Hacker News Reader

Comment by TomOfTTB | Hacker News Reader

For me this isn't an issue of privacy as much as its an issue of decency. If they released the bank records of these executives and said "these guys are loaded so why are they suing some kid" I wouldn't have a problem with that.

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

View on HN

Sony wouldn't care if their legal proceedings ruined your families lives, directly or indirectly.

This is a great point. They're currently devoting millions of dollars to ruining the life of GeoHot, but since they're doing it in a way that's sanctioned by politicians and lawyers, that's "alright".

GeoHot knowingly put himself in harms way, whether the law is just or not in this case his family is not being exposed to vilification and possible harm to their persons.

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.

I have a PS3. If I make modifications to it and talk about those modifications online, is that knowingly putting myself in harms way? Who owns my PS3? And what right does anyone else have to dictate what knowledge I share online about my PS3?

Yes. It is knowingly putting yourself in harms way because you know what the law is, whether you agree with it or not. When you take an action as an adult you are accepting the possible consequences of that action.

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.

Mobsters are defined as "bad people who will try to shake you down for money or possibly kill you for no reason".

I'd hope the court system could aim a little higher than that.

Why do people keep reacting to me saying he knew what he was setting himself up for as an implicit approval of what is happening!!! I keep saying I disagree with the law and agree with the aim of Anon, just not their methods.

I don't agree with Anonymous's tactics, but look at it from their perspective: Corporate executives don't scare easily. What level of threat would convince Sony to change its policy?

You're missing the point - trying to change a companies policies at the price of being decent human beings is worse than whatever offense Sony committed.

> worse than whatever offense Sony committed

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.

Good point; I didn't think of it that way. I never saw Anonymous as particularly honorable.

> Corporate executives don't scare easily

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.

> 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?

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?

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 not saying they're exempt from backlash.

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 agree that it has good chance of turning out badly and could be used to bolster support for Sony both in the public eye and in court, but how do you drive home the point to someone hiding behind a corporate veil? Corporate execs can make all the destructive decisions they want and can almost universally avoid being held accountable.

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.

Well, I disagree. I think that while in a grey area ethically it brings the question home in a very personal way; that's why they're doing it. Corporate execs are humans who have to come home to their wife and kids like anyone else. Perhaps there are some fanatical corporate warriors out there eager to put everything on the line to prove some kind of c-penis point but I sure haven't met them.

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)

Thanks for confirming that you're living in a fantasy world.

> This is a truly disgusting suggestion.

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.

> would it work? Yeah.

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.

Well I think you're misjudging the character of these guys.

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 don't think we could disagree more completely about basically everything.

Why is this comment being downvoted? He's not being rude or off topic or spammy. Are we dumping on people simply because we disagree with them now?

I totally agree about the families. That's way, way over the line. IANAL so I don't know whether there are actually laws being broken here, but there might be; freedom of speech in US law has exceptions for threats and putting people into harm and so on. The problem is that it may be hard to find out whom to prosecute; the name "Anonymous" is there for a reason. A lot of very bad things can be done behind a mask of anonymity, just as good things can be (c.f. Tor servers to help dissidents).

From my reading of the Ars article, the only thing illegal they did is the ordering of pizzas. Even the digging through his trash is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions. Is what they're doing right? I don't know, but actions have consequences.

You might want to read up on the laws regarding digging through trash. If the trash is on your property - it's illegal. Even if its in your driveway waiting for pickup, it's still illegal to go through. Also, In most states dumpster diving at any business is considered a felony.

Citation needed. I tried to figure out which one of us is correct, or at least more correct and this is the best I could do: http://www.opsecprofessionals.org/articles/dumpsterdiving.ht...

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.

You are correct in terms of state and local ordinances, and I did do some more research and came up with the landmark case of CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) where this very issue was argued before the Supreme Court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US...

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.

Some of the conversations could be construed as illegal (at least in my jurisdiction).

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

That conversation is illegal? Sounds like a lot of hot air to me. How many Anons do you think have the balls to do something like "go down to Sony and smash their faces in?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com