Hacker group draws increased scrutiny from feds | Hacker News Reader

Hacker group draws increased scrutiny from feds

sfgate.com

15 pointsgibsonf127 comments

It was inevitable that they would go after hackers that do illegal things, but I wonder if they are prepared to handle what Anonymous really is? It's not enough to prove that someone is in Anonymous... They have to have prove the person actually did some hacking for it. Anyone can -say- they are in Anonymous without having any idea what others are doing under the name.

The article notes they have no leaders... But they also have no member list or any real organization at all, beyond what pops up spontaneously for each cause. You can't say any 2 hacks are related to each other unless you can prove the same people were in on them... Which is the opposite of how they usually do it.

It's going to be ugly.

Anonymous is just a label for people who are fed up with the government. Seeing the posters and the real impact in San Francisco, you can't just call it a "hacker group". At least in some areas they are approaching "movement".

I came to make this same response. If the gov is treating Anonymous like they would treat the mob or a terrorist group, they've got it all wrong. Anonymous is an adjective not a noun.

What reaction do you think the government should take then?

Actually try to understand and address the grievances? There's a substantial part of the country who feels like they've been left behind and they're not that far from becoming violent. Throwing a bunch of fraud committing bankers in jail for breaking the laws that are on the books right now would be a start. If people don't believe that the laws apply to everyone anymore then they're not going to be interested in keeping them.

This is as likely and will be taken as seriously as the possibility of addressing the grievances of the people that committed 9/11.

To continue the over-generalization - that Anonymous has not (yet) claimed responsibility for any violent acts is the only thing separating the two in the eyes of the government (and the general public.)

Anonymous, the hacker group, is not synonymous with people who are sympathetic is some of their real world actions. The best way to separate the pure anarchic core from people who are just pissed would be to address some of the most obvious injustices currently perceived by Anonymous' target audience. If we're really at the point at which it's impossible to recognize differences of opinion, or more specifically, belief that laws should be upheld as a "grievance" then things are much worse than I thought.

> This is as likely and will be taken as seriously as the possibility of addressing the grievances of the people that committed 9/11.

And this is why things will continue to happen to you without your understanding.

> that Anonymous has not (yet) claimed responsibility for any violent acts is the only thing separating the two in the eyes of the government (and the general public.

That you have (yet) to rape someone (or perhaps only to be caught for it) is the only thing separating you from a rapist in the eyes of the public. What was your point?

The government though is a different story, they don't have an opinion, they have spin. If something weakens the USA's unjust power, the government is against it. If it helps them, they're for it. Sociopaths will say anything.

"Actually try to understand and address the grievances?"

When the people of Anonymous decide to act like civilized adults rather than teen-angst laden teenagers, I might start to agree with you.

The group reminds me of many people I see on Reddit that can't get their way and their only response to this is anti-social and childish behavior.

"Civilized adults" who were fed up with things like taxation without representation tarred and feathered people, destroyed large amounts of cargo, and violently overthrew their government.

"who were fed up with things like taxation without representation tarred and feathered people, destroyed large amounts of cargo, and violently overthrew their government."

I make a pretty good living and I don't like the new jobs program and taxes that Obama is proposing. If I acted like Anonymous in response to this, would you think it was okay too?

As a first response? No. I'm just intuiting here so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that extreme action by an ever-growing fringe of society is a symptom of a larger, festering problem. As societal angst builds up over time due to systemic problems, the distribution of that angst will not be uniform. Anonymous is just one example of a subset of society where the accumulated angst is higher.

To paraphrase the saying, they're just saying what we're all thinking. They're just saying it in a way that few people approve of, but if that's the only way they can be heard, then that's what they'll do.

Some might say the tea party falls into the exact same category.

"They're just saying it in a way that few people approve of, but if that's the only way they can be heard, then that's what they'll do."

..and I don't agree with it. Eventually it will lead to senseless violence in addition to the senseless destruction. They are on the same level as any low-level terrorist group.

Oh get over your pompous self. "Low-level" terrorists my ass. Terrorists kill people. Anonymous disrupts services and blocks access.

That you're likely an American, directly funding the current killing of tens of thousands off people every year (still) in the fictional hunt for WMDs, and you're condemning protestors is farcical.

Anonymous is just a label for people who are fed up with the government

I get the impression that often 'being fed up with the government' is just a label for 'people who want to cause trouble'.

I take it you do not look kindly on the American revolutionists either? Because they sure were fed up with King George governance. :)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is, I can't help but get the impression many of the 'activists' under the name Anonymous are no different from vandals who go around smashing windows and leaving graffiti- they have just found a new venue.

Even if that's the case, there's still the question of why those people become vandals in the first place, and whether there's some tiny deficency in society that, if addressed, would prevent vandalism years before it occurs.

Contented people usually don't cause trouble.

Discontent is not automatically the government's doing.

No, of course not. However, it is typically in the government's (and society's) best interest to try to make sure that everyone is as contented and happy as possible. Further, sometimes, discontent is the government's doing, or is at least a response to things the government is doing.

Psychopathy excepted.

C.f.: certain violent criminals, backstabbing co-workers, banksters, and the like.

I'd like to know how much psychopathy is caused by traumatic experiences during formative years, genetic factors, exposure to toxic substances, and/or physical brain damage. I'd also like to know how much crime is motivated by psychopathy vs. discontent, retaliation, lack of education, and cultural differences. Knowing these things would significantly inform my opinions on Anonymous, terrorism, criminal justice, etc.

Lots of all of the above. I'm only vaguely acquainted with the literature myself.

One of the more interesting reads I've had is of studies of leaded white paint and childhood brain development pathologies leading to numerous psychological problems, including criminal tendencies. This was known in at least part (similarly to health effects of smoking) for well over a century, but it wasn't until the 1970s and 80s that lead paint was outlawed. Subsequently there's been a dramatic decrease in associated crime rates. Much of the advertising and iconography of paint companies (the Little Dutch Boy of the National Lead Company, a/k/a Sherwin-Williams) was aimed at making the public comfortable with the idea of using lead paint in areas used by children.

Unfortunately, slow housing/building stock turnover means that there are still many buildings with significant lead toxicity, though the problem is slowly getting better.

And this is one of only very many environmental factors. Other contaminants, psychological trauma in infancy/childhood, and genetic factors do all appear to play a significant role.

And WikiLeaks is just troublemakers, etc.

You do know that there's no official membership list for Anonymous and anyone, even you, could be Anonymous. Right? So yeah, it's vastly unlikely that you'd agree with everyone using the name.

Why do point it out as if that implies nobody could be doing anything worthwhile?

  > Anonymous is just a label for people who are fed up with the government.

I'm fed up with the government, and I don't identify with Anonymous.

Nobody identifies anonymous, that's the point of the masks.

Ohh... Um, sure. Which anonymous people don't you agree with?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com