Anonymous Creates Its Own Social Network 271
An anonymous reader writes "Google has reportedly banned a handful of Anonymous members from Google+ (it's not exactly clear how many accounts were shut down). The hacktivist group likened Google's actions to the stories of activists being banned from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as governments blocking various websites using Internet censorship tools. As a result, Anonymous has decided to create its own social network: Anonplus."
Re:Anonymous social networking. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking the exact same thing.
We're anonymous, let's make a website that keep records of us.
Wait, what?
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (Score:4, Insightful)
A terrorist is a freedom fighter that lost the battle.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not really.
A terrorist is someone who attempts to force some form of change in public opinion/behavior by means of random violence.
Many terrorists consider themselves "freedom fighters", but they really aren't. If you're fighting for "freedom" then you restrict yourself to legitimate military targets, and you don't kidnap and ransom people.
Terrorists use the populace as human shields, deliberately hide their weapons and identities, deliberately target civilians, and are just generally subhuman scum.
Re:Registered members (Score:5, Insightful)
While you're at rolling about conspiracy theory, why not make it a double-false flag op? Set up by the "real" anons to trick the FBI into hunting the poor idiots that register there so they keep both groups, the feds and the wannabes, occupied?
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (Score:5, Insightful)
A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.
Imagine some country invaded/occupied the USA, would the rednecks with AR15s be called "terrorists" by the American people? I think not.
I don't think they'd be using the euphemism "Insurgent", either.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (Score:3, Insightful)
By your definition the U.S. government can be labelled a terrorist organization. There's plenty of documented cases where they haven't restricted themselves to military targets and have kidnapped people.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm in Saudi Arabia, head honcho of oppressive fanatics, but you know, it's a lot safer than medium sized cities in the US. I have little chance of being mugged, burgled or robbed.
What you read on US news is there to scare Americans from leaving the US to find out how nice the rest of the world is.
Re:I did a double-take (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Google pretty much knows everything that goes on on the internet now.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I did a double-take (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly it's probably better for both Google and those Anon's that goog closed the accounts. The only people that should be disappointed are investigative authorities. Because otherwise, it was only going to end badly.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing you have a penis? I hear that the place isn't quite as nice if you have a vagina.
Re:I did a double-take (Score:5, Insightful)
They also know all the people Googling for open proxies.
Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.
Convenient: if the facts don't fit your biases, dismiss the people presenting the facts as biased and move on. It helps if you throw in some outrageous hyperbole, too. (In reality, show me anyone who is trying to draw the moral equivalence you suggest, and I'll show you someone who is regarded by any serious historian as a loon.) Meanwhile, back in the real world, the fact that many of the American Revolutionaries were, in fact, by modern standards, out-and-out terrorists is something that's been known for decades.
Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?
These questions matter. If you're not asking them, you don't care about the truth; you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.
Indeed they do; and if you actually care about the answers, you'll do some research. And if you do that, you'll quickly learn that GPP's point is entirely correct: no matter how noble their cause, every revolutionary group in history, including those of the years leading up to 1776, has done things that we'd label terrorism (IIRC, a word that came out of the French Revolution) by modern standards. So have the governments they were fighting, of course. Revolutions are ugly, ugly things, inevitably turning families and friends and neighbors against each other, and even of the best of them quickly descend into horror. This is something that those who casually call for revolution against the modern US government should keep in mind.
Re:I did a double-take (Score:4, Insightful)
"Anonymity is possible on the internet if you have the right tools and the intelligence to use them properly."
Not if I own the backbone your traffic routes through.
Re:Doable. (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets go over how badly you missed the point.
-Distributed DNS
-Distributed content
Neither of these things actually exist, they're both still linked by a central authority.
-HTTPS/SSL
-Distributed certificate authority
Distributed certificate authority ... do you know what mutual exclusion is? You can't have a distributed certificate authority.
-Tor
Isn't nearly as useful as you think it is, all you need to do is spend a few hours mapping the tor network with some automated software and you've taken a massive amount of its usefulness away, at best, its as useful as non-logging open proxies, but thinking that its any more useful is sily.
-SSH
Okay, so I can't see your traffic on the network, until you slip up and I get enough of your data or the hosts data to pull off a MITM attack. Granted, its going to require me to access some info that you are at least in theory putting a good effort into protecting, but I doubt theory is reality. In your particular case I'm positive that you'll slip up based on your previous comments showing your lack of understanding. This isn't unique to you, its fairly common, and fortunately SSH was designed very well and makes up for a LOT of human short falls. I'm not saying someone will break SSH, but they will take advantage of the stupid human on the end of the connection making a mistake, the end result is the same.
-Bitcoin
-Free and open
So now I guess you're just throwing random buzzwords you've heard out there? Bitcoin? Seriously? Do you live in a box and this is the first hour you've been out of it in several years? Monopoly money is literally more valuable and harder to counterfeit. The only place bitcoin has any value is among complete and total idiots.
'free and open' ... again ... seriously? This is why you fail. You're allowing a silly political agenda (thats not even yours, you're just a ME TOO) play a part in how you design a system? Its a safe bet your systems will always fail.