Not specifically related to this article but Id like to give Ars major props for following all of the recent Anonymous actions so throughly. Their articles on HBGary were fantastic and they seem to be keeping up well.
"I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless." ~Thoreau
Before condemning I'll wait to see what is done with this information. If someone dies, that'll be the end of it, but don't freak out over pizza deliveries. I've been waiting for Anon to start endorsing violence, so far they haven't.
It's very interesting to see folks rediscover what we always knew: there's a big difference between a group with a purpose and standards and a mob.
It used to be that geography contained a lot of mob-like behavior. You might be mad at the guy who lived in the nearby castle, but there were only so many villagers you could round up. And some of those liked the guy, some didn't want trouble, some didn't like your plan, etc.
Now the internet lets us find the most emotional people possible about a particular topic and put them all together in one "place". Then people can feed off each's other anger, saying and doing more and more preposterous things in order to impress the group. Information that might challenge the groupspeak is discarded. "Acts of valor" the group commit are spread far and wide, drawing in more members, thereby creating a feedback cycle which encourages more and more dramatic acts.
The thing is: the issue doesn't matter. The larger story isn't about Sony, or Anonymous, or any one particular issue. It's about how governments are going to be able to consistently function when the world is breaking up into thousands of little angry groups like this.
I have no idea how this is going to play out, or how many kids and families of corporation execs are going to suffer because of things they cannot control. But there will be a backlash. It's building, and I'm concerned that when it happens we are going to see governments step in and take control in ways that are as equally terrible. </doomsaying>
>there's a big difference between a group with a purpose and standards and a mob.
You're implying that this group doesn't have a purpose or standards? Seems like they have a fairly obvious purpose: discourage Sony from being heavy-handed against hobbyist hackers. And they also have standards: just ones you may disagree with. I'm sure if someone shot a Sony exec's kid the bulk of Anon would disagree with this action.
The back and forth of the establishment attempting to control and elements of the population pushing back is not a new thing.
It isn't necessarily even the same purpose at the end as it was in the beginning. This is the danger of mobs, people become more emotional and feel more entitled to take more drastic actions that they would otherwise eschew alone. It would only take one lone nut case with a gun and the information Anon has gathered to turn this media curiosity into the biggest story this side of Libya.
I am not against what Anon is arguing for in this case, but what they are doing is highly questionable and crosses the line. This is no longer civil disobedience but something more akin to mobster tactics. If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops.
>I am not against what Anon is arguing for in this case, but what they are doing is highly questionable and crosses the line. This is no longer civil disobedience but something more akin to mobster tactics.
It's unfortunate that more conventional forms of civil obedience have been rendered ineffective in dealing with corporations who, by lobbying government and dominating popular media, have overcome the traditional checks and balances of a healthy civil society.
What evidence do you have that "the traditional checks and balances of a healthy civil society" aren't working?
Just because you aren't getting your way doesn't mean society isn't working. You have a viewpoint, but plenty of other people have a very different viewpoint on where things should stand. That we manage to arrive at a reasonable middle ground between all of these dissenting opinions seems to indicate that the system is working.
I'm tired of hearing all of this posturing and justification for Anon just because you support what they support. If it was the Montana Tea Party employing tactics like this, they would be called domestic terrorists.
So, sorry: DDoSes, stalking, harassment and vandalism are not "civil disobedience", they're just plain old despicable behavior.
>That we manage to arrive at a reasonable middle ground between all of these dissenting opinions seems to indicate that the system is working.
Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.
>I'm tired of hearing all of this posturing and justification for Anon just because you support what they support.
That's unfortunate. Laws, the economy, culture, and politics have changed since the days of a functional civil society. It's unlikely that people in present circumstances will abide by standards of behavior that don't advance their interests.
>So, sorry: DDoSes, stalking, harassment and vandalism are not "civil disobedience", they're just plain old despicable behavior.
The tactics of the American and French revolutions were likely classifed as "despicable" as well by the out of touch and complacent, but history would be much different without these tactics. Many see Sony's abuse of power as "despicable". Sony is free to withdraw their aggression at any time.
> The tactics of the American and French revolutions were likely classifed as "despicable" as well by the out of touch and complacent, but history would be much different without these tactics. Many see Sony's abuse of power as "despicable". Sony is free to withdraw their aggression at any time.
To compare the state we're in to those periods in time is very misleading. We have one of the highest qualities of life and some of the strongest freedoms than at any other point in time. Let's not lose perspective.
We should "fight" for what we believe in and try to effect positive change, but we are extremely far away from the extreme times that warranted extreme revolutionary measures.
> Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.
That's a great sign that it is.
Reminds me of the quote: "You know it's a great deal when both sides feel screwed."
>To compare the state we're in to those periods in time is very misleading. We have one of the highest qualities of life and some of the strongest freedoms than at any other point in time. Let's not lose perspective.
A time like ours, in which there's a massive societal shift (the rapid shrinking of the middle class as a result of globalization) accompanied by a financial crisis, is actually quite comparable to the environments that fostered the American and French revolutions.
The French revolution was preceded by a financial crisis and enlarged public debt due to foreign wars. Back then it was nobility and the clergy that managed to avoid taxation and whose interests were overrepresented by the state. In our times the wealthy and corporations have gained this favor.
>That's a great sign that it is. Reminds me of the quote: "You know it's a great deal when both sides feel screwed."
Ah. So by this logic revolutionary America and France also had "working" systems.
Representative democracy now represents lobbyists rather than voters. Media now represents corporate interests rather than the public interest.
NOW represents? That suggests that it has changed sometime in the last century. But from everything that I have read, the corruption is actually less today than it was a hundred years ago.
Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.
Oh the system is working, alright. It just isn't working for _you_. :-P
>But from everything that I have read, the corruption is actually less today than it was a hundred years ago.
If that is the case then awareness of the corruption is what has changed. If government represents the interests of an elite rather than the electorate at large than that system is dysfunctional and may be subject to a correction.
>Oh the system is working, alright. It just isn't working for _you_. :-P
My comments criticizing the system have received healthy upvoting, so it would seem that I'm not expressing a fringe opinion. Outside of Hacker News, stats showing steadily increasing economic polarization in the US are a solid indicator of an out-of-balance system.
If that is the case then awareness of the corruption is what has changed.
Actually a century ago people were very aware of the corruption. It was the impetus for a number of important reforms.
My comments criticizing the system have received healthy upvoting, so it would seem that I'm not expressing a fringe opinion.
Tip. When someone adds a ":-P" to a comment, that indicates teasing. The people for whom the system "works" are those with power and influence. You are not one of them, and therefore it doesn't work for you.
>Tip. When someone adds a ":-P" to a comment, that indicates teasing. The people for whom the system "works" are those with power and influence. You are not one of them, and therefore it doesn't work for you.
Institutionalized, legitimized corruption is a different thing entirely, and yes it's at a new level these days. See Citizens United. See the recent decision allowing corporations to run ads in elections. (they broke the spending record in a MIDTERM in 2010).
Institutionalized, legitimized corruption is a different thing entirely, and yes it's at a new level these days.
I far prefer to have corporations run ads in elections to having corporations purchase senate seats. And when I say purchase, I do mean purchase. Prior to the 17th amendment senators were generally appointed by state legislatures, and it was surprisingly common for corporations to pay the legislatures to make their man senator. This was the impetus for the 17th amendment.
If you want institutionalized corruption, read up on Tammany Hall.
If you want legitimized corruption, read up on the history of how the 14th amendment was so narrowly interpreted to prevent enforcement of its plain intent. We are not talking about minor injustices. For example in the Colfax massacre over 100 blacks were killed. Everyone knew who did it, only 3 were convicted of anything, and those convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court. This decision was widely applauded.
If you think that things are worse today, I'll need some serious convincing.
Dude, what do you think the easiest way to purchase a senate seat is? In most states it costs a couple million dollars to run a campaign for a job that pays 200k.
I understand that a lot of conservatives want to go back to the 1850s but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about as recently as 25-50 years ago when the current state of affairs would have been a scandal. And heck, even during Tammany Hall, such bribery was at least technically illegal, and widespread breaking of the law meant our elected officials said "how do we stop this". Now it's not only legal, it's encouraged, and our leaders are trying to enable more of it.
Tell Carly Fiorina how easy it is to purchase a Senate seat.
About how things have changed in recent years, in Bill Clinton's book My Life one thing that he comments on is how much cleaner politics is today than it was when he was young and just getting involved, and yet how much dirtier the public thinks it is. Based on his insider account I believe that the reality is very different than your perception.
Yeah, Clinton was talking about the personal level, like "has a secret black baby" stories and things like that, particularly in the desegregated south where he was coming up.
Look at the income disparity in the country and look at the way the tax code, consumer protection laws, environmental protection laws and laws regarding corporate lobbying have gone in the last 20 years or so. It's all going the same direction. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say "institutionalized corruption", not small-scale backroom deals or dirty politics.
Yes, income disparity has gotten a lot worse since 1980. We're now back to about the levels of disparity that we saw a century ago during the gilded age. Just like then, I expect to see a long term backlash. (At the height of the backlash in the 1950s the top personal income tax rate ranged from 92% to 93%. On income over $1 million/year. That was a lot more then than it would be now.)
Currently the US government takes in about 15% of GDP in taxes. That's the lowest that it has been in a century. I would expect to see that change as well at some point in the future.
Not that I'm condoning this behavior, but it's especially unfortunate that the target here is relatively benign when there are so many more deserving targets.
>If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops.
I'm not sure if you're joking here or not, but this is exactly what was done to "them" during the HbGary thing, and this is exactly what is trying to be done to "them" in the George Hotz case (Sony is seeking information on George Hotz, as well as anybody who visited his website.)
And they are crying foul from the internet's rooftops. Which is exactly where we are at now.
>So two wrongs make a right? Because others are doing it Anon is justified in doing it as well? And justified in taking it further and exposing innocent bystanders?
Whether it's a proportional response or not is debatable, but it's an unsurprising and natural turn of events in a system where corporations, because of the degree to which they lobby political parties, are catered to by the law and the courts. All Sony execs have to do to restore their personal security is back off from attempting to abuse their power.
> All Sony execs have to do to restore their personal security is back off from attempting to abuse their power.
Bam, that is this, and the wikileaks thing in a nutshell. Gov & Corps are abusing their power at the expense of individuals. Anonymous (The Internet) gives previously weak individuals a way to level the playing field.
Even Wikileaks redact information that could get innocent people in trouble/killed. What Wikileaks does is controlled and measured, Anon is the the school's downtrodden nerds ganging up on the bullies little sister.
Going after the loved ones of the target of your fury is a tactic of criminals and despots.
Going after the loved ones of the target of your fury is a tactic of criminals and despots.
I agree. However, as others have pointed out that's what Sony is doing. Yet they are not being prosecuted for it. So in some sense perhaps this adopting of the tactics of criminals to use against the criminals themselves (speaking hyperbolically or at least theoretically here- perhaps too strong to apply directly to Sony) is in some sense justice? Especially where the law fails.
Hey, I have a family. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone who was pissed at me to come after them. But then, I wouldn't go after their family either.
Is it wrong to respond if someone is attacking you? Sony are subverting governments to make laws that take away my (and your freedom on the internet. These laws are backed by credible threats of lethal force. What anonymous are doing to Sony executives is but a small fraction of what Sony executives are doing to internet users worldwide.
You may be exaggerating. I visited the #opsony room, and at one point they were broadcasting how many LOICs were in operation. Millions? Thousands? No. <100. Less than 100 people in this mob of internet justice. And fewer still doing more nefarious stuff like stalking down execs.
If < 100 people can cause this level of disruption, I think it adds to, instead of detracts from, GP's point. Ye' olde pitchfork mob couldn't even think of causing this kind of disruption, even at similar numbers.
From what they've taken down in the past I don't have a doubt that one or more 'anonymous' have access to a botnet. This is probably what the FBI is after and is why no action has been taken.
Yes, I am purposely overstating and glossing over certain details, mainly because I'm attempting to extrapolate.
Thanks for pointing that out, though. Perhaps if we're lucky (?) tools to monitor and control mobs will evolve faster than tools to communicate and collaborate securely.
Anonymous is working at the basest level of security -- just drop by and jump in. I imagine what we'll see soon, what we see already in organized crime, is a combination of better ways of vetting while still integrating to the wider net in order to attract new recruits. As they say in the movies, the night is still young. If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems (once again, I'm overstating for effect)
Having said all of that, even if it's only 100 people, and even if it's always 100 people are less, that's a problem. Smaller groups that fly under the radar are more problematic than large noisy ones. How many people did it take to dump all the secure embassy traffic of the United States government?
> If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems
We are not going to have problems. Governments and corporations who want to take away our rights are going to have problems.
It's all fun and games until you discover that you're working for today's bad guys, your address is posted up, and there are cocks drawn on your face on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
>If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook?
For the record, I don't see a problem with any of those things, and I doubt I'm the only one.
It's useful to mention that you're overstating when you do it (like you did in this post) so that people don't fall into the trap of believing that what you're saying is actually the status quo.
Although you may be right, if the hackanery gets too bad the gov may have no choice but to step in. I wonder how long it will be before a special ops team from the newly formed Ministry of Information is banging down these kids' doors.
If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook?
The essence of Democracy is not that the majority wins. The essence of democracy and other representational systems (such as the variant on democracy we actually have) is that when processes are followed and the vote is fair, the losers agree to go gracefully and wait for the next vote for their next chance at victory. The winners don't need to be told they won; they know it. It's getting the losers to go gracefully via proxy violence rather than actual violence that is the key to civilization as we know it.
This is the losers not going gracefully. (Or at least, the likely losers. Actually democracy has not yet made its decision, it's still deliberating on the matter of jurisdiction, let alone the actual crime at hand.) This is the breakdown of democracy, not a celebration of it. I won't even immediately leap to saying that's a bad thing, because Democracy !=== "Good". I'm just saying, this is not democracy. It's either anarchy or mob rule.
And if you actually like democracy, raw or otherwise, you shouldn't agree with Anonymous. A democracy is all about means rather than ends, and as tempting as it may be to agree with the end it is imperative to the integrity of the system that you stand against someone getting there with the wrong means. If you don't like Sony, boycott, legislate, lobby, convince with words and fair deeds, not mob criminality.
I think democracy gets conflated with justice too many times. There is absolutely nothing good or bad about democracy....it is merely a way of representation and governance.
The real question should be about justice. What is actually right and wrong? It does not matter if the people being denied a voice are a majority or minority...the only thing that matters is what they have to say, and if it has merit.
51% rule does not work if 49% pick up the guns when they lose and start shooting. If you are fortunate enough to live in a well-civilized country, you are fortunate enough to live in a society that has internalized the fact that it's ultimately not good for anybody to do that. A casual glance around the world will show how not-inevitable that is. It's not two different definitions; it's the engineering mechanics whereby "majority rule" actually works, actually occurs, instead of... something else. (Multiple different sorts of something elses... I don't mean that I have one particular one in mind. But presumably some sort of something else that doesn't involve majority rule.)
If that 49% never 'wins', they have absolutely no incentive to continue their union with the 51% majority. It would make no sense for them to do so - why always stick around the with the husband who beats you?
Sure, it's not thrown down time after the first defeat, but when every single issue time and time again comes down to such a huge split, when does it make sense to just end it and have the 2 groups separate?
That's an excellent point well made. The logic of democracy is trumped by the logic of real life.
However, in this issue I don't think we're talking about a 49-51% split. This is a very powerful minority imposing their will of a largely silent majority. Your logic still stands though: At what point do we break our union. Anonymous's action indicate to me that we may well have reached that point.
while we're sat here debating the subtleties and semantics of what "democracy" means, Anonymous is out there being the change they want to see in the world. Anonymous are better democrats than I.
To criticise exclusively "the means" of Anonymous in this sense is to close your eyes to the other sides "means". Things like lobbying, spreading democracy through war, nepotism, and simply ignoring constitutions altogether to do what ever the hell you want. All of which are privileges you and I don't have. Your vote will not change that. You can march on washington (or London (or anywhere) as they did against the Iraq War, Student Fees and Austerity Cuts) and you will not change a thing.
The banks have taken all our money, but while you pay full income Tax, Barclays Bank pays 1% corporation tax. Monsanto poison our food and use their power to make what was illegal yesterday, legal today. Pharmaceutical companies fudge trials or re-market pills and potions in a way that they know will harm people, but no one will ever go to jail for manslaughter or murder or bodily harm.
I've yet to see a better advancement for democracy in my lifetime than the Low Orbit Ion Cannon. It only works when we all pull the trigger together, which is a safety feature no other kind of democracy has.
I counter that organizations like Sony have already so subverted our democracy that this entire point is moot. The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion. And to be honest I'm more concerned with the ends than the means anyway, finally. Democratic ideals are something everyone should strive toward to be sure, but things have perhaps degraded to the point that they need to be set aside in the short term.
"The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion."
Which laws specifically have been passed by Congress despite the fact that, say, 60%+ of the people would greatly disagree with it, and empower Sony to do these things?
I consider the DMCA a great mistake. I've spent way more time than the average Internet denizen thinking so, thinking about it, writing about it [1]. I have some very refined opinions on how bad an idea it is.
I do not delude myself into thinking that I have the support of the people.
Most people don't care, shading into supporting the basic functionality of the DMCA, at least come vote time. Sorry. It's the truth. It has even perhaps been passed via some dubious methods, but, again, certainly not above the will of the people.
I think a lot of people use "subverted Democracy" as a code word for "enacted something I don't like". But that's not a subversion of democracy; that's when you enact something a lot of people don't like.
Yes, there's a time and a place for writing the system off and taking justice into your own hands. This isn't even close to it. That's not something to be taken lightly.
Are you sure the DMCA was enacted democratically? That it was passed by Congress isn't strong evidence for that.
To be honest we're probably not going to find much common ground here. I don't consider America a democratic nation, or at least not an example of one to strive toward. But I think I can distinguish between "subverted Democracy" and "enacted something I don't like."
If the Lamb in this scenario is a litigious bully who stretches the law to breaking point and abuses privileges that aren't available to you or I, then yes.
No, we're the lambs. One of the wolves is a giant multinational company, the other owns tanks and can control Internet peering.
On behalf of the rest of you lambs, I'd like to thank people who commit crimes to make points about freedom online for picking this fight. I'm sure we'll do just fine in it.
No. You're right. What you should definitely try to do is use coercion against people who can outspend you $1,000,000,000 to $1, or against people who employ hundreds of people authorized to discharge firearms.
I'd add another problem with this state where more ideas, movements, tribes, etc. find critical mass via better and better communication technologies, is the side-effect of these groups forming echo chambers of ideas leading to more divergent groups with less in common, thus creating harder to resolve differences.
> Now the internet lets us find the most emotional people possible about a particular topic and put them all together in one "place".
Sort of reminds me of the White people that are able to find each other on the internet and hate on another race. It has formed segregated groups and have executed killings based on what people and communities talk about online. I pretty much agree with your assumption. Its going to get worse.
"Acts of valor" the group commit are spread far and wide, drawing in more members, thereby creating a feedback cycle which encourages more and more dramatic acts.
Off topic, how is it that people can be against socialism, and yet also personally glory in the acts of soldiers and sports persons, etc.? Isn't that exactly taking something from the hard work of the capable few and spreading it over a whole nation in such fashion that the people who need it more can 'take' the most from it?
Before the internet, people were comfortable releasing small amounts of personal data - and so they still release small amounts of personal data (to a florist, into the garbage).
One of the issues here is that a few of these pieces of data are like Primary Keys: home address, ssn etc: once you grab these you open up so much else, and there's not too many alternatives to these keys (for those times you actually need them).
SSN (and possibly home address) are not just primary keys, but super-keys in that they are primary keys across systems and datasets (in general).
They may not be immutable as a primary key suggests, but are very hard/costly to change, so the difference is moot.
Another reason to not give out your superkeys to anyone who doesn't need it.
Finally, though in general I'm in favor of privacy, with the complete lack of corporate accountability, I support the intention behind Anonymous's actions.
I dont think this is representative. There have been comparisons made between Anonymous's DDoS and sit-ins. But there was also a more antisocial and violent part of the civil rights movement as well.
Last night I watched "The Next Day", a teaser film for the inevitable Tron 3. In it there's a Banksy-type group of hackers called "Flynn Lives" who commit acts of sabotage and mischief specifically against ENCOM. I thought to myself, "That's silly, how could there be an underground activist organization that focuses its efforts on undermining a tech company that, while big and vaguely sinister, doesn't actually seem to have committed any actual evil?"
Sony has sued to shut down geohot and obtain the IP addresses of all visitors. They obtained a TRO that prevents him from distributing information about the exploit and which hands his hardware over to Sony. That's more than vaguely sinister, and is arguably an actual evil.
Yes. If there is any tech company that is 'evil' at the moment it's Sony. I don't agree with every action that Anonymous does, but honestly I hope Sony gets their due like HBGary did.
I think the "evil" that is alleged is that Sony is the type of company that is ruthless enough to do things like installing a rootkit on your machine to ensure that its copyrights are not infringed.
On one side, I think it's great that "important" people who make major decisions take personal responsibilities, instead of hiding behind corporate/government entities;
On the other side, this sort of hack-attack could easily go out of hand: what do we do if someone uses this sort of technique for malicious intents?
This is the kind of stuff I think will cause more damage, than do any good. Yeah ordering pizza's is funny, but when you start digging into someones family, I think it goes over the line. This is something criminal thugs would do. This isn't going to do their cause's PR any good at all, which perhaps I'm wrong, that their goal is to help support the "little guy" against the "big powers", to accomplish that, its best to get the support of the people, to expose corruption, not threaten people like this. Which, when this goes to national news, its going to look really bad. Not to mention, this is stalker grade stuff, which that freaks me out for some reason, I imagine socially dysfunctional people, looking for some attention sitting around thinking, Anonymous is doing it, people like them, I know... I'm going to go do something completely insane so people will like me. These sort of tactics can easily blow up in their faces, perception of the people is everything these days, stuff like this can make it real easy to look really bad.
I am for trying to poke at someone, but to me the line is drawn at family and kids. Anonymous themselves might not do it, but lets say they make information about the kids public and some weird psycho uses that in a bad way. Just takes one incident involving a child and the public out lash could be severe.
The FBI mostly has been watching, but not directly involved because so far, for what they've done it's not worth the resources and money to go after. The FBI could go after anonymous but the cost and time would be so high eventually you're gonna tell yourself, we just wasted a lot of tax payer money chasing a bunch of kid pranks. That is unless Anon does something stupid to invoke massive public anger.
I'm pretty sure the FBI and most likely CIA are already tracking these guys and building cases on them as we speak. They've broken enough laws in enough countries to go after them. You'd be pretty surprised how much money is available to these agencies and task forces to infiltrate, track and bring down these guys. I figure its only a matter of time before they get at them.
Ok, now we're talking lulz. Tracking people's children? All's fair, I guess.
But taking down the PlayStation Network, well...that's over the line.
> "Anonymous is not attacking the PSN at this time," said the document. "Sony's official position is that the PSN is undergoing maintenance. We realize that targeting the PSN is not a good idea. We have therefore temporarily suspended our action, until a method is found that will not severely impact Sony customers. Anonymous is on your side, standing up for your rights. We are not aiming to attack customers of Sony. This attack is aimed solely at Sony, and we will try our best to not affect the gamers, as this would defeat the purpose of our actions. If we did inconvenience users, please know that this was not our goal."
I think personal attacks like that degrade whatever credibility they gain by fighting for the little guy. Granted people have been prank-ordering pizza's to other people's houses since waaaaay before the Intarwebz, but I'm sure our generation of news-addicted alarmists will send up the flag saying this is why we should give away all of our privacy and freedoms so the government can protect us from bored teenagers.
For me this isn't an issue of privacy as much as its an issue of decency. If they released the bank records of these executives and said "these guys are loaded so why are they suing some kid" I wouldn't have a problem with that.
But once you graduate to involving their families you cross a line.
The only thing that can be accomplished by releasing the names and addresses of someone's spouse and children is to put them in harms way. That harm might just be getting yelled at but it could be much worse. Which puts this act into the category of "threatening someone's family"
As someone who agrees with Anonymous on the facts I would only support a small fine for violating someone's privacy. But for involving their family I would support and encourage local governments to send the members of this subsect to jail
This is a great point. They're currently devoting millions of dollars to ruining the life of GeoHot, but since they're doing it in a way that's sanctioned by politicians and lawyers, that's "alright".
GeoHot knowingly put himself in harms way, whether the law is just or not in this case his family is not being exposed to vilification and possible harm to their persons.
Sony's executives are in a similar situation, through their actions, or actions they support (explicitly or implicitly) they have put themselves in the firing line of Anon.
However going after innocent bystanders cannot be justified, on either side. Though I think it is a stretch to say Sony is going after GeoHot's family.
I have a PS3. If I make modifications to it and talk about those modifications online, is that knowingly putting myself in harms way? Who owns my PS3? And what right does anyone else have to dictate what knowledge I share online about my PS3?
Yes. It is knowingly putting yourself in harms way because you know what the law is, whether you agree with it or not. When you take an action as an adult you are accepting the possible consequences of that action.
If you punch a mobster in the face and get shot for your trouble every one is going to say "Wow what a brave fellow, he knew what the risks were but he did it anyway". Just like in GeoHot's place he knew what he was doing had risks of getting himself sued or worse, but he chose to do it anyway because he disagreed with the law.
You have missed my point however, I agree with the sentiment of what Anon is doing, just not the methods they are using.
Why do people keep reacting to me saying he knew what he was setting himself up for as an implicit approval of what is happening!!! I keep saying I disagree with the law and agree with the aim of Anon, just not their methods.
I don't agree with Anonymous's tactics, but look at it from their perspective: Corporate executives don't scare easily. What level of threat would convince Sony to change its policy?
You're missing the point - trying to change a companies policies at the price of being decent human beings is worse than whatever offense Sony committed.
This gives the impression that you're making a claim about something you don't have much specific knowledge of. Or that you're absolutely sure that Sony is incapable of offenses larger than a certain magnitude.
Hm, I deal/have dealt regularly with a number of HNWI in executive roles and I reckon they'd scare easily enough. Acting all tough in the conference room is one thing, getting phone calls at home is quite another. One is "the game", one is real life, completely different. They're not the spetsnaz.
Speaking hypothetically and nonjudgementally - phone calls to the wife is an excellent tactic which would get you to the top of the mental agenda instantly in 99% of cases.
> phone calls to the wife is an excellent tactic which would get you to the top of the mental agenda instantly in 99% of cases.
This is a truly disgusting suggestion. I don't have a word for the level of disgust it arouses in me.
Also, if I was on the receiving end, it would serve only to harden me, and to become far, far more strident against you and the other kids who are pulling this crap. Would you really want to be facing an angry executive who has the budget to buy not just security and investigators, but also law enforcement, legislators, the media, and anything else that's required to discredit you, and ruin your entire life?
an angry executive who has the budget to buy not just security and investigators, but also law enforcement, legislators, the media, and anything else that's required to discredit you, and ruin your entire life?
I think that describes exactly why they're on the receiving end of such disgusting behavior. Geohotz is being ruined in that exact fashion. Sony execs can't be both terrible people and exempt from backlash at the same time.
I'm saying that it's incredibly foolish to engage in such personal backlash (harassing somebody's wife), because it simply cannot help the situation at all.
Anon is escalating, turning Sony into the victim and turning themselves into a secondary target. That's stupid on so many levels that it's hard to count.
I'm all for things that could help geohot. But I'm not going to suggest doing things that can only hurt him and his credibility, help sony and their public image, whilst annoying innocent bystanders. That's just stupidity on a stick.
I agree that it has good chance of turning out badly and could be used to bolster support for Sony both in the public eye and in court, but how do you drive home the point to someone hiding behind a corporate veil? Corporate execs can make all the destructive decisions they want and can almost universally avoid being held accountable.
Circumventing that protection and making it personal is a pretty obvious choice, even if it's the wrong one. It also appears very poignant to me since Anon's actions basically mirror Sony's.
Well, I disagree. I think that while in a grey area ethically it brings the question home in a very personal way; that's why they're doing it. Corporate execs are humans who have to come home to their wife and kids like anyone else. Perhaps there are some fanatical corporate warriors out there eager to put everything on the line to prove some kind of c-penis point but I sure haven't met them.
I'm sure Anon envisage it going down like this (and IMO it is a reasonable supposition):
exec: honey, i'm home!
wife: oh darling, thank god you're home. those nasty men called me again! why are they doing this to us?
exec: well, because they say we're violating free speech and harrassing innocent people
wife: well are you?
exec: well .. um, a bit
wife: (glare)
Do you really believe that somebody with access to incredible resources is going to get harassed at home and think "well, I should go easier on this fellow, since his internet friends are stalking me and harassing my wife"? Really? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.
This is a horrible idea that can only go badly.
Escalation against a well-armed enemy is an incredibly bad strategy. In fact, it's hard to think of a worse strategy.
Well I think you're misjudging the character of these guys.
Corporate execs are characterised by an intense self-interest and aversion to anything that will impact them personally. Decisions are not about what is right, they're about what makes them look good and does not have personal repercussions. It's a very amoral environment. Not that I'm trying to criticise or anything; it's just the nature of the game.
That is why your typical corporate elite might have no issue with making a decision which wipes out 5,000 jobs at some unfortunate town. Not his problem. But is he going to help the company cheat on taxes or something, which will bring the FBI to his house? LOL! Absolutely not, not in a million years.
Anonymous's actions are quite inspired. They want to put "actions that will get you personally in trouble with Anonymous" in the same category as "actions that will get you personally in trouble with the FBI". This is an excellent tactic if you're got the balls to show you're serious, and they clearly have. You can be absolutely sure that other execs are paying close attention and, unconsciously, their maps of allowable actions are being rewritten.
I totally agree about the families. That's way, way over the line. IANAL so I don't know whether there are actually laws being broken here, but there might be; freedom of speech in US law has exceptions for threats and putting people into harm and so on. The problem is that it may be hard to find out whom to prosecute; the name "Anonymous" is there for a reason. A lot of very bad things can be done behind a mask of anonymity, just as good things can be (c.f. Tor servers to help dissidents).
From my reading of the Ars article, the only thing illegal they did is the ordering of pizzas. Even the digging through his trash is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions. Is what they're doing right? I don't know, but actions have consequences.
That conversation is illegal? Sounds like a lot of hot air to me. How many Anons do you think have the balls to do something like "go down to Sony and smash their faces in?"
You might want to read up on the laws regarding digging through trash. If the trash is on your property - it's illegal. Even if its in your driveway waiting for pickup, it's still illegal to go through. Also, In most states dumpster diving at any business is considered a felony.
As always, depends on state and local ordnances. If you are on private property you can always get hit with trespass, but the actual trash picking is typically legal. Many licensed PIs make their living going through other people's trash. In short, buy a shredder.
You are correct in terms of state and local ordinances, and I did do some more research and came up with the landmark case of CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) where this very issue was argued before the Supreme Court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US...
It basically says if your trash is visible, you can't assume privacy of the contents. If it's inside your garage, then it's off limits. Interesting case nonetheless.
One side of me says, I don't wish this type of personal abuse on anyone.
The other side of me says that I don't wish anyone at the age of 21 to be dragged through a ridiculous legal battle that could potentially affect the rest of his life. (debt for life, out of school, jail?)
Which is worse? Corporate greed or personal hacking attacks? Anon endorses the same techie progress that allows corporations like Sony, BoA, etc to reach it's mass market on the internet. Corporations like Sony embrace it's ability to use its mass market appeal (and therefore sales) to hire tons of lawyers to protect it's market.
