Bank of America Hit By Anonymous DDoS Attack

Originally posted by peter_kandra
When did this happen? I login almost daily for bill pay and haven't had a ny issues.

You need to scrab BoA and use another bank! BoA was the only bank allowing illegal citizens without social security number to open an account!!!!

Good show.. Maybe there is still some justice in the world..

Originally posted by linuxcore

Originally posted by peter_kandra
When did this happen? I login almost daily for bill pay and haven't had a ny issues.

You need to scrab BoA and use another bank! BoA was the only bank allowing illegal citizens without social security number to open an account!!!!

whoah, really?

Do you have a source for this? I'm genuinely interested..

first off about the claim to lack a structured hierarchy trust me that isn't a claim it's true there is no hierarchy what so ever never has been never will be. for every Anon who claims to be the leader 1000 Anon's will just ignore him and do whatever they where doing anyway.
as far as the tremendous numbers go probably less then 20% where involved in the wikileaks or the BoA deals as most of 4chan didn't really give a crap, only the random board had anything to do with it and no more then 40% of them did anything.

as far as the older "hackers" teaching the younger ones it will nerver happen as the ones who know what there doing just find it funny when the ones who don't fail or get caught.

Originally posted by linuxcore

Originally posted by peter_kandra
When did this happen? I login almost daily for bill pay and haven't had a ny issues.

You need to scrab BoA and use another bank! BoA was the only bank allowing illegal citizens without social security number to open an account!!!!

You can do that in the Netherlands also, it's a service for seasonal workers.

Abuse maybe?

reply to post by bobdole210


Although I do not agree with all of what Anon stand for, I cannot agree with you that they will be the reason for the shut down/ censorship of the internet.
For one thing Anon are not just a bunch of teenagers and wanna be technoheros. A great many are superlative hackers, networks engineers, and other forms of extremely capable IT technicians. These are the people who will prevent the shutdown, because they know how to operate the system in which they work, far better than the people giving the shut down order. They always have had, and probably always will have, the tools to continue the net wether the powers that be wish them to or not, and they have long had better qualified , and better expirenced people in thier numbers than the media and other organisations either give them credit for, or are prepared to publicaly admit. These are serious people.
Now, on the subject of Wikileaks, and Anons support for Julian Assange and the movement for total truth, I cannot commend Anon highly enough for standing in support of this movement. It shows a deeper element to Anon, one which many had ignored, labeling them as spotty nerds living in thier mothers basements, and living off social security , contributing nothing. This involvement however shows that some within that community have social and political awareness, and just showing that to the world means that either the membership have improved, or public opinion has been engineered for a long time against them. Personaly I find it far more likely that opinion has been engineered against them, and that we are now seeing the truth, that Anon is not just a collection of idiot bums , but a collective which contains intelligent and strongly democratic persons, who refuse to allow lies and secrecy to destroy thier space, thier livelihoods, and thier freedoms.
Theres alot thats wrong with Anon, and more specificaly some of the online locations at which they can be found, but in terms of thier political aims, and in terms of choosing a side of the line to stand on, I feel they could not have chosen better aims, or fallen more firmly on the correct side of the line. I wish them every possible bit of good luck in thier goals, and I hope thier victims choke.

While I think anon's heart is in the right place, this might be counterproductive.

This attack and attacks like it are going to be seen as being done on Wikileak's behalf, and I'm worried that we won't even need a government conspiracy to shut Wikileaks up at this point, pissing off a bunch of well funded corporations which control the government as-is is probably a surefire way to speed up the process of either attacking Wikileaks or free speech on the web in general.

I don't think it's being done deliberately with that in mind, but it might be a unintended consequence. Wikileaks taking on the banks is risky enough for them, supporters DDoSing websites might just give their enemies the justification they need to do what they wanted to do all along.

It would look bad if Bank of America really took on Wikileaks for leaking some embarrassing documents of theirs, but if they could claim that Wikileaks and their supporters are resorting to e-terrorism which could potentially cost them x # of dollars per minute of downtime, it gives them the excuse they need to really go full force on Wikileaks without looking like the aggressor.

I used to have an account with Bank of Satan...I mean Bank of America. I'm finding it very difficult to be sympathetic. I'm rather amused, truthfully...

reply to post by Djarums

By taking down the BOA site aren't they removing the freedom of bank customers to choose who they bank with?

They may be doing that temporarily, just to get the "customer's" attention. There was a time when we chose banks primarily based on their relative interest rates and convenience of location. Moral behaviour of the institution was a non-issue.

Well, times have changed. Some of us have begun to see the larger picture and how what big corps do can affect the quality of our lives in ways that had never occured to us. It would upset me if I discovered that my bank was seeking to squash free speech. I would take that factor and whatever other type of influence they were attempting with my money under consideration. I am looking for more information and may change who I deal with (its not BofA).

Were it not for the pranks of Anon, we might still be in the dark about the fact that BofA did what they did. I can't wait personally for the Wikileaks to turn to the banking industry.

reply to post by Djarums


well, anonymous dont exist

its just some random people that join together and do something that the majority agrees

so, its not like they have rules or something

thats the thing that nobody understands ... even if they destroy all members, others will create their own anonymous groups, simple because these groups dont actually have any structure ... so, if they dont have any structure, its hard to say what they stand for, and what their plans are, because there are no rules, there are no plans

I really don't see what they were trying to accomplish with this attack. For one thing, not only were they attacking BOA, but they were attacking the customers of BOA.

I'm no fan of BOA but I think they could have found a better way to send a message without harming the customers.

reply to post by The Sword


like in the other thread

how do you attack an hypothetic terrorism? with terror

Originally posted by Djarums
Once again I have to raise a question that I asked on a recent ATS Live broadcast.

Anonymous claims to be pro Free Speech. They are upset with BOA for not taking donations for wikileaks.

So... wouldn't the appropriate action be to use their tremendous numbers to pressure the bank by encouraging boycotts?

By taking down the BOA site aren't they removing the freedom of bank customers to choose who they bank with?

Just wondering out loud again.

The financial institutions world wide, are based upon greed and bonuses.
I dont care if my bank gets ddos't, but then i prefer all at once.
Your money is dead anyway.

edit on 29-12-2010 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2010 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by The Sword
I really don't see what they were trying to accomplish with this attack. For one thing, not only were they attacking BOA, but they were attacking the customers of BOA.

I'm no fan of BOA but I think they could have found a better way to send a message without harming the customers.

As has been stated countless times this is an attempt to raise public awareness. There is some collateral damage here but like any form of protest you are usually going to piss people off, how else do you make your point ?

brill

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by tristar

 

I am really interested in who you work for. You're avatar and some of your posts are, well intriguing to say the least.

I am but a simple person who has opted to interact with several members within ats for some time. I find this site very interesting with many interesting and informative people. At times i have been caught off guard with information that is filtered through this site but the fact remains there are some genuinely descent people that one can interact with and enjoy his time within this particular site.


Peace
tristar

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by Djarums

 

its just some random people that join together and do something that the majority agrees

it's not always the majority of them though sometimes it a small number of them.
but other than that i agree with you.

Anyone get the feeling the 'leaders' of Anonymous could be inciting 'cyber violence' for another purpose? Isn't this what the government wants? Don't they want to take the internet away from us already?

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Anyone get the feeling the 'leaders' of Anonymous could be inciting 'cyber violence' for another purpose? Isn't this what the government wants? Don't they want to take the internet away from us already?

edit on 29-12-2010 by jessejamesxx because: fix

i really hope you're tolling but let me say there is no 'leaders' of Anonymous, the closest you could come to saying that there is a "leader' is moot but even that is a really a huge long shot seeing as moot rarely even posts on /b/ (4chans random board) when he does post there it mainly to mess with the people there not help them in anyway.

now that being said its a known fact that the fbi kepts a close eye on /b/ and i wouldn't surprise me in the least if they had a few agents post to start the ball rolling on this whole mess.

reply to post by duogemstone


Someone is organizing and is behind the decisions being made, and directing others to do the same, IMO. Just because they're anonymous doesn't mean that people don't take charge and try to be involved / lead people. I would guess that there is a network of 'Anonymous' users, where they aren't anonymous and plan/execute plans, and have some sort of rank. They have stepped it up a notch from rescuing kittens, and ordering pizzas for people. They are probably one of the highest level internet threats to the government right now. My question is, are the main people involved inciting illegal activities for a purpose other than 'free speech'.

Oh, and Moot is far from a leader of Anonymous. The group has transcended that website, and is something much bigger altogether.

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Anyone get the feeling the 'leaders' of Anonymous could be inciting 'cyber violence' for another purpose? Isn't this what the government wants? Don't they want to take the internet away from us already?

edit on 29-12-2010 by jessejamesxx because: fix

thats what i've been trying to point out the whole thread