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

151–160 of 168 posts

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#151

Post by Dylan16807 »

tptacek wrote: post #146
dspeyer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damage? What are you talking about? The routers don't literally catch fire. It disrupts services while the attack is active. A sit in is the correct metaphor.

Your honor! I object! Sure, I used the man's credit card without asking him! But he didn't literally catch fire! Damages? Why, he looks fine to me!

Ridiculous analogies aren't helpful. Try something like.. how about standing in front of someone. All day. They can't walk anywhere without pushing past you. Basically harassment and interfering with their day. The damages lie solely in the fact that they aren't able to be productive.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#152

Post by steveklabnik »

rimantas wrote: post #131
steveklabnik wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting innocent bystanders involved is literally the point.

So you are saying you are OK with any kind of terrorism? If not, where do you draw the line?

sigh. Can this be like the new Godwin?

I am okay with 'any kind,' _as long as it's a reasonable response_. For example, if you stepped outside right now and shot a cop, I'd think that you were a bad person, even though I dislike police. However, if some dude in Egypt right now shot a cop, I'd probably give him a high-five. Once the cops start shooting, your escalated response is justified.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#153

Post by true_religion »

steveklabnik wrote: post #148
InclinedPlane wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sit-ins are inherently sacrificial acts. The purpose of a sit-in is to stage a non-violent, disruptive protest which forces a response, typically being arrested, from a business owner or government. If there is no response because, for example, the business owner is too shamed to respond then either the disruption continues until the protesters demands are met or the protesters eventually give up. If there is a respo…

My conception of a sit-in has no relation with anonymity. The important portion of a sit-in is the occupation of space. The space is occupied to disrupt the normal flow of activity, so as to draw attention to a cause. I'm not sure how a protest being anonymous goes from violent to non-violent. Secondly, it doesn't matter if Anon once DDoS'd minecraft.net. Operation Avenge Assange had its motivations declared quite ex…

Yes but for it to be a "sit in", the space had to be occupied by your physical body.

You could simply occupy space through other means such as placing a large heavy object in the store or place of business, but that would be considered 'dumping' and not a sit-in.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#154

Post by JonnieCache »

rimantas wrote: post #132
steveklabnik wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Struggle is struggle. Wikileaks is just as important of a world issue as Egypt is. I'm watching Food, Inc. right now. Is the battle over food less or more important than Egypt? What about Tunesia? Different people value different causes differently. A healthy Wikileaks will probably affect my life more positively than a new Egyptian government will, but that doesn't make me less happy for them.

Wikileaks is just as important of a world issue as Egypt is. you gotta be kidding. Wikileaks is a little more than Assange's "I am the messiah" project. BTW, did they leak their own financial matters yet? Where did all donated money go?

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.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#155

Post by steveklabnik »

JonnieCache wrote: post #154
rimantas wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikileaks is just as important of a world issue as Egypt is. you gotta be kidding. Wikileaks is a little more than Assange's "I am the messiah" project. BTW, did they leak their own financial matters yet? Where did all donated money go?

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.

Don't feed the trolls.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#156

Post by roel_v »

steveklabnik wrote: post #149
roel_v wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Generally, following the law is good, but I hold no illusions that there's any connection between legality and morality." Not to nitpick but I hope you meant for this to be hyperbole. In general , the law (at least part of it, the parts that aren't purely for practical reasons such as 'everybody should drive on the right side of the road') purports to embody whatever is thought of as 'the moral common ground' of the…

The key word there is 'purports.' I don't think that it actually does. Also, I think that prohibitions and punishment say that they have a moral component, but that's largely due to making it easier for the populace to swallow. Opiate of the masses and all of that. This doesn't mean that I think that there should be a world without rules, either. But these (at least America's) set of rules certainly don't come anywhe…

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 least two people upvoting you?)

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#157

Post by steveklabnik »

roel_v wrote: post #156
steveklabnik wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key word there is 'purports.' I don't think that it actually does. Also, I think that prohibitions and punishment say that they have a moral component, but that's largely due to making it easier for the populace to swallow. Opiate of the masses and all of that. This doesn't mean that I think that there should be a world without rules, either. But these (at least America's) set of rules certainly don't come anywhe…

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 utilitarian. No morality about it.

> 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"

Yes, I don't think that John Locke was the absolute end to philosophical thought. "Private property" and the accumulation of capital have been the root cause of a large amount of the injustices in the world. Greed is not good. Markets don't work.

> Pray tell, then what are your ethics?

I'm still working out the absolute details, but I'm most certainly in some part of socio-anarco land.

> (with claims as outrageous as these I feel like I'm being trolled, but there are at least two people upvoting you?)

It's because you're thinking on the surface too much. For example: America's rape laws are not in line with my morality. This isn't because I think rape is all good and fine, it's absolutely abhorrent. However, in the eyes of the law, an 18 year old and a 17 year old having sex is wrong, and the 18 year old will be branded a sex offender for life. This is wrong. I don't agree with it.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#158

Post by rimantas »

steveklabnik wrote: post #152
rimantas wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying you are OK with any kind of terrorism? If not, where do you draw the line?

sigh . Can this be like the new Godwin? I am okay with 'any kind,' _as long as it's a reasonable response_. For example, if you stepped outside right now and shot a cop, I'd think that you were a bad person, even though I dislike police. However, if some dude in Egypt right now shot a cop, I'd probably give him a high-five. Once the cops start shooting, your escalated response is justified.

First you talk how it is ok for innocent bystander to get hurt, then you talk about shooting cops…

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#159

Post by [deleted] »

rimantas wrote: post #158
steveklabnik wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sigh . Can this be like the new Godwin? I am okay with 'any kind,' _as long as it's a reasonable response_. For example, if you stepped outside right now and shot a cop, I'd think that you were a bad person, even though I dislike police. However, if some dude in Egypt right now shot a cop, I'd probably give him a high-five. Once the cops start shooting, your escalated response is justified.

First you talk how it is ok for innocent bystander to get hurt, then you talk about shooting cops…

[deleted]

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#160

Post by rimantas »

JonnieCache wrote: post #154
rimantas wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikileaks is just as important of a world issue as Egypt is. you gotta be kidding. Wikileaks is a little more than Assange's "I am the messiah" project. BTW, did they leak their own financial matters yet? Where did all donated money go?

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.
Post reply on HN