care shot about there kids I've never committed any crimes yet well it actully depends cause if they were there with out any swat teams and stuff like that I would let them in as you might know AK-47 rounds are armor piercing so reber that but the second they tried taking my computer I would start shooting or I'm might get a dummy greanade out that looks like the real one and hopefully they would start running you are probly wonder what's on that computer I got ill make it into a ? A) porn b) its the computer that I can download songs for ipod c) none of the above d) all of the above and the correct answer was c the reason is I haveworld of warcraft on my pc Ithink me and everyone who plays it is at least a little addicted to it cause me and everyone who plays it plays it pays 15$ a month but hey its a good game so and its worth the money and if you live in California and you are looking for a job they might hire you if you ask and if you get hired you get it free for 25 years but I'm actully not sure if they are hiring cause I live in virgina so don't get your hopes too high and um I apologize for not using paragraghs I'm actully typed this on my phone

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#166

Post by inafewwords »

sliverstorm wrote: post #103

TWO %REAL% GUNS POINTED AT ME I love this part. It's obvious that, for the first time in the lives of these Anons, sh%t actually got real. (I don't mind any downvotes you see fit to give me, I have always found it laughable when Anons expect to break the law and suffer no consequences. Whether or not it is a good law has no bearing, that's not how civil disobedience works.)

It's like the war on drugs. It's the small fish that get fried.

But it tends to be the small fry that make up the bulk "opposition"

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#167

Post by Semiapies »

keegangrayson wrote: post #120
Semiapies wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and yes, actually. Though the FBI naturally focuses on international actions against US people and companies.

Fbi is domestic, cia is international.

The CIA is not a law-enforcement body and would not be involved. The FBI has offices in a number of countries:

http://moscow.usembassy.gov/fbi.html

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#168

Post by pyre »

burgerbrain wrote: post #77
pyre wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're supposed to trust them because they yell "police" or "fbi" as they burst in. Sure an intruder could yell the same thing, but it's the same idea as their badges. Easily faked, but they just have harsh penalties for impersonating law enforcement.

It's 3am and you're sleeping. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't notice first what they were yelling, but rather that there are a lot of flash-lights and load yelling where my locked front door used to be. You could also argue that you're supposed to trust them because they have badges, but the fact of the matter is that expecting you to be reasonably aware of that is, well, unreasonable. Go read the ac…

I wasn't claiming that it was reasonable. I was claiming what I think the 'prevailing logic' of the situation is. I also was only using the badge example to illustrate a similar situation with law enforcement where they just use stiff penalties to try and prevent what can easily be abused.
Post reply on HN