Hunting Anonymous could be 'waste of time,' parliamentarians told

Hunting Anonymous could be 'waste of time,' parliamentarians told

www.montrealgazette.com

OTTAWA — Parliamentarians tasked with investigating what has been deemed intimidating online videos against Public Safety Minister Vic Toews were warned Thursday that a hunt for the culprit — or culprits — could be pointless.

MPs on the procedure and House affairs committee were told that trying to track down anyone using the online handle of Anonymous would be difficult, if not impossible to find.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.cbc.ca
online.wsj.com

Following another story where Public Safety Minister of Canada was "threatened by anonymous", Parliament has had a hearing about what they should do about this threat.

First story linked here: www.cbc.ca...

The activist group posted the videos on YouTube and warned Toews to scrap the online surveillance bill.

Scheer said that when MPs are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, it must be taken seriously.

I'm a little confused as to why this was taken so seriously, and why tax dollars went into the hearing. Some of the revelations from the hearing include:

Conservative MP Laurie Hawn said someone needed to be held responsible for the videos attacking Toews and demanding he withdraw the government's controversial online surveillance bill, and be held up as an example for others who would consider doing the same thing.

"Anonymous is a coward," Hawn said, adding he "had nothing but contempt" for anyone who would abuse free speech.

"They're like the Taliban. We're never going to run out of them."



Read more: www.canada.com...

Referring to anonymous as a coward, as if it is a single person sitting in a mountain top layer hatching evil plans around the world?

I'm not sure the implied context by the Honorable MP in this case.

It seems like they have no understanding about anonymous, or the online "hacktivist" movements, as they are dubbed by MSM outlets.

It is reminiscent of soccer moms getting together wanting to rid the world of those evil kids from down the block.

I'm confused.

The group is responsible for attacks against several high profile websites, including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and, in Canada, the website for the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

Yes, for sure. The "group" was responsible for this, but weren't they under FBI direction as the alleged leader (MSM Opinion) was working as an informant and reportedly called off the attack on the CIA website?

“Sabu,” has been helping the FBI track down and gather evidence against his associates, tweeting out misinformation and even protecting the CIA among other government and financial institutions from hacks

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

As soon as he was caught, an influential computer hacker agreed to become a government informant and "literally worked around the clock" to help federal agents nab an elusive collective of alleged cyber criminals who have launched online attacks against companies, governments and individuals.

www.montrealgazette.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's the truth actually lol.
Anyone can be Anonymous and there's allegedly thousands worldwide participating in hacktivism, thousands more just hacking and being tards and thousands more claiming to be part of Anonymous for the street creds...er eCreds. It's a concept with different people using it for different things, good luck tracking down and prosecuting a concept. No amount of creating new laws, infiltration, informants, is going to stop an idea turned ideal.

So what are you getting at here? I agree that it is a waste of time because they are in different countries. Anon will always be here

Originally posted by AnoNymousDoN
So what are you getting at here? I agree that it is a waste of time because they are in different countries. Anon will always be here

I think I outlined it in the OP. For one, the Public Safety minister is reacting immaturely to a random posting on YouTube. If a law was broken, it should be up to the police to investigate it as opposed to organizing a public inquiry.

What did the public inquiry accomplish? Short of declaring war on an idea/concept, they have labeled people on computers the equivalent of the Taliban.

Excuse me while I reject your ideological rantings Mr. Government.

The Taliban fought in real wars and killed real people. I do believe they stoned real women to death in Afghanistan. I do believe they are living breathing militant/political group that is responsible for a great many of things in a certain country in the Middle East.

In no way shape or form, should Anonymous, be compared to the Taliban. It is irresponsible and deluded. No matter the point the Minister is trying to get across. In this circumstance, should could have just as easily inserted the name of any group. So why use the one she did?

"They're like the Taliban. We're never going to run out of them."

No comparison needed. This comment was inappropriate.

I am not defending actions of anyone who has had the veil of being anonymous, (As I don't plan to make a judgement on that one way or the other) I am just calling it for what it is.

In the government's eyes, anything that infringes against the "good of the nation's security" could be assumed as a terrorist threat, despite internet rather than guns being the weapon.

But look at the point of the statement "we will never run out of them"....its not inaccurate. There are thousands who join the ranks of the hacktivist groupings. Just like the Taliban will never run out of people willing to shoot at anything from a different cultural structure.

It really is a waste of time to try and nail them all. I'd say the best offence is a good defence in this realm. I'm not a huge fan of Anon if you can tell. Granted, they earned points fighting in the last fiasco over cencorship...but thats about it.

reply to post by IronArm

But look at the point of the statement "we will never run out of them"....its not inaccurate.

Just as easily could have said "Christians" or "Muslims" could they have not?

You cannot equate what "anonymous" has done to what the Taliban has done. Therefor it is an unneeded comparison IMO. If they were comparing Pol Pot to Hitler, I wouldn't really care.

reply to post by boncho


My apologies. Anon is nothing like the Taliban. Anonymous is trying to help on some situations while the Taliban are true terrorists killing people. I was jus confused for a minute but i catch your drift now

reply to post by boncho


I suppose you are right in the whole...killing people... thing lol...but as it stands, the general public feels as if Anon has the ability to ruin lives. It's a negative connotation is all I mean to agree with. I don't mean to be offencive and degrade Anon to the Taliban.

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by boncho

 

I suppose you are right in the whole...killing people... thing lol...but as it stands, the general public feels as if Anon has the ability to ruin lives. It's a negative connotation is all I mean to agree with. I don't mean to be offencive and degrade Anon to the Taliban.

After giving some thought to this I should probably revise my stance. As the Minister was perhaps taken out of context by me. One thing I should say clearly, is that I believe the Minister was using the context that: 1. The Taliban keep popping up no matter how hard the troops are on the offensive or defensive, and no matter how many Taliban were arrested. Therefore, him comparing to Anon, would be saying that both are an enemy of the state, and both would pop up no matter how hard the state went after them.

That's what I interpret after giving it some thought anyhow. In either case, I still see it as an unnecessary comparison. As one is not akin to the other. One has our military fighting it, and the other is in a spat with Toews. Two completely different topics.

I did however want to outline the what I feel was the intended context of the Minister however, so it was not misconstrued.

Hint: They are in Langley Virginia and Colorado. It's the building with the big CIA sign on it.... Problem solved!

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hint: They are in Langley Virginia and Colorado. It's the building with the big CIA sign on it.... Problem solved!

Well, according to this it was the FBI calling the shots. Of course, that was what is labeled as "lulsec" and not technically anon, but parliament seemed confused on the issue.

Perhaps they should start frequenting this forum to keep up to date on alternative news...

Or perhaps not!

Originally posted by AnoNymousDoN
reply to post by boncho

 

My apologies. Anon is nothing like the Taliban. Anonymous is trying to help on some situations while the Taliban are true terrorists killing people. I was jus confused for a minute but i catch your drift now

I personally think that Anonymous' biggest problem these days, is paradoxically that they actually care too much, believe it or not. You guys were a lot more effective back when you did things purely for the lulz, rather than being emo superhero wannabes trying to save the world.

Taking things too seriously is how you get caught. It leads to other drama as well, like that hacker not long ago who was convinced by the feds to turn in his associates as part of a plea bargain.