[Thread split]Of Pirate bay and Anonymous

[dw426]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404193,00.asp
" The Pirate Bay last night criticized Anonymous for taking down the Virgin Media website over its blocking of The Pirate Bay, arguing that the move is a form of censorship."

Good PR move here telling the "freedom fighters" to back off. All Anonymous has ever done is make things much worse and strengthen a governments case to tighten the noose around the internets' neck. They don't speak for everybody, no matter what they think.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by dw426

All Anonymous has ever done is make things much worse and strengthen a governments case to tighten the noose around the internets' neck.

Which makes me wonder which side they are really on. Or is that just total paranoia?

[mirimir]

Originally Posted by Daveski17

Which makes me wonder which side they are really on. Or is that just total paranoia?

That's not paranoia. They're a mob, which has been infiltrated by moles, who may incite ops. Sabu, for example, incited ops that annoyed people, but didn't do serious damage.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by mirimir

That's not paranoia. They're a mob, which has been infiltrated by moles, who may incite ops. Sabu, for example, incited ops that annoyed people, but didn't do serious damage.

"Damage", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. What may not seem like serious damage to one, may be catastrophic to another. It doesn't have to be physical, it can be PR damage, intelligence damage, and so on.

@Daveski: They're on their own side, plain and simple.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by mirimir

That's not paranoia. They're a mob, which has been infiltrated by moles, who may incite ops. Sabu, for example, incited ops that annoyed people, but didn't do serious damage.

Yes, they're a bit of an enigma ... & a mob.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by dw426

@Daveski: They're on their own side, plain and simple.

Ah, cyber-anarchy. Every cyber-man for his cyber-self perhaps?

[mirimir]

Originally Posted by dw426

"Damage", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. What may not seem like serious damage to one, may be catastrophic to another. It doesn't have to be physical, it can be PR damage, intelligence damage, and so on.

I meant that Sabu encouraged ops that didn't seriously damage the targets. They did seriously damage his "friends".

[Cudni]

split from
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=323146

[dw426]

Originally Posted by Daveski17

Ah, cyber-anarchy. Every cyber-man for his cyber-self perhaps?

That's basically it. The problem with groups like Anonymous is that there's no real organization. You might have, to put it in street terms, "OGs", but there's no real "boss" or structure. I can go and do whatever I want to in the name of Anonymous, whether I'm involved with them or not. That's a curse for law enforcement, but also for Anonymous. Just like any criminal group, friends are only friends until money or too high of a temperature says so.

They don't want attention from governments or any set group of people, they just want attention period, and that eventually will be their undoing (added with the fact that the vast majority of Anonymous are script kiddies with way too much to lose should their door ever get busted down. Those are your "talkers").

[PaulyDefran]

The quickest way to get caught would be to 'organize' and have 'leadership'. How many are there? 1,000? 10,000? How many have been caught? 10? 20?

PD

[dw426]

Originally Posted by PaulyDefran

The quickest way to get caught would be to 'organize' and have 'leadership'. How many are there? 1,000? 10,000? How many have been caught? 10? 20?

PD

There's no real way to number them, because, as I said, anyone can claim they are Anonymous and do something. That's why the number caught means very little. The ones who were caught that had enough evidence to show they were indeed in the "organization", were big enough to hurt. Others were basically the guppies consisting of either very low totem pole members who know just enough to lead law enforcement further up the food chain, or people who didn't know jack, decided it would be fun to cause problems, and fly the banner.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by dw426

That's basically it. The problem with groups like Anonymous is that there's no real organization. You might have, to put it in street terms, "OGs", but there's no real "boss" or structure. I can go and do whatever I want to in the name of Anonymous, whether I'm involved with them or not. That's a curse for law enforcement, but also for Anonymous. Just like any criminal group, friends are only friends until money or too high of a temperature says so.

They appear to share certain agenda values, but you could say that for any disparate group online or offline I suppose. I really don't know what to make of them.

"We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us" ~ Wikipedia

Now, that just sounds scary. More akin to cyber terrorism than cyber social activism.

Originally Posted by dw426

They don't want attention from governments or any set group of people, they just want attention period, and that eventually will be their undoing (added with the fact that the vast majority of Anonymous are script kiddies with way too much to lose should their door ever get busted down. Those are your "talkers").

Yes, although in my experience, people or groups who desire constant attention usually have some deep-rooted psychological issues that they need to deal with.

Bruce Bethke would be so proud ... or horrified.

[PaulyDefran]

Originally Posted by dw426

There's no real way to number them, because, as I said, anyone can claim they are Anonymous and do something.

Which is just the way I would want it too

Love'em or Hate'em...no other phenomenon has given as big a wake up call to the security industry as they have. A *lot* of security guys silently applaud them after trying to get the message across to the corporations they work for...and being met with deaf ears for years. I bet STRATFOR's security budget has increased...and they are better for it.

PD

[Fox Mulder]

Anonymous consists 99.5% of teenagers who want to seem "edgy" and 0.5% of people who actually know what they're doing and associate with Anonymous because of the name recognition. It's not a coordinated group.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by Daveski17

Well, apart from al-Qaeda.

You've not dealt with TSA lately, have you? Lol. Anyway, yes, Anonymous has indeed woken up a lot of people (save for Sony, who seems hell-bent on thumbing their nose at even basic practices). As for sharing anything in common, they like cats...that's, no kidding around, where the vast majority of them stop their "common values". After that, it's literally whatever one certain person happens to hate the most at a particular moment.

Again, you've got the "main crew", which, as stated in another post above, is a tiny, tiny percentage of the "group" who might share an agenda. The rest, that 99+%, just attack whatever they feel like on a particular day.

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by dw426

You've not dealt with TSA lately, have you? Lol.

No, but there again, I don't know who they are.

Originally Posted by dw426

As for sharing anything in common, they like cats...that's, no kidding around, where the vast majority of them stop their "common values".

There is no answer to that ...

Originally Posted by dw426

After that, it's literally whatever one certain person happens to hate the most at a particular moment.

Oh great, just what the Net needs more of: knee-jerk vigilantes.

Originally Posted by dw426

Again, you've got the "main crew", which, as stated in another post above, is a tiny, tiny percentage of the "group" who might share an agenda. The rest, that 99+%, just attack whatever they feel like on a particular day.

Let the witch-hunts begin ....

Perhaps some of these guys should watch (or at least read) Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible'.

[Cudni]

ot posts removed

[dw426]

Originally Posted by Daveski17

No, but there again, I don't know who they are.



There is no answer to that ...



Oh great, just what the Net needs more of: knee-jerk vigilantes.



Let the witch-hunts begin ....

Perhaps some of these guys should watch (or at least read) Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible'.

TSA is Transportation Security Administration. You deal with them mostly when you go through U.S airports, they're the people with the scanners Btw, what's wrong with cats? You'll always deal with knee-jerk vigilantes when you turn on the computer and fire up the browser, lol. And Dave, a good percentage of that 99+% doesn't understand what anyone would say unless they spoke in leetspeak or text talk...you expect them to read a book?

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by dw426

TSA is Transportation Security Administration. You deal with them mostly when you go through U.S airports, they're the people with the scanners

That's one advantage of living on a small island where internal flights aren't very common & you can get to most places by rail or car.

Originally Posted by dw426

Btw, what's wrong with cats?

Nothing, I believe that they are quite delicious washed down with a nice chianti.

Originally Posted by dw426

You'll always deal with knee-jerk vigilantes when you turn on the computer and fire up the browser, lol.

Yes, particularly at mozillaZine & the Opera ASA forums it seems.

Originally Posted by dw426

And Dave, a good percentage of that 99+% doesn't understand what anyone would say unless they spoke in leetspeak or text talk...you expect them to read a book?

OMG not being a haX0r or being able to use b0770x-speak myself, I suppose it would be to much to expect the script-kiddies to embrace anything resembling actual culture. Unless it was in Klingon or something ... LOL!

[Cudni]

Without further ado, thread closed. Thank you all