Anonymous doing good?

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Fawkes

Free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and should be fought for. I am completely against any law that encroaches on it.

However I think you need to get some perspective.



If you’re honest with yourself it’s not really sites they don’t like, its sites that are offering their intellectual property for free. This is already against the law, they are just seeking new laws that allow their rights to be enforced.

Actually SOPA and PIPA include the provision that action can be taken not only for sites infringing the rules but also sites which 'may not take sufficient action to prevent infringement'

There is some confusion as to whether the takedown of the MegaUpload Song was a DMCA takedown or not. If it was a false DMCA takedown then the DMCA itself can be used by MegaUpload to sue Universal Music. So what’s unfair about that.
If as Universal has stated it was not a DMCA takedown and was in fact an agreement between them and Google then MegaUpload have no recourse for action that I can see. Google own the servers and they don’t have to host your content. I any case the video was reinstated, it’s the least of MegaUploads problems right now.

So much so that a federal judge demanded UMG explain their 'Takedown spree'
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...down-spree.ars

Link please; I would be very interested to read this.

By all means -

http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/14/2...om-youtube-for

Universal had Monday's episode of Tech News Today pulled off of YouTube for simply reporting on the controversy.
[snip]
Tom tells us he wasn't informed of the video's removal until a fan told him on Twitter, and that the episode was promptly restored when he complained using YouTube's automated dispute process — but Universal followed up with an official DMCA takedown request on Tuesday morning,

Originally Posted by Fawkes

We don’t need Anonymous to bring these to our attention, the EFF can do this without hacking, hell you could go on the House Judiciary Committees website and watch the hearings live.

I agree, however there is so much information passing through the houses it can be hard to spot items like this without having attention drawn to it.

So the big media companies are the rich and the people who use MegaUpload and The Pirate Bay are the poor?

Last I checked my bank balance is significantly lower than that of the MPAA / RIAA et al. However my actual meaning is explained below.

First world bull [Mod Edit]if ever I heard it. Millions of people sat at home in their comfy chairs, behind a £1000 plus of computer equipment connected to there high speed internet connection for £20+ a month. Poor, right.

it was an analogy, not an observation.

[Fawkes]

First of all I would like to apologise for getting a bit carried away at the end of my last post.

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Actually SOPA and PIPA include the provision that action can be taken not only for sites infringing the rules but also sites which 'may not take sufficient action to prevent infringement'

I was playing devil’s advocate before. Some people are against SOPA because they want free stuff. But everyone should be against SOPA because it’s bad legislation that would not only fail to stop online piracy but hurt legitimate business. If we would have had SOPA before Youtube started, than Youtube would exists today.
But put yourself in the head of a lawmaker for a moment, to them the internet looks is like the wild west. Name any song or movie released in the last 40 years and you can download it for free on the internet. Now can you see why hackers are only adding to the problem?

So much so that a federal judge demanded UMG explain their 'Takedown spree'
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...down-spree.ars

They dropped the case against UMG:

On Friday, Megaupload's lawyers filed a notice in California federal court to dismiss the claims against UMG without prejudice, but also told the judge that that the claims against anonymous John Does who participated in the takedown of the viral video continues. Megaupload also wants to pursue further discovery in the case and is attempting to get Google to cooperate on this front by preserving records.

Taken from here.
You can’t sue UMG for a DMCA takedown if it wasn’t a DMCA takedown. Google has some explaining to do.

By all means -
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/14/2...om-youtube-for

Thanks for the link, on the face of it that does seem abuse of the system but I suspect the problem is related to the above.

I agree, however there is so much information passing through the houses it can be hard to spot items like this without having attention drawn to it.

Well I found out about SOPA from Philip DeFranco, he's not a hacker.

Last I checked my bank balance is significantly lower than that of the MPAA / RIAA et al. However my actual meaning is explained below.
…
it was an analogy, not an observation.

Ok, but it's worth remembering that they only have deep pockets because lots of people buy their stuff. If we all stopped doing that they wouldn't be making anything to copy, legally or otherwise.

tl;dr If you want a service the content industry isn't providing, tell them. If they don't listen don't buy their stuff. Pirate stuff if you want but don't try to justify it and don't cry if you get court.

[Lord Nikon]

One thing though. We have had the Internet classed as a 'Global Village' and 'Information Superhighway' and it is. People from all over the world populate this new frontier. Yes, it's like the wild west in some ways, EXTREMELY like the wild west. The population is to some extent lawless, and Anonymous seem to be trying to become the Sherrif. Not always obeying the law, but dispensing swift 'justice' where needed.

From the wild west, after a battle for independence arose the United States of America, built on diversity, despite the best attempts of the British to hold on to it's apron strings and tax it into the ground. With the wolves who are SOPA, RIPA and ACTA trying to act as 3 of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, bearing down on the internet's freedom this could be part of an equally important battle for independence, the ability for freedom of information to transcend the whims of the various industries who have lobbied for these acts to be emplaced. Anonymous, whether you like or dislike them, whether or not you respect their attempts to fight back, regardless of the legality, have placed themselves in role of champions of freedom of information and have tasked themselves to take on governments and organisations who wish to curtail those freedoms, as well as taking down those whose beliefs could and have caused harm to others.

Anonymous have brought SOPA, PIPA and ACTA to global attention, they have inspired members of the Polish Parliament to don Guy Fawkes Masks such as the ones speakers for Anonymous wear in protest of ACTA, they have inspired Bulgarian MPs to do the same, they have inspired a slovenian minister to publically apologise for signing ACTA without knowing what the ramifications were.

I see Anonymous as still finding their way, they know what they want, they know one way to go about it, but are still looking for the best way to their goals. Any struggle like this is going to be turbulent, I'm not decided on my opinion of them yet, but I am keeping an eye out to see what is coming next.

[Alan Fry]

There are many types of hackers, some are good, but most are bad!

As long as Anonymous do not steal data for financial purposes and only for poltical ones, they what they doing is good (but not legal)!

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

There are many types of hackers, some are good, but most are bad!

As long as Anonymous do not steal data for financial purposes and only for poltical ones, they what they doing is good (but not legal)!

By "poltical (sic) ones", I assume you mean ones in line with your beliefs?

btw, re "As long as Anonymous do not steal data for financial purposes" - they have done that....

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

By "poltical (sic) ones", I assume you mean ones in line with your beliefs?

btw, re "As long as Anonymous do not steal data for financial purposes" - they have done that....

When I mean "financial purposes" I mean using stolen data to raid bank accounts and do credit card fraud

When I mean "poltical purposes" I mean leaking state an poltical secrets

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

When I mean "financial purposes" I mean using stolen data to raid bank accounts and do credit card fraud

When I mean "poltical purposes" I mean leaking state an poltical secrets

Do you mean like this?

One alleged hacker said the goal was to use the credit data to steal a million dollars – including, apparently, from individuals' accounts – and give the money away as Christmas donations.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you mean like this?

Yes, but in a "Robin Hood" sort of way, but it is still very wrong!

[Fawkes]

Originally Posted by Hugh

By "poltical (sic) ones", I assume you mean ones in line with your beliefs?
<snip>

I think that’s what it comes down to with most of the people that support Anonymous. They don't mind hackers when they are "sticking it to the man". But it's a different story when it's your credit card details.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

There are many types of hackers, some are good, but most are bad!

As long as Anonymous do not steal data for financial purposes and only for poltical ones, they what they doing is good (but not legal)!

I have an issue with them doing it for political reasons as well. Who gave them the right to decide what they do and dont do. The LAW states that not a bunch of hackers who think they are above the LAW

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I have an issue with them doing it for political reasons as well. Who gave them the right to decide what they do and dont do. The LAW states that not a bunch of hackers who think they are above the LAW

This is the point to their actions though, in the US constitution is the right to freedom of speech, they're taking that to include the freedom of information on the internet. SOPA, PIPA, ACTA would all curtail that in one form or another and that is part of what they are acting against.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I have an issue with them doing it for political reasons as well. Who gave them the right to decide what they do and dont do. The LAW states that not a bunch of hackers who think they are above the LAW

What Anonymous are doing is 100% illegal, but not 100% wrong!

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

This is the point to their actions though, in the US constitution is the right to freedom of speech, they're taking that to include the freedom of information on the internet. SOPA, PIPA, ACTA would all curtail that in one form or another and that is part of what they are acting against.

The USA is fighting the Internet with ACTA, SOPA. PIPA!

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Sirius

My idea of a hacker does not match yours. My idea of a hacker is someone who invades another pc without permission and steals information they don't have the right to have.

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

'Scumbag Hackers' are also the reason we have viruses, trojan horses and other bad things.

It's not as clear cut as you appear to think.

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ----------

We all want freedom of information, but there is a limit. Some things are confidential for a good reason. So just because Anonymous have the ability to hack, doesn't give them the right to do so. And for those who condone hacking, they are basically condoning what News of the World did.

For anyone who has been the victim of any type of hacking, they wouldn't support it in any way shape or form. With the exceptions of reasons for national security, which would be carried out by inteligence services.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------





---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ----------

We all want freedom of information, but there is a limit. Some things are confidential for a good reason. So just because Anonymous have the ability to hack, doesn't give them the right to do so. And for those who condone hacking, they are basically condoning what News of the World did.

For anyone who has been the victim of any type of hacking, they wouldn't support it in any way shape or form. With the exceptions of reasons for national security, which would be carried out by inteligence services.

The News of the World did expose a lot of scandals, some of which were in the public interest!

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

The News of the World did expose a lot of scandals, some of which were in the public interest!

We aren't talking about reporting scandals. We are talking about illegal hacking.