| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (120)

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 11:21PM Cyroselle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JuliusSeizure

Yep, more of a collective of individuals, some take initiative, others sometimes follow that initiative... or do nothing at all... but yes, Anonymous is not a 'group'.

And thus Anonymous is neither moral, nor strictly amoral. Anonymous is amorphous. ;)
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2011 7:28AM Lenn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator My motivation? What are you on about? I'm highly critical of this Anonymous group, whether they're a tightly organized group of cyber terrorists or a loose conglomerate of basement-dwelling script kiddies. Their cause could be "noble" or could be "the lulz", I don't care. If the former, they're using the wrong means to their end, because they're targeting the wrong people. If the latter, we shouldn't even talk about them; all they deserve is a long sentence, and a life-long ban from using anything even remotely electronic. Infringing on people's Internet freedom and privacy just to show that infringing on people's Internet freedom and privacy is wrong reeks of hypocrisy.

Whatever they are, or think they are, the term terrorism is perfectly applicable to what they're doing and I therefore believe they are not deserving of adulation.

They're not Robin Hood. They're not Batman. They're just a bunch of cyber criminals.
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2011 12:59PM Deliverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Lenn
I'm sure fine upstanding loyalists said the same about the real Boston Teapartiers
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2011 6:49PM blueimpact said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator

Not that I agree with Lenn, but that definition of terrorism is old, outdated and by the slightest bit accurate anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberterrorism Even this extension of terrorism is old. Yes, what Anonymous is doing can (and is) considered to be terrorism. Has been since the 56k days.

That said, vive la revolution!
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 4:39PM mrantimatter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sony's solution: win a free PSN game or month of game time for every certified member of anon you punch in the face.

Seriously, if you have a gripe with the company, then take it up with that company, don't take it out on gamers just trying to have some fun.

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 8:03PM Skyydragonn said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@mrantimatter
the only way to hurt a corp as large as sony is exactly by doing what Anon plans, hurt thier bottom line.

Companies dont give a sh*t about thier customers as long as the wallets are open, but once you take that away they start listening.

For example take GoDaddy.com they were BIG supporters of SOPA, until hundreds of companies (like Red 5 studios) and individuals began to transfer thier domains to other providers. 24hrs later GoDaddy releases a statement saying they are wthdrawing their support of SOPA.

Simple fact, to hurt a company you go not for the throat but the wallet. Will I be ticked off if I can't access Sony's network, yes. Will I however understand that in order to win some battles thier must be losses of some kind.
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2011 2:47AM Nucleon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Skyydragonn I'm sorry but no. If you want a company to go under, stop buying their products. Start a movement to boycott that companies services. If millions of Americans gave up their PS3, their EQ2, their Sony TV etc it would stop Sony IMMEDIATELY. Yet, instead of millions choosing to sacrifice, we support mercenaries so that only a few dozen have to sacrifice instead of us all. Sounds a lot like the Iraq war... instead of us all having to sacrifice by the draft and by paying a war tax, we push the burden to a tiny fraction of Americans.

This is not medieval times, we are not *forced* to buy Sony. Resorting to barbaric needs is just a way to have some else do the dirty work for you.

I 100% support wikileaks and many of anon's attacks. But instead of attacking a corporation why don't we attack those really responsible... OURSELVES FOR ELECTING IDIOTS!
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 4:43PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While Sony is big and has ties to Hollywood, why doesn't Anonymous go after Hollywood or the Music Industry?

Pyrii states these companies have already dropped support for SOPA. While there may be more details to this, there are still other companies that support SOPA and they are not Anon targets, so what gives there?

It's kinda sounding like favoritism and not being fair or equal about selecting their targets.

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 4:55PM PaterFrog said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra One thing at a time, no?
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 5:25PM JuliusSeizure said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

Hollywood is as much of an 'organisation' as Anonymous itself. *sigh* They could go after the MPAA, I guess, but that wouldn't achieve much. I can't imagine they'd have enough of an online presence to be threatened enough to scare anyone.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 5:56PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PaterFrog

Yeah, but Sony was just up "at bat" not that long ago, even if it was just a splinter group from Anon. When's Microsoft's turn? I know BMI got hit awhile back, but how about that? What about Itunes?

It'd be nice if they just worked their way back to Sony after a salvo or two at some other supporters of SOPA.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 6:01PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JuliusSeizure

And yeah, I realize "Hollywood" is a pretty amorphous, vague thing to say, so you just have to narrow it down. Studio websites and from there, narrow it down to the servers that are used daily for work operations in say...Universal. You can even go after TV studios, but you have to think about the connections. Viacom owns CBS *and other entertainment holdings), so that's a likely target, no? Just make sure to "plant a flag" and make that message known on the main web page.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 7:24PM Deliverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra
It's just a guess, but Sony purchased a lot of their online properties and cobbled them together as a 'network' while iTunes was built from the ground up as iTunes. Microsoft makes network server software, while Sony uses network server software. Ooops - the actual guess is that their network is an easier target than some of the others.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 11:58PM Cyroselle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra IMO it's more of the case of 'who's the larger target'.

Also Sony's already gone out of its way playing at being the antisocial jerk at the party on more than one occasion.

Lik-Sang ( check the notice http://www.lik-sang.com/ ) for instance, or that kid in the UK that imported a PSP before it was released officially in that region having his console stripped from him. As nice as some of their products are, they've smashed-in their fair share of toes.
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2011 12:05AM Cyroselle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra Disney's a good one. They are kind of the Altria Group of their industry and own/control a frightening array of corporations.
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2011 2:55AM Protoavis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

How to do target an organisation who's main presence isn't on the internet? ;) Hollywood won't be targetted for that reason, it's insignificant to go after what little they have that relies solely on the internet, music industry is similar...particularly when it's distributors aren't the same company as the music industry.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 4:52PM Deliverator said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"The bill also establishes a two-step process for intellectual property rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation."

So if you don't like what someone has to say, you can create a letter writing campaign to which each letter must be responded to or GoDaddy, PayPal, etc is legally required to stop providing service to them.

Notice that the burden of proof is on the accused - they have to prove that they are not infringing - the accuser has to prove nothing, just write a complaint letter to PayPal. This is pre-court, pre-trial, pre any sort of legal function on the books today. And it applies to non-US sites who may not even be covered by our copyright laws. Most organizations, such as Scientology, use copyright law to try to take out sites trying to expose them already. The US Government copyrights most of its documents. This isn't about protecting the newest Justin Beiber song, make no mistake about it. He's a puppet just like that fool Lars Ulrich had a hand up his ass during the push for the DMCA. How's your Metallica doing now that it's all protected, Lars? But I digress. Entertainer activists pfft.

No, this is about using music and movies as an excuse to gain control over public opinion on the internet. It's about being frightened that Fox Nooz junkies are starting to watch TV online (they can just right click and google our talking points?? what?? repetition is no longer effective?? the horros!). It's about not letting an organization's own documents be used to call them on their bullshit. It's about not letting our kids know there are any choices besides republican or democrat or that there was ever a time when you actually walked out of a store "owning" the music you just bought. It's about patching the leaks in their propaganda.
Anonymous is making the Light Side choice

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 5:04PM Deliverator said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator
"The second section increases the penalties for streaming video and for selling counterfeit drugs, military materials or consumer goods. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a felony."

Consider that most video newsreel footage is now under copyright for 50 years. Most news stories are copyrighted. Periodicals are copyrighted. How would you research and prove anything that someone else might not want out in the open?
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 5:07PM Deliverator said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator
SOPA is about Wikileaks. Under this, they would have been shut up day 1.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2011 5:44PM Saker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator Agree!
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW