81–82 of 82 posts
I know nothing about antivirus software, but isn't security software supposed to be open? Otherwise, it's just security through obscurity. It sounds to me like Symantec just wants to hide all their vulnerabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am actually surprised that there hasn't been more intelligence service activity in order to paint Anonymous in a bad light.. It would be pretty easy to just sabotage some infra structure element that people depend on, attribute it to Anonymous and create a massive public outcry for tougher legislation in the virtual environment.
I think it's due to two factors: First, I still think the FBI (and other such deeply hierarchical organizations) are fundamentally unable to comprehend something like Anonymous on its full scale. They can't fathom the concept of a working collective that defines itself merely by willful association. Second, this could backfire so fucking hard, even the FBI knows better. Seeing how often they've been embarrassed by An…
Plus the backslash. I don't know. First it would force Anonymous into some form of "yeah we are Anonymous but this wasn't us" defense - something that is very difficult to argue when the premise of the collective is that everybody can be a member. And second most targets so far seemed to be somewhat low-key with relatively lax security in place.