Anonymous and its questionable activities

Anonymous (Wikipedia Article) has obtained mass amounts of media coverage since it launched Ddos (Wikipedia Article) against financial institutions that stopped sending funds to Wiki Leaks. Some view the group in a positive light, as those who are fighting for freedom of the internet, while others see them as simply malicious hackers. Do you support Anonymous or not?

Questions to consider:

Are the actions taken by Anonymous actual protests?
If so, are the actions nonviolent or violent protests?
Are the actions helping any cause?
Should legal action be taken against Anonymous?
In your opinion, are these actions justified?
In your opinion, are these actions acceptable?

Some news articles:

http://www.itproportal.com/2011/02/07/anonymous-hits-italian-government-site/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20030849-83.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Anonymous-Targets-Yemen-182576.shtml
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.b27ce982d5a2c46fdde0c964ca0fcea9.681
http://www.discountvouchers.co.uk/news/141933535.html

 

Are the actions taken by Anonymous actual protests? Yes. For freedom to the use of the internet.
If so, are the actions nonviolent or violent protests? Non-violent, nobody is hurt, morally bad and violence are VERY different.
Are the actions helping any cause? I would say yes, why should they be able to financially hurt someone, If we can't even freely use the internet in terms of knowledge gain?.
Should legal action be taken against Anonymous? Those truly doing non-violent actions should not, it is a protest and should be treated as such.
In your opinion, are these actions justified? Yes, if they are able to abuse the system, we shoud have the same freedom as them.
In your opinion, are these actions acceptable? Protests are the only way to get a true change, we want freedom, and I personally would fight for it.

 

Are the actions taken by Anonymous actual protests?

Yes, If they don't like something and do something to try and change what they don't like, then yea.

If so, are the actions nonviolent or violent protests?

Nonviolent. Feelings don't count.

Are the actions helping any cause?

Usually they are harmless so it doesn't matter if it helps any causes or not. I applaud them for standing up to those that are afraid of a little foul language though.

Should legal action be taken against Anonymous?

No. Unless they're stealing from people or killing people, there's no reason anything should happen.

In your opinion, are these actions justified?

Yes

In your opinion, are these actions acceptable?

I think they are. like ioioio175 said, fight for your freedoms.
they seem to be the only ones that stand up for anything on the internet and actually make something of it


I'd rather not give generalized answers such as these..

 

You are using damage in an economic sense saying that they are losing profits from being offline or actual physical damage? I agree that the government has a massive say in the dealings of these banks. If the government is indeed in control of these banks, then them refusing to process payments is a way to deny the site their freedom of speech which goes against the first amendment (and cooperations are protected by this too, for some reason). I do not believe that this action is okay. Thoughts?

 

Are the actions taken by Anonymous actual protests?
Yes and no, I suspect the american goverment is behind these attacks.

If so, are the actions nonviolent or violent protests?
I didn't hear about any violence.

Are the actions helping any cause?
No, dossing never healped any cause.

Should legal action be taken against Anonymous?
Yes, but I expect the american goverment is behind this. So I doubt people will be convicted for this.

In your opinion, are these actions justified?
Dossing is never justified IMO.

In your opinion, are these actions acceptable?
No

 

I will assume, for a second, that what you have said is true. This does not change the fact that the actions are still protests. The activists are being civilly disobedient their opinion be heard. Like with all civility disobedient protests, there will be damage to someone. This does not make the protest violent nor do the companies rights make their own actions moral.

 

A protest is not a protest unless there are damages done to someone. The whole point is for a message to be heard when no one is willing to hear it. If you are going to define violence as damaging property, then people striking would be a form of violent protest. The strike will make the company lose money, customers, government benefits, etc, which are all damages. This notion means that is no form of protest that is not nonviolent, which is accepted to not be true.

If you are bringing the NSA into this, then I can bring the first amendment in as the NSA must follow the laws that it is founded on making their request legally invalid meaning the company has no reason to follow any request given.

 

A Ddos attack does not damage property either. It simply denies users the ability to access information from a particular server.

The Constitution is viewed by Americans as a holy relic that is perfect, unchanging and good. With any amount of political sense an order from the NSA to do anything that seems to impede any part of the Constitution could be easily used to piss the public off. This in turn would make the politicians want to please them so that they get reelected. We all know its just an act, but it must have enough truth behind it so that the company in question can reject the order while the government finds ways around the new problem without upsetting anyone.

 

No Support, Ddos'ing does indeed cause harm in an sense. It really depends on which way you look at it and the way you percieve the definition of non-malicious behavior.

and the Constitution was only really relevant up untill about 50-75 years of the date written and signed. Times have changed however, these days its just a piece of paper.

Too tired to actually think intellectual. I'm honestly feeling like an degenerate at this moment.

 

Let us take a look at your example through a better comprehensible one.

People of Egypt are protesting right now. They have flooded an area much like the Anonymous flooded the website. Now what is the difference between the two? The protest in Egypt is happening in a public place. On the other hand, the protest of the Anonymous is happening on a privately owned property; which makes it a crime.

The protesters in Egypt are not damaging anyone's property, because it is everyone's property. Which does not make it violent. However, if they were to create a havoc and start looting stores, homes, banks, etc. it would be considered damaging of private property which is a violation. Similarly, the Anonymous are doing the same by damaging someone's private property.

 

Except there has been looting.

Quick Google News search:
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-235203-looting-in-egypt-costs-turkeys-sarar-2-million.html

 

The only difference is the place in which the protest is happening. Large scale protests floods areas and make everything in that area inaccessible or nearly inaccessible. The only difference in a Ddos attack is that the areas being blockaded are considered private property but this does not diminish the protestive nature of the actions. To clarify, the legality of the actions are not in question but rather whether or not the actions are legitimate protests and whether or not you support the ideas these are in support of.

I never stated that it was not a crime.

 

While I morally do not support the DDOS attacks, it does make me question things.

One such thing, what makes me feel that this DDOS attacks are bad, yet feel like the American Revolution was a positive attack? Let me explain my thinking.

In the Anonymous attacks, they are DDOS'ing financial institutions, causing a denial of business as users can't connect. It is also damaging users who may use Paypal and the like as their primary currency in business.

The American Revolution followed much of the same pattern. They caused financial damage by dumping a boat load of tea into the Boston River, causing the tea owners to lose a large amount of tea and also limiting the supply of tea to the consumers.

So what is the difference between the two acts?

 

One is simply denying customers while the other is destroying property.

The anonymous attacks relied mainly on supports who donated their computers for the cause, not massive bot nets.

I would also like to point out that anonymous also took down government websites in support of protesters in multiple nations.