Anonymous To Destroy Facebook On November 5th?

Hhmmm..
http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-facebook-2011-8?op=1

 

No clear explanation for the long notice other than a mention of Guy Fawkes' Day which is not particularly relevant.

 

Stirring the pot ??

Some more:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/08/anonymous-to-destroy-facebook-on-november-5th/

Tweetings from ?anonymous insiders?

 

I somewhat get the mask, V for Vendetta was really OK.
But November 5th...doesn't sound too convincing; the date of a failed bombing attempt by an ultra-catholic terrorist-wannabe?

And regarding Guy Fawkes, F*** him, the radical papist fought against the Dutch during the 80-year war when Holland fought the Spanish of their soil=>no love for Guido.

 

It is a little strange to use Guy Fawkes, as his actions and ideals were less about freedom and more about religion. The Plot was just another in a long line of actions in the Catholic vs Protestant movements. However, the irrelevant stuff aside...why are they telling the world, and Facebook months in advance? You don't give your target time to prepare for your attack...these people really need to study Sun Tzu.

A fair warning to all those out there with Facebook accounts, be prepared to have your data uploaded to the nearest torrent tracker. If they didn't do that, there would be no point to a Facebook attack. I'm against the damage this may do to innocent people, but I'm all for Facebook getting egg on its face.

 

Tweets mean nothing really. It could be them confirming the plan but doing a little CYA, it could be disinformation, it could be anything really. I do find it amusing that they are planning an attack on a social media website..from a social media website. I got news for them, Twitter hands over just as much to the government as Facebook does.

 

It's entirely possible that this could be true. While many condemn the actions or question the motives of groups like Anonymous, Lulzsec, Wikileaks, and others, much of what they've exposed should be infuriating people. Instead, people react like this is some kind of comedy show, acting like the events are taking place in some alternate reality.

 

I for one support the idea behind the groups, however, I do not support the endangering of lives, information of innocent parties leaked out, and just the general near carelessness of all of the leaks and attacks thus far. For instance, Wikileaks, please, by all means leak out the goings on of corrupt officials and governments. Cover their faces with egg, go for it. But, don't leak out unnecessary information that could cause real harm to soldiers overseas or the civilians in the countries you report on.

Anon, but especially Lulzsec, stop releasing the data of users to P2P networks. Go after the RIAA, go after the government, go after all those who keep tightening the noose around our necks, but leave us out of it. And, if you're going to pick a cause, make sure you've studied both sides, especially when it comes to the political operations.

This is my problem with groups like this, they just start firing their weapons without really studying their targets and making sure people who have nothing to do with the issue are not in the line of fire.

 

A side issue seems to be that Anonymous is confident enough that, even with this extremely long notice, Facebook won't be able to protect itself come Nov 5.

 

No way of knowing. Since they abandoned the ion cannon, God only knows what they'll do. I still don't get the early warning, even if it's to warn users of what's coming. It's not like users can protect their data from being stolen, if the attack goes as planned. Part of me wonders if this is a diversion tactic, and the target (if there is one) will be something entirely different. It's not the way they generally operate, but it would certainly be a smarter move than giving two months warning to your enemy.

 

It's really not that hard to figure out. They want to generate as much publicity as possible.

 

Of all people anon should better than anyone:

YOU CAN NOT COMPLETELY REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE INTERNET

There are many reasons for this:
1) The most famous reason AKA The Streisand Effect - The more you try to remove something the more public it becomes. In this case attempting to destroy facebook will only bring more people to facebook. Doing the opposite of what is intended.

2) The internet doesn't work that way. Let's say Anon mounts a huge DDOS that manages to down facebook. Facebook will comeback up (in hours if not minutes) with a other serves/load balancers. Worst comes to worse facebook can always ban the IPs and/or switch their IP or use a filter service like sony did.

3) Facebook dies, another (Just as bad - privacy wise) perpetrator will rise. Google+ anyone?


on that thought: Conspiracy time! Google wants to promote plus so they posted a message as if they were anon (and as anon is decentralized supposedly) anon followers hop on and take down facebook! YAY!!!!

 

Also there was mention of a splinter group and not the main body being involved in this. (Can't remember where I read that )

 

DW,
I agree with some of what you've said. The rest is difficult to respond to without becoming overly political or being taken totally the wrong way, so I'll start with the easier part. First, I'm not affiliated with Anonymous, Lulzsec or any other the other groups. I'm also not aligned with any of those they've targeted. I'm just an observer, watching and listening to both sides, then drawing my own conclusions. I don't completely agree with with all of their decisions or the motives behind them, but I do understand how they came to some of their conclusions. In many ways, what is happening on the web is a virtual war with many parallels to physical wars. One of these is collateral damage. Regarding Facebook, what it was originally intended to be and what it's become are two completely different things. I'm inclined to believe that their assessment of it is accurate, a tool for spying on people and profiting at their expense. Beyond that, it's a complete waste of time. Comparing the coming event to an attack in a physical war, it's not much different than attacking a strategic target that also employs civilians. IMO, their warning would be directed towards the users at facebook, an attempt to avoid "civilian casualties", something real militaries give lip service to but seldom practice. Anonymous would do themselves a favor if they didn't publish the average users info but concentrated instead on destroying the sites collection of user data and the backups of that data. Beyond that, if Facebook disappeared, maybe it would dawn on some people that there are better things to do than growing virtual crops on Farmville, like growing some real ones and give them to a food pantry.

As for Wikileaks and their "endangering soldiers and civilians, much of that has more to do with protecting the guilty than it does with protecting the innocent. The soldiers are fighting a war, by choice (they weren't drafted), hitting both military targets and civilians. Nothing Wikileaks releases can put them in any more danger than the war itself, except for releasing videos like Collateral Murder, which could put them and others in danger of being charged with war crimes. As for the "civilians", many of those mentioned in the cables are employees of the state (ambassadors for one) also there by choice. Many of these cables document criminal activities on their part. Innocent and civilian are not interchangeable terms here.

As long as we're on the subject of targeting, I have no problem with targeting a company like Monsanto. They are as criminal as a corporation can get and should be wiped out of existence. Regarding their releasing employees data, this is a grey area. Unless you're an insider, it's hard to tell which employees are involved with developing these evil technologies, which are part of this criminal suing system of theirs, and which sweep the floors at night. That said, all of them are there by choice. I'm sure that most if not all of them also know just how criminal and evil this company is. Yes, I realize that people have to live, which usually means working, unfortunately at places like that at times, but if those employees safety becomes the overriding factor, then the corporation is untouchable. If civilian casualties were the primary consideration, there'd be no real wars either. This is a double standard in which it's justifiable for the military in a physical war, but not for those fighting the system in a virtual war. As for those who work at companies like Monsanto, they need to make their actions compatible with their beliefs and values. You can't be part of the solution and part of the problem at the same time. You can't fight world hunger while working for a company that's trying to own the worlds food supply.

There is very little that's black and white in the decisions these different groups have made, who they've targeted, and what they've chosen to do. The system (the merger of government and big money) has declared war on us, our privacy, and our rights long ago. If people fight back, there will be collateral damage and innocent casualties. If they don't, they become the casualties themselves. The people have no chance if they "play by the rules" because the system ignores the rules, and they write them! People either need to choose a side or get out of the line of fire, not just stand there and watch like it's a TV show.

IMO, one or both of these has to be true:
1, People don't understand the scope of what is happening and what is at stake.
2, People don't value their freedom, rights or privacy enough to pull themselves away from their TV shows or Facebook, in which case they don't deserve to have them.

 

A lot of "facts" about Monsanto. SOSO.

 

See this thread.

 

Stop the world - Anonymous to kill Facebook on 05 Nov 2011!

Stop the world - Anonymous to kill Facebook on 05 Nov 2011!

 

I'm sorry. My mind's made up. I don't think that "genetic engineering" and evil large corporates are the real dangers.

 

Publicity is one of the things that are coming back to bite them. They quite honestly need to get the hell off Twitter, stay in their IRC channels and the other spots, and attack without notice. If this was the 1920s, and they were running soup lines while doing this stuff, publicity might not hurt them. Alas, they are no Al Capone.

 

There are several splinter groups, actually, truth be told, there are so many people flying the flag of Anon and doing things in their name, that Anon itself likely doesn't know what all is going on at any given point in time. Anon needs to separate itself, re-organize, and shun the publicity wh**es.

@Noone: I don't think the soldiers (most of them), are there by choice. Most would like to come home, be with their families, and not get shot at. I get what you meant, but they chose to be in the service, not really go over there As for the rest of what you said, I too agree with some of it, though, like you, it's hard to respond without the topic going way way off again.

 

Then you obviously haven't done any research into the matter...

 

After careful consideration of all the facts, I have come to this conclusion...

~ Removed Possible Offensive Image ~

 

Page,