Is the hacktivist group Anonymous really as bad as the mass media often claims?

[DeletedUser]

I'm sure many of you have heard about anonymous before, and you probably have an opinion on them. The mass media often portrays them as hackers who are dangerous, a threat to society. But is this really true? Are their actions bad? For example, they don't only target government and coorporate websites, but also child pornography websites. Recently they even decided to clean up litter as a protest.

If you are unsure who Anonymous is, exactly, I suggest reading this article. It's a long read but by far the best and most objective article I have seen on this subject. If you think Anonymous is a group of 20 'pr0 h4x0rz' you need to read the article or not post here.

 

[Aicy]

This video is an accurate representation on my view of mass media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV5UTHRx0a4&feature=plcp

So yeah, I don't know what much about Anonymous, but they likely not as bad as the mass media claims.

 

[DeletedUser]

They are starting whistle blowing tactics such as wiki-leaks uses (actual investigative journalism). They are not bad people for informing the populous of deceit and corruption in our governments and corporations.

 

[DeletedUser]

They are a liability, they hacked into the FBI secure network, and spilled confidential material that could have harmed thousands of undercover officers working for the protection of the civilian population against threats.

People have the right to know what goes on behind the doors in their governments, however that crossed the line.

If a political ruse is uncovered, fine, no-one get's hurt. If a scandal is uncovered good, the people are dealt with swiftly. However if a FBI undercover operative or snitch is uncovered, that operative will be put in harms way.

I feel there is a line between too much being revealed to the people, and too little being revealed to the people. Anonymous have crossed the line, as have Wiki Leaks.

Also the hacking of corporate businesses which opposed Anonymous, stated Anonymous' cutthroat nature, in attempting to bully businesses that would not sympathize with their motives. These hackings did nothing but provide a nuisance for these businesses and the people concerned.

For example the Credit Card leak, which Anonymous let go, badly hurt the business involved and the owners of the Credit Cards.

We should not associate Anonymous as an organisation who's primary goal is to uncover Government corruption and deceit. We should agree with the Government's classification of Anonymous as a terrorist organisation, because their primary goal is to reek terror wherever they can.

 

[DeletedUser]

We should agree with the Government's classification of Anonymous as a terrorist organisation, because their primary goal is to reek terror wherever they can.

This really Isn't true. Anonymous has always had clear reasons for the things they did. And saying their primary goal is to reek terror is an act out of ignorance. Have you read the article I linked to? Did you know they played a significant part in the revolution in Tunisia? Did you know that anonymous doxed over 3000 pedophiles in the last 8 months?
The majority of anonymous' ops didn't reek terror at al. Only a few did and even then anonymous had good reasons to do it. You may not agree with how they did things, but they don't do it because they feel like it; they've always had good reasons for every op they did.

How did they, together with Wikileaks, cross the line? How can there be too much revealed to the public? Shouldn't we be aware of everything our governments are doing?

I'm not saying that how they do things is the right thing, but they're definitely NOT the terrorist organisation the media/government claims it to be.

 

[DeletedUser]

No I never said that was their primary goal.

I meant to say that they had no primary goal, and overall their main result was terror.

No we shouldn't be aware of everything our governments do. There is sensitive information which if leaked to the public could result in mass terror and repercussions.

However I don't agree with everything being pushed behind closed doors, and I do think that exposing Government corruption is a good thing. However there is a line that was crossed by WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

WikiLeaks caused the deaths of thousands of Afghanistan Sources and Iraqi Sources when it leaked US Confidential material to the public. Anyone with Internet could find out up-to-date reports of US operatives and US Sources within Al-Qae-Ida, and other terror organisation.

Any organisation that causes the deaths of persons is classified as an organisation of terror.

 

[DeletedUser]

No I never said that was their primary goal.

I quoted you saying it..

I meant to say that they had no primary goal, and overall their main result was terror.

I would have agreed with you n the early days of anonymous, but not anymore. The main result now is more equality, more freedom of speech.

No we shouldn't be aware of everything our governments do. There is sensitive information which if leaked to the public could result in mass terror and repercussions.

I disagree. I believe that we should know everything our governments are doing, and if those things cause mass terror and repercussion then there needs to be a drastic change in said government.

However I don't agree with everything being pushed behind closed doors, and I do think that exposing Government corruption is a good thing. However there is a line that was crossed by WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

WikiLeaks caused the deaths of thousands of Afghanistan Sources and Iraqi Sources when it leaked US Confidential material to the public. Anyone with Internet could find out up-to-date reports of US operatives and US Sources within Al-Qae-Ida, and other terror organisation.

Wikileaks didn't cause those things. They just exposed the information. the US government is the one to blame.

Any organisation that causes the deaths of persons is classified as an organisation of terror.

According to this sentence the police, church, armies and hospitals are all terrorist organisations.

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree. I believe that we should know everything our governments are doing, and if those things cause mass terror and repercussion then there needs to be a drastic change in said government.

So... a terrorist organisation, is reported to have a bomb attack planned on New York in the next 3 days. Yet no location was given.

I agree with you to an extent, however all ongoing military issues should be kept secret.

Wikileaks didn't cause those things. They just exposed the information. the US government is the one to blame.

So the US Government is to blame for keeping records of it's most secret Sources in Terrorist Organisations sorted, so it could easily access sources if a threat to the USA was uncovered.

That statement there is completely unjustified and wrong.

According to this sentence the police, church, armies and hospitals are all terrorist organisations.

ROFL!

Police - Prevent Crime, and protect lives
Church - Do not cause death, their main function is to provide faith for people
Armies - Protect a countries' interest, and defend that Country from invasion
Hospitals - Save People's Lives. End Of.

WikiLeaks killed thousands of innocent US sources who were trying to stop Terror attacks on the USA. They also killed brave US operatives who dedicated their lives to preventing 9/11 from occurring again.

WikiLeaks caused a genocide, a mass killing of brave individuals all making sure that the USA would be safe from suicide bombers and bombs which would replicate 9/11.

Any organisation that does this, should be declared enemies of the state.

 

[DeletedUser]

ROFL!

Police - Prevent Crime, and protect lives
Church - Do not cause death, their main function is to provide faith for people
Armies - Protect a countries' interest, and defend that Country from invasion
Hospitals - Save People's Lives. End Of.

You do realize I was ridiculing YOUR statement, right? Ofcourse they aren't terrorist organisations, but according to your flawed definition they are.

Any organisation that does this, should be declared enemies of the state.

I agree. Problem is, wikileaks didn't do that. Wikileaks published secret information that they get from (unnamed) sources. They have no criminal record and they have never killed anyone.


Anyways, we're going off-topic. Feel free to create a topic about wikileaks, this thread is about anonymous.

 

[DeletedUser]

We are talking about organisations which leak classified information to the public, both WikiLeaks and Anonymous are guilty of that, although Anonymous hack into databases to gain the information, while WikiLeaks needs an inside source to leak it.

WikiLeaks caused the genocide.They could have at least blotted out sensitive names and locations, which they failed to do.

It was WikiLeaks that killed the brave US Sources, who were fighting against terrorist.

BTW WikiLeaks do have a criminal record in their leader, Assange.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you think that all anonymous does is leak out classified information then you need to read the article because you don't know who anonymous is.

 

[DeletedUser]

Fair enough Skully.

I know that Anonymous does not only leak information, it is mainly an erratic hacking organisation that hacks things 'for the lulz'.

Was just making a point and using WikiLeaks as a case study to explore the dangers of erratic leaks of classified information to the general public, and how dangerous that is to the well-being of brave men and women fighting to defend Western Civilization from terrorist attacks.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know that Anonymous does not only leak information, it is mainly an erratic hacking organisation that hacks things 'for the lulz'.

Please, read the article, or stop talking about them completely.

 

[DeletedUser]

There are two sides to Anonymous. The first side, is the side that wishes to expose the bad moves governments make, and protest to rectify them. I have no problem with this, as the moves governments make SHOULD be discussed, and if the protesters have a good reason to dislike the idea they should have their chance to say it... After all, freedom of speech is what the 'best country in the world' (according to some) is most proud of, is it not?

The other side of anonymous, is a bunch of 16 year old lads who are online all day looking at gore and porn. Occasionally one of them will actually have hacking knowledge and perhaps cause some trouble. The media then goes and says "Yadda yadda thousands of online hackers in a rebellion etc etc", which simply is not the case. If you remember right, the PS3 hacking scandal was a teen geek with a bunch of little script kiddies, who took down the PS3 network with the network of zombie computers. (Let me know if I'm wrong here, I'm going from a deluded memory). Anywho, the media then said (depending on the country you live in) that nobody is safe and if Sony/Ps3 can be taken down, then we don't know what will be next etc etc.

Anywho, my point being; 'Anonymous' can be two different groups, and depending on which you are talking about, you'll get different opinions. I think the media confuses the two.

 

[DeletedUser]

You can divide anonymous is hundreds of groups. It's not a certain amount of people, it's a collective. Very few are true hackers, the majority are script kiddies, some are just activists who go to physical protests and are computer illiterate. The 16 year old who look at porn and gore all day are not part of anonymous, at least, not at that moment. There aren't any 'Look at porn and gore' ops..
Anonymous is the first online movement that has had an impact in real life, they played a major part in the OccupyWallStreet and anti SOPA/ACTA events. Members of the European parliament ever wore the guy fawkes mask. Anonymous is a movement in favour of freedom of speech and freedom in general. They didn't take down PSN for nothing, they did it because Sony dues someone who 'jailbreaked' his PS3. This was not illegal in any form.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

You can divide anonymous is hundreds of groups. It's not a certain amount of people, it's a collective. Very few are true hackers, the majority are script kiddies, some are just activists who go to physical protests and are computer illiterate. The 16 year old who look at porn and gore all day are not part of anonymous, at least, not at that moment. There aren't any 'Look at porn and gore' ops..
Anonymous is the first online movement that has had an impact in real life, they played a major part in the OccupyWallStreet and anti SOPA/ACTA events. Members of the European parliament ever wore the guy fawkes mask. Anonymous is a movement in favour of freedom of speech and freedom in general. They didn't take down PSN for nothing, they did it because Sony dues someone who 'jailbreaked' his PS3. This was not illegal in any form.

So THEY were the people that hacked PSN? hmmm

I knew the reason why already, but that hardly constitutes a complete destruction of the entire online network. They limited millions of people from entertainment for one guy being harmed? Doesnt sound like a stand up group to me.

They do both good and bad, I understand that bit, but the bad still requires them to 'pay' for what they did.

I can go save a kitten from a tree, a lady from a fire, a child from a pedophile. Then I go kill a man for no reason. People arent going to say, "Hey, he does some good stuff, so lets just discount the bad". No, they will say, "He may have done good, but he also committed a crime that he must be held accountable for".

Are they as bad as the Mass Media say they are? Most likely not, as EVERYTHING given out by the media is over exaggerated.

 

[DeletedUser14786]

WikiLeaks caused the deaths of thousands of Afghanistan Sources and Iraqi Sources when it leaked US Confidential material to the public. Anyone with Internet could find out up-to-date reports of US operatives and US Sources within Al-Qae-Ida, and other terror organisation.

Where is there any evidence whatsoever to substantiate these claims? I have heard this argument that the journalists that looked over this information failed to redact every name, but I have yet to hear of an incident where information leaked by Wikileaks caused a US operative and/or source in Afghanistan to be killed. In fact, as I understand the US department of justice been unable to charge wikileaks with any specific crime related to the Espionage Act of 1917 because nobody died.

Wikileaks itself aims to be a 'whistle-blower' organization because whistle-blowers are not legally protected in the United States by anonymity. So if you think it's wrong that the anonymity of Afghan sources might be destroyed, you should be alarmed by the fact that if you report any wrongdoing in government or corporations within the United States, you will most likely be subject to a subpoena to testify in court, which in turn often will lead to (often) the loss of your job if the wrongdoer has any way of firing you. Remember that you need to prove your employment termination was unlawful to sue, which is not easy to do especially when there is a myriad of reasons an organisation can find to fire you.

So in other words, Wikileaks aims to protect sources. Wikileaks specifically doesn't steal or purchase information from anybody. Whistle-blowers who acquire information send it to wikileaks, which publishes information in a matter which makes sources anonymous.

Any organisation that causes the deaths of persons is classified as an organisation of terror.

I seem to remember an important part of the US constitution is a fundamental Freedom of Speech and of the Press. So fundamental in fact that the ability to anonymously give political donations to a campaign is considered 'freedom of speech'. I also seem to recall the word "terror" being thrown around quite a lot over the past decade in ways which are unfitting. The US government causes the deaths of Pakistanis and Yemeni's every day with drone attacks (including children in well documented cases). See Here. Does that make the US government an organization of terror? Are rival gangs in East LA that shoot each other daily considered organisations of terror? When the Church launched a series of Crusades in the Middle Ages, was it too an 'Organisation of terror?"

But not to get this topic derailed, let's talk about the group Anonymous. Let's talk about Hackers and Crackers. Lets talk about how the first group consider themselves builders, and the second group destroyers. Let's talk about how the mainstream media doesn't make a distinction between the two, which causes many people to have misinformed opinions on the entire community.