'Anonymous' Strikes Again

[zsdersw]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/anonymous_hacks_westboro_bapti.html

Last week, a press release appeared on a site affiliated with the shadowy and quite effective hacktivist group Anonymous, warning the Westboro Baptist Church that their websites would be attacked unless they cease being horrible people who do the most evil things imaginable. Westboro fired back with a ballsy tweet that dared the hacktivists to "Bring it, cowards." But on Tuesday, another note ran on the Anonymous-linked site, claiming that the initial release was a hoax — perhaps perpetrated by the church itself as a publicity stunt — and that there were no plans to attack Westboro. Nevertheless, days of denial of service attacks on the church's sites followed, but responsibility was eventually claimed by a separate hacker named The Jester. That takes us to this morning, when a member of the church and a member of Anonymous (who, appropriately, was anonymous, and British-sounding) squared off in a debate hosted by a talk radio show. It was about eight minutes into this debate that Anonymous decided, what the hell, let's hack them after all.

Interesting..

 

[her209]

Anonymous and the HBGary debacle made it on The Colbert Report last night as well.

 

[Zargon]

good!

 

[tk149]

Who the heck goes to their website anyway?

 

[Perknose]

This is like watching the 'tard you kind of like get into a spittle-flecked slap fight with the 'tard who really don't like.

 

[shortylickens]

Who the heck goes to their website anyway?

People who think like them. In other words the people most likely to be upset by the attack.

 

[shortylickens]

http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.godhatesfags.com

 

[shabby]

Hah too funny, they definitely are in it for the lulz.

 

[YoungGun21]

lol I love 4chan

 

[shortylickens]

lol I love 4chan

We so need a face palm emoticon.

 

[ShawnD1]

We so need a face palm emoticon.

Will you settle for this pedophile emoticon?

 

[shortylickens]

Will you settle for this pedophile emoticon?

WRONG! SO WRONG!

 

[Axon]

I enjoy a good Ddos attack now and then.

 

[JSt0rm]

We so need a face palm emoticon.

 

[DrPizza]

wtg anonymous.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Nice...

Now if someone could just hack them in real life....

 

[Infohawk]

"Free speech... unless we don't agree with you."

Personally, I'm for free speech for everybody no matter how offensive and stupid it is.

 

[DrPizza]

"Free speech... unless we don't agree with you."

Personally, I'm for free speech for everybody no matter how offensive and stupid it is.

You apparently didn't read their letter to WBC. Apparently you're for free speech for everybody, because you don't bother to read it. They said they've had the capability to hack them all along, but that they believe the WBC has the right to free speech. However, they hacked WBC because WBC was attempting to use them to get free publicity.

 

[Infohawk]

but that they believe the WBC has the right to free speech. However, they hacked WBC because WBC was attempting to use them to get free publicity.

I don't even know where to start with that. So since WBC was attempting to use them for free publicity they gave them exactly what they wanted? By shutting down their main way to communicate with the public? Whatever you say.

 

[LumbergTech]

I don't even know where to start with that. So since WBC was attempting to use them for free publicity they gave them exactly what they wanted? By shutting down their main way to communicate with the public? Whatever you say.

so going to funerals and slapping mourners in the face is ok, but defacing a website is downright despicable?

 

[Craig234]

"Free speech... unless we don't agree with you."

Personally, I'm for free speech for everybody no matter how offensive and stupid it is.

As usual, you completely miss the point that it's not about individual 'free speech' - you can stand on the corner babbling and no one listens - but about the media ownership.

US public opinion is dramatically shifted by what the 'influence industry' pushes, and what they push is heavily determined by powerful interests.

It's not that the owner of a media outlet, Fox excepted, is some scheming ideologue, but corporate ownership creates limits, and having think tanks and armies of immediately available 'commentators' from those think tanks and similar organizations has a strong effect on the coverage and the views that get airtime.

How much do we hear about a return to record wealth inequality in mainstream news?

Going on about support for 'your right to say something idiotic' is pointless compared to dealing with the media issues that actually matter to public opinion.

Sure, in an extreme situation - a dictatorship - your right to say something on a street corner can become a right that's in question, but that's not the issue here.

 

[Infohawk]

so going to funerals and slapping mourners in the face is ok, but defacing a website is downright despicable?

Hopefully you're smart enough to understand that I'm not a fan of the WBC. Obviously the face-slapping is battery. My understanding is that they're mostly about offensive free speech. Criticizing WBC is also free speech. Stopping WBC from communicating via the internet is a different thing altogether. It's illegal and dirty.

 

[Infohawk]

As usual, you completely miss the point that it's not about individual 'free speech' - you can stand on the corner babbling and no one listens - but about the media ownership.

This is not at all about media ownership. WBC isn't some established voice or corporate voice or anything like that. There's room for everyone to be heard on the internet. And even if mainstream media is dominated by certain perspectives, I certainly don't want anonymous trying to decide what is or isn't appropriate.

 

[irishScott]

Hopefully you're smart enough to understand that I'm not a fan of the WBC. Obviously the face-slapping is battery. My understanding is that they're mostly about offensive free speech. Criticizing WBC is also free speech. Stopping WBC from communicating via the internet is a different thing altogether. It's illegal and dirty.

And in this case, funny as hell. Is what Anonymous did technically wrong? Yes. Am I getting my boxors in a wad over it? Nope. Do I feel any sympathy for WBC over this? Not in the slightest.

Ideals aside, this is the real world. You go around insulting people eventually you're going to insult the wrong person and they're going to knock you on your ass or worse. Whether it's idealistically right or not, nice to see WBC getting a mild bitch-slap. Less than they deserve IMO.

 

[Infohawk]

Ideals aside, this is the real world. You go around insulting people eventually you're going to insult the wrong person and they're going to knock you on your ass or worse. Whether it's idealistically right or not, nice to see WBC getting a mild bitch-slap. Less than they deserve IMO.

So basically you're a fan of law-breaking and vigilante justice when it coincides with your particular viewpoints. I understand but don't agree with it. It's a really popular position on P&N. I'm sure everyone will be loving it when more mainstream organizations are attacked.