Anonymous Vows To Destroy Facebook 575
DarkOx sends this snippet from BusinessInsider:
"Anonymous has vowed to destroy Facebook on November 5th (which should ring a bell). Citing privacy concerns and the difficulty involved in deleting a Facebook account, Anonymous hopes to 'kill Facebook,' the 'medium of communication [we] all so dearly adore.' They continued, 'It is not a battle over the future of privacy and publicity. It is a battle for choice and informed consent. ... Facebook keeps saying that it gives users choices, but that is completely false. It gives users the illusion of and hides the details away from them "for their own good" while they then make millions off of you. When a service is "free," it really means they're making money off of you and your information.'"
if not at least deface it! (Score:5, Funny)
if not at least deface it!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How would we tell? Have you seen what people post?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly I'm not sure if you are sad to root for Facebook, or Anonymous.
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason, a certain iconic commercial from a Super Bowl from the early eighties comes directly to mind.
On the other hand, I don't have faith in the populace. Bread and Circuses worked for the Romans, and fast food, 24 hour cable "news", "reality" TV, radio call-in and talk shows, video games, and the Internet work for the western and developed eastern worlds. Take away one, and probably the worst you'll see on any really large scale will be puzzlement as people switch to another, with complaints fr
Re: (Score:3)
choosing to slave
Do you see the contradiction in logic there? Slaves don't have a choice, in particular they don't have a choice to be a slave.
Re:if not at least deface it! (Score:5, Funny)
Hm...
Outcome 1: Facebook is "destroyed" (somehow, I guess; unless air raids are involved on the server farms, are they aware of the long-term memories of most Facebook users?). Everyone is "liberated" in a "glorious" "revolution" of genericness, ambiguity, and sheer comic book levels of concretely-defined, crystal-clear morality and happiness for all*? Overall: Good, in theory. I guess? Probability: Immeasurably negligible.
Outcome 2: A bunch of kids who depend on such social media for even the barest simulation of a social life execute their plan to "destroy" Facebook (again, somehow; just go with me on this, it'll be less painful for all of us if you stop asking questions that will inevitably have no answers) and obviously underestimate Facebook's sheer data capacity and redundancies. Said kids wind up embarrassed by their inability to follow through on their promises and hope the internet forgets this (look, if you keep asking questions like "how", we're not going to get anywhere, all right?). Overall: Acceptable. Probability: Above average.
Outcome 3: These kids are bluffing and won't do anything. As the internet is tired of their shenanigans, they don't get the apocalyptic levels of global panic they were looking for. Fearing embarrassment, they bring out the same old ambiguous, contradictory lines about how Anonymous is everyone and no one, there is no Cabal^H^H^H^H^HAnonymous, fear fear fear fnord, blah blah blah. Overall: Neutral. Probability: Average.
Outcome 4: Anonymous fails hard. They try to execute their plan, they find government agents waiting for them, they get tracked, they get busted. The world enjoys a good laugh, since schadenfreude swings both ways. One kid manages to get into the Twitter feed to give an unintentionally cartoonish "I'll get you next time, Gadget, NEXT TIME!!!"-style post. Overall: Very good. Probability: Very low, but definitely measurable.
Out of all the possible outcomes to this, none are terribly bad, I have to admit. I guess the possibility of victory, to them, outweighs the sheer pain and suffering that would be incurred if they JUST STOPPED USING THE DAMN SERVICE ALREADY IF IT BUGS THEM SO FUCKING MUCH.
*: Yes, I'm aware that the imagery they're invoking comes from a movie based on a comic book where said morality is quite opaque. Therein lies the irony.
Re:if not at least deface it! (Score:5, Interesting)
Outcome 5: Anonymous neither fails nor attacks on that day. The announcement is misinformation. Perhaps it is a distraction from a different target they intend to hit on the same day, is a distraction because they will be hitting facebook before that.
Outcome 6: Anonymous has already obtained information that, when released, will be a major public relations scandal for facebook, or perhaps will be evidence of criminality. The information will be released on that day.
In any event, this appears to be Anonymous trying to do something to hurt the U.S. Intelligence community, with the side-effect of raising awareness of data privacy issues.
Re:if not at least deface it! (Score:4, Informative)
In any event, this appears to be Anonymous trying to do something to hurt the U.S. Intelligence community, with the side-effect of raising awareness of data privacy issues.
Oh, ya that higher morality thing that Anonymous has going.. like the time they tried to fill youtube with porn. [npr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The problem with that approach is that your privacy can be violated by your friends that put your personal information on FB even if you don't have an account there. I'm trying to solve the problem by not having friends IRL either.
Re: (Score:3)
Uhm... DUH. (Score:4, Insightful)
How long did it take the Anonymouse script-kiddies to figure this out?
"When a service is "free," it really means they're making money off of you and your information.'"" Hello - that's been the model of free services for as long as services have been free. You guys need to get a refund for that pot you're smoking and go detox somewhere. People consider it an amicable trade. A few are inconvenienced - boo hoo. Grow a pair and move on.
Re:that's been the model of free services (Score:3)
I'll borrrow you as an example but incomplete post.
Facebook like it or not achieved serious traction well beyond MySpace.
So to destroy them takes a SERIOUS campaign, well beyond what a 1 shot Anonymous can do,
Google+ is promising, but not the whole answer. Neither is a MS service or an Apple service.
We need one more player with BUCKS to Show them how it's done and shut these guys up.
Re:Uhm... DUH. (Score:4, Insightful)
"A few are inconvenienced."
I don't think people understand how much information companies like Google have on its users. Unless you are completely off the grind living in a shack in Montana, credit card companies know what you're spending your money on, as does PayPal, eBay, Google Checkout, and Amazon. So does all the tracking websites with the persistent cookies. Your email, your most intimate thoughts and angriest words along with your buying habits are all in there. Google Voice is fucking ridiculous in terms of getting information. It knows who you call and text, and its learning what you're saying. (Voicemail transcription, anyone?)
If I went to your Google.com/Dashboard, I'd know a great more about you than you thought you were giving up. And that's only one aspect of the web. You are giving up more than you think.
Re:understand how much information (Score:2)
I mostly understand, and I'm midline.
It's Cardinal Richelieu all over again and his 6 lines to smear anyone.
Everyone has some 1.6% pages they want to keep private, so the end of the world would be 2012 with all browising histories of anyone anywhere starting with the 4000 men and women in power across the globe + 10,000 close cronies.
Re:Uhm... DUH. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know what I'm giving up, and I give it up gladly for the services I receive. You may disagree. But who are you to tell the rest of us what we should and shouldn't do?
Why should I care that some companies know my buying habits? I am one of billions. There exist some unfathomably vast spreadsheets with a row that indicates I like oatmeal for breakfast and enjoy the works of Terry Pratchett. Why should that bother me? If anything it means that more stores will stock oatmeal and more quality humorous fantasy books will get made.
They certainly don't have my most intimate thoughts, because those rarely leave my lips and never enter a computer. They may have a few angry letters I wrote, but so what? I'm one of billions. No one's likely to see it, and unless it's something really egregious, no one will ever care.
Frankly, I think you're paranoid. You think that people care about tracking you, personally. Let me assure you, you're not that important. No one cares. That's a good thing. You're one of billions, and well below the notice of multinational corporations. If you're afraid of using facebook, fine, but don't go demanding it be destroyed because of your fear.
Re:Uhm... DUH. (Score:5, Interesting)
But wait until you try and do something about the world. Maybe you'll run for political office. Or want to help out at child care center down the street. Wanted that teacher's license? Maybe someone will find out that people that google Cheerios, fucktards, and pantyhose are statistically proven to be terrorists and need to be rounded up and vilified. They'll look around for a while until that one row in one table in one database outs you. Then you're toast.
Re:Uhm... DUH. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhm... DUH. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the point. No one walks on water unless it's frozen. Everyone deserves anonymity, but none of us get it. Google and others can read my cookies and figure out any little dark secret they want. Maybe they'll get http_referrers and keep appending the list. The method doesn't matter, the ad-based economy is designed to optimize selling to you at the price of your privacy. They'll put 2+2 together, however, and come out with 44.13833.
Re: (Score:3)
So the other theory is valid. Increase the noise enough and the signal is lost. But we have to get rid of this pseudo-religious attitude of "me? Oh god no not ME! I would NEVER do that - people actually DO that?". Come on. Everyone has peed in the shower. Everyone has picked their nose. Everyone has shat themselves. Everyone has been in a really embarrassing or compromising situation at some point or another. But a crook will not post that he is a crook on facebook. You won't find that ANYWHERE. Therefore i
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem of course comes when you have a name thats common enough for a few other people to have it, but not all that common. In my case someone with my first and last name, only about 2 years older than
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there are some pretty stupid criminals out there, but we'll leave that to one side for now.
Having the attitude of living freely is ok. Saying what you want is free speech. You may not be right, but you might be. Same here.
The capacity to protect your personal privacy from those that would abuse it is an important human right. For those that don't give a shit, it won't make any sense as they've subjugated the currency of their privacy and rationalized it away. To others, it warrants respect because
Re: (Score:3)
We can idealize what people *should* do all day long. When it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, you'll find that the actual response may not be what it *should* be and no one is the wiser.
For a period of time I was an instructor. We routinely selected recent graduates to stay on to instruct the next class. One of my students was exceptional. He had also smoked weed and had admitted to it. That alone was the deciding factor in his application being dropped. I learned of this after the fact
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone deserves anonymity, but none of us get it
Um, you can actually PAY for some of these services and not be tracked. Heck, google gives you a free web browser and then lets you opt out of ALL of its info-gathering.
People deserve what they are willing to pay for. The people have spoken, they want free services, not anonymous services.
Re:Uhm... DUH. (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact you had to use hyperbole to make you point, in fact destroys your point. Act sensibly on the net and you'll be fine for the most part. These 'what if' scenarios are so statistically insignificant, particularly if you follow the sensible part I mentioned, that it's basically a barrier to being able to use technically in a useful and fun manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Civilians deserve the same protection that geeks know how to navigate by lessons learned. There are toads out there that compile information, then push all of the data to one edge to distort reality. Privacy has real currency; some don't see it that way. That view diminishes the privacy view of others by assent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one "deserves" your protection. You aren't their nanny, no matter how certain you are that you know best.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, stop it. You have any rights at all because someone cared for a constitution and for generation centuries ago. That's why you can open your lousy mouth and say that nobody needs to care about you or others because you decided that. Everyone in the USA and in most countries where there is and degree of free speech, got it from someone else that not only cared for himself/herself but for all the people living there then, understood the importance of it, and found a way to pass it on to future generations
Re:Uhm... DUH. (Score:5, Insightful)
In an age where people have ACTUALLY been thrown off a flight and threatened with arrest at an airport because they had a PICTURE of a gun, it's not necessarily an exaggeration. The "authorities" have gone insane and cannot be expected to operate in a rational manner. They might attach odd significance to nearly anything,. much like any sufferer of schizophrenia.
Re: (Score:3)
These 'what if' scenarios are so statistically insignificant, particularly if you follow the sensible part I mentioned, that it's basically a barrier to being able to use technically in a useful and fun manner.
Ah, the old convenience trumps everything argument.
The problem with even such "statistically insignificant" events is their outsized effect. I don't mean just screwing over one person, I mean screwing over society. Because you can never really take it back something once it is on the net, what you think today is no big deal may change as circumstance change but you can't change the fact that the information is now out there.
One such example is the netflix "anonymized" data that they released a few years b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No American has any idea why the 5th of November is significant unless they read comic books. At least that's the truth for me.
True, and the movie V for Vendetta did tragically poorly at the box office. It was one of the best movies made that year yet few people bothered to see it, and not many more saw it on DVD.
I can tell you at least this American knows about the 5th of November, though...
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when you were young
How the hero was never hung
Always got away
Remember how the man
Used to leave you empty handed
Always, always let you down
If you ever change your mind
About leaving it all behind
Remember, remember, today
And don't feel sorry
The way it's gone
And don't you worry
'Bout what you've done
Remember when you were small
How people seemed so tall
Always had their way
Remember your ma and pa
Just wishing for movie stardom
Always, always playing a part
If you ever feel so sad
And the whole world is
driving
Re: (Score:2)
True, and the movie V for Vendetta did tragically poorly at the box office. It was one of the best movies made that year yet few people bothered to see it, and not many more saw it on DVD.
And some of us saw it and thought it was puerile, pandering, and plain poor.
And FWIW it completely discarded Alan Moore's original themes of fascism versus anarchism and replaced them with some kind of lib-dem feelgood wank where the conclusion has everybody dressing up in identical V masks, because apparently the new, kinder, gentler uniformity of opinion and action is much preferable to the kind they had before, and if we all just band together we can get rid of Surrogate Dick Cheney and Surrogate George
Re: (Score:2)
Or have you somehow tricked yourself into thinking that the US followed the Bush Administration with a "left-wing government" - when in reality we are seeing just yet another Bush term?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes people are looking to place politics in films that aren't actually there
If you don't even think V for Vendetta is about politics then the Wachowski brothers failed even more miserably than I thought they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what Alan Moore, the author of V for Vendetta, had to say about the movie:
When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.
Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
I saw pretty much the same thing that Moore saw in the script in the film itself, and I thought it was pretty limp-dicked and lame for the Wachowski brothers to spin it that way. They should have written their own movie if that was what they wanted; now most people associate V for Vendetta with a bunch of bullshit that its creator wanted nothing to do with. And I say this as a fairly liberal guy myself, and as someone who is n
Re:Um... (Score:4, Informative)
I couldn't make it through that movie. Very awful.
I find it strange that Guy Fawkes idiot ends up being a hero or a symbol of freedom/anarchy/whatever. Guy Fawkes was not out to promote any sorts of liberties, he wanted to replace a Protestant monarch with a Catholic monarch. He failed at that, failed at achieving any aims at all, and so he's a hero because he's a reminder of no matter how badly you screw things up, someone is always a worse screw up than you.
And Americans don't need to read comics books to know what 5th of November is. We have real books here that can be read instead. This is is taught in history classes (well, at least pre no-child-left-behind).
Re:Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a lesson in the Gunpowder Plot for those Anonymous children. The Gunpowder Plotters didn't restore Catholics their liberties, they in fact pretty much fucked over English and Irish Catholics until the 19th century. Anonymous is creating the conditions under which governments will ultimately be able to justify destroying a free and open Internet. They're stupid, self-centered and uneducated, basing their world view on a fucking movie of all things, and they are going to fuck us all over.
Re: (Score:3)
Halle-freaking-lujah, someone else who gets it.
We've already seen from China and many Arabic countries that contrary to popular belief, the Internet can be controlled - and it's not all that difficult. All you need to do is legislate that all major Internet providers in the country do X, where X is one or more of:
- Block access to (list of IP addresses).
- Implement HTTP filtering of (list of URLs).
- Block outbound traffic on all ports except (list of whitelisted ports).
- Block inbound traffic except for (li
Re:Um... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! Some of us saw that Natalie Portman movie!
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of crap.
Some americans have actually read about English history.
Besides that., do you seriously believe that no americans have ever been to New Zealand, Australia or the UK in November? Any who do so are likely to know about Guy Fawkes day.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we do, it's the day that the Green River Killer pleaded guilty to 48 murders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is a tiny population in this country that paid some attention in their English and History courses. You are normally subjected to them while in those compulsory government detainment ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H education facilities we call high schools.
Whose fault is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes,
That's the beginning of the greatest squandered opportunity and betrayal of trust in modern history.
Re: (Score:3)
That was the day Jeff Goldblum proved that aliens use Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ohpleaseohplease (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets face it, without the internet/media
It would be interesting... (Score:2)
It would be interesting... seeing all those pasty people crawl from their
subterranean domiciles and surrender themselves to the sun, squinting
as their virtual world, disappears.
Maybe my roommate could pick up a tan.
-AI
Re:It would be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of people on facebook are well adjusted, sociable people. Facebook is used to let your friends know what you're up to without having to call them one by one. It's used to share photos, without having to email out links to an online album. It's used to make plans and invite people to parties. Yes, it's also used for stupid shit like Farmville, but even the people who play that generally do other things too. Methinks you're projecting.
Thanks, Everyone! (Score:2)
Well... at least everyone is looking out for my interests.
groan (Score:2, Redundant)
Helpful Tyler Durden? (Score:2)
"Destroy Facebook servers. People make real friends while rioting in the streets."
Somebody took the demotivational meme a bit too seriously.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/daa/ [quickmeme.com]
Baby, Bathwater. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymous may have a technical point about Facebook's motives & mechanisms, but they've missed the point. Facebook has become something of a default mechanism for people to stay in touch and communicate, and for some people to store photos etc. To do anything to take down Facebook would be hurting many millions of blameless people. It's all very well to say that people could just go and find an alternative like Google+, but in the end it's not up to anonymous to decide unilaterally that Facebook=Bad. If they want people off Facebook "for their own good", they should mount a public information campaign and let people decide for themselves. Militancy in this case is simply the wrong, most hurtful approach.
Right.. (Score:2)
"Anonymous" is full of shit.
What a great picture of Zucker they chose (Score:2)
While Anonymous are a bunch of dicks... (Score:2)
...I have to admit they are right (in this case).
Not that being right gives them the right to destroy.
Someone has delusions of grandeur.. (Score:2)
Sooo... moved from self-appointed guardians of the masses to self-appointed rulers of the internet eh? In that case..I declare myself Ruler of Australia! No, wait, Ruler of the World! One day you'll thank me for it!
Target (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Target (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is always crumbling around our feet...
Re:Target (Score:4, Informative)
The world is crumbling around our feet
Just like it's done so many times before, only worse. Not that you can trouble yourself, of course, to read about the Dark Ages, or either of those pesky World Wars, or the 1918 flu epidemic, or anything like that.
the Middle East is lighting on fire
Yeah, just like it's been for thousands of years.
England is Rioting
Just like they've done before. Not that you've, again, bothered to study any history, or heard about the time London really burned down, or was bombed to rubble - just pick one episode and bone up on it.
American Congress caused the value of the dollar to fall through the floor
Ah, OK. It's now clear that you're completely clueless.
and our major enemy is Facebook?
No, that's the fashionable target for a bunch of simpering script kiddies. There's no "our" there.
Anono-hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
Authoritarian governments by definition rule people because they think the people cannot self-rule. As in, authoritarian governments think they are "saving" their people. With that in mind, balance this quote from Anonymouse: "Some of these so-called whitehat infosec firms are working for authoritarian governments, such as those of Egypt and Syria." ...with this one a few sentences down:
"One day you will look back on this and realise what we have done here is right, you will thank the rulers of the internet, we are not harming you but saving you."
Sound familiar? Anonymouse are doing what those they claim to fight against are doing. Just another dictatorship that claims to be "rulers of the internet" that defends its "dictatorship" with petty DDoS attacks and makes outlandish and extremist claims that are on par with the "We will destroy America" claims we hear from the dits in the Mid-East. In the end, Anonymouse are nothing but wannabe digital terrorists and nothing they have done or will do matters. Their activities are as much a waste of time results-wise as the Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and all the years of ridiculous and resultsless claims, proclamations and violence had accomplished nothing, while one humble fella with a can of gasoline and a match set the dominoes falling, toppling governments in one simple act of self-immolation. And, interestingly, as much as they brag about being anonymous, a bunch of them are being rounded up by the Feds. So much for anarchistic intelligence.
they will start doxing hi profile geeks (Score:3)
eventually. its like the lust for power you allude to. then the geeks will turn against anonymous,, and uhm....
the anonymous people will probably go work for governments etc
Question how concerned is Mark? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I'd be very worried if I were him. Groups like Lulz Sec have shown they have people among them who are highly capable and are able to create substantial economic losses for their targets. Anonymous has had less success notable their failure to take down Amazon, and the Credit Card processing companies. Still the threat is credible and Facebook being a one trick pony (they have no business out side their website) could be really hurt by an attack.
Me thinks Anon better come up with something a little more clever than a DDOS though or they are going to be the ones getting schooled.
Re: (Score:2)
Me thinks Anon better come up with something a little more clever than a DDOS though or they are going to be the ones getting schooled.
My thought was that they better hope nobody who claims to represent Anonymous tries to extort money out of Facebook between now and November 5, or anybody who does try to launch a DDOS attack on that date could be going to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Very good point, I can see FBI or some other three letter agency coming down like a ton bricks if even the whisper of extortion comes into this. I would call "going to jail" a form of "getting schooled" however.
mark who? (Score:2)
never heard of him
Re: (Score:2)
There was a resource starvation issue found in apache a while back. Basically, if you give a long post size in the headers of a form post, and then start sending 1 byte every per seconds, the process would remain open. You could then launch 100,000 more such processes and crash the server.
At the time I wrote a quick PHP script as a proof of concept and was able to bring my dev server to its knees in less than 10 minutes, including coding time.
You don't have to be particularly good, just good enough.
Shyeaaa.. when pigs fly... (Score:2)
Though I'm against vigilante justice, I certainly agree with their motives.
HOWEVER.... Am I the only one who thinks Anon won't have much success? The worst they could probably do hack some user accounts. If they think DDOS'ing a site with the infrastructure to handle hundreds of millions of users is going to work with a bot net made up of a few hundred thousand machines, then they're probably in for a surprise. Heck didn't they already try and fail with Amazon?
Or was that Lulzsec? I get those two confused a
Re: (Score:2)
I like Google+ better (Score:2)
They can destroy Facebook any time now.
Disorder, chaos, anarchy: now that's fun! (Score:2)
Destroy it? I doubt that. But if they bring it to its knees for just a few hours. Well, hell, that'll bring a smile to my face.
And then I'll change my password. Again.
With Better Service? (Score:2)
..and nothing of value will be lost.. (Score:3)
Seriously, Farcebook??
I'm all for seeing FB disintegrated via beam shooting from my index finger, but why bother? It's already heading into the sunset.
Maybe they think they will just give it one good swift kick in the ass before the door does its job on FB's way out. Probably that.
April 1st? (Score:2)
LMAAO at the headline.
This is just some new video game for Xstation DCLXVI, right? The new Genesis?
This place is fucked. Best wishes.
-ab
Please don't (Score:2)
Please don't do this Anonymous. If you take Facebook down for even just one day, once people find out who's responsible, any remaining respect or sympathy the average non-geek person has with Anonymous will disappear down the drain.
Not to mention the fact that you have no right to lecture me about choice and then take it away from me. I don't use Facebook that much anymore, but I still have an account for the occasional linkups. I'm trading the limited info I provide on it for the benefits it provides me, a
Talk about biting the hands that feed... (Score:2)
Doesn't Anonymous owe much of their recruiting and information distribution to Facebook? Are they pissed they didn't have to pay for that?
I'm no Facebook fanboi, but as a musician, sound engineer, producer, and last but not least AdBlockPlus user, Facebook doesn't owe me a penny. As long as people don't take the time to figure out how to secure their online profiles (of all types), punishing those who legally exploit them won't fix anything. People won't stop stealing cars as long as they're left unlocke
Why not November 13th? (Score:2)
National Felix Unger day.
Re:meh (Score:4, Interesting)
And with this.... Anonymous jumps the shark.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume these people are liberals? And well-intentioned at that? They seem more like... well honestly, teenagers. Not really cohesive, politically speaking, just raging for the sake of raging. Not really caring about the harm they're causing because they've never had responsibility or faced consequences. Basking in the attention they would never get any other way. Shit like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, Anonymous are/is pretty much just vandals. Lulz Sec at least seemed to have a clear agenda. They were doing to have a good time and to point out the stupidity and arrogance of others. Not the most noble of ambitions, no, but something you cheer for as long as it did go to far. Anonymous on the other had seems more like the London rioters. Something sets them off but they are mostly out there because they are angry at the world and just want smash something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to join Facebook to be tracked by them. See those Facebook buttons on almost every site? Yeah, they're using those to track you.
"When a user does not have a Facebook account, there is no cookie and no user ID available. In this case, an HTTP GET request for the 'Like' button doesn't issue a cookie.
"However, when a site is visited which includes Facebook Connect, this application issues a cookie. From that moment on, visits to other websites which display the 'Like' button result in a request for the Like button from the Facebook server including the cookie."
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/11/30/facebooks-button-tracking-you/ [thinq.co.uk]
Sure, it can be blocked fairly easily, but it's an opt-out, not opt-in. And many (most?) people have no idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for some info and lulz.
Message from Anonymous: Operation Facebook, Nov 5 2011 [youtube.com]
YourOpenBook.org [youropenbook.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't agreed to they're terms and they spy on me anyways. Sure I get less spied upon because I don't have an account, but it's still none of their damned business what I do online.
I'd rather have to see a few tampon ads if it means that I can have at lest some privacy online.
Re: (Score:3)
They understand the concept of confidentiality, what they completely lack is an understanding of the mosaic effect. [computerworld.com]
It's this bad: They could use the same username on a sex toy shopping site and a forum where they have links to their Facebook page. They'd write a review for the Tentacle Monster Dildo with Jizzing Action on the sex toy site, friend their boss on their Facebook page, and post pics of themselves doing bong rips on the forum. And see no problem with any of this whatsoever, because they don't see