So what exactly does this accomplish?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12364654

Woo fucking hoo. You brought down a website for a few hours. The regime is sure to back down, now! And it was all thanks to a couple of script kiddies. Oh wait, that's not why? Then just what is the reason for all of this? Is it to send a message to the governments, not to censor the internet? Wait no, that would be hypocritical.

Yes, I realize this website doesn't associate with such behavior, and does not condone illegal activities, but to all those involved: How are you helping? Better yet, how are you NOT destroying your own cause by doing this?

Just something for these morons to think about.

oh in a "just in case they read this" sort of way?

Trying to analyse acts that are little more than an FU to a regime? Fail thread.

Yet it opens the doors for the United States and other countries to ban online anonymity...

In the same way that muggings opens the door to banning walking in the street....

No... not in the same way at all. In fact, I do recall politicians discussing the possible banning of online anonymity in the past, citing "cyberbullying" as their number one reason, but the speculation is good enough that they could do it for security purposes as well.

Good luck with that, OP.

And if you don't believe me, LMGTFY.

How would banning online anonymity help to prevent such attacks?

Seems to me that it accomplishes one important thing: Letting those people inside these oppressed countries know there are those outside of them that are here to help them. People that will help with no expectations in return.

DDoS is a symbolic gesture and the recent comparisons of this activity being a "cyber sit-in" are (to me) accurate. Yes it is illegal and no I don't "condone" it, but to say it has no impact is failing to understand the point of doing it in the first place.

99.999999 % of all DDOS attacks are perpetrated by hackers who use botnets of hacked computers.
How is "banning online anonymity" going to help prevent this, Mr. Cluelyless?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. people lash out. You could say.... "Whats the point in fighting an oppressive regime and getting killed for your efforts?" BECAUSE SOMEBODY TRIED!! Besides.... not all of us can be planet wide names for change, so we do what we can. And as stated, It's more about the message getting to the people that control the website... instead of actually trying to take it down.

Do you idiots really think that making websites go down is equivalent to having a sit-in, or "fighting an evil regime"? And you know, maybe banning online anonymity won't do shit to stop people from doing it, but it sure as hell will piss off millions of other people who have nothing to do with any of that. Think about that for a minute.

Imagine image boards automatically displaying your name and address unless you use proxies. But then the image boards block all known proxies, and then wtf are you going to do? What about whistleblowing or watchdog bloggers who have a damn good reason not to display their name? I'm sure the government & corporations would LOVE that to happen.

Seems pretty selfless to continue this action, even knowing the consequences that can affect much more people.

Get a grip.

Yes but afaik it was never even brought up by the government to ban online anonymity. Maybe because online anonymity doesn't exist anyway. You are already identifiable by your IP on the internet and the fact that the FBI already found some of the perpetrators proves this.
So the argument, that the DDOS were bad, because they would give the US government an incentive to ban online anonymity is bullshit.

Scroll up, genius. I provide a quick google search link to prove this wrong. Not only has it been brought up by the US government, but other governments as well. And it doesn't help that people like Gregg House are promoting the LOIC all over CNN and whatnot.

Sorry, Housh*

ITT: OP totally doesn't understand the concept "for the lulz"

Yeah, you just keep on doing criminal activity "for the lulz", you'll be laughing all the way to your very own prison cell.

OP, one comment about losing anonymity as a result of fighting for it, and you're whupped? I won't be getting on that bandwagon. Did it cross you mind that it's social engineering?

Who decides which action is legit or not ? You ?

What are your crimes?

Ah, so the government will say that from now on you will have to post with your real name on image boards, because people are DDOS'ing websites?

I'm saying that if online anonymity became illegal, people wanting to expose something going on without attaching a name to it would be forced to anyway.

I'm saying that DDOS could lead to the government making such a decision. Of course though, governments would have better reason to do so so that they could keep closer tabs on whistleblowers, but they'll use something like this as a fear-mongering excuse.

OP has obviously never heard of fighting fire with fire (censorship with censorship if you will).

Kind of what I meant by "hypocritical". Censoring someone because they censored you accomplishes nothing and turns you into the one that's in the wrong.

No, it won't lead to the government making such a decision, because, as i already tried to explain, making people post with their real name on internet forums won't prevent DDOS at all.

How about this: Was DDoS'ing Wikileaks a sit-in? Was the guy who did that just expressing his first amendment rights?

I never claimed it would, and in fact all you're doing is proving that you'd rather do something extremely selfish which would affect millions of people just to have some fun messing with others.

Image boards won't ban proxies, that would be stupid. I can hardly imagine the chans going along with any governments request to ban proxy IPs so as to remove anonymity. But you enjoy your little delusion.

And it would be selfish not selfless. See, being selfless is sacrificing ones own interests for the greater good. The argument you're making is that by DDOSing, people are going to remove the thing they are fighting for. That would be a selfish action. And there's a big fucking difference between the two.

Actually it has been. I believe it was the South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson who introduced a law that banned online commentary on the 2010 election unless the poster revealed their real name and postcode. He later repealed it after just about everyone in the country raged at him. Then again, this was the same moron who introduced a bill which stated that victims of crime should be able to suggest a suitable sentence for the offender.

Actually, 4chan does ban several proxies, and they ALWAYS cooperate with the authorities when they ask them to hand over personal information on a warrant.

Huh? First of all i didn't participate in any DDOS. I am merely saying that your argument is bullshit. DDOS cannot be used as an argument to ban online anonymity. Never has and never will be, because it would make no sense and because there are much more reasonable arguments that can be used instead.

If anything, DDOS completely discredits anything and everything Anonymous does. Especially when they're compromising someone's business because of it (such as credit card companies). It's like Scientology's dream come true: We're all just a bunch of cyber criminals.

So this is entirely speculation and tinfoil. But, If someone is testing the waters of public opinion or if they'll actually reduce certain freedoms, the noise to make is: NO.

lol too much anonymous ITT. Case and point: If it wasn't "Anonymous" It would be "Fake Id" as in screen names and usernames that have nothing to do with you IRL. Kinda like the avatars that aren't Anonymous ITT. Making fake screennames like 456832 or 24695 or 45720 Wouldn't be a problem. Now instead of talking about Anonymous people... you're talking about numbers. And that would affect people..... how?

Difference between giving information and completely banning anonymity. The police would need to prove just cause in order for a warrant to be granted.

A fair and reasonable question. If one considers DDos against PayPal, Mastercard and other commercial entities a cyber sit-in then is a DDoS against Wikileaks the same thing from an opposing viewpoint?

To some degree, answering yes is perfectly valid. However, there are some distinctions worth consideration. First, these are commercial entities facing protest because of their business practices. The attacks against government sites in Iran, Tunisia and Egypt were a form of political protest. Wikileaks (opens can of worms) is considered a news/journalism organization and thus DDoSing it is akin to doing the same to CNN.com or the New York Times website.

U mad? No one's business (let alone the major international corporations involved) was compromised. All of the companies involved issues statements saying no commerce was interrupted.

And for the record, I'm not suggesting that DDOS is okay or even always appropriate. Just sayin' don't underestimate it as a tactic. Also, who gives a a damn what scientology's impression is of anonymous.

It's NOT a tactic, it's something skiddies do for nerd-revenge.

So basically, it's okay to do it to businesses, but not journos/news? You a commie or something?

I remember when everyone here was all anti-ddos, but now that Gregg says it's okay, everyone's all for it. And they said Anonymous has no leaders.... right....

i guess