Anonymous turns on 'one man Julian Assange show' Wikileaks Members of hacker collective Anonymous have stopped supporting Wikileaks after the site put up a paywall, saying that Wikileaks is more bothered about Julian Assange™ than getting information to the public. In a statement on Pastebin, linked through from Anonymous Twitter account AnonymousIRC, the group said Wikileaks had …
".....is that the sound of a penny dropping ?"
Don't worry, Local Dupe, Sir Rediculous Spoon, RICHTO and associated Faithful will be along soon to insist it's all a copnspiracy, that Bushitler posted it on the Anon channel inbetween scheming new ways to scam the PIIGS into more spending, etc., etc.
"Members of hacker skiddie collective Anonymous ..."
I've often wondered about this type of derogitory statement. That some 'members' of anonymous are only capable of running scripts with little knowledge of what they do (or don't - LOIC I'm looking at you here) but that doesn't mean that just because you employ a script that you are a 'skiddie'.
If you think that's all anonymous is, then fair enough - I don't think that is the case however.
I mean, you don't imply accountants are useless because they don't write their own spreadsheets, or do you?
> I mean, you don't imply accountants are useless because they don't write their own spreadsheets, or do you?
An accountant will have a great deal of knowledge about exactly what is happening with the figures he is entering in the cell. He will know what the relationship between the cells are and what the impacts are of changing the values of a cell. He will how the values are calulated and what the equations are.
The skiddies, on the other hand, have no detailed knowledge of exactly what happens when they select the "Launch Denial of Service" option with their script. They will have no knowledge of whether they have just launched a SYN or ICMP flood, a teardrop or reflection attack. They will have no idea what the impact of these are or how and why they actually affect the target. In other words, the sum of their knowledge is how to select an option from a script.
Their naive attitudes and the way they throw their toys out the pram when somebody disagrees with them indicates they are probably mostly teenagers
".....but that doesn't mean that just because you employ a script that you are a 'skiddie'....." Well, going on the amazing paywall that can be defeated just by turning off Javascript, I'm definately not putting the Wikitwit site admins in the webguru category. If that's the best they can come up with then the NSA, CIA, ISI, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all have probably raped the rest of their systems. Maybe it's because A$$nut hogged all the salary and all they could afford to hire was sub-Anon-level skiddies to write their paywall code (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8225947/Julian-Assange-paid-two-thirds-of-WikiLeaks-salary-budget.html), and maybe that's why even the Anon skiddies don't want to be associated with them.
I think that Anonymous brings that reputation upon themselves and no one else.
Like the latest (Dutch) news; they are now threatening to launch an all out attack on several internet providers because they block the Piratebay. You can read the (Dutch) article here (link to "telegraaf.nl", a Dutch news website).
Apparently they don't (or refuse to) realize that most of those providers (XS4All and UPC to name two) have actually challenged the blockade in court several times, which has cost them plenty of money. They also seem to ignore the fact that these providers simply have no choice because they are being forced into this.
And here we are now; the providers are going to take the heat from these terrorists, thus most likely effectively hindering many end-users to gain access to the Internet tomorrow.
Does that sound like a sane protest or freedom fight to you? To me its plain out cyber terrorism and vandalism, nothing more and nothing else. The worst (and IMVHO retarded) part being that they actually plan to attack providers who actively protested and fought these rulings, some of them still are btw.
As such; they do it to themselves. Time and time again.
"I think that Anonymous brings that reputation upon themselves and no one else."
I agree, and I also agree that there are lots of teenagers out there running scripts with no idea of what's going on under the bonnet.
Remember that anonymous isn't an organisation. There is nothing to stop me performing some online action and claiming to be a member of anonymous - that's the point - anyone can do it.
The point I was trying to make (and supported by the comments about how accountants know what the spreadsheet is doing) is that there are SOME people who claim to be anonymous who DO know what's going on under the hood of the scripts they use. So just because they might employ a script, it does not necessarily follow that they are a 'skiddie' (sounds like brown underpants to me)
> is that there are SOME people who claim to be anonymous who DO know what's going on under the hood of the scripts they use.
You don't address a room full of women with a single bloke sitting in the back as "Gentlemen". Similarly you don’t call a group of skiddies with one or two who might possibly know a SYN from a FIN "hackers".
Why not?
There might be a single male in the room, but the overwhelming characteristic of the room is female so referring to them collectively as "Ladies" is acceptable. "Ladies and Gentlemen" is inaccurate as it implies a significant* portion of the room is male. A common way to address a room full of women with just one or two males is to say "Ladies, <pause> Gentlemen" with a head nod to the males. But that is for polite society where people tend not to forcibly enter private areas and where there will be some mutual respect.
What we are talking about is anonymous. Since I haven't seen any evidence of anybody with balls in that group I won't refer to them as "Ladies and Gentlemen"** but simply as skiddies.
* By "significant" I mean more than 10%
** No gender bias is intended.
Freedom from what exactly? Their democratically elected governments that allow them the freedoms to use the internet and protest (lawfully) at will? Or are they fighting for the freedom to allow women to vote, drive, get an education, not be forced into marriage/rape by their family, to prevent young children taking up arms and fighting wars.
I'm sorry, but sitting behind a computer and looking at cats or my little pony every day before posting "tits or GTFO" does not make one a freedom fighter, freedom fighters put their lives on the line to try and obtain the liberties that we take for granted, the nearest an Anon gets to that is putting their rectum on the line from jail time in the US.
@Tubs - as in compared to countries where the governments don't allow freedom to use the internet as they so desire, China comes to mind, Cuba somewhat, Iran, all bastions of freedom for it's people. So, why isn't Anon standing around in, let me think of a nice place.... Tiananmen Square, has a nice ring to it, why isn't Anon having a mass protest there wearing their masks and demanding that China grant all it's citizens the freedoms that we in the UK have?
The guy claims Anon are freedom fighters so they should go out and prove it, not demonstrate in countries where the government has laws granting you the right to stand on your soap box, go demonstrate in countries where you may find the army comes in with tear gas, water cannons, tanks, real bullets, then Anon can say they are freedom fighters instead of pampered westerners who think they have a right to everything.
@AC
They DO have a right to everything. Just because we are less oppressed than the Chinese doesn't mean we should be jumping for joy with our situation. It's one of the reasons we are so complacent with our lot; we can always look at China and say "we mustn't complain, they've got it worse than us".
AC: "So, why isn't Anon standing around in, let me think of a nice place.... Tiananmen Square,"
That wouldn't be anonymous anymore, get it? Buying traveling tickets, standing out in a crowd and a rather large risk to be held for questioning or asked for ID, not to mention all the camera's snapping your mug.
While I understand your disagreement with the selected targets, it's a bit of a weak form of arguing. Like some grumpy dad saying at the diner table to the kids: "Eat your food, think of all the poor African kids who are having nothing at all". One could argue that everyone can have his fight for something he believes can be changed. He is not required to fight all fights or obey to some imagined standard of how to assign priorities.
How long before whitelist javascript blockers like NoScript/NotScripts are used in the majority as part of the Standard Internet Condom? They certainly seem very useful against most forms of website antifeature..
For example, I find that I don't need any blacklist adblocker such as AdBlock, since the vast majority of ads don't show up at all without Javascript. After all what's the point of advertising if you can't track people, right?
Some sites use plain HTML (<=4) ads, which are not tracking my every eye-movement, and thus I don't find offensive. These I will occasionally grace with a click. (NoRef/RefControl enabled, of course)
"....There's no paywall...." St Jules was quick to take it down again when the revolting Faithful started revolting. Just go put wikileaks and paywall into a search engine and you'll get pages of hits. Oh, sorry - that assumes the blinkers allow you to look anywhere other than Faithful-approved websites......
Though your comment also shows that you never bothered to click an article to read its contents. Because then the paywall shows up.
I certainly did click on several articles. No paywall shows up for me. Here is the first article. The second one too has no paywall. Perhaps there is a browser variation.
Actually I'm more busy laughing @ A$$nut. And his band of Faithful ar$ekissers. Given your often rabid ranting in defence of A$$nut, Local Dupe, you are the last person to be posting here. But then I suspect you not only approve of Holy St Jule's paywall, you probably visit the site so you can donate weekly. Right after your welfare cheque clears.
/LMAO.
This post has been deleted by its author
Gosh, the weren't allowed to read periodicals! What vile and degrading torture! And not allowed to look at Islamist material that might have given them comfort? Depraved! Next you'll be telling us they were forced to eat their Gazpacho soup lukewarm and had to suffer sleeping on seven mattresses with a pea underneath!
As if it matters to anyone other than Anonymous itself if they support Assange or not.
And they are tacitly (or, more realistically, unintentionally and implicitly) owning up to their stupidity and naivety by having taken so long to recognize the obvious.
Please help promote this link wherever you can; if you believe in freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Julian Assange for the Nobel prize for freedom of the press:
www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Julian_Assange_for_Nobel_prize_Freedom_of_the_Press/
Lets see how "Noble" the Norwegians and their righteous Swede neighbors are or claim to be, since they offered Obama the Nobel peace prize!
Why don't they take the middle ground, have the page that asks for donations, BUT put a close button on it? I must agree, after getting these leaks with the promise of making these leaks available to all, putting them behind a paywall after that is greasy. But I think soliciting donations is not.
I think I can stretch my grey matter to understand that these anons don't have the same kind of resources of say, a government - so keeping your identity a secret is their primary weapon.
After all, a secret that my government is keeping from me could have a large impact on me one way or the other, but the name of some hacker in his bedroom is of little relevance.
Still secrets, for different reasons. This idea that everything a goverment does needs to be or ought to be public knowledge is so fundamentally flawed and naive that I can only assume that the people behind anonymous are kiddies.
Also, I imagine Assange now wishes he could put a few secrets back in the bag... What goes around..
So, you think all anon's are tech-illiterate, basement-dwelling, script-running kiddies do you?
Yep, you go on thinking that. Suits me fine.
I also must disagree with my fellow Anon earlier - Assange is a fool and we need to distance ourselves from him, and from Wikileaks too if it continues to jump on the shovel every time he yells "shit".
As for those of you who think that our protests against "a democratically elected government" are pointless, because we have a fair and free electoral system by which to effect change; you need to go and take a closer look at lobbying and corpoate vote rigging in the US and how most parties in the EU and over in the UK are moving towards a common central ground politically. For example have a look to see if its possible to elect a party in the UK that won't increase surveillance on the British public, increase taxation on big business (or merely collect the tax they already owe) or reduce the terror-threat alert level. These governments no longer represent you, but money and corporate power - That's why we fight.
To believe that simple voting will change government and policy in the modern era is to show an incredible naivety and a fundamental lack of understanding of today's politics. Our protests draw attention to these things.
"..... To believe that simple screaming, whining tantrums will change government and policy in the modern era is to show an incredible naivety and a fundamental lack of understanding of today's politics. Our protests draw attention to our complete lack of a collective clue." There, fixed it for you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
