Anonymous goes on a rampage in response to Megaupload being shutdown

[GoodGame]

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.

That's just it. The computers that the website is run on is the actual evidence, so the computers have to be seized. It's like cordoning off a murder scene to look for clues.

 

[G-Max]

But did they hack the Gibson?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I would still call them a group. They still identify themselves as members of Anonymous

No, they don't.

 

[Jouzou]

After submitting my previous post and reading the replies, I've come up with a (hopefully) better way to state my point. So, allow me to rephrase:

In my opinion, individuals acting together become a "group" only when there is a higher authority that determines who is a member of said group and who is not. As far as I know, the Anonymus do not have such higher authority (again, I may be completely wrong on this one - correct me if I am).

 

[Gamemaster77]

Well that's the difference then. I would say they are a group because they do similar things and have similar goals. To me, the higher authority doesn't matter.

 

[GamezRule]

While certainly I have my reservations about the whole ordeal, Anonymous's actions are not noble in any way.

 

[Traitorfish]

In my opinion, individuals acting together become a "group" only when there is a higher authority that determines who is a member of said group and who is not. As far as I know, the Anonymus do not have such higher authority (again, I may be completely wrong on this one - correct me if I am).

I'm curious as to the anthropological basis for this.

(And, yes, I know that every second post I've made recently seems to be "But what about the anthropology!?", but, well, it's true.)

 

[G-Max]

Groups can self-organize without a central authority. However, if you look at the history of Anonymous, it turns out that Anonymous is literally "Everyone who posts on anonymously, especially if they have a Guy Fawkes mask". I've done this. Heck, I even have a Guy Fawkes mask because I went as V for Halloween once.

I am Anonymous. I am legion. I do not forgive. I do not forget. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

At least, that's how I think it goes.

 

[Traitorfish]

So Anonymous is basically just the multitude-for-itself? Or, if you don't keep up with the latest post-neo-Marxofoblogical jargon, it exists insofar as the masses take it upon themselves to challenge the powers that be?

 

[G-Max]

Anonymous existed before all this hacking stuff was going on. It's literally any /b/tard in a mask.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think of Anonymous more of a collective than a group. They're probably the same word though.

 

[BasketCase]

So Anonymous is basically just the multitude-for-itself? Or, if you don't keep up with the latest post-neo-Marxofoblogical jargon, it exists insofar as the masses take it upon themselves to challenge the powers that be?

Anonymous is a multitude for itself. The proper way to deal with such things is in elections, and arbitrarily hacking sites of their choosing without consulting, say, people like us whom they claim to be representing, doesn't cut the mustard. In fact, that's how dictatorships generally get started. The Department of Justice may not be all cookies and ice cream, but taking their web sites down does a lot of collateral damage such as causing the DoJ to lose files on people like Bernie Madoff.

That's just it. The computers that the website is run on is the actual evidence, so the computers have to be seized. It's like cordoning off a murder scene to look for clues.

My mention of seizing the web site's servers was mostly hypothetical. I imagine an arrest would include the seizing of the hardware, but it could be even simpler than that: when the guys running the web site were arrested, there might have been nobody else at their houses--and Megaupload could be down because the computers are sitting in empty houses, turned off.

Anyway, it's clear the government already has the wherewithal to shut down sites when it wants to. And until somebody takes it to the Supreme Court for a ruling, it is constitutional. So, if and until said Supreme Court hearing happens, which is preferable: legislation that makes web sites take down pirated material, or arbitrary government break-ins that shut down web sites entirely?

Related note: SOPA did include a section that stated the following: a copyright holder must first inform a web site that said site is infringing a copyright--and if the site voluntarily removes the material in question, the site is immune from prosecution. Seems like a good idea to me. Sadly, when I pointed this out at a real-life gathering, I turned out to be the only guy in the entire room who even knew that was in SOPA, and I realized nobody else in the room knew what was actually in it. They'd all just jumped on the anti-SOPA bandwagon.

 

[Traitorfish]

Anonymous is a multitude for itself. The proper way to deal with such things is in elections, and arbitrarily hacking sites of their choosing without consulting, say, people like us whom they claim to be representing, doesn't cut the mustard. In fact, that's how dictatorships generally get started. The Department of Justice may not be all cookies and ice cream, but taking their web sites down does a lot of collateral damage such as causing the DoJ to lose files on people like Bernie Madoff.

That's nice, but it wasn't what I was talking about. My response was to what I interpreted as some sort of theoretical innovation on their part. (Entirely incorrectly, as it happens; my fault for reading to much into the posturing of internet shenanigistas.) I wasn't expecting you to agree with it; I certainly don't.

(Also, lol @parliamentarian fetishism. Just for the record. )

 

[Crezth]

Related note: SOPA did include a section that stated the following: a copyright holder must first inform a web site that said site is infringing a copyright--and if the site voluntarily removes the material in question, the site is immune from prosecution. Seems like a good idea to me. Sadly, when I pointed this out at a real-life gathering, I turned out to be the only guy in the entire room who even knew that was in SOPA, and I realized nobody else in the room knew what was actually in it. They'd all just jumped on the anti-SOPA bandwagon.

So the fact that, in practice, the act of filing an injunction results in a 100% takedown rate of the website(s) in question means nothing to you?

 

[Commodore]

So the fact that, in practice, the act of filing an injunction results in a 100% takedown rate of the website(s) in question means nothing to you?

Of course not. According to BasketCase as long as you don't get thrown in jail then it's not oppression. Never mind that corporate greed is being placed above free speech in this country.

 

[BasketCase]

Free speech doesn't even enter into this whole thing. Why do you think the government took down Megaupload instead of YouTube? For that matter, considering all the agitators right here in this thread, why didn't the government close down CFC? Because Megaupload was stealing. That's all.

Further: the closure of Megaupload means the government already has the power to destroy websites without the use of SOPA/PIPA/ACTA. So why bother trying to pass three more bills which merely called public attention to the issue?? (In fact, SOPA contained at least three clauses which reduce government power against web sites--for the government to pass laws reducing their own power would have been counterproductive, if their goal was actually to gain power) Free speech has nothing to do with this; the close of Megaupload, and the creation of SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, were about enforcing existing copyright laws. Nothing more.

It never was about free speech. A watermelon can be used to kill a person; that's no reason to ban watermelons. People are worrying that SOPA/PIPA/ACTA might be used to destroy free speech. There's no evidence anywhere that they WILL. Which, of course, probably leaves people wondering why I trust the government. Allow me, therefore, to revisit a post I should have replied to a while ago:

It scares me how pro-authority you are.

Wrong. I'm against the authority of China's government (take note here, I make a distinction between "Chinese GOVERNMENT" and "Chinese PEOPLE"--the government is the problem). I'm against North Korean authority and Syrian authority and Iranian authority. If the very same SOPA were to be passed in Iran, I would be opposed to that, because the Iranian government would definitely misuse it.

I'm pro-U.S.-government-authority, because this is not China, and it's not North Korea, and it's not Syria, and it's not Iran. It's the United States. And it literally can't happen here. (yes, I read the book)

 

[Crezth]

Well the U.S. Government does have a flawless track record so I can see why you'd think they're incapable of wrong.

 

[BasketCase]

Straw man. I didn't say they were.

 

[Commodore]

Straw man. I didn't say they were.

Then how can you know with absolute certainty that this will not be abused? I'm not trying to flame you, I really want to know: Do you actually see how absurd your arguments are? Especially since you can provide no evidence to support your faith in the government aside from gut feelings, instincts, and some misguided belief that the US government is somehow morally stronger than other governments.

 

[Skwink]

What I want to know is why people are so much more freaked out that the government could abuse the ability to shut down internet sites then they are that the government could abuse it's new ability to put you in jail indefinitely just because.