[martok2112]

Several hackers from the cyber terrorism group "Anonymous" have been arrested.
I hope they are taken out in public square, and shot in front of their families. Since they seem to take pleasure in causing suffering upon strangers whose faces they never see, surely they won't mind a little bit of extreme reciprocity.

http://news.yahoo.com/lulzsec-leader...-abc-news.html

[NCC-73515]

That could actually be possible! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-suspects.html

[horatio]

I am not a friend of anarchy of any kind and cyber crime is definitely a serious issue.
Yet Anonymous is not a bunch of cyber mobsters, they rather highlight problems that we have not addressed in our societies.
How come that whistleblowers, people who reveals crimes, have no way to do that legally? Do we really wanna live in a cyberpunkish world with private instead of public intelligence services? Soldiers take an oath, mercenaries don't.

I do not condone the actions of these people but neither do I condemn them for highlighting what's wrong with us. It's like with an illness, of course the symptoms suck and you take medicine against them but if you are smart you also think about what caused them.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

I am not a friend of anarchy of any kind and cyber crime is definitely a serious issue.
Yet Anonymous is not a bunch of cyber mobsters, they rather highlight problems that we have not addressed in our societies.
How come that whistleblowers, people who reveals crimes, have no way to do that legally? Do we really wanna live in a cyberpunkish world with private instead of public intelligence services? Soldiers take an oath, mercenaries don't.

I do not condone the actions of these people but neither do I condemn them for highlighting what's wrong with us. It's like with an illness, of course the symptoms suck and you take medicine against them but if you are smart you also think about what caused them.

And they resort to cyber-terrorist activities to point out the wrongs.
They make the ordinary computer user a victim in their jihad to point out the wrongs of society. They try to change the nature of the internet so that the ordinary user is scared to surf. Such is the nature of terrorism; to change the nature of the world to suit their own goals....to get people to stop doing what they normally do, and feel fear every time they walk out into the street.

There is no good in Anonymous or LulzSec, or any other organized hacker clique. They have no good intentions. No benevolence in their actions whatsoever. They're scum.

Not arguing against you, horatio. I was actually highlighting the very points you brought up, which actually seems to define terrorism.

[samwiseb]

I could take these people more seriously if not for their whole V for Vendetta gig.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by martok2112

And they resort to cyber-terrorist activities to point out the wrongs.
They make the ordinary computer user a victim in their jihad to point out the wrongs of society. They try to change the nature of the internet so that the ordinary user is scared to surf. Such is the nature of terrorism; to change the nature of the world to suit their own goals....to get people to stop doing what they normally do, and feel fear every time they walk out into the street.

There is no good in Anonymous or LulzSec, or any other organized hacker clique. They have no good intentions. No benevolence in their actions whatsoever. They're scum.

Not arguing against you, horatio. I was actually highlighting the very points you brought up, which actually seems to define terrorism.

I totally agree that they are terrorists, they fight for political goals with illegal means. Among these goals are some questionable ones like supporting internet piracy and some noble ones like supporting the Green movement in Iran or the Arab Spring.
Most of their activity seems to target companies and governments so ordinary people are not really impacted by their activities (except for the cases where credit card data was stolen).

My opinion on them is basically the same as my opinion on militant animal liberation groups. I might agree with (some of) their goals but I disagree with their methods.
Lurking beneath this is a very complicated question about political violence. Is it justified to do something illegal when you see a lot of institutionalized wrongs? Should you fight within the system or outside of the system?

We had a socialist revolution after WWI in Germany. The old elites from the Kaiserreich and the social democrats worked together to crush this movement and to establish a parliamentary democracy. Obviously the motivation of the social democrats was to prevent a civil war.
Was this the right choice? Being a moderate guy I would say yes, better kill some revolutionaries and aim for modest democratic reforms than risk a civil war. But you see the conundrum, there is violence no matter what you do.

I think that's how you gotta think about any political group that doesn't act legally. (By the way, by every textbook definition of corruption this would include all major political parties who finance themselves to a large degree via corporate money.) What kind of injustices do they perceive that makes them fight against them (with dubious methods)? And as you used the word jihad, that's also how we gotta think about our public enemy number one. Empathy is often understood as sign of weakness or as stance that condones crimes but it is not. Every good general has to be empathic, has to try to think like the enemy to win the battle.

[martok2112]

Some great points, horatio.

Honestly, I'm sure that revolutionary heroes in any country who used unconventional combat methods against the larger, repressive foe was often referred to as "terrorist" by the foe.

Just like in our country, where, during the Revolutionary War, the colonials used practically guerilla tactics against the English who used mostly traditional warfare tactics and strategies. The English weren't prepared for it. They either expected a bunch of local boys to cower before the might of the Empire, or, at best, expected what few military leaders we may have had to train our boys in the tenets and traditions of the contemporary warfare of the time. When we didn't, and started using our knowledge of the land, and hit and run tactics, again, largely guerilla warfare, the English likely thought this to be brutal and ungentlemanly. And likely started calling our leaders "terrorist".

[horatio]

And we all know what would happen if they would now tried to take back their former colonies.

[kevin]

Everything depends on what side of the fence you're seeing events from.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by kevin

Everything depends on what side of the fence you're seeing events from.

I can agree with this.
I'm sure that the Anonymous representatives see themselves as activists. That's their side of the fence.

But the methods they go about to try and force change (to suit their own lives) is terrorist. That's everyone else' side of the fence.