Wikileaks, Anonymous, etc.

Chunes

I'm undecided on this new breed of internet 'hactivism'. On the one hand, seems a group like Anonymous are protesting in a modern way. Is there much difference between downing a website or, say, lorry drivers blocking off a motorway? On the other hand, denial of service attacks are illegal. But is that just a technicality?

Wikileaks is even more complicated.

Wondering what other people think.

kentaddick

Both a force for good in my opinion. Anonymous more so as it's a collective "anonymous" group. But Wikileaks I'd say is a bit more of Assange vanity vehicle.

Bournemouth Addick

I think you mean Assange @kentaddick, although the thought of Nige seeking refuge in a foreign embassy is quite amusing.

LuckyReds

Assange has always struck me a bit of a tool; deluded and full of his own self-importance. (I think @kentaddick describes Wikileaks perfectly to that extent)

As for Anonymous; being a collective group with no real structure - there is no real ruleset and therefore they're a force for bad just as much as good I think.

kentaddick

haha sorry, been a very long day full of deadlines all on 2 hours sleep. Edited and i'm off to bed

Off_it

You have to be careful with computer geeks. I've seen Terminator.

MattD

Ddos (denial of service) attacks happen everywhere. 10 year olds with computer access can and do ddos. I would say Anon are a bit more dangerous than just that.

johnny73

I would be very careful about starting a debate on this. I'd make this thread 'members only'. Am I paranoid? Yes, I've been hacked in the past.