# 'Anonymous Operation Last Resort'



## Polythoral (Jan 26, 2013)

www.ussc.gov


Basically Anonymous has returned with a new operation in reaction to Aaron Schwartz' death, threatening to release some form of secret volatile/damage/whatever information on the department of justice, information that they are comparing to a 'warhead,' if the justice system doesn't stop prosecuting bullshit cases and trapping them into lose/lose situations. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Jason_Clement (Jan 26, 2013)

I think the Nyan cat at the bottom of the hacked "http://www.ussc.gov/" page really added nice flavour.


----------



## Polythoral (Jan 26, 2013)

Here's pretty much the entirety of the video in text form (was also on the ussc site)



> Citizens of the world,
> 
> Anonymous has observed for some time now the trajectory of justice in the United States with growing concern. We have marked the departure of this system from the noble ideals in which it was born and enshrined. We have seen the erosion of due process, the dilution of constitutional rights, the usurpation of the rightful authority of courts by the "discretion" of prosecutors. We have seen how the law is wielded less and less to uphold justice, and more and more to exercise control, authority and power in the interests of oppression or personal gain.
> 
> ...



(there should totally be a thread on the random probably bullshit Syria false flag shit, too.)


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 26, 2013)

This should go well. If there's one thing the US government is known for, it's negotiating with terrorists.


----------



## redskyharbor (Jan 26, 2013)

It's about damn time.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Jan 26, 2013)

My only reply is "lul anonymous"


seriously, I really don't get why people have made this "group" out to be some super awesome internet justice league.


----------



## Demiurge (Jan 26, 2013)

There's something frightening about an organization with more power than it has the maturity and scruples to wield... oh, and the government, too.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jan 26, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> This should go well. If there's one thing the US government is known for, it's negotiating with terrorists.


This


Demiurge said:


> There's something frightening about an organization with more power than it has the maturity and scruples to wield... oh, and the government, too.


And this.

The problem is this won't do much. Yeah, get the government pissed off perhaps but I doubt that'll make them stop prosecuting.


----------



## r3tr0sp3ct1v3 (Jan 26, 2013)

Well.. okay then


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Jan 26, 2013)

Won't do anything. Hopefully those files have serious data, though.


----------



## jeleopard (Jan 27, 2013)

I gotta say, their causes have been good and all...

But have they ever actually gotten things done????


----------



## pink freud (Jan 27, 2013)

jeleopard said:


> I gotta say, their causes have been good and all...
> 
> But have they ever actually gotten things done????



They've exposed some things, which is really about all they can do. Their weapon is information.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 27, 2013)

Pooluke41 said:


> My only reply is "lul anonymous"
> 
> 
> seriously, I really don't get why people have made this "group" out to be some super awesome internet justice league.



This. Oh no someone doing something illegal was prosecuted and ended his own life. Making a criminal a martyr how novel, but no surprise that they stick to their own (criminals that is). The twisted response that he was 'killed', amuses me greatly. He couldn't handle the consequences for his actions and bowed out. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jan 27, 2013)

As much as I agree with much of what Anonymous is saying here and in general this:



SirMyghin said:


> If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.



is essential for persons whom claim to be fighting for rights to understand. Perhaps if they would study the actions of people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Nelson Mandela they would understand that you absolutely HAVE to be willing to go to jail and serve your time to stop corruptions of justice.


----------



## Sunyata (Jan 27, 2013)

What if the "time" depends less on the severity of the crime, and more on social status, and extrajudicial pressure? Isn't that part of the reason for this "operation"?

There is something seriously wrong when "stealing" articles online results in harsher penalties than murder and rape...


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 27, 2013)

I find the "War Games" references to be mildly amusing. 

I like some of the things Anonymous does, but I think they are pretty full of themselves. Cool, you can hack and get info. Useful definitely, but they are not the justice league here. If they think they can take on the US government and somehow make them bow to any demands, they truly do have their head up their collective asses. I'm positive that the government will counter hack any of their bullshit, find them all, and make them rot in prison. But we'll see.


----------



## Michael T (Jan 27, 2013)

........


----------



## AxeHappy (Jan 27, 2013)

Sunyata said:


> What if the "time" depends less on the severity of the crime, and more on social status, and extrajudicial pressure? Isn't that part of the reason for this "operation"?



Yes, this is a huge issue. The justice system punishes things in an absolutely ridiculous way. Anybody whom doesn't think that corporations have far to much power has never looked at the punishments for crimes. 

Do Mandela really deserve to sit in Jail for 30 years? Of course not. An absolute hero as far as I'm concerned. But! He did. Even when they offered to let him out early as long as he admitted he was wrong. 



Sunyata said:


> There is something seriously wrong when "stealing" articles online results in harsher penalties than murder and rape...



Absolutely. See the punishments for piracy here as well. Absolutely ludicrous.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Jan 27, 2013)

Can you guys imagine if the members of anonymous would get caught? I have a feeling they wouldn't be so tough then. Their headquarters is probably one of their mom's basement.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 27, 2013)

I take a number of issues with Anonymous:

1. They are extremely egocentrical, they are basically the most awesome people in the world in their own mind, and they are, as preciously said, the Justice League of the internet, the thin line of fire standing between us and 1984.

2. Their fans have attached their egos to the group, and has forgotten that they are mainly a bunch of societal misfits who take out their anger with being perceived as superheroes.

3. They are most often not hackers, yet they are always refered to as such. A DDoS attack does not take much brainpower to orchestrate, yet every time they are just being assholes by overloading a page, it's splashed out like they tapped into the Pentagon and fired a warhead.

4. They pick on easy targets. They really only attack people or institutions that the public are against, which relays that they are just as shallow as the rest of the majority. When was the last time they rallied for some forgotten prisoner in Belarus or China?


The fact of the matter is that Swartz did commit a crime, he knew the consequences, but still did it. As previously has been said:
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. 

That said, I do believe it was a too harsh punishment, and it was frivolous for the prosecutor to continue to pursue the case after the university dropped the charges.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 27, 2013)

SirMyghin said:


> This. Oh no someone doing something illegal was prosecuted and ended his own life. Making a criminal a martyr how novel, but no surprise that they stick to their own (criminals that is). The twisted response that he was 'killed', amuses me greatly. He couldn't handle the consequences for his actions and bowed out. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.



...so you support criminalizing something that should be at most a civil offense?


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 28, 2013)

^^

Theft is criminal/statutory in most places, not civil. Digital or not, I fail to see the distinction.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 28, 2013)

SirMyghin said:


> ^^
> 
> Theft is criminal/statutory in most places, not civil. Digital or not, I fail to see the distinction.



True, but the difference between physical theft and digital theft is that physical theft has a real world value associated with it, while penalties for digital theft seem to be "Pick a number between 1 and 500, and then add three zeros to the end."

Our government simply wasn't (and still isn't) ready for the digital world. We still have debates on whether password protecting something makes it private or not...


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 28, 2013)

SirMyghin said:


> ^^
> 
> Theft is criminal/statutory in most places, not civil. Digital or not, I fail to see the distinction.



The "crime" here was downloading (creating copies) of copyrighted files that were accessible to a user due to a university password. That's, at MOST, copyright infringement (a civil offense), not theft.

Theft involves the actual removal of someone else's property so they no longer are able to access it. No such removal occurred here.

Further, the actual charges associated with the Swartz case (which you are referencing) were "wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and damage to computer systems" primarily arising under the CFAA, which has been used (abused?) far too broadly in situations like this. Bail was $100,000, maximum sentence was 35 years in prison, restitution would have been up to $1m.

A little excessive for a student who wrote and used a script for downloading a bunch of academic papers from an academic paper repository, no? Especially for an offense that is hardly worthy of criminal treatment in the first place. Even JSTOR (the party "harmed" here) didn't want to press charges, and just wanted an "admonition" after which Aaron could return to his studies.


----------



## CapinCripes (Jan 28, 2013)

SirMyghin said:


> ^^
> 
> Theft is criminal/statutory in most places, not civil. Digital or not, I fail to see the distinction.


technically it is not theft. It is piracy. According to Dowling V. United states 473 U.S. 207 (1985) which I believe has not been overturned and thus still has precedent stated that "Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud." meaning that for all intensive purposes copyright infringement is NOT theft and is to be considered a civil case. The intent of civil cases are NOT to punish the offender but rather determine whether or not the claims of the negatively effected party are in fact legitimate and to make whole what was lost. A Civil trial in which a juror comes out and states that they made a decision on reparations based on wanting to punish the defendant for theft would would likely be declared a mistrial. I know I am rambling and slightly off topic here but I thought it needed to be pointed out that legally copyright infringement = theft is a flawed argument.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 28, 2013)

I am well aware that it is not considered theft, but it is splitting hairs at best. I consider it theft, and for me, that is enough. I don't care if someone is deprived of something, I am concerned that people reach out and take things, then draw distinctions to cover their ass.


----------



## ILuvPillows (Jan 28, 2013)

^But the case wasn't about what _you_ considered to be theft. As previously mentioned, there is a distinction between theft and piracy/copyright infringement in the law. With this in mind the punishment should have been determined by the seriousness of the broken law, not the current moral opinion of piracy. I believe that this is where the problem has originated from.


----------



## Randy (Jan 28, 2013)

SirMyghin said:


> Oh no someone doing something illegal was prosecuted and ended his own life. Making a criminal a martyr how novel, but no surprise that they stick to their own (criminals that is). The twisted response that he was 'killed', amuses me greatly. He couldn't handle the consequences for his actions and bowed out. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.





SirMyghin said:


> I am well aware that it is not considered theft, but it is splitting hairs at best. I consider it theft, and for me, that is enough.



Jesus, what an incredibly calloused and self righteous train of thought this is.

The whole point was that the prosecution against the guy was excessive and after that's been established you're just like "oh well, it's all theft to me".


----------



## canuck brian (Jan 28, 2013)

SirMyghin said:


> I am well aware that it is not considered theft, but it is splitting hairs at best. I consider it theft, and for me, that is enough. I don't care if someone is deprived of something, I am concerned that people reach out and take things, then draw distinctions to cover their ass.



This is why you are not a judge and allowed to pass judgement with your interpretations of the law. 

This is also why the lawyer is attempting to highlight the issues with the entire situation.

If you're going to equate downloading files on the internet as a moral equivalent to raping and murdering someone, you really need to get your head checked.


----------



## Philligan (Jan 28, 2013)

Bear with me guys, I tried to read this in my university caf where it's busy and distracting as hell. Just wanna make sure I got this straight.

So Anonymous are basically saying they have a bunch of incredibly serious dirt on the government and/or major political and social figures. They're starting off with just threats, and then they're gonna drop little tidbits here and there to prove they're for real, and hopefully it doesn't come to them having to release all of it?

If so, it'll be interesting if they can actually follow through. I agree with all the guys here who said that they're a bunch of egotistical, self-ordained internet vigilantes, but at least they've been more or less good for doing what's "right" - at least, what I (and I think most people) feel is right. What happened to Aaron was wrong, and what likely would have happened to him if he'd lived is wrong. 

It'll be cool if they can actually do something and change the government, but I doubt it. That needs to be done over time through people's votes. I don't think a total system overhaul is realistic at all. It sucks how bad the system is, but we have yet to find a government system that's not flawed.

EDIT: I feel like I'm reading this as sort of a blanket statement about the state of the government, and not just a revolt against the judicial system in regards to online crimes. Sorry if I'm way off.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 28, 2013)

SirMyghin said:


> I am well aware that it is not considered theft, but it is splitting hairs at best. I consider it theft, and for me, that is enough. I don't care if someone is deprived of something, I am concerned that people reach out and take things, then draw distinctions to cover their ass.



So, it's "theft" punishable by hundreds of thousands of dollars and years in prison to make copies of things that are available to almost every college student in the nation? For reference, a 35-year maximum sentence is worse than some degrees of murder and rape, sexual assault, etc.

It's "illegal" to download a bunch of articles for purposes other than research? At most, it's a violation of JSTOR's terms of service, or of copyright. It's not a CRIME.

I sat in on a trial where three executives systematically rigged municipal bond markets, costing the public potentially millions of dollars. At the end of the day, these men faced three to four years in prison and fines of a couple hundred grand.

Misplaced priorities?


----------



## Xaios (Jan 28, 2013)

Nevermind, I had incorrect information when I made this post.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 28, 2013)

Xaios said:


> I do think that the punishment in this case would have been disportionate to the crime, I don't dispute that. However, we already know that this guy was quite an activist online. As such, I'd bet money that he engaged in the act he was accused of knowing full well that, if he were caught, the government make an example out of him. Yet, he went ahead with it anyway.
> 
> In the end, it still seems to me that he made his own bed.



So, the fact that he was an activist means that he should have accepted the idea that the government would "make an example" out of him? 

Just because he was given to protesting means that he should expect to face disproportionate and unreasonable charges? Keep in mind, this is an act that most people would not even think would be wrong, let alone criminal. At most, he was expecting a civil suit.

By way of analogy, this would be like arresting someone who has a past history of bounced checks for setting foot in a bank.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 28, 2013)

Nevermind, I had incorrect information when I made this post.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 28, 2013)

Xaios said:


> "Acceptance" isn't the correct term, because he well and truly shouldn't have "accepted" it. He would, however, have been cognisant of the fact.



The thing is, while he may have been aware of the CFAA and the potential for prosecutorial overreach in its application, no one (even MIT or JSTOR) expected that he would be federally indicted and prosecuted for this. Everyone assumed it would be a slap on the wrist and he would return to school. JSTOR, the allegedly harmed party, didn't even want to push for a civil suit; they just expressed disapproval at the "significant misuse" committed in an "unauthorized fashion."

Even the state charges were dropped.



Xaios said:


> Also, 99% of the piracy that happens is Jo-schmo downloading torrents. A certain degree of ignorance to the consequences, while not necessarily acceptable, is to be expected from the general populace. This person, however, wrote a program designed to target very particular pieces of information from a very specific system, information that he knew wasn't available to him or the general public without specific authorization and credentials, which he didn't have.



Except that's not what happened. He had authorization and credentials to access these JSTOR articles, by virtue of being a student at MIT. All MIT students have access to JSTOR articles, as do visitors who use the MIT library network.

It's not like he "hacked into" the JSTOR archive or something. He just wrote a program to download a lot of the stuff he already had access to.

Also, a quick note: According to the general counsel of NBC, the VAST majority of piracy is not "downloading torrents." It is in fact illegal streaming sites. But that's not relevant to the discussion here.



> That's a terrible analogy, because while the entire point of the piracy vs. theft debate is whether or not it deprives the legal owner of information of their due compensation, the matter is far more clear cut who has a history of bouncing checks: they have *definitely* deprived smeone of their due compensation. In that case, it wouldn't matter where they're arrested.



This isn't a "piracy vs. theft" issue; it was only mentioned because SirMyGhin made a comment that likened one to the other.

My analogy is imperfect, so allow me to explain and qualify it. He was arrested for accessing information that he had the right to access due to his status as a student (i.e. he had the right to enter the bank freely) and he had a history of free-information activism (he had a history of bouncing checks, but all penalties were settled at the time he set foot in the bank). Being a "hacktivist" doesn't mean that every time you access information, even on a large scale, you are committing a criminal act.

He had not done anything morally wrong at the time he was arrested; the activity he engaged in was only criminal because of a particularly broad interpretation of the CFAA, and a particularly aggressive use of prosecutorial discretion to bring suit in the first place.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 28, 2013)

I see. There's a lot of misinformation floating about this then. I had been lead to believe that he didn't have any business accessing this particular database. I've now found information which corroborates what you've said.

With that then, I withdraw my arguments.


----------



## crg123 (Jan 28, 2013)

Just checking the "warhead" is just information right? They're not planning on blowing up people... I figure its them releasing information since they mention releasing the mostly censored documents. Just making sure they havent gone nuts haha. Also jesus christ they seem like they're trying to make a movie with all the graphics and music. How can anyone take that seriously.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 28, 2013)

crg123 said:


> Just checking the "warhead" is just information right? They're not planning on blowing up people... I figure its them releasing information since they mention releasing the mostly censored documents. Just making sure they havent gone nuts haha



Even if they were talking about a real warhead, I think that would be to seriously overestimate their abilities


----------



## Xaios (Jan 28, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Even if they were talking about a real warhead, I think that would be to seriously overestimate their abilities



You mean computer hackers can't remote-detonate nuclear weapons?

That's not what I learned watching Die Hard movies.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 28, 2013)

It was a painful wake-up call for me as well


----------



## pink freud (Jan 28, 2013)

Xaios said:


> You mean computer hackers can't remote-detonate nuclear weapons?
> 
> That's not what I learned watching Die Hard movies.



If Movie Hackers Were More Like Real IT Guys | Cracked.com


----------



## JosephAOI (Jan 28, 2013)

Xaios said:


> You mean computer hackers can't remote-detonate nuclear weapons?
> 
> That's not what I learned watching Die Hard movies.



Okay, maybe I'm just young and naive, but isn't this hypothetically possible? I mean, obviously it would be the most well-guarded digital thing in the entire world but if they could manage to get past that, wouldn't it be possible?

I dunno, it just doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility to me


----------



## pink freud (Jan 28, 2013)

JosephAOI said:


> Okay, maybe I'm just young and naive, but isn't this hypothetically possible? I mean, obviously it would be the most well-guarded digital thing in the entire world but if they could manage to get past that, wouldn't it be possible?
> 
> I dunno, it just doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility to me



That assumes they are digitally activated.

They could very well be altitude-activated. What are they going to do, hack gravity?


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 29, 2013)

SirMyghin said:


> This. Oh no someone doing something illegal was prosecuted and ended his own life. Making a criminal a martyr how novel, but no surprise that they stick to their own (criminals that is). The twisted response that he was 'killed', amuses me greatly. He couldn't handle the consequences for his actions and bowed out. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.



I think the main issue is that neither of the victims were intrested in pressing charges, heck, JSTOR made their stuff public not too long ago, his entire goal. The government, particularly US Attorney Stephen Heymann, were the ones that persued this case so strongly and pushed so hard for the highest sentencing they could get, as many believe Heymann wanted to get a high profile hacking case in his resume.

I'm not saying Swartz did nothing wrong, but seeing as how the two victims declined to press charges, he should at least have gotten far less severe punishment.


----------



## canuck brian (Jan 29, 2013)

JosephAOI said:


> Okay, maybe I'm just young and naive, but isn't this hypothetically possible? I mean, obviously it would be the most well-guarded digital thing in the entire world but if they could manage to get past that, wouldn't it be possible?
> 
> I dunno, it just doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility to me



Stuxnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes it's possible. You'd need some knowledge of how the systems work, but it's possible.


----------



## Mprinsje (Jan 30, 2013)

anonymous are dicks. 

this isn't gonna help anything, and it will make even more people find them outright annoying.


----------



## WildBroskiAppears (Jan 30, 2013)

pink freud said:


> That assumes they are digitally activated.
> 
> They could very well be altitude-activated. What are they going to do, hack gravity?



He may not have necessarily meant the detonation of the warhead itself, but possibly the remote and unauthorized launch of a missile. 

I would imagine that any military establishment containing or dedicated to the launch of nuclear weapons would be on its own LAN. Nothing is uncrackable, surely the military realizes that, and to connect any missile system to the Internet would be absolutely insane.

That being said, any missile silo is probably connected via some sort of WAN to the rest of the military infrastructure, which certainly is connected to the Internet in multiple places. Movement between those discrete networks would be the challenge.


----------



## viesczy (Jan 30, 2013)

Philligan said:


> <snip>
> It'll be cool if they can actually do something and change the government, but I doubt it. That needs to be done over time through people's votes. I *don't think a total system overhaul is realistic at all. It sucks how bad the system is, but we have yet to find a government system that's not flawed*.
> <snip>.



Quoted/snipped/emphasized to highlight the truth. 

There is no way that there'll be a system overhaul as there is too at stake. Really. 

Our legislatures are just PR deparments for the actual Establishment. 

Think about it, basically gov't is a pyramidal structure with the elected officials forming the tip/apex of the pyramid. That's just the candy coating on the turd, all the functions of the gov't are done behind/underneath that coating and done by a permanent bureaucracy that never really shows itself but is always in control. The old say of meet the new boss, same as the old boss is truth for a reason. 

As for Anon, I almost believe that they're part of the gov't and just a group name thrown about the same way Emmanuel Goldstein was thrown about in Orwell's 1984. If they're not agents of the gov't Anon is like a hot chick that is terrible in the sack; on the surface it is all OMG this is AWESOME as she got a great body and killer face, but in reality there's nothing else as she is so used to being doted on that she believes just her presence is enough to satisfy all males. 

Derek


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 31, 2013)

viesczy said:


> Quoted/snipped/emphasized to highlight the truth.
> 
> There is no way that there'll be a system overhaul as there is too at stake. Really.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Alex Jones.


----------



## viesczy (Jan 31, 2013)

TemjinStrife said:


> Thanks, Alex Jones.



Like I didn't say the truth, that no matter the elected officials the Establish Bureaucracy is still the same?

How many times have there been elections with the promise of change? Beyond the name, did anything really change? Nah. Not here, not anywhere. Why you think that is? 

Remember we tossed Saddam outta of power right, got rid of his heads of everything right? Had that long list of "wanted men". When we looked to reinstate some self rule there, we put the same guys back in power that were a step below the apex of the pyramid because they "knew" how everything worked and already had a level of command/respect. 

When Barry beat Johnny Mac in '08, beyond a guy with a D rather than an R behind his name, did anything change?

Why was that? The "gridlock" in DC? C'mon, nobody is that naive to really think that what actually happens there is w/o purpose. 

Derek


----------



## Tyler (Feb 4, 2013)

the more government, the more poverty. the more freedom, the more wealth


----------



## Guitarman700 (Feb 4, 2013)

nellings6 said:


> the more government, the more poverty. the more freedom, the more wealth



Hardly.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Feb 4, 2013)

nellings6 said:


> the more government, the more poverty. the more freedom, the more wealth



Somebody make this quote a reality so this guy can work in the coal mines 16 hours a day for twelve cents an hour, so he can rethink this quote, which was probably regurgitated from some libertarian or "anarcho"-capitalist shithead who was probably born in the upper middle class and thinks that the government collecting taxes is fascism and that he should be able to proceed in society unhindered by anything, because clearly capitalism is a meritocracy (which it isn't, and it never will be, because it implies the existence of objective merits, which is not real).


----------



## Alberto7 (Feb 5, 2013)

^ They're just pretty words that sound nice put together. Other than that, all they do is imply some gigantic fallacies and make incorrect assumptions. Seriously. Don't use catch phrases. They're hardly ever accurate and/or appropriate.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Feb 5, 2013)

Generalizations are bad.


----------



## Alberto7 (Feb 5, 2013)

^ That's what it boils down to .


----------



## viesczy (Feb 5, 2013)

Alberto7 said:


> ^ They're just pretty words that sound nice put together. Other than that, all they do is imply some gigantic fallacies and make incorrect assumptions. Seriously. Don't use catch phrases. They're hardly ever accurate and/or appropriate.



Fallacies like corporations running roughshod over the environment while reaping record net profits? 

Fallacies like the commodities market rigging itself to drive profits like was done in '08? 

Not sure how to read your post... 

Derek


----------



## Alberto7 (Feb 5, 2013)

viesczy said:


> Fallacies like corporations running roughshod over the environment while reaping record net profits?
> 
> Fallacies like the commodities market rigging itself to drive profits like was done in '08?
> 
> ...



Sorry if my comment offended anyone in any way. I see how it might come across as edgier than how I really meant it.

I'm not arguing for or against the idea of government involvement being good or bad. I'm just pointing out that he's overgeneralizing. And yes; being such a general argument, it becomes fallacious practically by definition.

On that note, I'd like to add I've never understood such strong opinions on any subject (other than hard mathematics, which are just rock solid and unbreakable concepts). Things are not so black and white. In fact, everything is mostly just grey. There are good aspects to government involvement, as well as bad aspects. You can lean towards one way of thinking or the other, and that is perfectly understandable, but setting "no government = 1" and "yes government = 0" leaves many (most) things out of consideration. It's not a binary system we live in.

With that said, I agree with your opinion on the specific examples you gave (I'm assuming you don't agree with such events). They're shitty things that are happening.


----------



## skisgaar (Feb 6, 2013)

Here's the thing:
None of the organizations he "Stole" from wanted to press charges.
Aaron was to receive a 30-50 year sentence for his so call "Crimes".
He was issued a million dollar fine.

How does this sound fair?

Does anyone know any shorter sentences than this? I know some life sentences for murder can last only up to 25 years.
Am I (or anyone else) expected to believe that what Aaron did was worse than crimes which deal a 20-25 year sentence, such as murder?

To be honest, anonymous isn't really even an organization. They're an entity of different people who don't necessarily all help on a Ddos attack or raid, but all try to attack different parts of the government in the public eye. A lot of them look like they have some kind of super hero syndrome, and it's not going to do much. Public petitioning, and a response which issues in governmental reform is what will help change things here. Aaron could well become a martyr, and if he does: Great. The actions taken against him WERE disproportionate, and they forced his hand. 

I don't even know why there's an argument for this.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 6, 2013)

viesczy said:


> Fallacies like corporations running roughshod over the environment while reaping record net profits?
> 
> Fallacies like the commodities market rigging itself to drive profits like was done in '08?


 

Neither of those are fallacies...


----------



## TemjinStrife (Feb 6, 2013)

skisgaar said:


> Here's the thing:
> None of the organizations he "Stole" from wanted to press charges.
> Aaron was to receive a 30-50 year sentence for his so call "Crimes".
> He was issued a million dollar fine.



To be fair, he was not "issued" a million dollar fine, nor was he guaranteed a 30-50 year sentence. He had not been to trial or sentenced yet, so he had no fine and it was unlikely he'd have received anywhere close to 35 years in jail.

Doesn't make the whole situation any less reprehensible, but it's important to keep the facts straight.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 7, 2013)

I believe the reason the federal government got involved was:

MIT found an unauthorized tap on their systems.

That tap had information being sent to China. 

MIT reported that breach.

So, there's an unauthorized tap, sending information to a foreign nation. Was it wrong for the feds to get involved?

Incidentally, I thought charges were only dropped after he committed suicide, not before. Any definitive source on charges being dropped before the suicide?

----

If Anonymous genuinely has information on the US government acting illegally, why not put it out there? Why go for blackmail, instead of doing the right thing and giving the information to news sources to be vetted and released? 

The Washington Post, in investigating Nixon, brought government abuses to light, and published about them. They didn't try to blackmail and gain from that knowledge, but used it to better a situation.

----

Lastly... isn't Anonymous the group of heroes who previously stole consumers' credit card information and put it out in public? If they can do that to innocent consumers in such a casual manner, just to protest Sony, why aren't they going after the government with the same courage?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Feb 7, 2013)

Annnnnnnddddd that's the thread folks. 



EDIT: I mean *laugh*


----------



## TemjinStrife (Feb 8, 2013)

I'm curious to see your source on the "unauthorized tap to China" thing.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 9, 2013)

TemjinStrife, I found multiple news sources by just looking up "china jstor mit" in Google. The information, and a fuller story, is available.

And with that said, can anyone either confirm or rebut those things which I asked about?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Feb 9, 2013)

Explorer said:


> TemjinStrife, I found multiple news sources by just looking up "china jstor mit" in Google. The information, and a fuller story, is available.
> 
> And with that said, can anyone either confirm or rebut those things which I asked about?



All I see is "brief activity detected on the netbook" from China. Hardly anything to base a criminal claim on.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 9, 2013)

Okay, so...

Black box illegally installed.

Brief blip to China.

Feds informed of illegal hardware installation and possible crime.

Feds prosecute the crime which was uncovered.

You're confusing the contact with China with what he was actually charged with. He wasn't charged with sending info to China. That's like saying someone got life in prison for having a broken tail light, as opposed to for having a dead body in the vehicle when he got stopped. 

If you thought he was charged with the China thing, as opposed to other crimes, I'm sorry to have confused you. I thought you knew already what the charges were.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Feb 10, 2013)

You seemed to indicate that it was of importance. My goal was to disabuse you of that notion.

He was charged with "intentionally exceeding authorization to access a computer system," which was essentially criminal charges for violating JSTOR's Terms of Use.

Thankfully, the case didn't go to trial, or else we'd have yet more precedent equating ToS violations with criminal conduct. This is what happens when you apply a 1986-era understanding of computers and "access" to the 2013-era Internet.


----------



## abandonist (Feb 11, 2013)

Fuck the police.


----------



## skisgaar (Feb 11, 2013)

TemjinStrife said:


> To be fair, he was not "issued" a million dollar fine, nor was he guaranteed a 30-50 year sentence. He had not been to trial or sentenced yet, so he had no fine and it was unlikely he'd have received anywhere close to 35 years in jail.
> 
> Doesn't make the whole situation any less reprehensible, but it's important to keep the facts straight.


 
Excuse my misinformation. I don't remember where I heard these things, and it was silly to try to include them in the argument. But you're right, it doesn't make it any less reprehensible.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 21, 2013)

I support any organization that reveals any information that is relative or useful to the general public. Information is the deadliest weapon, communication is the deadliest asset- but only when it is not free and open. If anonymous is in fact a confederacy of well-meaning citizens working towards revealing malicious agendas that are counter to our communal interests I'm all for it.

Getting back to the OP, I suspect this to go unanswered by the US government. Anonymous does not in fact have the faculties to do anything by itself, they merely cast light for the public. If this warhead is released and is of the sufficient variety to cause much unrest it will be because the public is aggravated by what it contains. That said, if it were of that breed I would not expect anonymous to have sat on it so long. And on another point the government is likely much less enabled to infiltrate anonymous is any remarkable capacity than you might think, these guys know shit god doesn't even know they know and they are remarkably careful. In the theater of this digital renaissance the government really only knows how to covet information, not obtain it.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Feb 25, 2013)

brutalwizard said:


> Did anything ever come of this?



Nah, just more neckbeards posturing


----------



## Xaios (Feb 26, 2013)

Hardly anything ever comes of Anonymous' public threats. Anyone remember when they threatened to take down the entire internet on March 31st, 2012, in an effort dubbed "Operation Global Blackout?"

Yeah, didn't happen.


----------

