The arguments between parties.. (UGNazi)

joepie91

@netomx said: this is funny, you know, when they put: Tango down! and the link to a page that they DDoS... that's pathetic.

Yes, I think we established that about 20 posts ago.

gsrdgrdghd

@netomx said: this is funny, you know, when they put: Tango down! and the link to a page that they DDoS... that's pathetic.

To be fair Ugnazi != Anonymous

@joepie91 said: can be proven invalid by someone that has experienced a relationship between two things

I guess the problem here is that you and me (coming from a mathmatical background) have different understandings of 'proof' and 'source'.

@joepie91 said: When done properly, such a system can actually work. And no, that does not exclude the possibility of having a government, it just can't decide that it has power over those that did not choose to be part of it.

So what happens e.g. when someone who has choosen to "not be part of the government" kills someone who is "part of the government"?

@joepie91 said: Anonymous as a whole is not democratic - however, it is not in contrast with it either.

Here let me refer again to my edit from earlier. Why would you want to be a 'part' of Anonymous then?

netomx

@joepie91 said: Yes, I think we established that about 20 posts ago.

damn

@gsrdgrdghd said: To be fair Ugnazi != Anonymous

Sorry I didn't specified to what group I was refering to.

raindog308

@gsrdgrdghd said: To be fair Ugnazi != Anonymous

Well, unless they say they're Anonymous, and then they are.

joepie91

@gsrdgrdghd said: To be fair Ugnazi != Anonymous

Actually, it's not just UGNazi doing the Tango Down thing. If I recall correctly, th3j35t3r started it, after which a bunch of Anons started using it to mock him. UGNazi just reused that idea. It's more of an inside joke than anything, though... (although I do wonder whether the UGNazi guys realize that)

@gsrdgrdghd said: So what happens e.g. when someone who has choosen to "not be part of the government" kills someone who is "part of the government"?

That would be force. The simple solution to deal with initiation of force (which I'm sure will be misunderstood by many without the long version of the idea) is that it warrants equal or less force in return, or as much as necessary for immediate self-protection - either by the person that force is exercised against, or someone/something he 'authorizes' to respond on his behalf. Actually the example you gave is an excellent example of how a government can still exist in such an environment; the person that is 'part of the government' has most likely authorized said government to act on his behalf, as 'part of the deal'. That allows said government to retaliate against the person that is 'not part of the government' with equal force.

Additionally, it's highly unlikely that in such an environment, only one government would exist.

gsrdgrdghd

Interesting video on this topic:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

joepie91

@gsrdgrdghd said: Interesting video on this topic:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

A few things that are important to point out regarding that video (and the book):
* The book is not about Anonymous, but mainly about LulzSec and those involved in it - it's actually mistitled.
* The book is not particularly accurate, in fact it seems like it even misses basic technical and consistency editing (try to ctrl+F the PDF for 'anonnews' and count how many times the TLD is incorrect).
* There is no such thing as a 'representative' of Anonymous.
* There is no such thing as a 'core' of Anonymous.
* She incorrectly presents 'SQL injection' as being 'using an automated web tool to steal data from a website'.
* In the interview, she focuses on Anonymous as if it's just a ideological/political movement - which it isn't. (It did not, as she seems to imply, 'evolve' to an ideological movement... the people that just want to pull pranks and cause chaos, are still just as active)

richard

I agree with taipres.
Also this stuff is just giving people headaches and not achieving anything. They just go after low hanging fruit to gain e-points on twitter.

Most of the leaked passwords (anon/lulzsec/whatever) just mean loads of regular people now have some extra shit to deal with. Yeh maybe companies tightened their security, but publicly outing passwords is not the correct way.

joepie91

@richard said: I agree with taipres.

Also this stuff is just giving people headaches and not achieving anything. They just go after low hanging fruit to gain e-points on twitter.

Most of the leaked passwords (anon/lulzsec/whatever) just mean loads of regular people now have some extra shit to deal with. Yeh maybe companies tightened their security, but publicly outing passwords is not the correct way.

Have you even read the rest of the thread?

onepound

FBI arrests

http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2012/manhattan-u.s.-attorney-and-fbi-assistant-director-in-charge-announce-24-arrests-in-eight-countries-as-part-of-international-cyber-crime-takedown

gsrdgrdghd

Looks like those "dox" sites all got Josh's name/other data wrong

DanielM

What a strange name "Mir Islam"

DanielM

@liam said: It's called a muslim name.

I know that. but its not a traditional muslim name...

DanielM

And it seams whmcs is now hosted @ cpanel

http://screencap.net/f/0c4c11b9.png

Gary

@DanielM said: I know that. but its not a traditional muslim name...

Not the first time I've seen it as a name.

Infinity

@DanielM said: I know that. but its not a traditional muslim name...

That's a Bengali name, I've only ever seen Bengali's with the surname Islam. Mir is definitely an Indian Subcontinent thing. In the Arab world, at least the people I know Islam isn't used as a surname or a middle name but similar meaning words are used.