Anonymous goes after Sony, makes it personal... very personal
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Before condemning I'll wait to see what is done with this information. If someone dies, that'll be the end of it, but don't freak out over pizza deliveries. I've been waiting for Anon to start endorsing violence, so far they haven't.
It used to be that geography contained a lot of mob-like behavior. You might be mad at the guy who lived in the nearby castle, but there were only so many villagers you could round up. And some of those liked the guy, some didn't want trouble, some didn't like your plan, etc.
Now the internet lets us find the most emotional people possible about a particular topic and put them all together in one "place". Then people can feed off each's other anger, saying and doing more and more preposterous things in order to impress the group. Information that might challenge the groupspeak is discarded. "Acts of valor" the group commit are spread far and wide, drawing in more members, thereby creating a feedback cycle which encourages more and more dramatic acts.
The thing is: the issue doesn't matter. The larger story isn't about Sony, or Anonymous, or any one particular issue. It's about how governments are going to be able to consistently function when the world is breaking up into thousands of little angry groups like this.
I have no idea how this is going to play out, or how many kids and families of corporation execs are going to suffer because of things they cannot control. But there will be a backlash. It's building, and I'm concerned that when it happens we are going to see governments step in and take control in ways that are as equally terrible. </doomsaying>
Thanks for pointing that out, though. Perhaps if we're lucky (?) tools to monitor and control mobs will evolve faster than tools to communicate and collaborate securely.
Anonymous is working at the basest level of security -- just drop by and jump in. I imagine what we'll see soon, what we see already in organized crime, is a combination of better ways of vetting while still integrating to the wider net in order to attract new recruits. As they say in the movies, the night is still young. If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems (once again, I'm overstating for effect)
Having said all of that, even if it's only 100 people, and even if it's always 100 people are less, that's a problem. Smaller groups that fly under the radar are more problematic than large noisy ones. How many people did it take to dump all the secure embassy traffic of the United States government?
For the record, I don't see a problem with any of those things, and I doubt I'm the only one.
What's wrong with that? That would be terrific.
We are not going to have problems. Governments and corporations who want to take away our rights are going to have problems.
There's a lot of general life getting in the way out there, how many people agree with a topic compared to how many will work their ass of to stop it?
You're implying that this group doesn't have a purpose or standards? Seems like they have a fairly obvious purpose: discourage Sony from being heavy-handed against hobbyist hackers. And they also have standards: just ones you may disagree with. I'm sure if someone shot a Sony exec's kid the bulk of Anon would disagree with this action.
The back and forth of the establishment attempting to control and elements of the population pushing back is not a new thing.
It isn't necessarily even the same purpose at the end as it was in the beginning. This is the danger of mobs, people become more emotional and feel more entitled to take more drastic actions that they would otherwise eschew alone. It would only take one lone nut case with a gun and the information Anon has gathered to turn this media curiosity into the biggest story this side of Libya.
I am not against what Anon is arguing for in this case, but what they are doing is highly questionable and crosses the line. This is no longer civil disobedience but something more akin to mobster tactics. If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops.
I'm not sure if you're joking here or not, but this is exactly what was done to "them" during the HbGary thing, and this is exactly what is trying to be done to "them" in the George Hotz case (Sony is seeking information on George Hotz, as well as anybody who visited his website.)
And they are crying foul from the internet's rooftops. Which is exactly where we are at now.
Because others are doing it Anon is justified in doing it as well? And justified in taking it further and exposing innocent bystanders?
Whether it's a proportional response or not is debatable, but it's an unsurprising and natural turn of events in a system where corporations, because of the degree to which they lobby political parties, are catered to by the law and the courts. All Sony execs have to do to restore their personal security is back off from attempting to abuse their power.
Bam, that is this, and the wikileaks thing in a nutshell. Gov & Corps are abusing their power at the expense of individuals. Anonymous (The Internet) gives previously weak individuals a way to level the playing field.
Going after the loved ones of the target of your fury is a tactic of criminals and despots.
Gang up on the bully.
I agree. However, as others have pointed out that's what Sony is doing. Yet they are not being prosecuted for it. So in some sense perhaps this adopting of the tactics of criminals to use against the criminals themselves (speaking hyperbolically or at least theoretically here- perhaps too strong to apply directly to Sony) is in some sense justice? Especially where the law fails.
Hey, I have a family. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone who was pissed at me to come after them. But then, I wouldn't go after their family either.
No.
>Because others are doing it Anon is justified in doing it as well?
No.
>And justified in taking it further and exposing innocent bystanders?
Absolutely not.
Is it wrong to respond if someone is attacking you? Sony are subverting governments to make laws that take away my (and your freedom on the internet. These laws are backed by credible threats of lethal force. What anonymous are doing to Sony executives is but a small fraction of what Sony executives are doing to internet users worldwide.
It's unfortunate that more conventional forms of civil obedience have been rendered ineffective in dealing with corporations who, by lobbying government and dominating popular media, have overcome the traditional checks and balances of a healthy civil society.
Just because you aren't getting your way doesn't mean society isn't working. You have a viewpoint, but plenty of other people have a very different viewpoint on where things should stand. That we manage to arrive at a reasonable middle ground between all of these dissenting opinions seems to indicate that the system is working.
I'm tired of hearing all of this posturing and justification for Anon just because you support what they support. If it was the Montana Tea Party employing tactics like this, they would be called domestic terrorists.
So, sorry: DDoSes, stalking, harassment and vandalism are not "civil disobedience", they're just plain old despicable behavior.
Representative democracy now represents lobbyists rather than voters. Media now represents corporate interests rather than the public interest.
This manifests in a new economic/political order: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary...
>That we manage to arrive at a reasonable middle ground between all of these dissenting opinions seems to indicate that the system is working.
Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.
>I'm tired of hearing all of this posturing and justification for Anon just because you support what they support.
That's unfortunate. Laws, the economy, culture, and politics have changed since the days of a functional civil society. It's unlikely that people in present circumstances will abide by standards of behavior that don't advance their interests.
>So, sorry: DDoSes, stalking, harassment and vandalism are not "civil disobedience", they're just plain old despicable behavior.
The tactics of the American and French revolutions were likely classifed as "despicable" as well by the out of touch and complacent, but history would be much different without these tactics. Many see Sony's abuse of power as "despicable". Sony is free to withdraw their aggression at any time.
To compare the state we're in to those periods in time is very misleading. We have one of the highest qualities of life and some of the strongest freedoms than at any other point in time. Let's not lose perspective.
We should "fight" for what we believe in and try to effect positive change, but we are extremely far away from the extreme times that warranted extreme revolutionary measures.
> Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.
That's a great sign that it is.
Reminds me of the quote: "You know it's a great deal when both sides feel screwed."
So what, the system only started working very recently?
A time like ours, in which there's a massive societal shift (the rapid shrinking of the middle class as a result of globalization) accompanied by a financial crisis, is actually quite comparable to the environments that fostered the American and French revolutions.
The French revolution was preceded by a financial crisis and enlarged public debt due to foreign wars. Back then it was nobility and the clergy that managed to avoid taxation and whose interests were overrepresented by the state. In our times the wealthy and corporations have gained this favor.
>That's a great sign that it is. Reminds me of the quote: "You know it's a great deal when both sides feel screwed."
Ah. So by this logic revolutionary America and France also had "working" systems.
NOW represents? That suggests that it has changed sometime in the last century. But from everything that I have read, the corruption is actually less today than it was a hundred years ago.
Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.
Oh the system is working, alright. It just isn't working for _you_. :-P
Institutionalized, legitimized corruption is a different thing entirely, and yes it's at a new level these days. See Citizens United. See the recent decision allowing corporations to run ads in elections. (they broke the spending record in a MIDTERM in 2010).
I far prefer to have corporations run ads in elections to having corporations purchase senate seats. And when I say purchase, I do mean purchase. Prior to the 17th amendment senators were generally appointed by state legislatures, and it was surprisingly common for corporations to pay the legislatures to make their man senator. This was the impetus for the 17th amendment.
If you want institutionalized corruption, read up on Tammany Hall.
If you want legitimized corruption, read up on the history of how the 14th amendment was so narrowly interpreted to prevent enforcement of its plain intent. We are not talking about minor injustices. For example in the Colfax massacre over 100 blacks were killed. Everyone knew who did it, only 3 were convicted of anything, and those convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court. This decision was widely applauded.
If you think that things are worse today, I'll need some serious convincing.
I understand that a lot of conservatives want to go back to the 1850s but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about as recently as 25-50 years ago when the current state of affairs would have been a scandal. And heck, even during Tammany Hall, such bribery was at least technically illegal, and widespread breaking of the law meant our elected officials said "how do we stop this". Now it's not only legal, it's encouraged, and our leaders are trying to enable more of it.
About how things have changed in recent years, in Bill Clinton's book My Life one thing that he comments on is how much cleaner politics is today than it was when he was young and just getting involved, and yet how much dirtier the public thinks it is. Based on his insider account I believe that the reality is very different than your perception.
Look at the income disparity in the country and look at the way the tax code, consumer protection laws, environmental protection laws and laws regarding corporate lobbying have gone in the last 20 years or so. It's all going the same direction. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say "institutionalized corruption", not small-scale backroom deals or dirty politics.
Currently the US government takes in about 15% of GDP in taxes. That's the lowest that it has been in a century. I would expect to see that change as well at some point in the future.
If that is the case then awareness of the corruption is what has changed. If government represents the interests of an elite rather than the electorate at large than that system is dysfunctional and may be subject to a correction.
>Oh the system is working, alright. It just isn't working for _you_. :-P
My comments criticizing the system have received healthy upvoting, so it would seem that I'm not expressing a fringe opinion. Outside of Hacker News, stats showing steadily increasing economic polarization in the US are a solid indicator of an out-of-balance system.
Actually a century ago people were very aware of the corruption. It was the impetus for a number of important reforms.
My comments criticizing the system have received healthy upvoting, so it would seem that I'm not expressing a fringe opinion.
Tip. When someone adds a ":-P" to a comment, that indicates teasing. The people for whom the system "works" are those with power and influence. You are not one of them, and therefore it doesn't work for you.
Sorry for my defective humor detector. Cheers!
Or rather the lambs friends private army.
On behalf of the rest of you lambs, I'd like to thank people who commit crimes to make points about freedom online for picking this fight. I'm sure we'll do just fine in it.
This is the losers not going gracefully. (Or at least, the likely losers. Actually democracy has not yet made its decision, it's still deliberating on the matter of jurisdiction, let alone the actual crime at hand.) This is the breakdown of democracy, not a celebration of it. I won't even immediately leap to saying that's a bad thing, because Democracy !=== "Good". I'm just saying, this is not democracy. It's either anarchy or mob rule.
And if you actually like democracy, raw or otherwise, you shouldn't agree with Anonymous. A democracy is all about means rather than ends, and as tempting as it may be to agree with the end it is imperative to the integrity of the system that you stand against someone getting there with the wrong means. If you don't like Sony, boycott, legislate, lobby, convince with words and fair deeds, not mob criminality.
Which laws specifically have been passed by Congress despite the fact that, say, 60%+ of the people would greatly disagree with it, and empower Sony to do these things?
I consider the DMCA a great mistake. I've spent way more time than the average Internet denizen thinking so, thinking about it, writing about it [1]. I have some very refined opinions on how bad an idea it is.
I do not delude myself into thinking that I have the support of the people.
Most people don't care, shading into supporting the basic functionality of the DMCA, at least come vote time. Sorry. It's the truth. It has even perhaps been passed via some dubious methods, but, again, certainly not above the will of the people.
I think a lot of people use "subverted Democracy" as a code word for "enacted something I don't like". But that's not a subversion of democracy; that's when you enact something a lot of people don't like.
Yes, there's a time and a place for writing the system off and taking justice into your own hands. This isn't even close to it. That's not something to be taken lightly.
To be honest we're probably not going to find much common ground here. I don't consider America a democratic nation, or at least not an example of one to strive toward. But I think I can distinguish between "subverted Democracy" and "enacted something I don't like."
You are defining democracy differently from how I would define it. The essence for me is majority rule.
> The essence of democracy [...] is the losers agree to go gracefully and wait for the next vote for their next chance at victory
I'd label that as constitutional government rather than democracy.
Sure, it's not thrown down time after the first defeat, but when every single issue time and time again comes down to such a huge split, when does it make sense to just end it and have the 2 groups separate?
However, in this issue I don't think we're talking about a 49-51% split. This is a very powerful minority imposing their will of a largely silent majority. Your logic still stands though: At what point do we break our union. Anonymous's action indicate to me that we may well have reached that point.
The real question should be about justice. What is actually right and wrong? It does not matter if the people being denied a voice are a majority or minority...the only thing that matters is what they have to say, and if it has merit.
To criticise exclusively "the means" of Anonymous in this sense is to close your eyes to the other sides "means". Things like lobbying, spreading democracy through war, nepotism, and simply ignoring constitutions altogether to do what ever the hell you want. All of which are privileges you and I don't have. Your vote will not change that. You can march on washington (or London (or anywhere) as they did against the Iraq War, Student Fees and Austerity Cuts) and you will not change a thing.
The banks have taken all our money, but while you pay full income Tax, Barclays Bank pays 1% corporation tax. Monsanto poison our food and use their power to make what was illegal yesterday, legal today. Pharmaceutical companies fudge trials or re-market pills and potions in a way that they know will harm people, but no one will ever go to jail for manslaughter or murder or bodily harm.
I've yet to see a better advancement for democracy in my lifetime than the Low Orbit Ion Cannon. It only works when we all pull the trigger together, which is a safety feature no other kind of democracy has.
I see an extremely tiny minority using intimidation in an attempt to force political outcomes they could not hope to achieve by democratic means.
Off topic, how is it that people can be against socialism, and yet also personally glory in the acts of soldiers and sports persons, etc.? Isn't that exactly taking something from the hard work of the capable few and spreading it over a whole nation in such fashion that the people who need it more can 'take' the most from it?
I'd add another problem with this state where more ideas, movements, tribes, etc. find critical mass via better and better communication technologies, is the side-effect of these groups forming echo chambers of ideas leading to more divergent groups with less in common, thus creating harder to resolve differences.
Sort of reminds me of the White people that are able to find each other on the internet and hate on another race. It has formed segregated groups and have executed killings based on what people and communities talk about online. I pretty much agree with your assumption. Its going to get worse.
One of the issues here is that a few of these pieces of data are like Primary Keys: home address, ssn etc: once you grab these you open up so much else, and there's not too many alternatives to these keys (for those times you actually need them).
They may not be immutable as a primary key suggests, but are very hard/costly to change, so the difference is moot.
Another reason to not give out your superkeys to anyone who doesn't need it.
Finally, though in general I'm in favor of privacy, with the complete lack of corporate accountability, I support the intention behind Anonymous's actions.
Oh, 4chan, you've proved me wrong again.
On the other side, this sort of hack-attack could easily go out of hand: what do we do if someone uses this sort of technique for malicious intents?
Just because we get visibility into this sort of attack doesn't make it any easier or legal to do.
If you need to go after Sony the cooporation or the CEO, do so when they assume that role, but stay away from family and personal business.
But taking down the PlayStation Network, well...that's over the line.
> "Anonymous is not attacking the PSN at this time," said the document. "Sony's official position is that the PSN is undergoing maintenance. We realize that targeting the PSN is not a good idea. We have therefore temporarily suspended our action, until a method is found that will not severely impact Sony customers. Anonymous is on your side, standing up for your rights. We are not aiming to attack customers of Sony. This attack is aimed solely at Sony, and we will try our best to not affect the gamers, as this would defeat the purpose of our actions. If we did inconvenience users, please know that this was not our goal."
But once you graduate to involving their families you cross a line.
The only thing that can be accomplished by releasing the names and addresses of someone's spouse and children is to put them in harms way. That harm might just be getting yelled at but it could be much worse. Which puts this act into the category of "threatening someone's family"
As someone who agrees with Anonymous on the facts I would only support a small fine for violating someone's privacy. But for involving their family I would support and encourage local governments to send the members of this subsect to jail
This gives the impression that you're making a claim about something you don't have much specific knowledge of. Or that you're absolutely sure that Sony is incapable of offenses larger than a certain magnitude.
Hm, I deal/have dealt regularly with a number of HNWI in executive roles and I reckon they'd scare easily enough. Acting all tough in the conference room is one thing, getting phone calls at home is quite another. One is "the game", one is real life, completely different. They're not the spetsnaz.
Speaking hypothetically and nonjudgementally - phone calls to the wife is an excellent tactic which would get you to the top of the mental agenda instantly in 99% of cases.
This is a truly disgusting suggestion. I don't have a word for the level of disgust it arouses in me.
Also, if I was on the receiving end, it would serve only to harden me, and to become far, far more strident against you and the other kids who are pulling this crap. Would you really want to be facing an angry executive who has the budget to buy not just security and investigators, but also law enforcement, legislators, the media, and anything else that's required to discredit you, and ruin your entire life?
Yeah I know. That's why I tried to qualify it. But speaking honestly, would it work? Yeah.
> become far, far more strident against you
it's not me OK? I was just trying to dispassionately speculate on what I thought would be effective.
Do you really believe that somebody with access to incredible resources is going to get harassed at home and think "well, I should go easier on this fellow, since his internet friends are stalking me and harassing my wife"? Really? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.
This is a horrible idea that can only go badly.
Escalation against a well-armed enemy is an incredibly bad strategy. In fact, it's hard to think of a worse strategy.
Corporate execs are characterised by an intense self-interest and aversion to anything that will impact them personally. Decisions are not about what is right, they're about what makes them look good and does not have personal repercussions. It's a very amoral environment. Not that I'm trying to criticise or anything; it's just the nature of the game.
That is why your typical corporate elite might have no issue with making a decision which wipes out 5,000 jobs at some unfortunate town. Not his problem. But is he going to help the company cheat on taxes or something, which will bring the FBI to his house? LOL! Absolutely not, not in a million years.
Anonymous's actions are quite inspired. They want to put "actions that will get you personally in trouble with Anonymous" in the same category as "actions that will get you personally in trouble with the FBI". This is an excellent tactic if you're got the balls to show you're serious, and they clearly have. You can be absolutely sure that other execs are paying close attention and, unconsciously, their maps of allowable actions are being rewritten.
I think that describes exactly why they're on the receiving end of such disgusting behavior. Geohotz is being ruined in that exact fashion. Sony execs can't be both terrible people and exempt from backlash at the same time.
I'm saying that it's incredibly foolish to engage in such personal backlash (harassing somebody's wife), because it simply cannot help the situation at all.
Anon is escalating, turning Sony into the victim and turning themselves into a secondary target. That's stupid on so many levels that it's hard to count.
I'm all for things that could help geohot. But I'm not going to suggest doing things that can only hurt him and his credibility, help sony and their public image, whilst annoying innocent bystanders. That's just stupidity on a stick.
I'm sure Anon envisage it going down like this (and IMO it is a reasonable supposition):
exec: honey, i'm home!
wife: oh darling, thank god you're home. those nasty men called me again! why are they doing this to us?
exec: well, because they say we're violating free speech and harrassing innocent people
wife: well are you?
exec: well .. um, a bit
wife: (glare)Circumventing that protection and making it personal is a pretty obvious choice, even if it's the wrong one. It also appears very poignant to me since Anon's actions basically mirror Sony's.
As always, depends on state and local ordnances. If you are on private property you can always get hit with trespass, but the actual trash picking is typically legal. Many licensed PIs make their living going through other people's trash. In short, buy a shredder.
It basically says if your trash is visible, you can't assume privacy of the contents. If it's inside your garage, then it's off limits. Interesting case nonetheless.
Quote:
NightSkies: lets kill sonys families
whirrior: it would be more effective to go down to sony headquarters and start the building on fire
D1sc0n3kt: whirrior cut the dope
NightSkies: why dont we just head down o sony and say fuck u
NightSkies: and smash their faces in
whirrior: now that is a protest
Sony's executives are in a similar situation, through their actions, or actions they support (explicitly or implicitly) they have put themselves in the firing line of Anon.
However going after innocent bystanders cannot be justified, on either side. Though I think it is a stretch to say Sony is going after GeoHot's family.
If you punch a mobster in the face and get shot for your trouble every one is going to say "Wow what a brave fellow, he knew what the risks were but he did it anyway". Just like in GeoHot's place he knew what he was doing had risks of getting himself sued or worse, but he chose to do it anyway because he disagreed with the law.
You have missed my point however, I agree with the sentiment of what Anon is doing, just not the methods they are using.
I'd hope the court system could aim a little higher than that.
Sony is attempting to create discomfort for Geohot: Anon is returning in kind. It's not about PR.
Credibility is becoming an outmoded concept.
One side of me says, I don't wish this type of personal abuse on anyone.
The other side of me says that I don't wish anyone at the age of 21 to be dragged through a ridiculous legal battle that could potentially affect the rest of his life. (debt for life, out of school, jail?)
Which is worse? Corporate greed or personal hacking attacks? Anon endorses the same techie progress that allows corporations like Sony, BoA, etc to reach it's mass market on the internet. Corporations like Sony embrace it's ability to use its mass market appeal (and therefore sales) to hire tons of lawyers to protect it's market.
Gavels vs. Mice. Who ya got?