Anonymous goes on a rampage in response to Megaupload being shutdown

[civver_764]

And Anonymous become ever more likeable.

 

[BasketCase]

Stop the press. I just had a revelation. A serious one. There was actual light in the sky.

It was right in front of our noses the whole time, and nobody ever saw it: the CFC forum rules.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

Your rights to Freedom of Speech don't apply here.

There it is, folks. And this isn't unique to CFC, either. I see lots of web sites do this, and some, such as the forum at the Sins of a Solar Empire web site, go so far as to prohibit all political discussions in their Off Topic section (and seeing as how holding a civil political discussion online is almost impossible, they definitely have a point).

It's impossible for SOPA to take away something you never actually had.

Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the web. That was never the point behind it. The idea behind Freedom of Speech is that governments should not arrest you for speaking your mind. The right to speak your mind does not include the right to log onto someone else's web site and spout, or to have your opinion published in the Opinion section of a newspaper, or to wave protests signs on someone else's front yard.

 

[cardgame]

Freedom of speech doesn't apply on private property, e.g. someone's website, just like you can't walk into someone's house and start babbling.

The government, a public entity, still doesn't have the right to censor the <censored> out of you on someone else's private property.

 

[Traitorfish]

I wonder how creepily authoritarian a government actually has to get before BasketCase finds his "tough beans" routine hard to maintain.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Stop the press. I just had a revelation. A serious one. There was actual light in the sky.

It was right in front of our noses the whole time, and nobody ever saw it: the CFC forum rules.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011


There it is, folks. And this isn't unique to CFC, either. I see lots of web sites do this, and some, such as the forum at the Sins of a Solar Empire web site, go so far as to prohibit all political discussions in their Off Topic section (and seeing as how holding a civil political discussion online is almost impossible, they definitely have a point).

It's impossible for SOPA to take away something you never actually had.

Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the web. That was never the point behind it. The idea behind Freedom of Speech is that governments should not arrest you for speaking your mind.

Actually, if you wanted to be all "what the Founding Fathers Intended" technical, freedom of speech back then actually meant freedom before speech, i.e. freedom from censorship. Which, incidentally, is rather applicable to speech on the Web, just as it is to speech on other forms of property that do not deface that property.

See, SOPA and PIPA have perfect legal precedent, because they deal with the illegal use of property in the form of intellectual property rights. The reason they are being shot down so heavily is that, presented with the logical outcome of this concept imposed on a network that is built upon the idea of free dissemination of information, the restraint that respect of these ludicrous "rights" imposes on our social progress is made readily apparent.

So count this as a victory against private property.

 

[G-Max]

Ah, sweet, poetic justice. The government takes one website down, and they get a dozen of their own websites taken down. Protip: don't screw with Anonymous. They don't forgive and they don't forget.

a networking tool called a "low orbit ion cannon.".

Apparently someone at Anon is a Command and Conquer fan!

 

[Skwink]

Protip: don't screw with Anonymous. They don't forgive and they don't forget.

Yeah, don't mess with Anon, they'll shut down your website for a few hours or maybe even steal from normal families.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

I wonder how creepily authoritarian a government actually has to get before BasketCase finds his "tough beans" routine hard to maintain.

Probably when the brownshirts are dragging him off to the concentration camp.....

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hardly. If you can destroy one form of data (digital data on the internet), why can't you destroy data printed on paper? There is no difference, even if you prefer to plug your ears.

This is one reason why it's a Really Bad Idea for people to forget how to write on actual paper, with pens and pencils... or how to use a manual typewriter. I mean, we did things that way, in the Olden Days of the 1970s, and somehow managed to disseminate HUGE amounts of information around the world (granted, with the cooperation of various postal systems). The internet isn't the only way to get information out.

Of course, we could always end up back in the days when just owning a printing press could get you tossed into prison...

 

[Gamemaster77]

This is one reason why it's a Really Bad Idea for people to forget how to write on actual paper, with pens and pencils... or how to use a manual typewriter. I mean, we did things that way, in the Olden Days of the 1970s, and somehow managed to disseminate HUGE amounts of information around the world (granted, with the cooperation of various postal systems). The internet isn't the only way to get information out.

Of course, we could always end up back in the days when just owning a printing press could get you tossed into prison...

Yes but that is very expensive and environmentally unfriendly.

 

[Leonel]

Probably when the brownshirts are dragging him off to the concentration camp.....

Naw I think he'd smarten up before they start putting green armbands on all the Muslims and requiring all liberal businesses to put a notice on their front door saying they are liberals.

 

[BasketCase]

Freedom of speech doesn't apply on private property, e.g. someone's website, just like you can't walk into someone's house and start babbling.

The government, a public entity, still doesn't have the right to censor the <censored> out of you on someone else's private property.

If you commit a crime on said property, they do. That's what this is really about. SOPA only allows the government to bust down a web site's door if an actual theft of intellectual property occurs.

I wonder how creepily authoritarian a government actually has to get before BasketCase finds his "tough beans" routine hard to maintain.

I'd say about where Iran is right now. (the answer is no: the United States is nowhere near that point, nor is it so much as drifting in that direction)

 

[cardgame]

If you commit a crime on said property, they do. That's what this is really about. SOPA only allows the government to bust down a web site's door if an actual theft of intellectual property occurs.

Yeah, okay, even though I don't like it I can see you have a point.

HOWEVER, committing a crime on private property does not mean the government can or should come in and destroy said property. Take away the illegal bits, like the cache of illegal guns, but don't tear the house down. That's just heavy-handed to the point of absurdity.

 

[BasketCase]

What about the part with the yellow police tape? After they come in and nab somebody, they tape off the scene so you can't enter.....? I don't see anybody holding protests against police tape.

 

[cardgame]

That's for investigation after the fact and only exists in the real world - there's no need to shut down a website.

 

[BasketCase]

No different from "shutting down a house" with the police tape. Somebody commits a murder in your house, you cannot go in until the investigation is done.

Why would a web site be any different than any other crime scene? The police need to prevent the admins from flushing their stash down the toilet while the gumshoes search the place.

 

[cardgame]

Since it's not a physical location, shutting down the site isn't necessary. Freeze the site, pull all the data, investigate, let it go until something turns up that necessitates the site be ended.

 

[Jouzou]

Isn't it technically wrong to speak of a "group of hackers called Anonymus"? As far as I know (and please, do correct me if I'm wrong here), there is virtually no exclusivity and no leader or any kind of organization. I think something like "Individual hackers, who don't know each other, co-operating and coordinating their actions" would be closer to truth.

I don't approve of Anon's actions by any means. I'm just trying to set the terms straight. Then again, it wouldn't be the first or the last time when the media use inaccurate terms either to mislead or just because they didn't do the research.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I would still call them a group. They still identify themselves as members of Anonymous, they just don't really have a structure. If they were just individuals connecting on some website I wouldn't say group, but most of them think of themselves as belonging to a bigger picture.

 

[warpus]

If you commit a crime on said property, they do. That's what this is really about. SOPA only allows the government to bust down a web site's door if an actual theft of intellectual property occurs.

That's slightly inaccurate.

It allows the government to bust down a web site if a claim of theft (of intellectual property) has been made.

The government already has laws in place to deal with people who have violated copyright or hosted a website that contains links to pirated material. If that's all SOPA allowed them to do.. it'd be pointless.

Isn't it technically wrong to speak of a "group of hackers called Anonymus"? As far as I know (and please, do correct me if I'm wrong here), there is virtually no exclusivity and no leader or any kind of organization. I think something like "Individual hackers, who don't know each other, co-operating and coordinating their actions" would be closer to truth.

I don't approve of Anon's actions by any means. I'm just trying to set the terms straight. Then again, it wouldn't be the first or the last time when the media use inaccurate terms either to mislead or just because they didn't do the research.

I think it's a group, even if they don't meet. I think of groups as mathematical sets.