• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FBI Brings Party Van to Anon Houses

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Texashiker said:
Freedom of the press, look it up sometime.

The power belongs to the people, not the government. The government does not have the right to tell the people what can, and what can not be published.

This nation was founded on the press being able to keep an eye on the government. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Journalism ethics and standards, look it up sometime.

I recommend this part, which wikileaks and Assange don't quite live up to.

wikileaks is a tabloid with a political agenda, don't try and pass it off as respectable journalism (or even journalism at all).
 
Broheim said:
Journalism ethics and standards, look it up sometime.
Click to expand...

Did you know that Benjamin Franklin would write fake articles (works of fiction) to make people mad at the British army and the King of England? The articles were published as if they were facts, instead of works of fiction.

And today, Benjamin Franklin is honored as a hero.

We can not brand Julian Assange a criminal for publishing the truth, while honoring Benjamin Franklin as a hero while he published lies.
 
Last edited:
I believe they're making arrests. I don't believe they'll stop what people are doing. Sounds pretty run of the mill...
 
If I were a journalist I would report everything factual that was relevant, with ZERO regard to who it hurts. Sorry but the truth is the truth. Suck it up. I wouldn't break any laws, though, such as naming minors, etc.
 
SunnyD said:
Or... they're smarter than you or I. Think about it, late teens/early twenties, getting 3 squares and a bed for free at a federally funded luxury resort. Sure beats unemployment or pounding the pavement looking for a job, don't you think?
Click to expand...

No. No. No. Get a job and retain your freedom and be able to make your own choices is much better than getting your freedom taken away and getting free food.
 
Broheim said:
Journalism ethics and standards, look it up sometime.

I recommend this part, which wikileaks and Assange don't quite live up to.
Click to expand...

Yes, the New York Times reporting falsehoods supporting an illegal war are MUCH better for ethics and standards, than whistleblowers inhibiting the function of secrecy.

Who just so happen to have helped trigger the overthrow of dictators.

wikileaks is a tabloid with a political agenda, don't try and pass it off as respectable journalism (or even journalism at all).
Click to expand...

It's not a tabloid. You're simply calling names you don't understand.

Of COURSE it has a political agenda. You say that like it's a bad thing. Journalism absolutely SHOULD have a political agenda, insofar as it is a player in the political system, informing citizens of information and even opinions that affect citizens views' of political issues and leaders. The 'telling of truth' is a political act. So is the covering up of truth, though that's not part of journalism's 'ethics and standards', any more than the publishing of propaganda, which our media does a lot - but Wikileaks far less so.

Our founding fathers had a political agenda. People who fight wars to defend democracy have a political agenda. And our news media not only should have a political agenda to inform its readers including of wrongdoing in politics, but can even have an 'orientation' politically that's perfectly acceptable. There's nothing wrong with a publication saying it has an orientation against government waste or for government to do more for people or whatever, while other news media might claim to simply be neutral 'reporters'.

Wikileaks' agenda is that large organizations operating in secrecy are able to get away with a lot of harm, and exposing whistleblowers' leaks about those organizations has a beneficial role for society in both exposing the actions they want to hide for often bad reasons, as well as making it harder for them to operate in secrecy, in that they'll feel less comfortable doing wrong things that might get exposed.
 
Texashiker said:
Did you know that Benjamin Franklin would write fake articles (works of fiction) to make people mad at the British army and the King of England? The articles were published as if they were facts, instead of works of fiction.

And today, Benjamin Franklin is honored as a hero.

We can not brand Julian Assange a criminal for publishing the truth, while honoring Benjamin Franklin as a hero while he published lies.
Click to expand...

Remember "the Boston Massacre"? We had leaders thrilled it happened because it would stir outrage against the British - who misrepresented the events.
 
shortylickens said:
FUCK!
Anon is pro-illegal? This I did not know.
Cant imagine why. Do they not realize they are just killing their economy now and for the future?
Or do they just love their mexican maids who clean up their basement bedrooms?
Click to expand...

It's more that they fished around for targets using a certain exploit and the Arizona Police were the highest-profile vulnerable party they could find. They then looked at the news to find something to justify the hacking that they were already planning to do. Also, many of the members aren't American. It's no wonder they sided with the liberal media.
 
Texashiker said:
Part of the problem might be - the kids dont realize how serious their actions are, and they dont think their going to get caught in the real world.

Is it "really" worth DDOS'ing a site, and getting to spend several years in a federal prison in return?

In a couple of weeks everyone is going to forget the site was taken down, but a criminal record stays with you forever.
Click to expand...

99% of the time they won't get caught. Thats why it's funny.
 
Texashiker said:
That is debatable. Ever hear of this thing called "freedom of the press".

Even if Julian Assange is brought back to the USA, there are lots of legal theories debating whether the government can even prosecute him. The only person that might have broke the law, is the person that released the papers to start with.

If the government prosecutes Julian Assange, are all of the people that copied content from wikileaks going to prosecuted as well?



Probably nothing. The government is pissed that someone speaks up and digs up the filth on what is going on.

On top of all of that Julian Assange was not in even in the USA when he posted the content to wikileaks. So does the US government even have anything to stand on.
Click to expand...

Don't bring him back to the USA. Send him straight to Guantanamo Bay or BAF. He's an enemy of the state.
 
Texashiker said:
Freedom of the press, look it up sometime.

The power belongs to the people, not the government. The government does not have the right to tell the people what can, and what can not be published.

This nation was founded on the press being able to keep an eye on the government. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

We're working on dealing with it. The patriot act was a huge step forward, but we've also scored some key court victories against "freedom of the press" in recent years.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, the New York Times reporting falsehoods supporting an illegal war are MUCH better for ethics and standards, than whistleblowers inhibiting the function of secrecy.

Who just so happen to have helped trigger the overthrow of dictators.



It's not a tabloid. You're simply calling names you don't understand.

Of COURSE it has a political agenda. You say that like it's a bad thing. Journalism absolutely SHOULD have a political agenda, insofar as it is a player in the political system, informing citizens of information and even opinions that affect citizens views' of political issues and leaders. The 'telling of truth' is a political act. So is the covering up of truth, though that's not part of journalism's 'ethics and standards', any more than the publishing of propaganda, which our media does a lot - but Wikileaks far less so.

Our founding fathers had a political agenda. People who fight wars to defend democracy have a political agenda. And our news media not only should have a political agenda to inform its readers including of wrongdoing in politics, but can even have an 'orientation' politically that's perfectly acceptable. There's nothing wrong with a publication saying it has an orientation against government waste or for government to do more for people or whatever, while other news media might claim to simply be neutral 'reporters'.

Wikileaks' agenda is that large organizations operating in secrecy are able to get away with a lot of harm, and exposing whistleblowers' leaks about those organizations has a beneficial role for society in both exposing the actions they want to hide for often bad reasons, as well as making it harder for them to operate in secrecy, in that they'll feel less comfortable doing wrong things that might get exposed.
Click to expand...

you're so stupid I threw up in my mouth a little.

you claim I use words I don't know the meaning of, but you obviously haven't got the slightest clue what political agenda means...

and the fact you want a biased media is... well insane, you have absolutely no clue what the function of the press is... you want the press to tell people what to think. God you're a moron.
 
Texashiker said:
Freedom of the press, look it up sometime.

The power belongs to the people, not the government. The government does not have the right to tell the people what can, and what can not be published.

This nation was founded on the press being able to keep an eye on the government. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Craig234 said:
Oh, really?

Which, law, specifically, did they break? Be ready to supply evidence for your allegation.

What has Wikileaks or Assange ever been charged with by the US for this lawbreaking?



Not so much for things that are not illegal.
Click to expand...

How about a quick little web search?

From a wallstreet journal article on the subject...
This striking language comes from the Espionage Act of 1917, which makes it a crime for anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe the information "could be used to the injury of the U.S." to "willfully" release it.
Click to expand...

Do you guys seriously think that there AREN'T laws that cover the release of non-public government information?
 
Seems like we've heard this before - the authorities raid a house and arrest a "kid" associated with Anon/Lulsucks. When 1 "kid" is arrested, there are probably 100 "kids" ready to take their place [reminds me of the war on drugs and enforcing the border against illegals].

How much truth was the post [on another site] about outing Lulsec awhile ago [shortly after LulSec announced their "retirement"]? That post specifically detailed names, addresses, emails, phone #'s, etc about the core group [and their leader] - yet seemed to mysteriously vanish.

Good to see people being arrested, but what are other companies doing to beef up security so this doesn't happen?
 
Broheim said:
you're so stupid I threw up in my mouth a little.

you claim I use words I don't know the meaning of, but you obviously haven't got the slightest clue what political agenda means...

and the fact you want a biased media is... well insane, you have absolutely no clue what the function of the press is... you want the press to tell people what to think. God you're a moron.
Click to expand...

A brief look at his signature should've clued you enough... I'll take my predefined narrative with a side of current events plz.
 
Texashiker said:
I thought parts of the Espionage Act were struck down as being unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It has been challenged and it has been amended but it still is very much in force. The way it is currently written, it can even be used to charge someone outside of our borders.

This is the clause that is being leveled against Wikileaks, which they most definitely violated.

Clause from espionage act
 
Bignate603 said:
It has been challenged and it has been amended but it still is very much in force. The way it is currently written, it can even be used to charge someone outside of our borders.

This is the clause that is being leveled against Wikileaks, which they most definitely violated.

Clause from espionage act
Click to expand...

A bunch of bullshit. How many of our presidents have offered themselves to foreign governments for punishment due to espionage? Yea, I didn't think so...
 
lxskllr said:
A bunch of bullshit. How many of our presidents have offered themselves to foreign governments for punishment due to espionage? Yea, I didn't think so...
Click to expand...

Why would anyone offer themselves? It's the prosecutor's responsibility to bring the accused to justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top