Anonymous - Operation Empire State Rebellion

[Durruti]

Offered without comment.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ctrlaltbernanke-o...


Possibly linked to this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/world/12imf.html...

Edited by Durruti on Saturday 11th June 21:53

[EDLT]

Given their origins, I never thought of anon as being lefties.

[Silent1]

That's not proper anonymous it's an offshoot

[daveparry]

Unfortunately this has been going on for too long and is so embedded that it will be impossible to stop

[davepoth]

Silent1 said:

That's not proper anonymous it's an offshoot

I love anarchy...

[elster]

Silent1 said:

That's not proper anonymous it's an offshoot

There has been loads of anonymous organisations calling themselves anonymous.

[Mattt]

Silent1 said:

That's not proper anonymous it's an offshoot

They're the people's front of Anonymous.

[DamienB]

Splitters!

[AndrewW-G]

[tinfoilhat]What better way for governments around the world, to restrict the freedom of speech offered to almost everybody in the world, via the internet, than to cause major problems themselves and then blame an anonymous none violent group of geeks (blame a violent terrorist group and you'll end up getting people blown to bits!) The obvious fall out of which would be the introduction of draconian laws to control content on and access to the internet, which will essentially put the brakes on freedom of speech worldwide [/tinfoilhat]

I’d love for that to be a load of nonsense; however it’s getting more and more likely to be true

[eharding]

AndrewW-G][tinfoilhat said:

What better way for governments around the world, to restrict the freedom of speech offered to almost everybody in the world, via the internet, than to cause major problems themselves and then blame an anonymous none violent group of geeks (blame a violent terrorist group and you'll end up getting people blown to bits!) The obvious fall out of which would be the introduction of draconian laws to control content on and access to the internet, which will essentially put the brakes on freedom of speech worldwide [/tinfoilhat]

I’d love for that to be a load of nonsense; however it’s getting more and more likely to be true

It is perfectly feasible for governments - or anyone else with sufficient resources - to block, censor or subvert the huge data pipes that we now deem to be the 'Internet'.

But the Internet was born through a 1200-baud birth-canal, made of crackling analogue telephone lines.

It can still return there. The protocols' reflexes demand it, wired into the basic laws. Route around the damage, and spread the word.

Obviously, the supply of 1080i hi-def pron might be thin on the ground, but the supply of raw, written information to or from an area can only be suppressed by killing all telecom links and shooting down some satellites.

In essence, to defeat the Internet protocols, you have to willingly degrade your entire infrastructure back to the 1950s, and manual telephone exchanges. Once you've done so, as a political leader in the West in 2011, you're then depending on how long the riot troops can keep shooting the starving, rioting populace to gauge how long it will be before your severed head ends up on the end of a stick.

So that isn't going to happen.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the sort of dhead script kiddies linked to by the OP who think a couple of proxies, some incompetent security practices by institutions and random incoherent bluster posted on a blog somehow makes them a horde of little anonymous Che Guevaras.

Truth is, it ended badly for Che, and it will end badly for these knob-socks as well, eventually.

Edited by eharding on Sunday 12th June 00:41

[jammy_basturd]

Mattt said:

Silent1 said:

That's not proper anonymous it's an offshoot

They're the people's front of Anonymous.

Whatever happened to the Popular Front of Anon?

[hidetheelephants]

jammy_basturd said:

Mattt said:

Silent1 said:

That's not proper anonymous it's an offshoot

They're the people's front of Anonymous.

Whatever happened to the Popular Front of Anon?

There was a schism; it's now the Front of Anon. People, or FAP for short, and the less popular anarcho-cynicalist Committee for Unpopular Neo-Traditional Socialists.

[davepoth]

eharding said:

Truth is, it ended badly for Che, and it will end badly for these knob-socks as well, eventually.

Edited by eharding on Sunday 12th June 00:41

I'm not so sure. The joy of the internet means that on any given day, all of Anonymous might be just one person, and it could be a different person every second of the day, spread across the whole world. It only takes one person to use a botnet to take something down.

[eharding]

davepoth said:

eharding said:

Truth is, it ended badly for Che, and it will end badly for these knob-socks as well, eventually.

Edited by eharding on Sunday 12th June 00:41

I'm not so sure. The joy of the internet means that on any given day, all of Anonymous might be just one person, and it could be a different person every second of the day, spread across the whole world. It only takes one person to use a botnet to take something down.

True, but the equation works both ways.

The unelected, anonymous twunts who think they can hold the populace hostage by manipulating the networks are as vulnerable as the ostensibly elected, high-profile twunts who would seek to do the same.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Small group of individuals using the powers they have to manipulate others who don't agree with their view point. Who think that they see things clearly. See the bigger picture that the populated need leading and guiding. That the way to do this is through subversion and underhand tactics. To use intimidation or threats to disable systems. To grab personal data about people.



Anonymous are sounding more and more like those they claim to be against.

[supersingle]

^ Policemen serve power. Shock!

[Mr_annie_vxr]

supersingle said:

^ Policemen serve power. Shock!

Yawn.