Anonymous update

[tangent4ronpaul]

They are attacking PayPal today.

16yo was busted in Rotterdam for taking part in attacks.

-t

[QueenB4Liberty]

Source that says he was caught?

[FrankRep]

Dutch Police Arrest 16-Year Old for Pro-WikiLeaks Attack
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/dutch-police-arrest-16-year-old-for-pro-wikileaks-attack/67785/

[pcosmar]

Source that says he was caught?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/09/world.wikileaks/
via
http://twitter.com/Op_Payback

[AxisMundi]

They are attacking PayPal today.

16yo was busted in Rotterdam for taking part in attacks.

-t

In Attacking banks and financial companies like PayPal, Anon is putting the personal information of innocent inviduals at risk.

Good on the authorities.

[pcosmar]

In Attacking banks and financial companies like PayPal, Anon is putting the personal information of innocent inviduals at risk.

Good on the authorities.

Fuck the "authorities".


A Letter from Anonymous

Our Message, Intentions, and Potential Targets


"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

- Abraham Lincoln

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

- Benjamin Franklin

Hello World. We are Anonymous. What you do or do not know about us is irrelevant. We have decided to write to you, the media, and all citizens of the free world at large to inform you of the message, our intentions, potential targets, and our ongoing peaceful campaign for freedom.



"True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!"

- The Cardinal
Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy by: Edward Bulwer-Lytton



The message is simple: Freedom of Speech. Anonymous is peacefully campaigning for Freedom of Speech everywhere in all forms. Freedom of Speech for: The Internet, for journalism and journalists, and citizens of the world at large. Regardless of what you think or have to say; Anonymous is campaigning for you.

The recent news of our campaigns has been, at best, misinformed. Anonymous is not always the same group of people. The Constitution of the United States is said to be a living document, because it can be edited, amended; changed at the will of the people to suit the peoples' needs. In that same vein, Anonymous is a living idea. Anonymous is an idea that can be edited, updated, remanded, changed on a whim. We are living consciousness.

We are not a terrorist organization as governments, demagogues, and the media would have you believe. At this time Anonymous is a consciousness focused on campaigning peacefully for Freedom of Speech. We ask the world to support us, not for our sake, but for your own. When governments control freedom they control you. The Internet is the last bastion of freedom in this evolving technical world. The Internet is capable of connecting us all. When we are connected we are strong. When we are strong we have power. When we have power we are able to do the impossible. This is why the government is moving on Wikileaks. This is what they fear. They fear our power when we unite. Do not forget this.



"...Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

- Monsignor, Boondock Saints



Anonymous' intentions are very clear. We are not vigilantes, regardless of the sentiment of quoting Boondock Saints, we are people on a campaign for freedom. Anonymous' intentions are to change the current way the governments of the world and the people view true Freedom of Speech and The Internet. Anonymous is willing, ready, and able to campaign for the freedom for all. We are campaigning right now as you read the news, watch the television, fight with your significant other, love your children, hate your neighbor, criticize the man or woman next to you. We are campaigning.

The goal is simple: Win the right to keep the Internet free of any control from any entity, corporation, or government. We will do this until our, proverbial, dying breath. We do this not only for our selves, but for the world and its people at large.



"Truth is treason in the empire of lies."
- Ron Paul

Anything attributed, credited, or tagged to Anonymous is not always what we do. We are not always the same consciousness on a yearly, monthly, or even hourly basis. Do not believe everything you hear or read on the news. Anonymous is often credited with actions that are not campaigned for by Anonymous. The true core of Anonymous is here to help the free world for now. Anonymous wishes to represent the truth and ask that you as a citizen, media organization, or government do the same.


Pay attention citizens, governments, and the world. Anonymous' peaceful campaign will focus on any organization, corporation, government, or entity until the Internet is truly free. Anonymous is doing what many successful campaigns have done in the past; a sit-in. It may be hard to comprehend, but a digital sit-in is our most effective method to show that all of us deserve Freedom of Speech and a free Internet. Our methods may appear, on the outside, to be cruel to those the entities that we are campaigning against, but remember buy supporting censorship they are denying everyone a basic human right. Any person, corporation, government, or miscellaneous entity that stops supporting censorship and starts promoting Freedom of Speech and a free Internet will become our allies. Anonymous, at this time, wants to persuade our counterparts rather than hurt them. We are campaigning for freedom for everyone, even the opposing side.

Do not fear us. Anonymous' campaign does not intend to harm the individual citizen, any organizations, any websites, or government, that supports true freedom of speech. Anonymous' past is not our present. We are here for all of you; to campaign for all of you. Where others have made this promise and failed; we make this promise and aim to keep it for everyone.



Greetings.
These days have been interesting for all of us, and especially for every dictator, and every authoritarian regime. The one and only protector of the freedom of speech has devolved into one of its worst. Yes, U.S.A. We are looking at you. We became very disappointed when we saw how you treated not only our fellow anon, but one of the greatest defenders of free speech in the modern world.

The earthly world may be your domain, but we can assure you, and never forget, that the web belongs to us, and we will protect it by all means necessary. You have, over the last few days, gotten a taste of what we are able to do with small resources. Over these few days, however, we have grown several hundred percent, and we will grow further as the news spreads.

We have taken down several of your servers with DDoS attacks. We have defaced your websites. We have raped your bandwidth to such an extent that you may face problems when paying your bills. And most of all, we have shown the world how exposable you really are.

We are the author of the hjoly book of "dirty tricks."
We do not only know every single "dirty trick" in the book; we are the inventors of them.

Many have tried to defeat us before and failed. Miserably. Go ask the church of Scientology if they are up for a new fight. Some of us may fall, but on the way, all of you will fall. You may get one or five convicted. Ten or twenty arrested. On the way, you will not only lose all pride, but also money.

Your world needs our world to work.
You are here as our guests.
Behave as such.
Your time here is limited.

We demand that you leave Julian Assange and Wikileaks alone. Open his bank accounts. Arrest the lying Swedish tramps.

Don't disappoint us again.
Consequences will NEVER be the same.

We are anonymous. We are legion.
We do not forget.
We do not forgive.

Expect us.

Pay particular attention to the bold.

[Slutter McGee]

In Attacking banks and financial companies like PayPal, Anon is putting the personal information of innocent inviduals at risk.

Good on the authorities.

Their attacks have not put personal info at risk. If they do escelate to that then I would agree.

Slutter McGee

[puppetmaster]

In Attacking banks and financial companies like PayPal, Anon is putting the personal information of innocent inviduals at risk.

Good on the authorities.


you are delusional

[jmdrake]

Their attacks have not put personal info at risk. If they do escelate to that then I would agree.

Slutter McGee

Exactly. A DDos is like a bunch of freedom riders sitting in on segregated lunch counters. It's not the same as cracking open the cash register.

[AxisMundi]

Fuck the "authorities".





Pay particular attention to the bold.

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.

Whether one is holding billions in revenue hostage or someone's elderly grandmother, terrorism is terrorism.

[aravoth]

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.

Whether one is holding billions in revenue hostage or someone's elderly grandmother, terrorism is terrorism.

yes, a 16 year old boy ddos'ing a website is a terrorist, but a country that purchases little boys so the afgahn police can rape them is good and holy.

Don't get holier than thou and talk about the rule of law, when the fucking lawmakers are into that kind of bullshit. You should be angry that your tax dollars paid for a kid to get raped, instead your angry about a kid that rebelled against that shit.

[pcosmar]

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.

Whether one is holding billions in revenue hostage or someone's elderly grandmother, terrorism is terrorism.

War is hell.
Presently it is in Cyberspace. That does not make it any less real.

Best choose a side. And chose wisely.
;)

[AxisMundi]

Their attacks have not put personal info at risk. If they do escelate to that then I would agree.

Slutter McGee

Granted I am not a IT major at the tech college I am attending, but to the best of my understanding, DDos attacks can compromise security software and communication protocols, thus opening the door to malicious identity and bank account thefts.

So yes, these terrorist attacks may indeed be putting innocent people at risk.

[jmdrake]

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.

Whether one is holding billions in revenue hostage or someone's elderly grandmother, terrorism is terrorism.

Or as Whoopie Goldberg would argue, gumming up the TSA works by "opting out" is "terrorism".

YouTube - Whoopi Goldberg Says We Won't Fly Founders Terrorists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYhGyLCZko)

Non violent civil disobedience is never terrorism. I don't care what you or Whoopie thinks.

[TonySutton]

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.

Whether one is holding billions in revenue hostage or someone's elderly grandmother, terrorism is terrorism.

I am curious how you define the terms terrorist and terrorism because your posts sound like you might even consider boycotting or picketing a place of business a terrorist act. Such actions might surely cost the business lost revenues.

[jmdrake]

Granted I am not a IT major at the tech college I am attending, but to the best of my understanding, DDos attacks can compromise security software and communication protocols, thus opening the door to malicious identity and bank account thefts.

So yes, these terrorist attacks may indeed be putting innocent people at risk.

Well I have a masters in compsci. DDos attacks don't compromise security. They slow down systems. But for the sake of argument, say if it did? Theft would only occur if the persons doing the attack wanted to do so. This "anonymous" group hasn't done so. You're fearmongering.

[FunkBuddha]

Noose Closes Around Pro-Wikileaks Vigilantes (http://gawker.com/5709789/noose-closes-around-pro+wikileaks-vigilantes)


Operation Payback is facing a little payback of its own. First Twitter closed the pro-Wikileaks hacker movement's account. And now we hear the Feds are shutting down some online discussion of Operation Payback attacks.

Some sites have received federal court orders to cease any further online documentation of the attacks, which targeted Visa, Mastercard and other financial companies who froze Wikileaks accounts, a source close to the situation tells us. Among the sites where content is coming down is Encyclopedia Dramatica, which we're told received one of the orders. The 4chan-affiliated reference wiki within the past hour had the number three Google hit for a search on "Operation Payback." It has since deleted its article, though the entry remains accessible via Google cache (NSFW). Here's what it looks like now (click to enlarge):



The message board 4chan has also reportedly deleted threads documenting Operation Payback, but the anarchic image-sharing site is notorious for its churn and heavy moderation even in the absence of federal orders, so it's hard to tell exactly what's going on. (If you know of other sites affected, or have documentation on this reported court order, we'd love to hear from you.)

On Twitter, meanwhile, some people writing about the hacker raids have switched from using the hashtag #payback to using #payitforward, since, some believe, Twitter has been monitoring the original #payback tag and moderating some of those tweets.

Whatever its stance on discussion of the raids, Twitter is clearly done being used as the rallying point from which to organize them. The company shut down the @Anon_Operations account, which was being used to synchronize successful denial of service attacks on companies like Visa and Mastercard. (The account name has since been claimed by an apparent parody version, while a kindred site has sprung up at @AnonOps.)

Operation Payback was meant to punish companies like PayPal, Visa and Mastercard for freezing Wikileaks' assets. The effort, believed to be affiliated with the anti-Scientology 4chan spinoff Anonymous, was successful in the case of Visa and Mastercard, taking down both companies' websites. Whether the victory extends beyond those brief symbolic wins remains to be seen; both credit card firms claim their processing networks were not affected by the attacks.

The attempted punishment is also likely to produce a nasty PR backlash. Hacking Wikileaks' enemies might be cathartic, but it also reinforces the notion that there's something illicit about Wikileaks — and about the practice of publishing information the government would prefer, usually for its own selfish reasons, to keep secret.

[Liberty_Mike]

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.



You must realize that such companies as Master Card and PayPal are colluding with the government in a bureaucratic fashion in an attempt to take away our freedoms. Once such companies start collaborating with the government to do harm on our natural given rights, it is game on. The true terrorist tactics are those by the government merging with corporations to deprive us of liberty!

[speciallyblend]

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.

Whether one is holding billions in revenue hostage or someone's elderly grandmother, terrorism is terrorism.

so then hold the us gov for world terrorists tactics before you start holding wikileaks or anon for hacking!! lets forget what the corrupt us gov is doing to the world thru terrorism and occupies 130 plus countries and failing to declare war and killing many innocents! vs wikileaks exposing files that the us gov could of redacted showing unethical and corruption within the us gov and others! you seem to want to protect the law breakers in the name of us security. when in fact the the law breakers are the very ones risking our security by ignoring the rule of law and hiding behind secrets!!! Anon is only reacting to the criminal enterprise called the us gov who bullied these companies, yet you want to attack the people calling out the corruption! think about it!

seems the only laws that were broken before anon reacted to the attacks on wiki leaks by these corrupt companies who bowed to the bully corrupt us gov were a broken condom and exposing corruption within the us gov! yet you act like the us gov is right not wrong but your wrong the us gov is wrong and has been proven wrong. you sound scared of the truth! you should take your energy and apply it to the problem in the world the corrupt us gov!

[speciallyblend]

You must realize that such companies as Master Card and PayPal are colluding with the government in a bureaucratic fashion in an attempt to take away our freedoms. Once such companies start collaborating with the government to do harm on our natural given rights, it is game on. The true terrorist tactics are those by the government merging with corporations to deprive us of liberty!

axis is blinded by us gov faith! seems pretty easy to figure out but sometype of gene doesn't allow him to figure it out!

[AxisMundi]

War is hell.
Presently it is in Cyberspace. That does not make it any less real.

Best choose a side. And chose wisely.
;)

I will not choose the side of terrorists.

[fisharmor]

yes, a 16 year old boy ddos'ing a website is a terrorist, but a country that purchases little boys so the afgahn police can rape them is good and holy.

Don't get holier than thou and talk about the rule of law, when the fucking lawmakers are into that kind of bullshit. You should be angry that your tax dollars paid for a kid to get raped, instead your angry about a kid that rebelled against that shit.

+rep
And to think that it took a bunch of people who are into bukkake for anything to get done about it.

[AxisMundi]

Well I have a masters in compsci. DDos attacks don't compromise security. They slow down systems. But for the sake of argument, say if it did? Theft would only occur if the persons doing the attack wanted to do so. This "anonymous" group hasn't done so. You're fearmongering.

As I stated, I was not sure.

But now that these attacks have become widely know, who is to say some thief might not be waiting "at the door" to slip in while Anon is carrying out their attack?

Either way, these attacks are not victimless crimes.

[pcosmar]

I will not choose the side of terrorists.

meh.

Who do you think are the real terrorists?

It is the people that kill and cage journalists.
Not the people that oppose them.

[AxisMundi]

yes, a 16 year old boy ddos'ing a website is a terrorist, but a country that purchases little boys so the afgahn police can rape them is good and holy.

Don't get holier than thou and talk about the rule of law, when the fucking lawmakers are into that kind of bullshit. You should be angry that your tax dollars paid for a kid to get raped, instead your angry about a kid that rebelled against that shit.

1. Feel free to show where and/or how you arrived at some imagined support for your Iranian example on my part.

This tread is about cyberterrorism. If you want my opinion on this Iranian incident, start a thread and supply credible sources.

2. Cyberterrorist attacks, such as DDos, are not victimless crimes. They can damage computer systems and can cost companies millions, if not billions, in revenue and related costs.

Companies are being threatened if they do not comply with Anon's demands. I don't know about you, but that is little different than any terrorist holding real people hostage until their demands are met.

[Todd]

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.

Whether one is holding billions in revenue hostage or someone's elderly grandmother, terrorism is terrorism.


so a person that fights for Freedom of speech you defined as terrorist?

Orwellian bullshit

[AxisMundi]

meh.

Who do you think are the real terrorists?

It is the people that kill and cage journalists.
Not the people that oppose them.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[speciallyblend]

I will not choose the side of terrorists.

you already have since you back the criminal enterprise called the corrupt us gov!

[Cdn_for_liberty]

Member of Anonymous interviewed

YouTube - Connect with Mark Kelley Meets member of Anonymous... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc_9r9zMMK0)

[ivflight]

Some of you guys really have it wrong on this one. Millions of people rely on Paypal to conduct business every day, and I'm one of them. Shut them down for a day and all you're doing is attacking the consensual relationship between me and my customers.

Paypal is a private business and gets to choose who they work with. If you don't like it you can choose not to work with Paypal and just walk away, but attacking them is wrong and should be punished. Anyone who says different does not believe in true capitalism/libertarianism.

When my business was teeny tiny and the big credit card companies were out of reach, Paypal was the provider that helped me get off the ground. Besides, I need that income so I can donate to Ron Paul.

[AxisMundi]

so a person that fights for Freedom of speech you defined as terrorist?

Orwellian bullshit

I find it interesting that the only opposition offered to my opinion so far are based totally on argument fallacies and lame attempts at insult.

I fight for Freedom of Speech. I attend events, I write my congress-critters on a regular basis, etc.

I do NOT employ terrorist tactics and assualts.

By your "logic" (actually lack thereof) Ghandi was a terrorist.

[AxisMundi]

you already have since you back the criminal enterprise called the corrupt us gov!

Please provide direct quotes stating I have supported the side of the g'ment in keeping information out of the hands of the populace.

[AxisMundi]

Some of you guys really have it wrong on this one. Millions of people rely on Paypal to conduct business every day, and I'm one of them. Shut them down for a day and all you're doing is attacking the consensual relationship between me and my customers.

Paypal is a private business and gets to choose who they work with. If you don't like it you can choose not to work with Paypal and just walk away, but attacking them is wrong and should be punished. Anyone who says different does not believe in true capitalism/libertarianism.

When my business was teeny tiny and the big credit card companies were out of reach, Paypal was the provider that helped me get off the ground. Besides, I need that income so I can donate to Ron Paul.

Well said.

As I've noted, cyberterrorism is not a victimless crime.

[ivflight]

Attacking Paypal or other private companies is not protecting free speech, it is destroying it. People use these companies to engage in financial relationships with other people, and if you break that connection it is no different than jamming the airwaves outside a radio station you don't like.

[talkingpointes]

I find it interesting that the only opposition offered to my opinion so far are based totally on argument fallacies and lame attempts at insult.

I fight for Freedom of Speech. I attend events, I write my congress-critters on a regular basis, etc.

I do NOT employ terrorist tactics and assualts.

By your "logic" (actually lack thereof) Ghandi was a terrorist.

Pretty sure the British thought he was... (Ghandi)

[Feeding the Abscess]

1. Feel free to show where and/or how you arrived at some imagined support for your Iranian example on my part.

He was referring to DynCorp, contracted by the US govt, purchasing boy prostitutes and drugs for Afghan police forces parties.

[ivflight]

so a person that fights for Freedom of speech you defined as terrorist?

Orwellian bullshit

What if they attacked this site because the mods decided to boot someone off that was causing trouble? Would you say the attackers are protecting free speech? Not here you wouldn't...our forum would be gone.

[puppetmaster]

I will not choose the side of terrorists.


one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter....

[ivflight]

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter....

Right, but only in the sense that those things are just words. There is only one universal justice.

[fisharmor]

I fight for Freedom of Speech. I attend events, I write my congress-critters on a regular basis, etc.

And when you're on the news every single day for weeks for attending your events and writing your letters, you'll have an argument.

Ghandi also broke the law, pretty constantly.

[AxisMundi]

Pretty sure the British thought he was... (Ghandi)

Would you happen to have quotes then from British authorities of the time?

I am quite sure they considered him at the very least a royal (pun) pain in the neck, and at the most an extreme danger to their colonial power.

But organizing and urging peacful demonstrations can hardly be considered terrorism by any stretch of the imagination.

[fisharmor]

But organizing and urging peacful demonstrations can hardly be considered terrorism by any stretch of the imagination.

Now you bear the burden of explaining how DDoS attacks constitute terrorism.
Who is terrorized?

You can argue that it is illegal, and I would agree. You can argue that it is immoral, and I'd agree - though I'd still defend it. You can't call it terrorism.
Nor should you. The card is played out at this point.
It used to mean something, but every time you scream "TERRORIST!" at the guy who got an extra helping at the ice cream social, it loses more of its meaning.

[pcosmar]

Latest Video.

YouTube - A Letter From Anonymous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI6Gc5TURnU)

[AxisMundi]

And when you're on the news every single day for weeks for attending your events and writing your letters, you'll have an argument.

Ghandi also broke the law, pretty constantly.

Why am I not suprised you would belittle the most basic of efforts every American should be participating in, constant communication with their Elected Employees, just becasue no media is involved?

Also, Ghandi did indeed break laws. How many buildings did he blow up? How many people did he kill? Have even any statistics on how many windows were broken during the demonstrations he led?

Terrorism is, by definition, acts using violence and/or threats of violence to persons or property to coerce someone, a person, entity, or government, to capitulate to one's demands.

The continued use of the Ghandi example is not only rather silly, but damaging to the credibility of those using said example as Ghandi, by no means of the term terrorism, could be considered a terrorist.

[Liberty_Mike]

I will not choose the side of terrorists.

Clearly you have not read my previous response to your posts in this thread. Read what I said, and it is clear you are siding with the ones committing terrorist acts. Read my original post and respond to it.

[ivflight]

Now you bear the burden of explaining how DDoS attacks constitute terrorism.
Who is terrorized?

Read my posts.


You can argue that it is illegal, and I would agree. You can argue that it is immoral, and I'd agree - though I'd still defend it.

You, Sir, are and idiot.

[furface]

Does anybody have a link to the conversations Anonymous has about what actions they're going to take? I went to 4chan.org and can't seem to find anything except Anime and soft core porn.

The following is something that should be expected, although they don't seem so interested in attacks on Wikileaks.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/holder-says-u-s-is-looking-into-wikileaks-tied-cyber-attacks.html

I actually don't think I agree with DDoS tactics. It's basically mob rule, the people with the fattest connections and widest following will always win.

[AxisMundi]

Now you bear the burden of explaining how DDoS attacks constitute terrorism.
Who is terrorized?

You can argue that it is illegal, and I would agree. You can argue that it is immoral, and I'd agree - though I'd still defend it. You can't call it terrorism.
Nor should you. The card is played out at this point.
It used to mean something, but every time you scream "TERRORIST!" at the guy who got an extra helping at the ice cream social, it loses more of its meaning.

How is it not terrorism? It costs these companies revenue and repair costs. It interupts the service of innocent people attempting to conduct business and therefor costs them revenue as well.

Not to mention it is obviously intended to intimidate ANY company that would "dare" to comply with either g'ment requests and/or their own User Agreements and impact the Wikileaks website.

[ivflight]

You must realize that such companies as Master Card and PayPal are colluding with the government in a bureaucratic fashion in an attempt to take away our freedoms. Once such companies start collaborating with the government to do harm on our natural given rights, it is game on. The true terrorist tactics are those by the government merging with corporations to deprive us of liberty!

Collusion or not they're still attacking the "airwaves" over which people communicate their financial interests. Just because some person or business has some contact with the govt (btw, it is almost impossible not to), that doesn't grant you some trojan horse to do whatever the hell you want.

This guy thinks it is ok to rape someone who partially funded their breast implants with money gotten from a "tax deduction". "Once you use money that Uncle Sam let you keep to do something to your body, it is game on!"

[pcosmar]

Does anybody have a link to the conversations Anonymous has about what actions they're going to take? I went to 4chan.org and can't seem to find anything except Anime and soft core porn.



Many places. All over the web, Even here.
Anonymous is everywhere and anyone.

http://twitter.com/anonmediagroup
http://piratepad.net/SDt0w4bxHe

Sites get taken down, others pop up.
Discussion continues.
;)

[AxisMundi]

Clearly you have not read my previous response to your posts in this thread. Read what I said, and it is clear you are siding with the ones committing terrorist acts. Read my original post and respond to it.

I have followed our conversation back to your post with the statements from Anon. I see nothing out of place with my comments.

Please clarify.

As I have stated repeatedly, I do not side with the g'ment keeping vital information from We the People, nor do I side with the g'ment on the Wikileaks issue.

However, nor do I side with people using what are, by definition, terrorist activities aimed at not only companies merely fulfilling their part of the contract which is a User Agreement, but the countless innocents who are impacted by these attacks.

Or are you unsympathetic towards these examples of "collateral damage" in your war?

[Liberty_Mike]

Collusion or not they're still attacking the "airwaves" over which people communicate their financial interests. Just because some person or business has some contact with the govt (btw, it is almost impossible not to), that doesn't grant you some trojan horse to do whatever the hell you want.

This guy thinks it is ok to rape someone who partially funded their breast implants with money gotten from a "tax deduction". "Once you use money that Uncle Sam let you keep to do something to your body, it is game on!"

This is a fairly stupid comment of you to make. The scenario you mention is not even close to being relevant to the statement I made. You are attempting to take my statement on some bizarre/irrelevant tangent. Quit trolling.

[ivflight]

This is a fairly stupid comment of you to make. The scenario you mention is not even close to being relevant to the statement I made. You are attempting to take my statement on some bizarre/irrelevant tangent. Quit trolling.

That is not an argument.

[Fredom101]

I can't log in to my paypal account. Are they down? I love the idea of making them comply with the free market, but now I'm losing money. :(

[ivflight]

I can't log in to my paypal account. Are they down? I love the idea of making them comply with the free market, but now I'm losing money. :(

I can log in just fine.

[Fredom101]

Ok I'm in now it just took a while...

[crazyfacedjenkins]

All I see are people engaged in terrorist tactics to force companies to comply with their wishes.

Whether one is holding billions in revenue hostage or someone's elderly grandmother, terrorism is terrorism.

Spam bot get off these fucking boards. Anybody evoking the bull shit word "terrorist" is in fact a shill. How the fuck is the word even relevant to this kid????

How much do they pay you? Do you get off like those TSA agents? I bet you have your dick out right now and spank off to the sick shit you're smearing all over this board. Just look in the mirror and ask yourself if being a gov shill is really the life for you. And by look in the mirror I don't mean the sick shit you do on your weekends wearing woman's skin, putting makeup on, and repeating the phrase "would you fuck me?"

YouTube - Would You Fuck Me? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8D7PmjV4pU)

[lester1/2jr]

it's just as much the fault of these companies for gong along with the states edict against wikileaks.

I didn't see any of their customers demanding they do this.

[ivflight]

Spam bot get off these fucking boards. Anybody evoking the bull shit word "terrorist" is in fact a shill. How the fuck is the word even relevant to this kid????

How much do they pay you? Do you get off like those TSA agents? I bet you have your dick out right now and spank off to the sick shit you're smearing all over this board.

That is not an argument.

[ivflight]

it's just as much the fault of these companies for gong along with the states edict against wikileaks.

I didn't see any of their customers demanding they do this.

Most of us think income tax is wrong, but most of us still comply. Just because we comply that doesn't take away our right to be safe from attack. The governments are the ones we should be attacking. They drew first blood.

[Monarchist]

Latest Video.

YouTube - A Letter From Anonymous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI6Gc5TURnU)

Newfags :rolleyes:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/c7/AnonymousvsNewfagVert.jpg

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Most of us think income tax is wrong, but most of us still comply. Just because we comply that doesn't take away our right to be safe from attack. The governments are the ones we should be attacking. They drew first blood.

Yes it does, everyone is fair game.

[ivflight]

Yes it does, everyone is fair game.

Just so I understand, you're against any notion of morality and adhere to no principles?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Why am I not suprised you would belittle the most basic of efforts every American should be participating in, constant communication with their Elected Employees, just becasue no media is involved?

Also, Ghandi did indeed break laws. How many buildings did he blow up? How many people did he kill? Have even any statistics on how many windows were broken during the demonstrations he led?

Terrorism is, by definition, acts using violence and/or threats of violence to persons or property to coerce someone, a person, entity, or government, to capitulate to one's demands.

The continued use of the Ghandi example is not only rather silly, but damaging to the credibility of those using said example as Ghandi, by no means of the term terrorism, could be considered a terrorist.

Jesus fucking Christ are you insane??? How can you suggest what this kid did was even remotely similar to blowing up buildings?

At this point I know there is no arguing with this insanity and I can only hope you get banned.

[ivflight]

Jesus fucking Christ are you insane??? How can you suggest what this kid did was even remotely similar to blowing up buildings?

At this point I know there is no arguing with this insanity and I can only hope you get banned.

We all knew a few posts back that you have no interest in posting real arguments.

[tremendoustie]

I will not choose the side of terrorists.

So you're against the US government then, whose entire operation is based on terrorizing innocent people?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Just so I understand, you're against any notion of morality and adhere to no principles?

Aiding and abetting the enemy is just as reprehensible as the action of these banks and governments. You not only stood idle as your government bombed and killed, you also bought the weapons. Very poor excuse, you have blood on your hands.

[Liberty_Mike]

That is not an argument.

What is not an argument? You make no sense.

[ivflight]

Aiding and abetting the enemy is just as reprehensible as the action of these banks and governments. You not only stood idle as your government bombed and killed, you also bought the weapons. Very poor excuse, you have blood on your hands.

So if someone is being raped or robbed or whatever, taking the path that allows them to keep their lives is inexcusable, and the only acceptable thing for them to do is fight back blindly no matter what happens? And if you don't sacrifice yourself, then you'll be attacked again for that?

[ivflight]

What is not an argument? You make no sense.

When I say that I mean that you aren't saying anything relevant to the discussion. You're pitching ad-hominems, which is an attack on a person, rather than that person's idea. This is not useful, and is not an argument. Usually people do this when they don't have anything intelligent to say, which often happens when they realize they're wrong about something.

[Liberty_Mike]

When I say that I mean that you aren't saying anything relevant to the discussion. You're pitching ad-hominems, which is an attack on a person, rather than that person's idea. This is not useful, and is not an argument.

Actually my original post was an argument to the bizarre statement you made about me. I see what you are trying to do here, and you are trying to lead the discussion of the original topic to irrelevant tangents. What satisfaction do you get from trying to troll these threads? Bring up relevant information if you are going to try debating someone's claim.

[Liberty_Mike]

Jesus fucking Christ are you insane??? How can you suggest what this kid did was even remotely similar to blowing up buildings?

At this point I know there is no arguing with this insanity and I can only hope you get banned.

It appears Axis and Ivflight are just trolling this thread. It is unfortunate we have that going on at RP Forums. I would ignore their nonsense if I were you. I wouldn't be surprised if both are the same person. Watch their posting patterns and response to people, and it appears they very well could be the same person.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I fight for Freedom of Speech. I attend events, I write my congress-critters on a regular basis, etc.

.

Right, and how is that working out for ya?

What they are doing is called direct action. At least they are doing something, and getting noticed. It's not even really hacking, unless someone steals information about people and posts it all over or uses it maliciously, which I haven't seen happen yet.

[ivflight]

Actually my original post was an argument to the bizarre statement you made about me. I see what you are trying to do here, and you are trying to lead the discussion of the original topic to irrelevant tangents. What satisfaction do you get from trying to troll these threads? Bring up relevant information if you are going to try debating someone's claim.

That post contained a relevant argument. The "bizarre statement" I made was an extreme example which is meant to show that just because a person/business has some contact with the govt that doesn't make them open for attack from the citizens (or non-citizens in this case) like you said. Liberals use this argument all the time - they talk about how the govt invented the internet or built the roads, and then say that we all owe the govt allegiance because without them we would be nothing.

It's your turn to step up and present an argument back.

[ivflight]

Right, and how is that working out for ya?

What they are doing is called direct action. At least they are doing something, and getting noticed. It's not even really hacking, unless someone steals information about people and posts it all over or uses it maliciously, which I haven't seen happen yet.

It is similar to putting a boot on someone's car, throwing a copper mesh over their house so they can't communicate, or putting concrete dividers in front of the entry to their business. Actually, it is a lot like walking up to two people who are talking and blowing an air horn so they can't communicate anymore. Ok, they're not stealing anything in the general sense, but still causing damage in a very real sense.

[jmdrake]

Would you happen to have quotes then from British authorities of the time?

I am quite sure they considered him at the very least a royal (pun) pain in the neck, and at the most an extreme danger to their colonial power.

But organizing and urging peacful demonstrations can hardly be considered terrorism by any stretch of the imagination.

So? Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean someone else won't say it. Whoopie called opting out "terrorism". The FBI called King a "dangerous radical". You're calling "anonymous" terrorists. What do all of these people have in common?

1) They took action that gummed up commerce.

2) They didn't physically hurt anybody.

3) They didn't physically hurt any property.

That's right. The DDos doesn't hurt any property. It just slows it down for awhile. MasterCard's back up like it never went down. And it doesn't matter what the Brits called Gandhi. They arrested him. Multiple times.

[Liberty_Mike]

That post contained a relevant argument. The "bizarre statement" I made was an extreme example which is meant to show that just because a person/business has some contact with the govt that doesn't make them open for attack from the citizens (or non-citizens in this case) like you said. Liberals use this argument all the time - they talk about how the govt invented the internet or built the roads, and then say that we all owe the govt allegiance because without them we would be nothing.

It's your turn to step up and present an argument back.

According to you, we all need to sit down, shut up, and allow the government to collude with organizations whether it be a corporation, foreign government, etc. when they arbitrarily take away our liberties.

[QueenB4Liberty]

It is similar to putting a boot on someone's car, throwing a copper mesh over their house so they can't communicate, or putting concrete dividers in front of the entry to their business. Actually, it is a lot like walking up to two people who are talking and blowing an air horn so they can't communicate anymore. Ok, they're not stealing anything in the general sense, but still causing damage in a very real sense.


It's like a digital sit-in.

[jmdrake]

It is similar to putting a boot on someone's car, throwing a copper mesh over their house so they can't communicate, or putting concrete dividers in front of the entry to their business. Actually, it is a lot like walking up to two people who are talking and blowing an air horn so they can't communicate anymore. Ok, they're not stealing anything in the general sense, but still causing damage in a very real sense.

And every (successful) act of non violent civil disobedience has cause some damage in a very real sense. That's the point.

Anyhow, for a movement that identifies itself as "the original tea party", some folks have some history to read up on about "damage".

http://www.bb.ustc.edu.cn/ocw/NR/rdonlyres/History/21H-104JFall-2004/EAE5387B-6D4C-470C-BB54-3BD866DE5CD0/0/chp_bostontparty.jpg

[Cdn_for_liberty]

1) They took action that gummed up commerce.


And you don't have a problem with that?

What do the people who engage in commerce by using Paypal have to do with Wikileaks?

[ivflight]

According to you, we all need to sit down, shut up, and allow the government to collude with organizations whether it be a corporation, foreign government, etc. when they arbitrarily take away our liberties.

That isn't what I said. I specifically said that we should be attacking govt. Also, "collusion" is a very slippery slope. Like I said, almost anyone could be accused of colluding with the govt. (govt is so damned big and creeps into everything). crazyfacedjenkins seems to think this way. He thinks that because I pay taxes that fund a war that I'm essentially a murderer.

What exactly are you talking about with Paypal anyways? Colluding, that is.

[ivflight]

And every (successful) act of non violent civil disobedience has cause some damage in a very real sense. That's the point.

Anyhow, for a movement that identifies itself as "the original tea party", some folks have some history to read up on about "damage".

http://www.bb.ustc.edu.cn/ocw/NR/rdonlyres/History/21H-104JFall-2004/EAE5387B-6D4C-470C-BB54-3BD866DE5CD0/0/chp_bostontparty.jpg

I'm not a member of the tea party. Attacking a private business is not civil disobedience. I don't think the Boston Tea Party is a good example of civil disobedience.

[jmdrake]

And you don't have a problem with that?

What do the people who engage in commerce by using Paypal have to do with Wikileaks?

I see you snipped out the entire context of everything I wrote so you could dodge the point.

What did the people who bought tea have to do with the British government?

What did the people trying to get a soda have to do with segregation?

What did the innocent salt merchants have to do with the suppression of the Indian people?

In any (successful) act of civil disobedience there will be damage and there will be the potential of some innocent person being inconvenienced. Even an unauthorized protest march can slow down traffic and cause someone to be late for work. Life sucks.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

It appears Axis and Ivflight are just trolling this thread. It is unfortunate we have that going on at RP Forums. I would ignore their nonsense if I were you. I wouldn't be surprised if both are the same person. Watch their posting patterns and response to people, and it appears they very well could be the same person.

Yup I was thinking the exact same thing. Mods, can we get a check on their IPs?

[jmdrake]

I'm not a member of the tea party. Attacking a private business is not civil disobedience. I don't think the Boston Tea Party is a good example of civil disobedience.

Well there ya have it. Most of us here would disagree. So we can agree to disagree and realize it's a fundamental difference in how to define proper defense of liberty and forget the whole silly argument.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

So if someone is being raped or robbed or whatever, taking the path that allows them to keep their lives is inexcusable, and the only acceptable thing for them to do is fight back blindly no matter what happens? And if you don't sacrifice yourself, then you'll be attacked again for that?

Yup. Only a pussy bitch would stand idle while a person was getting raped. Better yet, do you stand idle because you are the type of person who jerks off to the victim getting raped?

Nice deflection though.

[ivflight]

Yup I was thinking the exact same thing. Mods, can we get a check on their IPs?

Is this what you guys do when you have trouble pushing your tyranny against reason? I have no idea who the other guy is. I've been reading Liberty Forest for a couple years now and barely ever post. I'm just posting now because I think people really have this one wrong. I'm checking this thread and posting often because other people are too and I'm responding to the comments - is that what trolling is? Why can't you guys just discuss the ideas openly and clearly?

[ivflight]

Yup. Only a pussy bitch would stand idle while a person was getting raped. Better yet, do you stand idle because you are the type of person who jerks off to the victim getting raped?

Nice deflection though.

And you're the one trying to get people kicked off the forum?

[jmdrake]

Is this what you guys do when you have trouble pushing your tyranny against reason? I have no idea who the other guy is. I've been reading Liberty Forest for a couple years now and barely ever post. I'm just posting now because I think people really have this one wrong. I'm checking this thread and posting often because other people are too and I'm responding to the comments - is that what trolling is? Why can't you guys just discuss the ideas openly and clearly?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I don't think the Boston tea party was "tyranny against reason". I think it was "action against tyranny". And I think you've got it wrong. But you're perfectly free to be wrong. ;)

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Is this what you guys do when you have trouble pushing your tyranny against reason? I have no idea who the other guy is. I've been reading Liberty Forest for a couple years now and barely ever post. I'm just posting now because I think people really have this one wrong. I'm checking this thread and posting often because other people are too and I'm responding to the comments - is that what trolling is? Why can't you guys just discuss the ideas openly and clearly?

I get yah, you're a sleeper cell who is shilling for the big corporations who collude with the government to stomp out free speech.

Ok little spam bot, if you need help understanding this one. In a free market, nobody would do business with a company that blocks, steals, or damages their customers. However these corporations have the full blessing of the government to do as they please. They deserve every attack coming to them. If the people stand idle and aid these corporations by doing business with them, then what the fuck do they expect to happen??? They are in the wrong too!

[ivflight]

Yup. Only a pussy bitch would stand idle while a person was getting raped. Better yet, do you stand idle because you are the type of person who jerks off to the victim getting raped?

Nice deflection though.

You also misread my post - no bystander was involved. The question was is the rape or robbery victim to blame for trying to keep their lives and not resisting enough? Since I am to blame for paying my taxes under duress, surely the victims of other crimes are to blame for cooperating under duress.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

You also misread my post - no bystander was involved. The question was is the rape or robbery victim to blame for trying to keep their lives and not resisting enough? Since I am to blame for paying my taxes under duress, surely the victims of other crimes are to blame for cooperating under duress.

You're not the victim, you are the attacker.

[ivflight]

I get yah, you're a sleeper cell who is shilling for the big corporations who collude with the government to stomp out free speech.

Ok little spam bot, if you need help understanding this one. In a free market, nobody would do business with a company that blocks, steals, or damages their customers. However these corporations have the full blessing of the government to do as they please. They deserve every attack coming to them. If the people stand idle and aid these corporations by doing business with them, then what the fuck do they expect to happen??? They are in the wrong too!

Please stop calling me names.

I use Paypal and I'm very unhappy about their decision. I am more motivated because of it to find other payment options. When Paypal calls me (once a year, to ask how I'm doing), it is the first thing I'll bring up. I also know that if I immediately cease using Paypal I won't have a business anymore, and all will be moot.

[tremendoustie]

You're not the victim, you are the attacker.

If you don't pay taxes you go to jail, or have your house stolen from you. The taxpayer is the victim -- if their money is used for abuse, that just makes the government doubly guilty.

[ivflight]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I don't think the Boston tea party was "tyranny against reason". I think it was "action against tyranny". And I think you've got it wrong. But you're perfectly free to be wrong. ;)

That's not even close to where that was directed.

In the Boston Tea Party case civil disobedience would have been doing something like not buying tea, or buying it from different company. If govt tries to stop that exchange, that's the time to fight back, with guns.

[jmdrake]

That isn't what I said. I specifically said that we should be attacking govt. Also, "collusion" is a very slippery slope. Like I said, almost anyone could be accused of colluding with the govt. (govt is so damned big and creeps into everything). crazyfacedjenkins seems to think this way. He thinks that because I pay taxes that fund a war that I'm essentially a murderer.

What exactly are you talking about with Paypal anyways? Colluding, that is.

There are different levels of collusion and hence different levels of culpability for collusion.

Consider civil disobedience by the Danes against the Nazis in World War 2. It was (mostly) non violent with respect to people. It was definitely violent with respect to property and with respect to "gumming up" economic works. Danes in mass refused to rat out their Jewish neighbors. Now suppose you were in that situation? The Nazis did collect taxes. Paying them would be one level of collusion. Agreeing not to trade with Jews in order to try to starve them out would be another level. Helping to operate the Nazi factories and not participating in slow downs would be another level. It's not that hard to stratify if you think about it.

[jmdrake]

That's not even close to where that was directed.

In the Boston Tea Party case civil disobedience would have been doing something like not buying tea, or buying it from different company. If govt tries to stop that exchange, that's the time to fight back, with guns.

You don't know what civil disobedience is apparently. "Not buying tea" is not it. Not unless there is a law to force to you buy tea. Civil disobedience is disobeying unjust laws. If you're just doing a boycott (and such boycotts are not illegal) that's not civil disobedience.

Now here's the problem with your scenario. You have no middle ground between obeying the government and violence. Civil disobedience gives you that middle ground.

Here's some background reading on civil disobedience.

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

[amy31416]

Please stop calling me names.

I use Paypal and I'm very unhappy about their decision. I am more motivated because of it to find other payment options. When Paypal calls me (once a year, to ask how I'm doing), it is the first thing I'll bring up. I also know that if I immediately cease using Paypal I won't have a business anymore, and all will be moot.

If the government keeps doing what they're doing, you won't have a business for much longer either.

Do you really think it'd take long for another service to crop up that will be superior to PayPal (which sucked even prior to this Wikileaks stunt), that will NOT collude with the government?

Just like GM--the gov't bailed them out, my uncle is employed by GM and my aunt said that if he lost his job, so be it--he'd find another and they'd have to tighten their belts for a while...the gov't manipulating the market always has bad long-term effects. No company lasts forever with bad business practices, no matter how much the gov't/bankers keep propping them up.

[ivflight]

You don't know what civil disobedience is apparently. "Not buying tea" is not it. Not unless there is a law to force to you buy tea. Civil disobedience is disobeying unjust laws. If you're just doing a boycott (and such boycotts are not illegal) that's not civil disobedience.

Now here's the problem with your scenario. You have no middle ground between obeying the government and violence. Civil disobedience gives you that middle ground.

Here's some background reading on civil disobedience.

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

You're correct on not buying the tea. That is an option, but not civil dis.

But I also said dealing with another company - that would have been breaking the law, and non-violent. That is civil dis. right? I don't think you can make a preemptive strike (destroying the monopoly tea) and call it civil dis. That skips right over civil dis and goes straight to violence....but isn't that what you accused me of doing??

[ivflight]

If the government keeps doing what they're doing, you won't have a business for much longer either.

Do you really think it'd take long for another service to crop up that will be superior to PayPal (which sucked even prior to this Wikileaks stunt), that will NOT collude with the government?

Just like GM--the gov't bailed them out, my uncle is employed by GM and my aunt said that if he lost his job, so be it--he'd find another and they'd have to tighten their belts for a while...the gov't manipulating the market always has bad long-term effects. No company lasts forever with bad business practices, no matter how much the gov't/bankers keep propping them up.

Fine, let them go down under normal market forces. Don't actively attack them just because you predict at some point there will be another player. I could say everything you just said about a radio station I don't like, and I could even claim that it is ok to attack them because they 'collude' with the FCC.

[jmdrake]

You're correct on not buying the tea. That is an option, but not civil dis.

But I also said dealing with another company - that would have been breaking the law, and non-violent. That is civil dis. right? I don't think you can make a preemptive strike (destroying the monopoly tea) and call it civil dis. That skips right over civil dis and goes straight to violence....but isn't that what you accused me of doing??

By violence I mean killing people. And it wasn't clear to me in your earlier post that you had stipulated the transaction was illegal. But let's go with that. So now you've gone from an illegal transaction to killing people. I would go from one illegal action that didn't kill any people to another illegal action that didn't kill any people. I put a large premium on not killing people. Not so large a premium on stuff.

[amy31416]

Fine, let them go down under normal market forces. Don't actively attack them just because you predict at some point there will be another player. I could say everything you just said about a radio station I don't like, and I could even claim that it is ok to attack them because they 'collude' with the FCC.

Expect this to be part of the "normal" market forces in the future.

It's a good thing that these companies are getting their feet held to the fire, if they act ethically and don't keep supporting/caving in to regimes who look to punish free speech, they will be stronger for it.

I'm looking forward to when they hold the US gov'ts feet to the flames for what they may potentially do to Assange.

[ivflight]

By violence I mean killing people. And it wasn't clear to me in your earlier post that you had stipulated the transaction was illegal. But let's go with that. So now you've gone from an illegal transaction to killing people. I would go from one illegal action that didn't kill any people to another illegal action that didn't kill any people. I put a large premium on not killing people. Not so large a premium on stuff.

I thought since we were talking about the Boston Tea Party it was assumed that dealing with another company was illegal. England made it illegal to buy other tea.

Ok, fine, England made an unjust law. We can either start destroying stuff, or just ignore the law and buy whatever tea we want. Ignoring the law is civil disobedience. But what happens if England physically tries to interfere with us trading tea freely? Presumably this interference would be violent (not just a "tssk tssk"). We are then justified in defending our freedom with violence.

[jmdrake]

I thought since we were talking about the Boston Tea Party it was assumed that dealing with another company was illegal. England made it illegal to buy other tea.

Ok, fine, England made an unjust law. We can either start destroying stuff, or just ignore the law and buy whatever tea we want. Ignoring the law is civil disobedience. But what happens if England physically tries to interfere with us trading tea freely? Presumably this interference would be violent (not just a "tssk tssk"). We are then justified in defending our freedom with violence.

Well one option is to resort to shooting people at that point. The other option is to execute the better part of valor, go home, wait until nightfall, then go back to the ship and start throwing the collaborator's tea overboard. Make it more expensive for them to deal with the crown. After all, the taxes they are collecting on behalf of the crown in exchange for their immoral monopoly helps buy the bullets that will ill us later once there are non shooting options left. Again, I put a high premium on not killing people. Not so high a premium on not destroying stuff.

[ivflight]

Well one option is to resort to shooting people at that point. The other option is to execute the better part of valor, go home, wait until nightfall, then go back to the ship and start throwing the collaborator's tea overboard. Make it more expensive for them to deal with the crown. After all, the taxes they are collecting on behalf of the crown in exchange for their immoral monopoly helps buy the bullets that will ill us later once there are non shooting options left. Again, I put a high premium on not killing people. Not so high a premium on not destroying stuff.

I never said that you should just start shooting. I said you should start shooting BACK. For someone to stop you from doing something they'll have to use violence - shoot you, threaten you, put you in shackles. You don't have to go on a rampage, but you're certainly justified in defending your freedom when someone tries to take it.

Maybe instead of sneaking out at night and destroying stuff you could sneak out and trade tea freely? That would be civil disobedience.

Are you saying that if I start destroying your stuff you won't use violence to stop me? Destroying people's stuff can easily result in loss of life.

[jmdrake]

I never said that you should just start shooting. I said you should start shooting BACK. For someone to stop you from doing something they'll have to use violence - shoot you, threaten you, put you in shackles. You don't have to go on a rampage, but you're certainly justified in defending your freedom when someone tries to take it.

You listed 3 options the oppressor might use. Shooting, threatening and "putting you in shackles". Option 1 is easy to deflect. Just leave. Option 3....well most people who are committed to civ dis are willing to go to prison. (Helps gum up the works). Option 2 is the only one where you really need to shoot back. (And Ghandi was against even that).



Maybe instead of sneaking out at night and destroying stuff you could sneak out and trade tea freely? That would be civil disobedience.


Yeah. You could do that.



Are you saying that if I start destroying your stuff you won't use violence to stop me? Destroying people's stuff can easily result in loss of life.

Well the BEI company didn't start shooting at the colonists. Of course they were punks. ;) As for me, I wouldn't be ripping you off in the first place or helping the government rip you off, so I wouldn't be a target for civil disobedience. But to answer your question more directly, if you were destroying my stuff would I kill you? No. I've already said multiple times, I put a much higher premium on people than stuff.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, no property has even been destroyed. There's only opportunity costs. Not even any "stuff" has been destroyed.

[ivflight]

I'll accept that you're allowed to run away from a person who is shooting or going to shoot you for engaging in trade if you accept that I'm allowed to shoot back. Both responses are moral, it is just a personal decision at that point.

It is impressive that you wouldn't protect your own property from aggression, but that's your call, I guess. As long as you don't plan on stopping me from protecting my stuff, we can be friends.






Anyway, back to the subject at hand, no property has even been destroyed. There's only opportunity costs. Not even any "stuff" has been destroyed.

No. If I smashed up your car I could say, "well, all the same stuff is still there, it hasn't be destroyed, you just lose the usefullness of it while you spend the time putting it back together." Conservation of matter aside, property exists because of the opportunity costs allow it to.

[jmdrake]

I'll accept that you're allowed to run away from a person who is shooting or going to shoot you for engaging in trade if you accept that I'm allowed to shoot back. Both responses are moral, it is just a personal decision at that point.

It is impressive that you wouldn't protect your own property from aggression, but that's your call, I guess. As long as you don't plan on stopping me from protecting my stuff, we can be friends.


I didn't say I wouldn't protect my stuff. I just would kill anybody over stuff. Tackling someone, sicking my dog on them, tazer, whatever. I just would kill. (By the way. Under current law if you kill someone even in defense of your stuff you can't legally claim self defense in any state that I know of. You have to believe that you or someone else is in danger of imminent physical harm.)



No. If I smashed up your car I could say, "well, all the same stuff is still there, it hasn't be destroyed, you just lose the usefullness of it while you spend the time putting it back together." Conservation of matter aside, property exists because of the opportunity costs allow it to.

Bad analogy. If you smash my car it's no longer physically worth as much. A better analogy would be if you put a boot on my car so I couldn't use it. I couldn't drive my car so I couldn't go to work. I couldn't go to work so I lost money. At the end of the day my car is worth the same amount. Yes there is an opportunity cost. Life sucks. If a bunch of people decide all at one day to opt out of the porno scanners and go for the pat downs that could slow down the TSA so much that it takes me too long to get through line. I might miss my connecting flight. As a result of missing my connecting flight I might miss out on some important business deal. Life sucks. You worry about the "slippery slope"? Well you seem to be on the Whoppie Goldberg "anybody who's resistance to government tyranny causes someone else an inconvenience is a terrorist" slope.

[AxisMundi]

Spam bot get off these fucking boards. Anybody evoking the bull shit word "terrorist" is in fact a shill. How the fuck is the word even relevant to this kid????

How much do they pay you? Do you get off like those TSA agents? I bet you have your dick out right now and spank off to the sick shit you're smearing all over this board. Just look in the mirror and ask yourself if being a gov shill is really the life for you. And by look in the mirror I don't mean the sick shit you do on your weekends wearing woman's skin, putting makeup on, and repeating the phrase "would you fuck me?"



When one lacks a credible argument, one resorts to insults.

[libertybrewcity]

almost 1,200,000 friends on facebook and almost 500,000 followers on twitter. join today!

[AxisMundi]

it's just as much the fault of these companies for gong along with the states edict against wikileaks.

I didn't see any of their customers demanding they do this.

So the customers should suffer as well?

[AxisMundi]

Jesus fucking Christ are you insane??? How can you suggest what this kid did was even remotely similar to blowing up buildings?

At this point I know there is no arguing with this insanity and I can only hope you get banned.

My, how American of you. You don;t like what someone says so you suggest their speech be curtailed.

What this kid did is certainly violence. Property crimes are violent crimes. Whether you break a window or cost a company revenue by shutting down their servers.

[ivflight]

jmdrake,

You keep pushing that I have some binary approach where I either conduct business peacefully or kill people. I never said that. I agree with the tackle/tazer/whatever first, but this kind of thing quickly escalates into a life-threatening situation. I have no interest in killing people.

You made it clear that as long as the property stays intact that the productivity lost doesn't matter. If I smashed up your car all the matter would still be there, you would just have to spend the next 2 years putting it back together. Boot, smashed, whatever, you don't get to use it, and the damage is done, and there is no turning back the clock.

[AxisMundi]

So you're against the US government then, whose entire operation is based on terrorizing innocent people?

I am indeed against those terrorist activities carried out by our government, yes.

[RCA]

Fuck the "authorities".





Pay particular attention to the bold.

what's your source?

[jmdrake]

jmdrake,

You keep pushing that I have some binary approach where I either conduct business peacefully or kill people. I never said that. I agree with the tackle/tazer/whatever first, but this kind of thing quickly escalates into a life-threatening situation. I have no interest in killing people.


You said Destroying people's stuff can easily result in loss of life. I'm not trying to push anything on you. But I don't see me doing anything that would "quickly escalate into a life threatening situation" over stuff. I mentioned a tazer, but I don't even own one. Anyhow I don't even think this is really an important part of the conversation.



You made it clear that as long as the property stays intact that the productivity lost doesn't matter. If I smashed up your car all the matter would still be there, you would just have to spend the next 2 years putting it back together. Boot, smashed, whatever, you don't get to use it, and the damage is done, and there is no turning back the clock.

If you smash my car I can't just "put it back together". :rolleyes: Have you ever tried to glue a smashed windshield? That's just a silly argument. A car isn't made out of Lego blocks where you can just "snap it all back together again" given enough time. Some parts you might be able to "bang back together", but many you would have to buy.

Anyway, I see you didn't even attempt to address my TSA analogy. So do you agree with Whoopie Goldberg about the "opt out" day people being terrorists or not? Clearly there was potential opportunity costs if flights got delayed. The TSA backed down. Terrorism yea or nay?

[pcosmar]

what's your source?

Anonymous, via the Internet.
:)

[ivflight]

You said Destroying people's stuff can easily result in loss of life. I'm not trying to push anything on you. But I don't see me doing anything that would "quickly escalate into a life threatening situation" over stuff. I mentioned a tazer, but I don't even own one. Anyhow I don't even think this is really an important part of the conversation.



If you smash my car I can't just "put it back together". :rolleyes: Have you ever tried to glue a smashed windshield? That's just a silly argument. A car isn't made out of Lego blocks where you can just "snap it all back together again" given enough time. Some parts you might be able to "bang back together", but many you would have to buy.

Anyway, I see you didn't even attempt to address my TSA analogy. So do you agree with Whoopie Goldberg about the "opt out" day people being terrorists or not? Clearly there was potential opportunity costs if flights got delayed. The TSA backed down. Terrorism yea or nay?

If someone thought they were doing something just (suppose they thought they were doing something equivalent to protecting their children) and you tried to tackle/taze them to stop their efforts, it isn't hard to imagine this escalating. Once you tackle/taze them, it stops being about stuff, and it is an attack on their person, and they'll probably defend themselves.

Like I said, all of the matter is there. Glass and metal can be reformed. You can spend the time doing it. It might take more like 10 years to get it done. If you're still caught up on thinking about glue, we can switch the example over to me completely disassembling your car and leaving the parts all over your yard, some in a tree, some on the roof. You're not going to get away with telling me that taking away someone's time/opportunity isn't damage because there was no literal broken window.

[pcosmar]

Tactics are changing,

http://i.imgur.com/y5SrO.gif

[Feeding the Abscess]

Now THIS is a good strategy. Might I suggest the Afghan boy prostitute cable?

[pcosmar]

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23anon


Do you remember the day when constitutions were replaced by terms of use?

:(

[pcosmar]

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23Leakspin

http://www.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/1291941424225.gif

[jmdrake]

If someone thought they were doing something just (suppose they thought they were doing something equivalent to protecting their children) and you tried to tackle/taze them to stop their efforts, it isn't hard to imagine this escalating. Once you tackle/taze them, it stops being about stuff, and it is an attack on their person, and they'll probably defend themselves.

Like I said, all of the matter is there. Glass and metal can be reformed. You can spend the time doing it. It might take more like 10 years to get it done. If you're still caught up on thinking about glue, we can switch the example over to me completely disassembling your car and leaving the parts all over your yard, some in a tree, some on the roof. You're not going to get away with telling me that taking away someone's time/opportunity isn't damage because there was no literal broken window.

:rolleyes: You're not going to get away with saying ridiculous things like "Because all the matter is still there it hasn't been destroyed." You're being intellectually dishonest to try to prove a point that is clearly wrong.

Bring you back to reality, if I put a boot on your car and then take it off you don't have to do anything special to start using it again. So quit trying to compare apples to orangutans. Your "car is smashed, but it can be reformed" analogy would be like someone causing a person's hard disk to crash. Sure the "data is still there" and the FBI might be able to bring it back up. Or you might be able to bring it back online by doing a restore from an offline backup. But you have to take some kind of intervention before the server goes live again. So enough of your BS nonsense and snide superior attitude. Take your "I'm not going to let you get away with" crap and shove it.

[ivflight]

:rolleyes: You're not going to get away with saying ridiculous things like "Because all the matter is still there it hasn't been destroyed." You're being intellectually dishonest to try to prove a point that is clearly wrong.

Bring you back to reality, if I put a boot on your car and then take it off you don't have to do anything special to start using it again. So quit trying to compare apples to orangutans. Your "car is smashed, but it can be reformed" analogy would be like someone causing a person's hard disk to crash. Sure the "data is still there" and the FBI might be able to bring it back up. Or you might be able to bring it back online by doing a restore from an offline backup. But you have to take some kind of intervention before the server goes live again. So enough of your BS nonsense and snide superior attitude. Take your "I'm not going to let you get away with" crap and shove it.

I presented a different example where I just took your car apart (you ignored this). The simple argument I'm making is that you can't look at a situation and say that just because there is no broken glass on the ground nothing has been damaged. Our time and efforts are what allow the property to exist, if you take that away there is still real damage. You seem to be saying that if I stole your car away for a few years but returned it in the exact same condition all is ok, no foul.

[jmdrake]

I presented a different example where I just took your car apart (you ignored this). The simple argument I'm making is that you can't look at a situation and say that just because there is no broken glass on the ground nothing has been damaged. Our time and efforts are what allow the property to exist, if you take that away there is still real damage. You seem to be saying that if I stole your car away for a few years but returned it in the exact same condition all is ok, no foul.

Fine. You "disassemble" my car. That's still not the same as blocking my website! If you want to compare apples to apples then talk about rearranging my files or wiping my hard disk but leaving me a backup! Of course you don't actually want to compare apples to apples do you?

Face it. Your analogies don't fit. At the end of the day MasterCard was back online without MasterCard having to do anything to bring it back up. They didn't have to rearrange files or restore any backups or manipulate any code. It was just "It's down for a few hours...and now its back up". Again, the only accurate analogy is my putting a boot on your car and then removing it or my blocking you in your parking space by double parking and then moving. Now make the case that blocking you in is "violence" and quit with the analogies that in your heart you know don't make sense.

[cswake]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/10/credit-card-wikileaks-online-trade


Cyber attacks by WikiLeaks' defenders hit online traders badly

Traders report big drop in sales this week, when attacks on credit card companies started

[ivflight]

Fine. You "disassemble" my car. That's still not the same as blocking my website! If you want to compare apples to apples then talk about rearranging my files or wiping my hard disk but leaving me a backup! Of course you don't actually want to compare apples to apples do you?

Face it. Your analogies don't fit. At the end of the day MasterCard was back online without MasterCard having to do anything to bring it back up. They didn't have to rearrange files or restore any backups or manipulate any code. It was just "It's down for a few hours...and now its back up". Again, the only accurate analogy is my putting a boot on your car and then removing it or my blocking you in your parking space by double parking and then moving. Now make the case that blocking you in is "violence" and quit with the analogies that in your heart you know don't make sense.

Taking the car apart is your boot example to an extreme. Tools will be required, etc... Let's just go with your analogy. You really think that putting a boot on someone's car doesn't disrupt them in a way that affects them?

Ok, let's kill the analogies.

If you take down somebody's website the people who shop there won't be able to get their stuff, and the business won't be able to sell the stuff. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship but you stop them for some reason. They aren't able to trade and will have to pursue a less efficient option, leaving both groups poorer than they otherwise would be. This is why free trade is good.

[libertygrl]

They sure didn't waste anytime did they?

http://images9.cpcache.com/product/230254769v8_480x480_Front_Color-Black.jpg

http://www.cafepress.com/+anon_pride_v2_tshirt,230254769

[One Last Battle!]

Taking the car apart is your boot example to an extreme. Tools will be required, etc... Let's just go with your analogy. You really think that putting a boot on someone's car doesn't disrupt them in a way that affects them?

Ok, let's kill the analogies.

If you take down somebody's website the people who shop there won't be able to get their stuff, and the business won't be able to sell the stuff. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship but you stop them for some reason. They aren't able to trade and will have to pursue a less efficient option, leaving both groups poorer than they otherwise would be. This is why free trade is good.

Ok, lets kill the analogies.

If you sit in the front of the bus, the white people who sit there won't be able to sit there and the bus company's driver will have to sit beside a black person. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship, but that black person is stopping them for some reason. They aren't able to sit and will have to sit at the back of the bus, leaving both groups less satisfied than they otherwise would be. This is why segregation is good.

/

If you sit in the restaurant, the white people who eat there won't be able to take a seat and the restaurant won't be able to sell food. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship but you stop them for some reason. They aren't able to trade and will have to pursue a less efficient option, leaving both groups poorer than they otherwise would be.

[reduen]

Ok, lets kill the analogies.

If you sit in the front of the bus, the white people who sit there won't be able to sit there and the bus company's driver will have to sit beside a black person. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship, but that black person is stopping them for some reason. They aren't able to sit and will have to sit at the back of the bus, leaving both groups less satisfied than they otherwise would be. This is why segregation is good.

/

If you sit in the restaurant, the white people who eat there won't be able to take a seat and the restaurant won't be able to sell food. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship but you stop them for some reason. They aren't able to trade and will have to pursue a less efficient option, leaving both groups poorer than they otherwise would be.

One thing that occurs to me here is that there may be a difference where in the case of a ddos attack, the attackers are not actually patronizing these businesses themselves

[One Last Battle!]

One thing that occurs to me here is that there may be a difference where in the case of a ddos attack, the attackers are not actually patronizing these businesses themselves

In the case of a DDoS attack, the attackers are using their computer/internet's power to patronize the business. The attacker will often be severely slowed down himself, if not completely stopped from doing anything but DDoSing.

[jmdrake]

Taking the car apart is your boot example to an extreme. Tools will be required, etc... Let's just go with your analogy. You really think that putting a boot on someone's car doesn't disrupt them in a way that affects them?


Not if I take the boot off for you. The only tool you need is a key to start 'er up. Same thing if I double park and then move. Applying to a DDOS, once the attacker turns the attack off the defender needs no "tools" to bring his website back up.

Further I didn't say putting a boot on doesn't disrupt them. In fact that's the point of my analogy! Not all "disruptions" are violent! When Joe Wilson shouted "You lie" in the middle of Obama's speech that was a disruption. (Perfectly fine in my opinion).



Ok, let's kill the analogies.

If you take down somebody's website the people who shop there won't be able to get their stuff, and the business won't be able to sell the stuff. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship but you stop them for some reason. They aren't able to trade and will have to pursue a less efficient option, leaving both groups poorer than they otherwise would be. This is why free trade is good.

Yeah, fine. Good. Wonderful. Free trade is all hunky dory. I never said it wasn't. But disrupting free trade is not in and of itself violent. Let's go back to your "I'll use non disruptive civil disobedience and start shooting if I have to in self defense" position. Don't you think that might "disrupt" some innocent third party commerce too? Life sucks. People move on. The cool think about free markets, they are surprising resilient to disruption.

[ivflight]

Ok, lets kill the analogies.

If you sit in the front of the bus, the white people who sit there won't be able to sit there and the bus company's driver will have to sit beside a black person. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship, but that black person is stopping them for some reason. They aren't able to sit and will have to sit at the back of the bus, leaving both groups less satisfied than they otherwise would be. This is why segregation is good.

/

If you sit in the restaurant, the white people who eat there won't be able to take a seat and the restaurant won't be able to sell food. The buyer/seller would like to have a relationship but you stop them for some reason. They aren't able to trade and will have to pursue a less efficient option, leaving both groups poorer than they otherwise would be.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Businesses should be allowed to decide who they do business with and govern their own property. You seem to be against freedom of association.

jmdrake, the question we are debating is if ddos does damage. I'm not sure I can explain how it does any clearer. Isn't the point of the ddos to do damage? I don't know you but I would bet if I kept you from driving your car, even for a few minutes, you would be pissed, and rightfully so.

[JVParkour]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Coldsteel1/SexCable.jpg

Something I made up, if yall wanna spread it.

[AxisMundi]

Tactics are changing,

http://i.imgur.com/y5SrO.gif

Now THAT is a tactic I can agree with.

Fighting misinformation with information.

Fighting infringements on Free Speech with Free Speech.