NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/world/10wiki.html Also, this:
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP They quoted us. That's ok. I can see how they're linking this directly to us though. We need to take action over this. Rufus! News team ASSEMBLE!! Send them a copy of that awesome statement you made earlier today.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP gregg did 32 more interviews today and counting so be on your best behavior
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP This is so BS! Isn't there any real journalists out there anymore???
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP I'd expect a little more from the New York Times, but I guess they are in business to make too. who has time to do any fact checking when there is sensationalized drama to be published. They should have picked a random quote from a poster of huffingtonpost.com or foxnews.com, they would have gotten more mileage out of it.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Hey...if "media" will actually be visiting here more, perhaps we can change the anonymous avatar to something they would find more entertaining?
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP I find it ironic that this media attention is happening now, after most of Anonymous has long-since left and WWP consist mainly of protestfags, douchebags, OG and ex-scientologists.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Hows this one to entertain the retards? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ELB7CWBWUTQ/S3FpBLaJLEI/AAAAAAAAF9Y/mXZpA42aPfE/s400/sarah_palin.jpg
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Most media seem to have such extreme ADHD ( Glenn Beck ), they never have the mind to research the fact well enough to pass with a highschool diploma.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP True. Sigh. Really, if Anonymous were responsible for this, we would most likely be proud of it. Our main Leaderfag (Yes you, Rufus), have stated things that are against the hacktarding. When someone talked about DDoSing, they were shoo'd away. Theyre just attacking the easiest target. Fellas, we have nothing to hide. It would be neat if we could get some good attention on this. If anyone has the balls, visit your local media. Arrange an interview. Explain the fucking truth, instead of letting them poon us for no reason. I am fruitfag hear me roar. Even if it was Anonymous members (Which im suspecting it could be, due to passion being here), it had nothing to do with Anonymous itself, as the group is against it. DO YOUR RESEARCH NEWSFAGS! Sorry. If it werent for me oft' fucking up, i would try to get interviewed on our national tv. And then also my age would make me unreliable. Well, it's neat to get world famous for being terrorists tho.. Guys, keep the forums clean, is my advice. Speak the truth, and most important of all, make NO claims that you were involved in this, no matter if u were or not. Would be a footbullet, and i would keep u in a cage showing u hentai guro traps all day.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP One hopes that the FBI are at least intelligent enough to figure that out.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP http://forums.whyweprotest.net/332-...p-mass-mirroring-wikileaks-74184/#post1366829 This is the post from the quote, FWIW. When I get some time this evening I will help work on a statement to the NYT and one to CBS, if not a general press release, but I don't have time to work on it yet.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP i think it's safe to say that if *someone* doesn't make it very easy for journalists to undestand, in short sentences and words of two sylables, then they're gonna just get the whole thing so very wrong and start saying this website is a hub of acvtivity or something crap... personally i wouldn't touch that loic warez with someone-elses bargepole.. and like has been said above - niether would most people on this website Jounalists looking for copy about the wikileaks stuff... this is not the correct website to look on
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Oh for the love of... This is exactly what happens when you let idiots be journalists. Vaguely reminds me of this:
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP [COLOR="Magenta"]Brilliant, just brilliant. Only way it could be better is if it'd be involving boobs.[/COLOR]
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Perhaps a edited (shorter) version of Rufus's explanation & send to news outlets that will actually report the truth, like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Thom Hartmann, Stephan Colbert, Jon Stewart??? Or someone calls them directly (like a Mod here) & tells them the truth! BTW isn't there a vid already made that explains all this?
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP I'm sure the FBI has an account here and knows that we are not leading this. It's pretty common practice to let idiots mouth off what they are doing (or going to do) on message boards and for the Feds to swoop in after they have solid damning evidence.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP This is stupid!!!!! Knowing that we are getting a bit famous now on the news, we can now be targeted as maybe a terroist group! I'm now understanding how basic proggraming works!
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP I really don't see where anyone thiks they can do anything by DDoS. It didn't work for Chanology, it won't work for this. Granted, it got the media's attention both times, but so did many other things. The fastest way to support wikileaks is to actually support wikileaks instead of making the whole world blind.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP For the record, "Chanology" didn't DDoS anyone. This site has never condoned illegal activities. You all really need to spend time learning the differences between "Anonymous" and "Chanology".
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP It's a story they know the American public will bite into, and most of the American public doesn't know about Anonymous, or understands how it works. I really doubt mass media has any interest in informing the public on this because it would significantly reduce the public's fear, and interest, thus reducing potential profit from the story. That does not mean attempts to inform should not be made, but rather that people should expect that illegal activity done by any one claiming to be anonymous will reflect back on all of anonymous regardless of how loosely affiliated. The cloak of anonymity works in both directions.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP You'd think so, but the United States government is a good as it get when it comes to wasting tax dollars on pointless wild goose chases. After starting a multi trillion dollar war in Iraq because a few right wing nut jobs who never even visited Iraq hijacked a couple planes with box cutters and slammed them into building, nothing surprises me anymore.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP And you really need to spend time learning that this site is not the entirety of Chanology. It started on the *chans, spread via irc and got out of hand with DDoS attacks. Once the chaos subsided and we realized we needed a legal way to go about kicking around Scientology, we started Enturbulation.org, which was later changed / migrated due to ramen scandal to whyweprotest.net.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP The name Chanology was used by the people that did the DDoS attacks. There was a Project Chanology ED page before anyone had proposed stopping those attacks. If you want to use the name, you gotta deal with the baggage. And really, there's no reason to get mad about this stuff. This is what is going to happen if you're going to use the name Anonymous, particularly if you're going to have the name Anonymous and a bunch of threads about wikileaks. To be perfectly honest, it's quite absurd to call yourselves Anonymous and then get ticked off when outsiders, who aren't aware of the intricacies, lump you in with other people using the same name and the same cultural expressions, ect ect. It kind of falls to you to make that distinction more clear. Or hop on the wwp irc channel where you will find many conversations about wikileaks and what is happening surrounding that. There's much more overlap than some people in this thread would like.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP I am well aware of the history of Chanology, but thanks. LE, dat you?
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Indeed. It is hard to get a lot of these points across to the press. A lot of them are really trying, but most just dont seem to get it. Ravi is actually doing one of the better jobs.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Didn't Ravi used to write for Gawker? He seemed to have some idea what he was talking about then. Wonder what happened.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Just last night I was stuck in a local cabana deciding whether to buy a 22 oz Beck's or Heinie and the proprietor was listing to a NPR propagandacast interview with a former NYT journalist whose main theme was 'BAWWWW internets'. He went on to talk about how proper journos are TRAINED and proper journalists are UNBIASED and do proper RESEARCH. Then I come on here this morning and all I can do is shake my lazy head and exclaim, "Whatta load of fuuuuuuuuuu...." Any Journos reading this: These are not the droids you're looking for. You really need to do some reasearch and do your former collegue, who has so much unfounded trust in your abilities, proud and all that. Thanks in advance.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP Actually, I've witnessed it in more than one case and have been accused of being the rat, even though all their posts were public and I never had any interaction.
Re: NY Times Links Cyberattacks Directly to WWP How come whenever type m-o-r-a-l-f-a-g it turns into douchebag?
