It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by satron
I agree with you OP, you can also throw in Julian Assange and Wikileaks in that boat.
Originally posted by jude11
But this one is clearly more dangerous as anonymous doesn't have a face and that allows it to go on forever. It also allows any Country to be blamed for being the mastermind behind anonymous. Even US citizens.edit on 6/11/2011 by scojak because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Forevever
reply to post by jude11
The following is My personal opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up
If anyone or anything starts WW3 it would go against what Anonymous is supposed to be about - they can blame or claim they are Anonymous - the message sent by starting a world war should be enough to disprove its Anonymous
I think that itself means that everyone with a good message IS Anonymous - Hypothetically, I could hack into the white house files and steal all their proof of aliens and distribute them publically - then claim it Anonymously - no one would question it because it was for a greater knowledge, with no intent to harm anyone
This is why "Anonymous" claims you can arrest us, shoot us, do whatever you want to us - because we really aren't an organization or necessarily a "group" in any sense - we are different people, individuals with enquiring minds, and we want to know - and we'll find out - and you can't get us all (my interpretation, not verbatim)
Kind of like... hippies weren't all in one group - they were a "movement" spread across the entire US and included people from all walks of life - even if some of the individuals I'd consider a hippie didn't really live the hippie lifestyle - the idea was there, that was enough
Originally posted by scojak
I'd agree except that I think 'Anonymous' is too clever of a name for the government to come up with. I feel like they would put a face to the name, like 'Internet Terrorists'. Then everyone would assume it's just a bunch of Arab people doing all the hacking.
But I agree, otherwise. It's tough to really know who is behind all of it.
Originally posted by scojak
I'd agree except that I think 'Anonymous' is too clever of a name for the government to come up with.
In late 1999, the cDc created Hacktivismo, an independent group under the cDc communications umbrella dedicated to the creation of anti-censorship technology in furtherance of human rights on the Internet. The group's beliefs are described fully in The Hacktivismo Declaration, which seeks to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Internet. Among Hacktivismo's beliefs include access to information as a basic human right. The organization partially shares Critical Art Ensemble's (CAE) belief in the value of secrecy, but challenges both with CAE and many hacktivists on the subject of civil disobedience. The cDc model is, instead, one of disruptive compliance. Disruptive, in this case, refers to disruptive technology; compliance refers back to the Internet and its original intent of constructive free-flow and openness.
Originally posted by renegadeS
The poster and the repliers do not submit a user-name or any form of authentication.
Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by renegadeS
Maybe on that website they are anonymous to each other. but I am sure they are not anonymous to the powers that be....they can track anyone.