British Minister likens Anonymous to fascists and racists Hacktivist cabal Anonymous has continued its attack on UK government websites in retaliation to the UK’s treatment of Julian Assange, this time hitting former Wales and Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain. Hain told the BBC he feels Anonymous' actions resemble those he experienced in the “anti-apartheid and anti-fascist …
.. and it's not as absurd as it sounds. the Lockerbie accused were tried in the Netherlands (Camp Zeist), by a Scottish court, and the media made a great deal about how that part of the country had become British, sorry Scottish (in case a referendum goes the SNP's way), soil for the duration of the trial.
>>have you considered that they might be thinking they are heroes of the minority,
That still sounds like something you could say of terrorists.
I dislike Anon but regardless of that I think the only long term legacy they might leave is INCREASED security and DECREASED privacy, because they perfectly embody what everyone is worried about in an ungoverned internet.
Now first of all, to be completely fair, it is really hard to speak about a group such as Anonymous without painting with too broad of a brush since literally anyone could do just about anything under the "Anonymous" banner. That makes it extremely difficult to characterize a group such as this, because it is really many groups (and probably even some lone wolves to boot) that have differing agendas and are trying to achieve different things through different methods. So I am sure that what I am about to write below won't apply to every single person that is part of Anonymous or every single action that has ever been done in Anonymous's name.
With that disclaimer stated, I have always viewed online groups that go after others (such as Anonymous often does) as largely being more like an online version of mob justice, only instead of using torches and pitchforks to attack the target of their ire they use distributed denial of service attacks to shut websites down and hacking attacks to expose damaging personal information to the media. Just like with any other large angry mob trying to achieve "justice," it is often easy to overlook or even feel yourself silently approving what they are doing because the people and organizations that they target are often extremely unpopular. Who wouldn't want to see someone cause grief for the large fat cat banks and credit card companies out there, or hack child porn websites to expose the personal information of alleged pedophiles to the authorities? It is *extremely* hard to ever defend those kinds of lowlife scum of society, so it is super easy to look the other way when Anonymous or some other group launches a vigilante campaign against them. But even so, what mobs such as Anonymous are doing is still wrong, because they are bypassing their target's right to due process in a court of law.
One of the things that defines the modern societies that many of us enjoy today is that the accused have a right to their day in court. In British Law-influenced legal systems at least we have been given that right since the days of Clause 29 of the Magna Carta. Due process is necessary because circumstantial evidence can often be mis-leading, and innocent people can often look as guilty as sin because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have interests or associates that happen to look very damning when placed under scrutiny. In a trial there is at least some hope that the truth will come to light and the innocent will go free, but in mob justice the accused's fate is already pre-determined, and they're going to be burned at the stake whether they actually happen to be guilty or not. The members that make up the goon squads of Anonymous and other online groups are human just like anyone else, and as a result they are just as capable of getting caught up in the emotion of the moment and making mistakes just like everyone else. I am sure that there have been people who have had their reputations and/or businesses seriously harmed or damaged needlessly by online vigilante groups when they were targeted erroneously. Just look at this most recent article-- people working under the banner of Anonymous targeted Peter Hain, who had been a supporter of Assange and other causes that are generally considered to be in-line with the Anonymous cause. If that doesn't help drive home my point that these online vigilantes aren't always as discriminating as they should be when choosing their online targets than I don't know what does!
The fact that this kind of online mob justice seems to be becoming a larger and more prominent trend every week is frankly very troubling, and online mobs are springing up to target just about anything that happens to be considered the online target du jour. It's like trolls flaming others with differing opinions isn't enough for some people anymore-- now I am seeing more and more instances where the trolls are actively trying to wreck the real-lives of the people that they don't get along with too. For example, I found an online goon squad that was actively researching the organizers of a local event, and making anything damaging that they could find (such as past criminal records, embarrassing online accounts, etc.) available to the local media as part of an organized smear campaign that they felt obliged to undertake. In other words, this online group decided that their dislike of the presence of an event that they didn't have to attend nor pay any attention to was worth trying to publicly humiliate other people for! For crying out loud-- you no longer need a government "Stasi" trying to turn neighbor against neighbor-- it seems that as soon as you sit certain people down behind a computer screen they lose all sense of civility, empathy, and the "Golden Rule", and instead feel that they have suddenly been granted the divine right to ruin others who don't subscribe to their own sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with people disliking something and voicing their opinions against it, but this trend of groups destroying or interfering with other's online assets, services, and/or personal lives is crossing a line, and the Internet as a whole is not better for it.
"Anonymous Coward" for obvious reasons!
This post has been deleted by its author
The comment that began "Now first of all, to be completely fair, it is really hard to speak about a group such as Anonymous without ..." (Posted Monday 27th August 2012 05:07 GMT) ...
... is the type of perceptive and well written comment that keeps me coming back to El Reg. Thank you. Somewhat ironic that you wrote a piece like this and then posted it ANONYMOUSLY :)
Anonymous are just the latest incarnation of an old phenomenon... Adolescents feeling estranged from and frustrated with the system, trying to make themselves heard by any means necessary.
And this is where that minister should be looking at himself and asking what has he done to engage those who might be swayed into anonymous's path.
Hang on a minute
Did Natalie Apostolou actually read the resolution, apparently not, so for those of you who would actually like to know what the OAs said it was this:
http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-67
And just in case you wondered what the FO said, it was this.
‘‘You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. — the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act — which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the embassy.’’
Not much of a threat, but a dumb thing to say to a South American country, where they just love making them selves look good by standing up to the imperialistic europeans. Something that hasn't been true for the last 40 years, but helps the public image back home, no matter what the truth.
Any one who really thinks the UK would actually raid an Embassy for an alleged common criminal, is just as stupid as the FO wonk who thought a reminder of UK law was a good idea.
FAQ | House Rules
This Anonymous, are we really supposed to assume that it is an organised group of people hacking computers, or is it a complete set-up, which, once it is made to become unpopular in the press, will be used to justify further laws being passed by governments worldwide, to limit freedom in ways we will only discover too late? It seems far too farcical to be real.
Hain told the BBC he feels Anonymous' actions resemble those he experienced in the “anti-apartheid and anti-fascist struggles."
The above statement is not at all the same as saying that the "British Minister likens Anonymous to fascists and racists". Are they being called fascists and racists OR is the Minister merely pointing out that similar actions were taken against him by ANTI-fascist groups? It smacks of careless reporting to me.
The headlines calls Peter Hain a minister - he is not.
The headline says that Peter Hain likened Anonymous to fascists and racists. He did not. He merely said that he's suffered attacks from those people in the past in the same way that he's suffering attacks from Anonymous now.
The story says that the OAS condemned British 'threats'. It did not. It actually issued a rather bland statement about the inviolabiltiy of diplomatic premises and urged the UK and Ecuador to come to some agreement.
Are you proud of your journalism, Natalie?
As for Pinochet, there are some facts that seem to be forgotten here. The first is that he was arrested in the first place. This was unprecedented. The second was that he fought a 16-month legal battle against extradition. Who do you think he was fighting? Have a good think about those two facts. He was finally released on medical grounds. Admittedly that was a bit convenient, but it was done by a party and a minister that are not in power now, and was fully compliant with the law.
..... then rope in/hope media spin their sad and sorry tales to try and breathe life into the rotten corpse of a story.*
"It appears some people who shall not be named, have mistaken the word Hain for the word Haig." .... I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects Posted Monday 27th August 2012 02:59 GMT
As two minnows/pilot phishes all at sea in the shark pool, I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects, only doing and saying what they have been briefed to say.
Does anyone else realise that politicians and wannabe statesmen have lost all relevance and credibility in this fabulous fab and fabless age of instant transparent intelligence sharing which so easily poses them questions which they would either choose not to answer, with a deft and apt deflection into their posing of another carefully craftily worded question with a kinder answer, or answer wrongly and badly, either because they do not know of a smart answer or that which they know in a presently correct answer will not server them well in the future, for it is one which would not be at all as being suitable for everyone and may even be specifically designed to ensure the dominant predominance of a corrupt and perverse few?
Or do you think/not think that times have changed with these new virtual intelligence spaces which discuss such matters for all to comment on and be edutained quite surreally and sublimely.
George Orwell would have loved IT and can you imagine what he would have done with IT?
Dear Mr Cameron and Team UKGBNI,
Please can we all have some inspired universal novel leadership for a pleasant and radical change which is absolutely necessary and tediously long overdue?
Failing that, please get off the pot whilst the choice is still yours to make not in disgrace.
DEFT and APT are so much more than just deft and apt ...... and the worlds that you live in are more simply complex and inextricably entangled than you have ever before been able to imagine and realise and virtualise, with any order of those three skills in combination able to deliver all orders of those three arts in a unity of purpose with the singularity of achievement ......and future product placements for continual current replacement of present events which are relegated to historical memory and past record for dumb archives ....... and you can be sure that that is just the start of the picture and only the beginning of what is store for the future?
And posed as a question so that you can wallow in the sweet sticky discomfort of nagging ignorant and arrogant doubt.
* And they are all both utterly practically and virtually useless at it, without IT Command and Control, as is clearly evidenced with the persistent chaos in markets collapsed and trying to survive with mountains of debts to sell to no one.
So in the eyes of Anonmous and other 'freedom of speech fighters' the best way for me to avoid being held responsible of serious crimes such as rape is to post politically sensitive material on the internet? The assumption being made is that the rape claims have been made up so the USA can punish him. This is based on what? Knowledge of the full details of the charges or internet celebrity status? At what point would does everyone think the seriousness of the crime out wieghs Assanges 'freedom fighter' status? Do the laws of the land no longer apply to him? Lets face it, provided he's not captured on film, he can pretty much do what the hell he likes, any charge made against him would dismissed as an attack against freedom of speech.
Conspiracy theories don't bother me, if you want to spend your life coming up with fanciful reasons as to why we didn't go to moon, or how little grey men did crash at Roswell, great, go for it you aren't harming anyone. However, if your potential protecting a rapist thats a different thing altogether. He's a swedish citizen, formally charged with rape in Sweden. He should be extradited and face the charges.
And am I the only one thats concerned that the Ecudorian president belives that rape isn't an offence worthy of being a crime?
"if you want to spend your life coming up with fanciful reasons as to why we didn't go to moon, or how little grey men did crash at Roswell,"
1. Massive conspiracy involving huge numbers of people, decoy rockets and the ability to fake radio transmissions from numerous points around the Earth.
2. Cover up of crashed alien spaceship in America and recovery of little bipedal alien pilots.
3. US government willing to set up someone who has massively embarrassed them.
One of these is not like the others.
I'm not saying he is or isn't innocent of the charges in Sweden, but lets avoid classing the idea that the US government might lie with Space aliens and mocked up moon landings. If you really think they are the same, then I have some very sad things to tell you about US history.
"... I have always viewed online groups that go after others (such as Anonymous often does) as largely being more like an online version of mob justice, only instead of using torches and pitchforks to attack the target of their ire they use distributed denial of service attacks..." -- Agreed. Anonymous always seem to remind me of that bunch of Sun/DailyFail readers who, in the height of the paedophile frenzy that was whipped up by the media all those years ago, subsequently went on to vent their fury at their local paediatrician. Just as misguided, but more tech-savvy. However...
"...what mobs such as Anonymous are doing is still wrong, because they are bypassing their target's right to due process in a court of law." -- I think most of the targets in question are those who probably have enough clout in society to influence, or even avoid, the legal process. Underhanded techniques are probably the only way one can do battle with the likes of UK Govt. Inc.
"Are they being called fascists and racists OR is the Minister merely pointing out that similar actions were taken against him by ANTI-fascist groups? It smacks of careless reporting to me." -- Unfortunately, this is the current trend of 'sensationalism' in modern journalism. Even the Beeb do it. Sad.
The Australia state is an utterly shameful US lacky for not backing their own countryman when the US state blatantly wants to harm him, and there is ample evidence it will!
The Swedish state frivolously want deportation without charges for dubious accusations and won't even consider interviewing Julian at the Ecuador embassy, even after a well known offer; this is suspicious.
The UK, this area of land I am of, should stop lacky-dasically going down the same road to Fascism that the US is charging down, and should have refused deportation for these flimsy reasons, when there is the very real danger that the US will get Julian from Sweden and do terrible things to him. The UK state rep.(s) who sent that letter to the Ecuador embassy should be demoted or sacked and the UK state back down; otherwise a precedent will be set which UK people in foreign lands will suffer for.
The rule of law is breaking down in the UK and US, due to broken civil representation trying to and even passing Evil law, this is why rebels and Anarchists, like Anonymous and WikiLeaks are necessary even with some 'mob' (but no physical harm) mistakes e.g. the outrageous crimes committed by the state, MPs and effectively unpunished financial organisation gangsterism, make what this man is accused of look utterly trivial in comparison.
.. you lay off the double espressos for a while?
utterly shameful
lacky
blatantly
ample evidence (not in this post, nor in the real world)
frivolously
dubious accusations
suspicious.
lacky-dasically
Fascism (wow, we're approaching Godwin's law here)
flimsy reasons
very real danger
terrible things
Evil law
unpunished financial organisation gangsterism
utterly trivial
My compliments - a post entirely without substance, facts or even logic. You're complaining about the breakdown of law, and then promote anarchy as a solution. Maybe you should lie down for a bit.
"Correa told the UK’s Sunday Times that the sex crime allegations made against Assange would not be deemed a crime in Latin America. "The crimes that Assange is accused of, they would not be crimes in 90 to 95 per cent of the planet," he said."
Sadly, that is probably true, but nothing to shout or boast about really.
"they want to extradite Julian Assange for not using a condom, for the love of God"
Yes, but that's not the only charge.
The other one was shagging the other girl the morning after in her sleep.
Sounds more like misjudgement of what is acceptable in the relationship in question. (Especially since they were fromdifferent cultures). Odds are he was expecting her to reaction to be "What a lovely way to wake up"
If the stories are true that the two girls only really got upset after they met each other, and presumably realised they were being two timed, then that adds a huge layer of doubt.
My reading of the situation is he is a love rat who got caught out and upset the wrong girls, in the wrong country at the wrong time.
If so, he deserved some crap, but not the situation he is in.
What's with down voting a question?
I wish El Reg would link your up/down votes to the voter, or at least make a comment as to why the up/down - I mean it's just confusing otherwise.
The original response was tantelising and vague, my question sought to clarify what was meant. Am I supposed to understand that asking questions can now be viewed with a negative slant? Is it personal? Is it the original poster who, realising he was wrong, is seeking to oppress any other posters who might highlight this fact? Is it a distraction technique to villify me whilst sketching over an over-zealous Apache helicopter pilot with white emulsion? Perhaps it was the mouse equiavalent of a typo? Who the fuck knows, and who cares right? Well, I CARE..NURSE..MEDS!!m"!"2!!1 aarrrgrhrhrghrh<end of transmission>
If the Ecuadorian president thinks that sexual assualt is not a crime, then perhaps it's time to tell him that his seedy little country doesn't meet standards of common decency, and to expel his ambassador and diplomatic staff until they apologise? I doubt very much if we need them more than they need us.
Its strange how people and more often Politicians will more often than not tend to refer the "group anonymous" as if it were part of a close nit goverment department that met ,made decisions and acted up on them in unison.
Whilst there may be a hard core of people whos online activity is in their name the whole point of the group as I see it is that it could be anybody anywhere, acting in a way they consider to be correct against the oppressive actions of others.A whole different ball of wool to that being broadcast by the Guberment.
As for the Assage matter, its a sotarical farce from the 60s Carry on era with many actors all playing a part in making bad decisions with undercurrents of subdefuge and skull duggery.They should make a film about the story it woulkd make a bomb at the cinema.
Calling people who disagree with him facists....
Thats a bit rich coming from the man who's contribution to the anti-apartide campaign was going to a Great Britain-South Africa rugby match, buying a pint of beer, drinking it, then smashing the glass and throwing it on the pitch.
A level of action about equal to the stupidity of anonymous
This post has been deleted by its author
Perhaps some kind of extra-judicial revenge is what you had in mind? With or without the rest of the world watching? Perhaps you can suggest what and who is on your wish list. In public.
And what kind of clowns do you think they have in there, the Marcel-Marceau types or more the kind with squirty buttonholes?
But they all dress like diplomats, right?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
