Thread: Anonymous Leaks Personal Details of Cop Who Pepper-Sprayed Well Street Protesters

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

They weren't behind PSN for fuck's sake.

I was gonna say this, but I couldn't find anything (quickly) that verified that they didn't do it, though I remember it being said that they weren't behind it. Everything I was able to pull up was talking about how there was an 'Anonymous' calling card left behind, but I distinctly remember hearing that Anonymous released a statement saying that they weren't behind the PSN attack.

And, yes, Anonymous would want people to underestimate them. Every single time I hear/see someone way 'oh, they are just a bunch of teenagers in their mom's basement, with a little bit of hacking know-how. They aren't a real threat,' I have to shake my head. I couldn't think of anything that would make me LOL more, if I was a part of Anonymous, than to hear stuff like that.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I'm extremely skeptical that Anonymous is for freedom of information, especially after their PSN attacks. DDoS attacks are violations of private property because you are actively preventing the usage of servers that you either bought or rented for a specified period. They jibbed a whole bunch of gamers who wanted to continue the services of PSN because they, Anonymous, weren't happy with the terms of agreement Sony was giving. That isn't 'opening the lines of freedom,' its actively preventing voluntary exchanges which is itself oppressive.

The voice of the people is the voice of Anonymous...please I expect such effrontery with politicians, I don't need another group claiming to be my mouthpiece.

Like others said, Anon wasn't behind the PSN stuff. That was actually LulzSec.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I was gonna say this, but I couldn't find anything (quickly) that verified that they didn't do it, though I remember it being said that they weren't behind it. Everything I was able to pull up was talking about how there was an 'Anonymous' calling card left behind, but I distinctly remember hearing that Anonymous released a statement saying that they weren't behind the PSN attack.

And, yes, Anonymous would want people to underestimate them. Every single time I hear/see someone way 'oh, they are just a bunch of teenagers in their mom's basement, with a little bit of hacking know-how. They aren't a real threat,' I have to shake my head. I couldn't think of anything that would make me LOL more, if I was a part of Anonymous, than to hear stuff like that.

A Lulzsec calling card was left behind which people often confuse with Antisec. Anyone interested in what anonymous is and is not can follow their various news sources on twitter and ascertain which attacks are actually being planned and which ones are hoaxes.

Looks like everyone already addressed the PSN thing, but as for DDoS being "violations of private property" well, of course they are. No one said they aren't people support Anonymous because they only do attacks if provoked or the the site being taken down is violating someone else's free speech or freedom of information. That's why they went after Visa and PayPal and such because they were going against Wikileaks, which exposed lots of illegal and questionable actions of the government. They went after Westboro Baptist Church only after the church sent an open letter to them telling them to bring it. Taking down a website or service doesn't hurt anyone, Freedom Fighters on the other hand set off bombs.

Originally Posted by tommo

I have no problem with them taking down the PSN. Sony were trying to get the IP addresses of everyone who had watched that guys videos. Forgotten his name right now.
I don't think any company should have the indecency to do that. It's just wrong that they can even think that they have the right to ASK Google for that information.

Of course, when Google refused everyone could have just made a laughing stock of Sony and berate the shit out of them for a few months. But I see no harm in going a bit further.
At least it raised awareness of what Sony was doing. And the fact that their respect of privacy is basically non-existent.

A.) Sony is trying to get IP addresses of people who watched videos on how to hack PS3's
B.) ???
C.) Let's shut down PSN and screw gamers over worldwide!!

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Looks like everyone already addressed the PSN thing, but as for DDoS being "violations of private property" well, of course they are. No one said they aren't people support Anonymous because they only do attacks if provoked or the the site being taken down is violating someone else's free speech or freedom of information. That's why they went after Visa and PayPal and such because they were going against Wikileaks, which exposed lots of illegal and questionable actions of the government. They went after Westboro Baptist Church only after the church sent an open letter to them telling them to bring it. Taking down a website or service doesn't hurt anyone, Freedom Fighters on the other hand set off bombs.

You are preventing or sabotaging someone's private property. "Hurting" someone isn't the issue here. All the examples you gave are just actions taken by Anonymous because they don't like something. Visa and Paypal don't like Wikileaks...wow. Does that mean they should be aggressed against and have their own property sabotaged? Anonymous is trying to be nothing more then a digital government. Coercing people into "respectable" behavior and destroying their property if they don't abide. That is why they aren't FOR freedom of information. They are only for their views and the dismal/sabotaging of another person or persons views.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I was gonna say this, but I couldn't find anything (quickly) that verified that they didn't do it, though I remember it being said that they weren't behind it. Everything I was able to pull up was talking about how there was an 'Anonymous' calling card left behind, but I distinctly remember hearing that Anonymous released a statement saying that they weren't behind the PSN attack.

And, yes, Anonymous would want people to underestimate them. Every single time I hear/see someone way 'oh, they are just a bunch of teenagers in their mom's basement, with a little bit of hacking know-how. They aren't a real threat,' I have to shake my head. I couldn't think of anything that would make me LOL more, if I was a part of Anonymous, than to hear stuff like that.

And I have heard they that they were. They were already engaged in a program against Playstation because of the PS3 hacking case, it's not really a stretch to think that they brought down PSN after the court decision and Sony's attempt to get the IP's.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

A.) Sony is trying to get IP addresses of people who watched videos on how to hack PS3's
B.) ???
C.) Let's shut down PSN and screw gamers over worldwide!!

Gamers got free games out of it. As far as I know, no one's credit card information was sold over the internet, no consumer suffered damage beyond losing time they paid for. Sony has been harassing people with ridiculous patent laws and they suffered the repercussions for it. Even if it was not Antisec, I still condone the behavior. It's time companies like Sony stopped acting like they have ownership over what consumers do with their products.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Gamers got free games out of it. As far as I know, no one's credit card information was sold over the internet, no consumer suffered damage beyond losing time they paid for. Sony has been harassing people with ridiculous patent laws and they suffered the repercussions for it. Even if it was not Antisec, I still condone the behavior. It's time companies like Sony stopped acting like they have ownership over what consumers do with their products.

And if Sony suddenly stopped PSN or started charging for it to make back the money they lost?
Hackers take credit for Playstation network attack, claim possession of credit card data | Techi.com

If you dislike what Sony does in their terms of service, don't engage in it. Don't utilize PSN or buy a PS3. Speak with YOUR wallet and let others who don't really have a problem with Sony utilize their systems without outside interference. Boiled down, you are condoning behavior that is simply "Well I don't like this so EVERYONE is going to suffer."

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And if Sony suddenly stopped PSN or started charging for it to make back the money they lost?
Hackers take credit for Playstation network attack, claim possession of credit card data | Techi.com

If you dislike what Sony does in their terms of service, don't engage in it. Don't utilize PSN or buy a PS3. Speak with YOUR wallet and let others who don't really have a problem with Sony utilize their systems without outside interference. Boiled down, you are condoning behavior that is simply "Well I don't like this so EVERYONE is going to suffer."

It has nothing to do with my personal opinion of Sony from the standpoint of a consumer and everything to do with justice. They were acting unjust, seeking lawsuits where there were none to be found. It's not about the company or the product to me. It's about criminals acting like they're within the confines of the law because they can find some stupid loophole in our patent laws to fuck over their own consumers. I believe in protecting the people of this nation against corruption. Take that "vote with your wallet" shit and shove it up your ass, it's a bullshit argument. It only works in a Laissez-Faire environment. Sony is not playing by Laissez-Faire rules and they deserve everything that's coming to them.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It has nothing to do with my personal opinion of Sony from the standpoint of a consumer and everything to do with justice. They were acting unjust, seeking lawsuits where there were none to be found. It's not about the company or the product to me. It's about criminals acting like they're within the confines of the law because they can find some stupid loophole in our patent laws to fuck over their own consumers. I believe in protecting the people of this nation against corruption. Take that "vote with your wallet" shit and shove it up your ass, it's a bullshit argument. It only works in a Laissez-Faire environment. Sony is not playing by Laissez-Faire rules and they deserve everything that's coming to them.

Well if Sony actually went through with this IP request and "fucked over their consumers," honestly how do you think the majority of consumers would act? Do you think that people are too stupid to realize what is and isn't beneficial for them? That they are incapable of choosing products that fit with their values? You want to protect "this nation" against corruption...well I didn't know Sony was corrupting "this nation." And if it is not about the company then why all the "they deserve everything they get" or "they aren't playing by laissez-faire rules?"

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if Sony actually went through with this IP request and "fucked over their consumers," honestly how do you think the majority of consumers would act? Do you think that people are too stupid to realize what is and isn't beneficial for them? That they are incapable of choosing products that fit with their values? You want to protect "this nation" against corruption...well I didn't know Sony was corrupting "this nation." And if it is not about the company then why all the "they deserve everything they get" or "they aren't playing by laissez-faire rules?"

Yes, I think sony consumers would not give a fuck that they were being fucked over. Moreso, I think they wouldn't ever even know, by in large.

They did not make a policy to personally piss off every sony customer. They made a policy to target anyone that took liberties with their technology that the consumer has just as much right to as the distributor. Monsanto SUCCEEDED in what sony basically attempted, people are still shopping at grocery stores.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You are preventing or sabotaging someone's private property. "Hurting" someone isn't the issue here. All the examples you gave are just actions taken by Anonymous because they don't like something. Visa and Paypal don't like Wikileaks...wow. Does that mean they should be aggressed against and have their own property sabotaged? Anonymous is trying to be nothing more then a digital government. Coercing people into "respectable" behavior and destroying their property if they don't abide. That is why they aren't FOR freedom of information. They are only for their views and the dismal/sabotaging of another person or persons views.

How is retaliation against companies that locked Wikileak's accounts not for freedom of information? The only reason they locked the account was because the government is trying to hush Wikileak's right to freedom of the press. PayPal and Visa suppressed freedom of press because the government didn't like it, Anonymous dealt them their punishment.

lol some punishment, last I've checked visa and paypal seem to be doing just fine, while the FBI is kicking down doors and confiscating hardware of several anonymous members. Looks like they punished themselves if you ask me.

I'm pretty sure anonymous did do the PSN ddos. They didn't actually hack in to it to get people's credit cards though. That was some other guy.
I've never seen them denying that they did the original ddos.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

lol some punishment, last I've checked visa and paypal seem to be doing just fine, while the FBI is kicking down doors and confiscating hardware of several anonymous members. Looks like they punished themselves if you ask me.

This.

This is exactly my problem with them. They ddos some company once and leave it at that basically.
Why not continually ddos them until they change their stance?
Take down their servers until they are forced to change their ways?

As you said, everything goes back to normal once it's over. The company may lose a few thousand dollars, big deal, that's pocket change to them.

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm pretty sure anonymous did do the PSN ddos. They didn't actually hack in to it to get people's credit cards though. That was some other guy.
I've never seen them denying that they did the original ddos.



This.

This is exactly my problem with them. They ddos some company once and leave it at that basically.
Why not continually ddos them until they change their stance?
Take down their servers until they are forced to change their ways?

As you said, everything goes back to normal once it's over. The company may lose a few thousand dollars, big deal, that's pocket change to them.

Exactly, if they want to put a major dent in these companies, they'll have to make a more noticeable and long lasting impact.

Video of NYPD beating protesters and fox news journalists.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Yes, I think sony consumers would not give a fuck that they were being fucked over. Moreso, I think they wouldn't ever even know, by in large.

Ah but you know...how do you know but they don't? Do you have superior intelligence? Are you the only one capable of discerning what is best for you and when you are being "fucked over?" Would you be against running the lives of everyone else so we know when we are?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

They did not make a policy to personally piss off every sony customer. They made a policy to target anyone that took liberties with their technology that the consumer has just as much right to as the distributor. Monsanto SUCCEEDED in what sony basically attempted, people are still shopping at grocery stores.

And what did Monsanto succeed at?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How is retaliation against companies that locked Wikileak's accounts not for freedom of information? The only reason they locked the account was because the government is trying to hush Wikileak's right to freedom of the press. PayPal and Visa suppressed freedom of press because the government didn't like it, Anonymous dealt them their punishment.

I am sympathetic to Wikileaks but Paypal has the right to cease doing business with them. To my knowledge, any funds that are in paypal accounts that get shut down are returned within a certain time period so its not as if they locked their accounts and decided to keep money or something like that.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I am sympathetic to Wikileaks but Paypal has the right to cease doing business with them. To my knowledge, any funds that are in paypal accounts that get shut down are returned within a certain time period so its not as if they locked their accounts and decided to keep money or something like that.

Huh? That's exactly what they do.
They can freeze your account and hold your money forever.

I still use paypal though. Only coz it's the most secure way I can pay online easily, might get a prepaid card soon though.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I am sympathetic to Wikileaks but Paypal has the right to cease doing business with them. To my knowledge, any funds that are in paypal accounts that get shut down are returned within a certain time period so its not as if they locked their accounts and decided to keep money or something like that.

Uh... no. They froze the accounts and absorbed the assets. If it was not a group that the government didn't like, it would be considered stealing. They only released the assets after they got a huge amount of pressure to do so. Anonymous was part of that pressure. The attack cost Paypal a good chunk of money, but it also alerted the media to the goings on, and the people saw it as wrong.

PayPal’s public statement doesn’t detail the “illegal activity” WikiLeaks promotes, but presumably it’s the leaking of classified information. Sometimes such leaks are indeed illegal. And sometimes classified leaks — legal or not — reveal warrantless wiretapping of Americans, secret CIA prison networks,and massive government waste hidden in black budgets.

The government may not perform illegal activities, then bitch and moan that they got found out about it. Leaked documents, once leaked are free game for the press (as guaranteed by the first amendment.)

And FYI, Anonymous is not the only one involved in cyber warfare. The government has its own division to attack sites like Wikileaks. Bank of America is currently planning an attack on Wikileaks.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Uh... no. They froze the accounts and absorbed the assets. If it was not a group that the government didn't like, it would be considered stealing. They only released the assets after they got a huge amount of pressure to do so. Anonymous was part of that pressure. The attack cost Paypal a good chunk of money, but it also alerted the media to the goings on, and the people saw it as wrong.

PayPal Freezes WikiLeaks Account | Threat Level | Wired.com

Again, as I said, they suspended the account but no where did they say they were going to absorb the funds. I myself don't like paypal because of their practices and refuse to use them but I do not exaggerate their business practices.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The government may not perform illegal activities, then bitch and moan that they got found out about it. Leaked documents, once leaked are free game for the press (as guaranteed by the first amendment.)

And FYI, Anonymous is not the only one involved in cyber warfare. The government has its own division to attack sites like Wikileaks. Bank of America is currently planning an attack on Wikileaks.

Was this directed at me? I'm going to assume it was. Well the government does not follow the constitution and yes they do engage in cyber warfare. I don't know how Bank of America is going to attack wikileaks...you will have to explain that.

Originally Posted by tommo

Huh? That's exactly what they do.
They can freeze your account and hold your money forever.

I still use paypal though. Only coz it's the most secure way I can pay online easily, might get a prepaid card soon though.

No they either give it back to the donors or refund it after a certain period. I think it is 30 days or something.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ah but you know...how do you know but they don't? Do you have superior intelligence? Are you the only one capable of discerning what is best for you and when you are being "fucked over?" Would you be against running the lives of everyone else so we know when we are?

I'm in favor of prosecuting criminals in order to stop them from continuing their crimes. A backwards system that punishes people for exercising their rights is criminal.

And what did Monsanto succeed at?

Suing people for ridiculous copyright violations that make no logical sense.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Suing people for ridiculous copyright violations that make no logical sense.

Not even that, just the fact that they patented a live organism.