Hacking gaining momentum

[RegieRocker]

The process is called a denial of service attack and is achieved with as little as 120 computers. Anonymous is the name of the group and anyone can download a program to their computer and allow it to be used for the attacks. The group is for truth and openness in society. Freedom and morals. If such attacks were to be directed at the trucking companies all shipments would stop as a example. This is big stuff and it is going on now. This level of attack is more of a nuisance but can have an impact. More and more sites are getting attacked. I am neutral on this subject and I am submitting this as a informative post.

[snagglepuss]

1. Wouldn't people be worried about allowing strangers to use their computers?

[niceypoo]

2. To commit a federal offense...

... no less

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Truth be told

Trojans do this all the time...

[RegieRocker]

13. You're absolutely correct

Many peoples computers are infected with the code to aid in a DOS. I am sure there are people here with such an infection. The DOS is impossible to track to the individual who is responsible. In this case there are many individuals. Maybe hundreds of thousands. A few knowing and most unknowing.

[Very_Boring_Name]

14. Most people aren't even aware that it's happening

Computers are infected with viruses that then allow the hacker to use them for this end. Your computer could be being used for that purpose right now and you would not know.

[pipi_k]

3. That's actually pretty funny...

a group that's "for truth and openness in society" calls itself "Anonymous".

A group that's for "freedom and morals" commits crimes to make a point.



You just can't make shit like that up...

:+

[Matariki]

4. Maybe it's not really a group?

I was involved with artists called Some People. It was entertaining to point out to the media that they too were some people - therefore they were Some People, and therefore they were the ones responsible for the Guerrilla Art they were inquiring about.

[pipi_k]

7. That's true...

it could be just about anybody.

even our own government...

Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass to all the people who are defending them and their actions...

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. You know back in the day

people destroyed hedges to preserve the commons.

It was just as ilegal.

It is called SOCIAL PROTEST... this is the form this is taking.

[Matariki]

10. Protest always looks more noble when it's safely in the past.

I always figure the same people criticizing acts of protest now would have done the same in past events they claim are somehow different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Oh absolutely

but also we have been fed a steady died of bullshit for so many decades that people believe the social contract is somehow immutable, never mind it is shifting sands by now.

[pipi_k]

15. There's a big difference that people just aren't getting for some reason...

Many social protests have been done at great danger to the protesters, who likely didn't possess anywhere NEAR the same power to destroy or disrupt as these hackers do.

Protesters of old didn't HIDE behind anonymity, safely behind computer keyboards.

They got out there and marched or stood in front of loaded guns or whatever they did. Rode in the front of the bus all alone. Sat in the "Whites Only" section of a Woolworths lunch counter. Were murdered working for Civil Rights.


I'm all for protest as long as the people doing it aren't acting like cowardly little assholes, anonymously, from some safe spot.

[Catherina]

16. Protesters of old had no computers. What a silly talking point. n/t

[pipi_k]

18. "Protesters of old" could mean

Five years ago. Ten years ago.

People had computers then, didn't they?

This is a relatively new thing, isn't it?



and really, that's not my main point.

My main point is that we didn't see many of the more memorable protesters of old doing anything to HURT someone else.


One of the greatest peaceful protester of modern times....MLK....whom did HE hurt? Nobody.

Yet his message was VERY powerful. He put himself out there...no violence...no hatred. And got himself murdered.

That's a whole world of difference from what those Wikileaks supporting asshole hacker cowards are doing.

And THAT is my point.

[RegieRocker]

19. I take it you

Don't like drones either? That is cowardly also? You must see the whites of their eyes to not be a coward?

[pipi_k]

20. War is not social protest.

I do have mixed feelings on the use of drones.

I can understand why it would make sense to protect oneself from being shot in war.


But this Wikileaks protesters thing isn't WAR.

None of these people is likely to be shot or tortured. They're not defending themselves from death or maiming.


So I can't see how anyone could seriously make a claim that they're anywhere on the same level with legitimate protesters who were exposed to physical danger...maiming...or even death... because they stood up to things more powerful than themselves.

This is no more appetizing than people who run around dressed in white sheets setting fire to crosses on people's lawns. Although the issues aren't the same, the methods are. Cowardly fuckers who are too afraid to show their faces while they wreak havoc on others.

Absolutely repulsive.

[RegieRocker]

22. LOL now way is it comparable to the KKK

more of this type of dissension should be used today. Examples: Not buying products from a certain corporation or store. The taking money out of too big to fail banks and putting it into smaller owned banks. You expect people to put themselves in situations that can cause them harm and do absolutely nothing. That's dumb.

[customerserviceguy]

12. I didn't consider the irony

but you really made quite a point there!

[walldude]

17. A group for freedom and morals that commits crimes

gee I can't imagine where in the fuck they learned that from... :rofl: You are right you can't make that shit up..

[TorchTheWitch]

23. and their point is they want the internet free and unencumbered

for everyone... yet they go about making that point by seizing control and making what parts of it they don't personally like unavailable. I'm not seeing how that's anything different from the government trying to control what we get to see or do on the internet and making the decisions about what we get to see or do.

I don't care if it's the government or a private entity with an agenda trying to control what I see or do on the internet - both are control freaks interfering with my free and unencumbered use of the internet (that I PAY to have free and unencumbered use of), and are just as bad as each other.

But at least the government wouldn't be trying to claim they were controlling what we get to see or do on the internet in order to make it free and unencumbered for everyone. :crazy:


"Anonymous" has ALWAYS been about control for their own personal reasons and how giddy it makes them feel to have illegally seized that control while hiding in relative safety from being identified and thus caught. They're little control freak criminals reveling in their ability to be little control freak criminals. Their biggest objective is and always has been nothing more than "because we CAN".

[rgbecker]

5. Are we sure we wouldn't be offering our computer to the FBI?

I mean; Anonymous? Could be anyone and we know the Feds love entrapment. Every "Home grown Terrorist' charged in America was entrapped.

[pipi_k]

6. I actually wouldn't put it past

the government to have a hand in this. Or some of it, anyway.

People who are clicking on those links..they could be pawns in some weird and complicated cyber head-game.

Or maybe the government isn't behind it, but ends up at some point finding out who has gotten involved to any extent and goes ahead and prosecutes people just like the RIAA did to one woman in particular who found herself having to pay thousands for downloading music illegally.

Gotta make an example out of somebody...

[Jeffersons Ghost]

21. K&R