Customize

broader front opening?

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, Dec 13, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    broader front opening?

    Hi.
    I'm not sure if this is the best place for a thread,
    but saw this on The Guardian:

    4chan (reputedly) or some other Anon assortment apparently attacked Gawker,
    grabbed their database and are playing. Supposedly NOT for lack of WL love, but because "it was there".

    Gawker falls victim to pro-WikiLeaks hackers | Technology | The Guardian

    Not SODD this time, but some other sort of breach evidently.

    On the one hand, even more blindingly obvious (to us on WWP) that Chanology anons had nothing to do with it, but on the other its one more to add to the list of things that clueless media reports will blame us for.

    In a way its not really a "broader front" since Anons have always attacked sites they thought were lulzy; raids like this aren't all that remarkable in and of themselves, but with the heightened media attention right now there are bound to be more of these sort of things happening (that get wider attention than they otherwise would).

    Edit: The Guardian fucked up briefly, no big deal
  2. Consensus Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    Look. Most of us showing support for Wikileaks are calling for 'greater Transparency.' Many are calling for 'COMPLETE Transparency.'

    One of the most potent objections I've stumble across is this: 'then post your username and password for all of us.'

    That objection has not been satisfactorily addressed. I don't know the intentions or allegiances of these hackers, but they are bringing this objection to the forefront.

    It's time for us to have a serious discussion about secrecy, privacy, transparency, paternalism, and the nature of social obligations.

    We've been defending free speech; and that's a much needed fight. Now let's work out reasonable limits to secrecy and reasonable limits to transparency.

    Here's a start: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/332-wikileaks/why-do-you-support-wikileaks-74676/2/#post1373646


    edit - related to this discussion; the need for proper security protocols for sensitive data. Seems like every other month some major corporation fails in protecting the private information of users like us.l
  3. Anonymous Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    1) Consensus- We're Anon. Our demands will never be met. This isn't a revolution. We serve as an extreme which someone else will use as an example and negotiate a compromise. The compromise will be realistic. We're from the web, reality's for losers.

    2) We've historically been friends with Gawker. What'd they go and do that for?
  4. grebe Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    OSA offered them a fiver?
  5. Consensus Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    (1) reminds me a lot of Hegel. would you say Anon exploits the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model to engineer an acceleration of progress?
    (2) I've no idea. I doubt it was 'us' proper. I was dismayed when I heard of this attack as well. Anyone here that uses Gawker should be sure to change all their passwords and protect themselves from the fallout.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    Chanology has historically been friends with Gawker, but that's technically out-ethics, since Anonymous is not your friend and:

    vennq.png
  7. Anonymous Member

  8. BusinessBecky Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    Anonymous did it = Fake news.
  9. timthephoto Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    i just got a lovely phishin mail i think, ostensibly from help@gawker.com
    i've introduced spaces to make shit unclickable

    Code:
    sender = help=gawker.com@mcsv177.net
  10. Anonymous Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    It looks like con artists attacked the site and are using the emails to spam and are blaming it on anonymous.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    OP here,

    the only dox I have is The Guardian article,
    which could be attributing the attacks to Anon because they don't know any better. TNW and Washington Times may have a more accurate story, but The Guardian has a somewhat wider reach.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    Paint brush is wide.

    River is shallow.

    Ocean is deep.

    Expect it.
  13. Anonymous Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    »» broader front opening?

    the images in my head, I cannot shake
  14. Darkduck Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    The Guardian actually does nto blame Anon, further in it states

    "The cyber attack was claimed by a previously unknown group of hackers going by the name of Gnosis."

    of course this said it then goes on to talk about a dispute between Anon 4chan and Gawker, so I think either the stories been edited or they are trying to blame Anon while also telling truth, ie get more reads or something.

    either way, go fictional media
  15. Anonymous Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    Guardian fixed their originally broken story. There's an apology of a sort at the bottom of the article. The thread was based on the original, not the update.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    You misspoke here. By 'potent' you should have said 'bollocks'. Governments carry out actions in our names, so having a basic knowledge of what they are doing would seem to a citizen's right. They are supposed to be accountable to the people, and sufficient transparency to allow that accountibility should be a given.

    If you think the password/username strawman of people who are not elected to represent others is a potent argument then you are really missing the point.
  17. another123 Member

  18. veravendetter Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    Woop, there it is!
  19. Zak McKracken Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    ^^^
    THIS
  20. Darkduck Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    I thought this might have been the case (hence I said it might have been edited, never trust media)

    also, I approve of the fronts above, let them OPEN,
  21. Zak McKracken Member

    Re: broader front opening?

    Never?
    You didn't bother to read the post script, did you?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins