FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: CaseAgainstFaith on January 16, 2012, 09:25:14 am
-
The hacktivist group Anonymous, for example, has found a juicy new target: stodgy old media executives.
The group obtained and then published posts with personal information about Jeffrey L. Bewkes, chairman and chief executive of Time Warner, and Sumner M. Redstone, who oversees Viacom and CBS. As The New York Times reports, the info from Anonymous set off a wave of angry phone calls and emails to Mr. Bewkes home.
The people in power seem a little perplexed about the guerilla tactics. ““Why can’t they just hire a lobbyist like everyone else?†a Congressional aide for the House Judiciary Committee asked the NY Times.
If you thought fabulously wealthy media moguls were going to take this lying down, think again. New Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch used his Twitter account over the weekend to respond to the White House letter. “So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery,†he tweeted. “Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying.â€Â
source - http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/16/sopa-opera-anonymous-targets-media-execs-moguls-take-aim-at-google/ (http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/16/sopa-opera-anonymous-targets-media-execs-moguls-take-aim-at-google/)
Maybe it is just me, but I find it funny that they are complaining about this "Guerilla Tactics" when it seems these same tactics have more affect on them than just hiring a lobbyist that would cost a bunch more money than these "guerilla tactics" cost lol.
-
Of course they are crying that they should hire a lobbyist. Were Anon to do so, they would
A) lose as they are playing to their opponents strengths
B) probably get arrested as now the police would be able to easily track them
-
Actually, what really amuses me is that they're slamming Anonymous for not lobbying while at the same time slamming Google for lobbying.
-
You need money to lobby, which is part of the reason why politics are firmly in the hands of the rich and elite :-/
-
Hopefully the anons behind this know that they should keep their actions to annoying-but-funny-and-legal, so that they don't get caught.
-
The hacktivist group Anonymous, for example, has found a juicy new target: stodgy old media executives.
The group obtained and then published posts with personal information about Jeffrey L. Bewkes, chairman and chief executive of Time Warner, and Sumner M. Redstone, who oversees Viacom and CBS. As The New York Times reports, the info from Anonymous set off a wave of angry phone calls and emails to Mr. Bewkes home.
The people in power seem a little perplexed about the guerilla tactics. ““Why can’t they just hire a lobbyist like everyone else?†a Congressional aide for the House Judiciary Committee asked the NY Times.
If you thought fabulously wealthy media moguls were going to take this lying down, think again. New Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch used his Twitter account over the weekend to respond to the White House letter. “So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery,†he tweeted. “Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying.â€Â
source - http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/16/sopa-opera-anonymous-targets-media-execs-moguls-take-aim-at-google/ (http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/16/sopa-opera-anonymous-targets-media-execs-moguls-take-aim-at-google/)
Maybe it is just me, but I find it funny that they are complaining about this "Guerilla Tactics" when it seems these same tactics have more affect on them than just hiring a lobbyist that would cost a bunch more money than these "guerilla tactics" cost lol.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ykC4HkT6Io/S_MDB92fhXI/AAAAAAAAAKw/Xwi3VUjVsMg/s1600/facepalm23.jpg)
-
“Why can’t they just hire a lobbyist like everyone else?†a Congressional aide for the House Judiciary Committee asked the NY Times.
Because anon does what it wants on it's own. I can't believe after all the bs that's gone on and all the publicity and info, people still misunderstand anon
-
Das, you're overlooking a critical detail in this case.
These people are morons.
-
I love Anon forever. All that need be said.
-
The fact that this moron seems to think Anon is an actual entity rather then a collection of /b/tards who are doing this for the lulz is really telling about the people who created SOPA.
Ironbite-they have no business trying to figure out how to police the internet.
-
SOPA has been debated in congress for, what, two months now, and anon are getting up to their usual tricks now? Are they just getting lazy, or simply falling out of vogue and losing active and competent members in the process?
-
They're not an organized group. Anon is just a bunch of kids in basements who like to screw with people.
Ironbite-it's a mob not a corporation.
-
I'm aware of that. My point was either those who both can themselves "anonymous" and are actually computer literate are for some reason responding to what is a perfect target for them far more slowly now than they used to, likely for the reasons mentioned earlier.
-
Maybe they were taking on some cat killers or something. I don't know! It's just that they're now getting to this ok?
Ironbite-I'm not apart of Anon so yeah.
-
Maybe they were taking on some cat killers or something. I don't know! It's just that they're now getting to this ok?
Ironbite-I'm not apart of Anon so yeah.
If you're not apart from them than you should know full well what's going on.
-
...I'm going to stop talking to you about anon because you obviously just don't get it.
Ironbite-they're an amorphous blob of internet users, not some sinister conspiracy that is plotting to contaminate our precious bodily fluids
-
You typed "apart" instead of "a part". He was making a joke, chill out
-
Ibbs, "a part" is not "apart". Do note the difference.
See? DasFuchs gets it.
-
SOPA has been debated in congress for, what, two months now, and anon are getting up to their usual tricks now? Are they just getting lazy, or simply falling out of vogue and losing active and competent members in the process?
I don't really see what the tactical advantage of doing it two months ago would have been. Stepping up now sets up a sort of October Surprise effect that keeps it in the news in the lead-up to the vote, although really the vote's about a week away, so they're probably still a little early.
-
I'm going to derail this little Anon-related tangent, and address the facepalming on the previous page. I fully concur with that. These Congressional aides--as well as the rest of the 1% of the 1%--live in their own little societal bubble. Much like those who, when Hurricane Katrina struck, asked why those who were killed or left homeless didn't simply pack up and drive to somewhere safer, they honestly don't seem to grasp the concept of things not being quite that simple for ordinary people. ::)
-
This is just hilarious.
Another reason to use this tactic rather than lobbying: To get at the people who are hiring the other lobbyists, rather than just at Congress.
-
Hell, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if these fucktards put out billions of dollars to have people try to e-arrest anons. "We've got his IP...but there's no one listed?" You dumbasses do realize IPs can be spoofed, right?
-
Hell, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if these fucktards put out billions of dollars to have people try to e-arrest anons. "We've got his IP...but there's no one listed?" You dumbasses do realize IPs can be spoofed, right?
[fox news internet expert]
But an IP address is a perfect 1:1 identification of someone, like a tube that connects people directly to the cyberworld and you can DNA test it or something.
[/fox news internet expert]
-
SOPA has been debated in congress for, what, two months now, and anon are getting up to their usual tricks now? Are they just getting lazy, or simply falling out of vogue and losing active and competent members in the process?
I don't really see what the tactical advantage of doing it two months ago would have been. Stepping up now sets up a sort of October Surprise effect that keeps it in the news in the lead-up to the vote, although really the vote's about a week away, so they're probably still a little early.
I think you give Anonymous too much credit. They don't even have any leadership whatsoever, much less organisation. Any sort of tactics on their part is almost certainly beyond their abilities.
-
I'm going to derail this little Anon-related tangent, and address the facepalming on the previous page. I fully concur with that. These Congressional aides--as well as the rest of the 1% of the 1%--live in their own little societal bubble. Much like those who, when Hurricane Katrina struck, asked why those who were killed or left homeless didn't simply pack up and drive to somewhere safer, they honestly don't seem to grasp the concept of things not being quite that simple for ordinary people. ::)
"Let them eat cake"
-Attributed to Marie Antoinette
I have a feeling that if SOPA/PIPA passes anon will rip the government a new one in ways we can't even imagine. (The launch controls for nukes aren't linked to any kind of network are they?)
-
SOPA has been debated in congress for, what, two months now, and anon are getting up to their usual tricks now? Are they just getting lazy, or simply falling out of vogue and losing active and competent members in the process?
I don't really see what the tactical advantage of doing it two months ago would have been. Stepping up now sets up a sort of October Surprise effect that keeps it in the news in the lead-up to the vote, although really the vote's about a week away, so they're probably still a little early.
I think you give Anonymous too much credit. They don't even have any leadership whatsoever, much less organisation. Any sort of tactics on their part is almost certainly beyond their abilities.
Because the worldwide protests against Scientology never happened.
-
SOPA has been debated in congress for, what, two months now, and anon are getting up to their usual tricks now? Are they just getting lazy, or simply falling out of vogue and losing active and competent members in the process?
I don't really see what the tactical advantage of doing it two months ago would have been. Stepping up now sets up a sort of October Surprise effect that keeps it in the news in the lead-up to the vote, although really the vote's about a week away, so they're probably still a little early.
I think you give Anonymous too much credit. They don't even have any leadership whatsoever, much less organisation. Any sort of tactics on their part is almost certainly beyond their abilities.
Because the worldwide protests against Scientology never happened.
Was that the same leadership that organises all of their other activities, or was it just multiple different, independent protests who called themselves "Anonymous", wore Guy Fawkes masks and pretty much disbanded as soon as they were bored with it?
-
De-facto leadership by a few people with an axe to grind is different from an actual organized control structure.
Hollywood/MAFIAA: H-h-how DARE they protest our taking away of their free speech when we paid GOOD MONEY for that!