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.
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?
Sony is attempting to create discomfort for Geohot: Anon is returning in kind. It's not about PR.
Credibility is becoming an outmoded concept.