Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Short Andrew "Dilbert" article trying to link OWS with an Anonymous hacking

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 25, 2011, 10:54 p.m. EST by jk1234 (257)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

That was technically brilliant and potentially incredibly stupid, depending on what exactly they stole. Theft and publication of e-mails detailing proprietary info? Not sure I mind that; a lot of the time "proprietary information," especially things related to national security, tends to be more about keeping potentially embarrassing and/or disquieting knowledge out of the public eye even though by rights investors and/or the public have a right to know.

The credit card data? That's another story. I'm not necessarily going to condemn involuntary donations by corporations to charities, but once you start stealing the information of ordinary employees you cross a line. Pulling money out of people's accounts to give to charity sounds like a nice idea, but a lot of people are living a lot tighter now due to the recession and don't really have that much to spend. If you've just spent someone's mortgage payment (even if it is on charity) then you may have just screwed them out of their house without justification and you owe them restitution.

That said, I don't believe that Occupy Wall Street should have any official affiliation with or endorsement of Anonymous, simply because they're a bunch of loose cannons. They have even less of a leadership or command infrastructure than we do, which means there is no way for us to make sure they don't cross the line between popping people's bubbles and actual criminal activity (e-mails are fine, credit card data is not) and I don't want our name tied to theirs when and if people start going after them for one stunt too many.

[-] 2 points by jk1234 (257) 12 years ago


[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

Thanks; I think they perform an important function as far as keeping everyone on their toes is concerned, but they're reckless enough (and on occasion cross serious enough lines) that being too closely associated with them could seriously backfire. By its definition Anonymous is fiendishly difficult to break up or harass into silence. We, on the other hand, are far easier to trace, harass, detain, arrest, disrupt, or what have you and if we're too close to them when they get stupid we become the easy target for a whole lot of angry people. I don't know about the higher-ups or the GAs, but I can't see how that's a good idea.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

Have you read the bill?

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 12 years ago

I have also removed any mention of SOPA in the post. Thanks

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 12 years ago

You are correct that I did not, and am mistaken. I guess I was looking at it as something with language that would be more akin to NDAA, and have the capacity to legally shut down websites etc via a federal law if that site, without due process, if that site were deemed to be an enemy to US security. I am very much in favor of protection of copyright.

[-] 0 points by afterforever (-6) 12 years ago

Occupy Anonymous!!!!!