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

Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 251 posts

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#71

Post by nathanb »

"it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts"

This is quite the hypocritical statement coming from the FBI. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Anonymous, Lulzsec, and the FBI is that the FBI act by executive fiat. I don't support Internet vigilanteism, but I also don't support the concept of the FBI as an untouchable force who are no longer held accountable by the public they are theoretically serving.

At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#72

Post by ddw »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #57
scythe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In short, the minute I start deciding on my own when to break the law and disrespect other people's property rights because of a cause -- even a legitimate cause -- I become an enemy of everybody. ' [...] at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types…

That's not what MLK is saying at all. You don't get to break any law simply because one of them is unjust. Instead, you have no moral obligation to abide by immoral laws. If I feel like the speed limit is unjust, I should go about my business driving any speed I feel like. I do not, however, get to run over people while I'm doing it. If I feel like the law that protects my crooked neighbor's website is unjust, I have…

> EDIT: There is a simple unstated question that this thread brings out, though: are you an enemy of my country?

Why are you putting this on some kind of George W. Bush paradigm? The government and the country are not the same thing.

> They feel the system is so corrupt that they have made it their enemy.

I believe that the system is corrupt but that doesn't mean I've made it my "enemy." This line of thinking leads to any criticism of the government as being "unpatriotic." That's not a good road for the country to start going down.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#73

Post by bluedanieru »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

Let's see, "Make impassioned speech then go break into the neighbor's house and scatter his secret documents all over the lawn" That makes a lot of sense now, doesn't it? Perhaps if you're seven. And drunk. Aside from the validity of the charges, this manner of social justice never ever works for the people who try it. Good grief, did we learn nothing from Ghandi or MLK Jr.? There's a perfectly legitimate and effecti…

Aside from the fact that Gandhi and MLK both broke the law which has already been pointed out, there isn't much reason to have any faith in even the highest levels of American government. If all avenues of redress have been removed or obstructed by corrupt officials, what would you propose anybody do? Let's forget for a moment that what they're up to is actually non-violent civil disobedience for a moment and pretend it is something more: so what? "Violence is never the answer" is just a ridiculous platitude. It isn't true.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#74

Post by burgerbrain »

sigzero wrote: post #44
flocial wrote: post #29

The Lulzsec crew and Wiki Leaks strikes a nerve like modern day Robin Hoods. It makes you wonder if those of us in wealthy democracies are actually experiencing a peculiarly 21st century form of passive aggressive oppression where we may be "free" but monitored and essentially feel helpless and the fact that these unknown hackers are able to duck and evade the same forces that can hunt and kill terrorists with disreg…

They are in no way "modern day Robin Hoods". Hoodlums maybe.

The Sheriff of Nottingham surely thought Robin Hood was a hoodlum too.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#75

Post by mcantelon »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

Let's see, "Make impassioned speech then go break into the neighbor's house and scatter his secret documents all over the lawn" That makes a lot of sense now, doesn't it? Perhaps if you're seven. And drunk. Aside from the validity of the charges, this manner of social justice never ever works for the people who try it. Good grief, did we learn nothing from Ghandi or MLK Jr.? There's a perfectly legitimate and effecti…

>Good grief, did we learn nothing from Ghandi or MLK Jr.? There's a perfectly legitimate and effective way to denounce injustice.

You forgot to mention the French and American revolutions and that Ghandi and MLK had militant parallels (without which change likely would not have happened).

>But I hate even more people taking it on themselves to administer justice in this fashion.

You must also hate nearly every other successful social movement in history.

>If you make me pick, I'm going with broken security state over anarchists every time -- and there are hundreds of millions of folks just like me.

Yet you benefit from the social gains fought for by "anarchists" like the suffragettes and the labor movement.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#76

Post by scythe »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #57
scythe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In short, the minute I start deciding on my own when to break the law and disrespect other people's property rights because of a cause -- even a legitimate cause -- I become an enemy of everybody. ' [...] at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types…

That's not what MLK is saying at all. You don't get to break any law simply because one of them is unjust. Instead, you have no moral obligation to abide by immoral laws. If I feel like the speed limit is unjust, I should go about my business driving any speed I feel like. I do not, however, get to run over people while I'm doing it. If I feel like the law that protects my crooked neighbor's website is unjust, I have…

>That's not what MLK is saying at all. You don't get to break any law simply because one of them is unjust.

That wasn't what I was saying at all, either: I was responding specifically to the sentence I quoted, and I explicitly clarified this: "if you want to argue that some of Anon's actions are unethical [...]". Ancestor had seemed to support a legalist position, which is, in my opinion, a disappointingly popular ethos.

>There is a simple unstated question that this thread brings out, though: are you an enemy of my country?

The question inherent in this question: who and what, precisely, defines "my country"? I'll bet at most a tiny minority considers themself an enemy of the food system. I'm quite a fan, though there is a serious need for reform in many aspects.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#77

Post by pasbesoin »

wladimir wrote: post #31
lhnz wrote: post #24

If I had the nerve I would join them. Bad-taste jokes and troublemaking. Badly written manifestos. But I think there are some in the groups who have their heart in the right place and want to do the right thing. And, illegal or not, I've yet to see any other form of western activism that is as disruptive as leaking/hacking.

I've yet to see any other form of western activism that is as disruptive as leaking/hacking I think that nails it. These days, the internet is the backbone of our world. There is no form of activism more effective than taking control of online resources, or releasing information. If a form of activism is socially acceptable it probably means it is not effective anymore. Why go on the street to just get beaten up - an…

And these days, if you go on the streets, biometrics will have you pegged in minutes.

EDIT: Downvoters: Just what do you think police are doing with all their cameras, at recent protests? And now there is -- I'm not kidding -- an iPhone device and app that connects to a privately created database of biometric information. Pricing is, per the public radio interview I heard just the other day, currently set at circa US$3000 / device. Pricy, but affordable.

FURTHER EDIT: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/07/20/biometrics

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#78

Post by sequoia »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

Let's see, "Make impassioned speech then go break into the neighbor's house and scatter his secret documents all over the lawn" That makes a lot of sense now, doesn't it? Perhaps if you're seven. And drunk. Aside from the validity of the charges, this manner of social justice never ever works for the people who try it. Good grief, did we learn nothing from Ghandi or MLK Jr.? There's a perfectly legitimate and effecti…

>If the local sheriff is corrupt? I don't break into his house and publish his papers in the newspaper.

Substituting "office" for "house," maybe you should (break in and publish his papers). Does a corrupt LEO have the "right to privacy" while e.g. putting innocent people in jail, extorting businesses, tampering with evidence, etc.? I think that the rights of those whose lives are affected by a corrupt official like this trump the rights of the official to "privacy."

tl;dr: Don't abuse your power to clandestinely fuck up other people's lives then complain about your "right to privacy" when you're exposed.

Re: Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement to the FBI

#79

Post by jbooth »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #57
scythe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In short, the minute I start deciding on my own when to break the law and disrespect other people's property rights because of a cause -- even a legitimate cause -- I become an enemy of everybody. ' [...] at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types…

That's not what MLK is saying at all. You don't get to break any law simply because one of them is unjust. Instead, you have no moral obligation to abide by immoral laws. If I feel like the speed limit is unjust, I should go about my business driving any speed I feel like. I do not, however, get to run over people while I'm doing it. If I feel like the law that protects my crooked neighbor's website is unjust, I have…

Two things:

First, Gandhi and MLK both benefitted from the fact that there were people prepared to be violent behind them, and they were representing a peaceful way forward as opposed to a mess and then having to give in anyways.

Second -- regarding your edit, everytime you try to break it down to a silly jingoistic binary sentiment like that, you're turning your brain off. Anonymous isn't against your country but they're very much against you being enabled to do that.

Post reply on HN