Anonymous ???

[Ranger F]

Just wondering what u all think of them?

[hunter63]

Seems a lot of people with that name.....Huh?

[crashdive123]

I'm not a fan of anarchists and hackers. It's easy to say "cool" when they target a group or agency that you think deserves it, but what about when they decide to target you?

Nope. Not a fan.

[DSJohnson]

I am sorry. I must have missed something. What are we talking about?

[LowKey]

Internet hacker group called "Anonymous"

[Rick]

I guess your question really boils down to what would you think of them if they hacked into your computer and made your personal information available on the internet? If that doesn't sound like a good thing then it would not be a good thing regardless of who they did it to or what their reasoning was for doing it.

[GreatUsername]

To the OP: it's worth noting that Anonymous has no centralized organization. It's kind of a banner-name that is appropriated by various hacktivists with generally (but not always) similar views and goals, but to classify them as a singular organization would be a little off-base. Same thing for anarchists. There are many different flavors of anarchists, and there isn't a central leadership of an "anarchist party" or anything.

As far as a disdain for unneccssary or abusive authority, I'm all for that. I'd say my opinion of stuff done under the Anonymous banner is generally positive, as they almost never attack average citizens, they mostly stick it to corrupted (or at least, in the hackers' view) corporations, and they've also done some indisputably good things such as expose and shut down child-pornography rings, leading to the arrests of several of those criminals. Anonymous definitely isn't wholly good. They're firmly in the "grey-hat" category of hackers. But all told, people who have been "part of" Anonymous, or acted in its name are usually not doing all that much damage, and sometimes are doing good.
Some of you guys seem concerned about them attacking us, but the record shows that those claiming to be in the group generally don't go after average citizens. You can classify me as "indifferent to moderately supportive" of Anonymous.

[Phaedrus]

I'm with GreatUserName. Overall I like what they're doing. Laws have moral authority behind them; without moral authority there are just rules and codes. Anonymous may violate rules and codes with what they do but I'm unaware of anything they've done that was immoral. All in all I consider them The Good Guys.

[BENESSE]

I'm on the fence. In favor of all the good they are doing, misgivings about predicting where they'll draw the line. The best I can say about them is, that sometimes it takes unorthodox measures to fight crime when LE and other appropriate organizations fail to do it. When voting, writing letters, and getting involved in causes we care about, makes little difference. They are simply taking the next step.

[Winnie]

Nope, I don't agree with them at all. Who are they to judge what or who should be outed in lieu of punishment? That's what a legal system is for. If you don't like your legal system or your gummint well, vote for the other team and lobby your MP, sorry, Senator? for change. Who's to say they get it right every time? An innocent person's life could be ruined for the sake of them playing God.

[hunter63]

Oh, THAT Anonymous.
I think that anyone should be able to shoot paintballs at any person or car while texting and driving......It would do some good, and let me take the law into my own hands, because I think so.

[mountainmark]

I haven't been following this too closely, but my personal opinion is that there are times where the outlaws are the good guys. Much of the legislation in Washington is lobbied by powerful corporate interests and is designed to protect corrupt businesses and politicians. If the only way to combat corruption is by wearing the Lone Ranger's mask, so be it. Keep in mind that our founding fathers were law breakers. However, I don't know too much about these folks, so I'm reserving judgment.

[Rick]

So it's okay to violate other's privacy if it's for a good cause? "Not doing that much damage", "moral vs. immoral" both are a bit like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. As I said, if they did it to you then it would be a different ball game I'm sure. I'm not concerned about them coming after individuals but I see no difference in them violating an individual or a corporation.

[hunter63]

So it's okay to violate other's privacy if it's for a good cause? "Not doing that much damage", "moral vs. immoral" both are a bit like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. As I said, if they did it to you then it would be a different ball game I'm sure. I'm not concerned about them coming after individuals but I see no difference in them violating an individual or a corporation.

Nor, do I and the selfish justification of common good is simple vigilantism.
Sorry folks, but it's would be real easy to give up your privacy, because some one else thinks you are wrong.

Bring on the paintballs........(Almost got hit again yesterday by a texting driver)

[Rick]

Here, stand in front of me, Hunter. I've got your back.

[Ranger F]

Nope, I don't agree with them at all. Who are they to judge what or who should be outed in lieu of punishment? That's what a legal system is for. If you don't like your legal system or your gummint well, vote for the other team and lobby your MP, sorry, Senator? for change. Who's to say they get it right every time? An innocent person's life could be ruined for the sake of them playing God.

Yea, that works. The two party system is broken. U can vote all ya want. (N I do vote). But $ puts the people they want in there ,on the ballot.

[hunter63]

Here, stand in front of me, Hunter. I've got your back.

That's nice of ya....almost got hit...from the rear, as I was taking stuff out of back of the truck, parked on the street.

[BENESSE]

Just for argument's sake, nothing more.
If A is violating corporate privacy to expose wrong doing, how is that different from what Snowden did... the same Snowden you all think is a hero?

[hunter63]

I don't think he's a hero.....He thinks he a hero....I'll stop there.

[crashdive123]

Just for argument's sake, nothing more.
If A is violating corporate privacy to expose wrong doing, how is that different from what Snowden did... the same Snowden you all think is a hero?

First - I don't think Snowden is a hero. I don't see where he had a whole lot of choice but to go the route he did since previous whistle blowers that tried to take the proper route ended up ignored, terminated or in jail. That being said - if you believe in a cause then believe in it. IMO it did not help his case by seeking asylum in Russia.

That aside....

He was on the inside exposing wrong doing which IMO would be analogous to an employee of the corporation exposing the wrong doing. What Anonymous is doing is hacking into these systems/corporations from the outside, so whistle blower would not apply.