Hacker News Reader

>there's a big difference between a group with a purpose and standards and a mob.

You're implying that this group doesn't have a purpose or standards? Seems like they have a fairly obvious purpose: discourage Sony from being heavy-handed against hobbyist hackers. And they also have standards: just ones you may disagree with. I'm sure if someone shot a Sony exec's kid the bulk of Anon would disagree with this action.

The back and forth of the establishment attempting to control and elements of the population pushing back is not a new thing.

A lynch mob has a purpose.

It isn't necessarily even the same purpose at the end as it was in the beginning. This is the danger of mobs, people become more emotional and feel more entitled to take more drastic actions that they would otherwise eschew alone. It would only take one lone nut case with a gun and the information Anon has gathered to turn this media curiosity into the biggest story this side of Libya.

I am not against what Anon is arguing for in this case, but what they are doing is highly questionable and crosses the line. This is no longer civil disobedience but something more akin to mobster tactics. If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops.

>If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops.

I'm not sure if you're joking here or not, but this is exactly what was done to "them" during the HbGary thing, and this is exactly what is trying to be done to "them" in the George Hotz case (Sony is seeking information on George Hotz, as well as anybody who visited his website.)

And they are crying foul from the internet's rooftops. Which is exactly where we are at now.

So two wrongs make a right?

Because others are doing it Anon is justified in doing it as well? And justified in taking it further and exposing innocent bystanders?

>So two wrongs make a right? Because others are doing it Anon is justified in doing it as well? And justified in taking it further and exposing innocent bystanders?

Whether it's a proportional response or not is debatable, but it's an unsurprising and natural turn of events in a system where corporations, because of the degree to which they lobby political parties, are catered to by the law and the courts. All Sony execs have to do to restore their personal security is back off from attempting to abuse their power.

> All Sony execs have to do to restore their personal security is back off from attempting to abuse their power.

Bam, that is this, and the wikileaks thing in a nutshell. Gov & Corps are abusing their power at the expense of individuals. Anonymous (The Internet) gives previously weak individuals a way to level the playing field.

Even Wikileaks redact information that could get innocent people in trouble/killed. What Wikileaks does is controlled and measured, Anon is the the school's downtrodden nerds ganging up on the bullies little sister.

Going after the loved ones of the target of your fury is a tactic of criminals and despots.

Gang up on the bully.

Going after the loved ones of the target of your fury is a tactic of criminals and despots.

I agree. However, as others have pointed out that's what Sony is doing. Yet they are not being prosecuted for it. So in some sense perhaps this adopting of the tactics of criminals to use against the criminals themselves (speaking hyperbolically or at least theoretically here- perhaps too strong to apply directly to Sony) is in some sense justice? Especially where the law fails.

Hey, I have a family. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone who was pissed at me to come after them. But then, I wouldn't go after their family either.

>So two wrongs make a right?

No.

>Because others are doing it Anon is justified in doing it as well?

No.

>And justified in taking it further and exposing innocent bystanders?

Absolutely not.

> So two wrongs make a right?

Is it wrong to respond if someone is attacking you? Sony are subverting governments to make laws that take away my (and your freedom on the internet. These laws are backed by credible threats of lethal force. What anonymous are doing to Sony executives is but a small fraction of what Sony executives are doing to internet users worldwide.

>I am not against what Anon is arguing for in this case, but what they are doing is highly questionable and crosses the line. This is no longer civil disobedience but something more akin to mobster tactics.

It's unfortunate that more conventional forms of civil obedience have been rendered ineffective in dealing with corporations who, by lobbying government and dominating popular media, have overcome the traditional checks and balances of a healthy civil society.

Not that I'm condoning this behavior, but it's especially unfortunate that the target here is relatively benign when there are so many more deserving targets.

What evidence do you have that "the traditional checks and balances of a healthy civil society" aren't working?

Just because you aren't getting your way doesn't mean society isn't working. You have a viewpoint, but plenty of other people have a very different viewpoint on where things should stand. That we manage to arrive at a reasonable middle ground between all of these dissenting opinions seems to indicate that the system is working.

I'm tired of hearing all of this posturing and justification for Anon just because you support what they support. If it was the Montana Tea Party employing tactics like this, they would be called domestic terrorists.

So, sorry: DDoSes, stalking, harassment and vandalism are not "civil disobedience", they're just plain old despicable behavior.

>What evidence do you have that "the traditional checks and balances of a healthy civil society" aren't working?

Representative democracy now represents lobbyists rather than voters. Media now represents corporate interests rather than the public interest.

This manifests in a new economic/political order: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary...

>That we manage to arrive at a reasonable middle ground between all of these dissenting opinions seems to indicate that the system is working.

Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.

>I'm tired of hearing all of this posturing and justification for Anon just because you support what they support.

That's unfortunate. Laws, the economy, culture, and politics have changed since the days of a functional civil society. It's unlikely that people in present circumstances will abide by standards of behavior that don't advance their interests.

>So, sorry: DDoSes, stalking, harassment and vandalism are not "civil disobedience", they're just plain old despicable behavior.

The tactics of the American and French revolutions were likely classifed as "despicable" as well by the out of touch and complacent, but history would be much different without these tactics. Many see Sony's abuse of power as "despicable". Sony is free to withdraw their aggression at any time.

> The tactics of the American and French revolutions were likely classifed as "despicable" as well by the out of touch and complacent, but history would be much different without these tactics. Many see Sony's abuse of power as "despicable". Sony is free to withdraw their aggression at any time.

To compare the state we're in to those periods in time is very misleading. We have one of the highest qualities of life and some of the strongest freedoms than at any other point in time. Let's not lose perspective.

We should "fight" for what we believe in and try to effect positive change, but we are extremely far away from the extreme times that warranted extreme revolutionary measures.

> Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.

That's a great sign that it is.

Reminds me of the quote: "You know it's a great deal when both sides feel screwed."

That's a great sign that it is.

So what, the system only started working very recently?

>To compare the state we're in to those periods in time is very misleading. We have one of the highest qualities of life and some of the strongest freedoms than at any other point in time. Let's not lose perspective.

A time like ours, in which there's a massive societal shift (the rapid shrinking of the middle class as a result of globalization) accompanied by a financial crisis, is actually quite comparable to the environments that fostered the American and French revolutions.

The French revolution was preceded by a financial crisis and enlarged public debt due to foreign wars. Back then it was nobility and the clergy that managed to avoid taxation and whose interests were overrepresented by the state. In our times the wealthy and corporations have gained this favor.

>That's a great sign that it is. Reminds me of the quote: "You know it's a great deal when both sides feel screwed."

Ah. So by this logic revolutionary America and France also had "working" systems.

Representative democracy now represents lobbyists rather than voters. Media now represents corporate interests rather than the public interest.

NOW represents? That suggests that it has changed sometime in the last century. But from everything that I have read, the corruption is actually less today than it was a hundred years ago.

Pretty much anyone I talk to, regardless of their political persuasion, doesn't feel the system is working.

Oh the system is working, alright. It just isn't working for _you_. :-P

Petty corruption and backhanders are one thing.

Institutionalized, legitimized corruption is a different thing entirely, and yes it's at a new level these days. See Citizens United. See the recent decision allowing corporations to run ads in elections. (they broke the spending record in a MIDTERM in 2010).

Institutionalized, legitimized corruption is a different thing entirely, and yes it's at a new level these days.

I far prefer to have corporations run ads in elections to having corporations purchase senate seats. And when I say purchase, I do mean purchase. Prior to the 17th amendment senators were generally appointed by state legislatures, and it was surprisingly common for corporations to pay the legislatures to make their man senator. This was the impetus for the 17th amendment.

If you want institutionalized corruption, read up on Tammany Hall.

If you want legitimized corruption, read up on the history of how the 14th amendment was so narrowly interpreted to prevent enforcement of its plain intent. We are not talking about minor injustices. For example in the Colfax massacre over 100 blacks were killed. Everyone knew who did it, only 3 were convicted of anything, and those convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court. This decision was widely applauded.

If you think that things are worse today, I'll need some serious convincing.

Dude, what do you think the easiest way to purchase a senate seat is? In most states it costs a couple million dollars to run a campaign for a job that pays 200k.

I understand that a lot of conservatives want to go back to the 1850s but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about as recently as 25-50 years ago when the current state of affairs would have been a scandal. And heck, even during Tammany Hall, such bribery was at least technically illegal, and widespread breaking of the law meant our elected officials said "how do we stop this". Now it's not only legal, it's encouraged, and our leaders are trying to enable more of it.

Tell Carly Fiorina how easy it is to purchase a Senate seat.

About how things have changed in recent years, in Bill Clinton's book My Life one thing that he comments on is how much cleaner politics is today than it was when he was young and just getting involved, and yet how much dirtier the public thinks it is. Based on his insider account I believe that the reality is very different than your perception.

Yeah, Clinton was talking about the personal level, like "has a secret black baby" stories and things like that, particularly in the desegregated south where he was coming up.

Look at the income disparity in the country and look at the way the tax code, consumer protection laws, environmental protection laws and laws regarding corporate lobbying have gone in the last 20 years or so. It's all going the same direction. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say "institutionalized corruption", not small-scale backroom deals or dirty politics.

Yes, income disparity has gotten a lot worse since 1980. We're now back to about the levels of disparity that we saw a century ago during the gilded age. Just like then, I expect to see a long term backlash. (At the height of the backlash in the 1950s the top personal income tax rate ranged from 92% to 93%. On income over $1 million/year. That was a lot more then than it would be now.)

Currently the US government takes in about 15% of GDP in taxes. That's the lowest that it has been in a century. I would expect to see that change as well at some point in the future.

>But from everything that I have read, the corruption is actually less today than it was a hundred years ago.

If that is the case then awareness of the corruption is what has changed. If government represents the interests of an elite rather than the electorate at large than that system is dysfunctional and may be subject to a correction.

>Oh the system is working, alright. It just isn't working for _you_. :-P

My comments criticizing the system have received healthy upvoting, so it would seem that I'm not expressing a fringe opinion. Outside of Hacker News, stats showing steadily increasing economic polarization in the US are a solid indicator of an out-of-balance system.

If that is the case then awareness of the corruption is what has changed.

Actually a century ago people were very aware of the corruption. It was the impetus for a number of important reforms.

My comments criticizing the system have received healthy upvoting, so it would seem that I'm not expressing a fringe opinion.

Tip. When someone adds a ":-P" to a comment, that indicates teasing. The people for whom the system "works" are those with power and influence. You are not one of them, and therefore it doesn't work for you.

>Tip. When someone adds a ":-P" to a comment, that indicates teasing. The people for whom the system "works" are those with power and influence. You are not one of them, and therefore it doesn't work for you.

Sorry for my defective humor detector. Cheers!

You may be exaggerating. I visited the #opsony room, and at one point they were broadcasting how many LOICs were in operation. Millions? Thousands? No. <100. Less than 100 people in this mob of internet justice. And fewer still doing more nefarious stuff like stalking down execs.

Yes, I am purposely overstating and glossing over certain details, mainly because I'm attempting to extrapolate.

Thanks for pointing that out, though. Perhaps if we're lucky (?) tools to monitor and control mobs will evolve faster than tools to communicate and collaborate securely.

Anonymous is working at the basest level of security -- just drop by and jump in. I imagine what we'll see soon, what we see already in organized crime, is a combination of better ways of vetting while still integrating to the wider net in order to attract new recruits. As they say in the movies, the night is still young. If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems (once again, I'm overstating for effect)

Having said all of that, even if it's only 100 people, and even if it's always 100 people are less, that's a problem. Smaller groups that fly under the radar are more problematic than large noisy ones. How many people did it take to dump all the secure embassy traffic of the United States government?

It's useful to mention that you're overstating when you do it (like you did in this post) so that people don't fall into the trap of believing that what you're saying is actually the status quo.

>If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook?

For the record, I don't see a problem with any of those things, and I doubt I'm the only one.

If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook?

What's wrong with that? That would be terrific.

> If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems

We are not going to have problems. Governments and corporations who want to take away our rights are going to have problems.

It's all fun and games until you discover that you're working for today's bad guys, your address is posted up, and there are cocks drawn on your face on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Although you may be right, if the hackanery gets too bad the gov may have no choice but to step in. I wonder how long it will be before a special ops team from the newly formed Ministry of Information is banging down these kids' doors.

If < 100 people can cause this level of disruption, I think it adds to, instead of detracts from, GP's point. Ye' olde pitchfork mob couldn't even think of causing this kind of disruption, even at similar numbers.

You've got to look at it from the other side too though, it only took a handful of people at SCEA to decide to make geohot's life hell.

There's a lot of general life getting in the way out there, how many people agree with a topic compared to how many will work their ass of to stop it?

From what they've taken down in the past I don't have a doubt that one or more 'anonymous' have access to a botnet. This is probably what the FBI is after and is why no action has been taken.

I see pure, unfettered democracy in action. It's ugly, but I love it.

In the "2 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" sense...

Democracy will always be the tyranny of the majority.

Actually this seems to be a case of the well armed lamb contesting the vote.

Or rather the lambs friends private army.

If the Lamb in this scenario is a litigious bully who stretches the law to breaking point and abuses privileges that aren't available to you or I, then yes.

No, we're the lambs. One of the wolves is a giant multinational company, the other owns tanks and can control Internet peering.

On behalf of the rest of you lambs, I'd like to thank people who commit crimes to make points about freedom online for picking this fight. I'm sure we'll do just fine in it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting one should put up with some injustice in the face of the threat of more of it?

No. You're right. What you should definitely try to do is use coercion against people who can outspend you $1,000,000,000 to $1, or against people who employ hundreds of people authorized to discharge firearms.

I know you're being sarcastic, but actually you are completely correct.

The essence of Democracy is not that the majority wins. The essence of democracy and other representational systems (such as the variant on democracy we actually have) is that when processes are followed and the vote is fair, the losers agree to go gracefully and wait for the next vote for their next chance at victory. The winners don't need to be told they won; they know it. It's getting the losers to go gracefully via proxy violence rather than actual violence that is the key to civilization as we know it.

This is the losers not going gracefully. (Or at least, the likely losers. Actually democracy has not yet made its decision, it's still deliberating on the matter of jurisdiction, let alone the actual crime at hand.) This is the breakdown of democracy, not a celebration of it. I won't even immediately leap to saying that's a bad thing, because Democracy !=== "Good". I'm just saying, this is not democracy. It's either anarchy or mob rule.

And if you actually like democracy, raw or otherwise, you shouldn't agree with Anonymous. A democracy is all about means rather than ends, and as tempting as it may be to agree with the end it is imperative to the integrity of the system that you stand against someone getting there with the wrong means. If you don't like Sony, boycott, legislate, lobby, convince with words and fair deeds, not mob criminality.

I counter that organizations like Sony have already so subverted our democracy that this entire point is moot. The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion. And to be honest I'm more concerned with the ends than the means anyway, finally. Democratic ideals are something everyone should strive toward to be sure, but things have perhaps degraded to the point that they need to be set aside in the short term.

"The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion."

Which laws specifically have been passed by Congress despite the fact that, say, 60%+ of the people would greatly disagree with it, and empower Sony to do these things?

I consider the DMCA a great mistake. I've spent way more time than the average Internet denizen thinking so, thinking about it, writing about it [1]. I have some very refined opinions on how bad an idea it is.

I do not delude myself into thinking that I have the support of the people.

Most people don't care, shading into supporting the basic functionality of the DMCA, at least come vote time. Sorry. It's the truth. It has even perhaps been passed via some dubious methods, but, again, certainly not above the will of the people.

I think a lot of people use "subverted Democracy" as a code word for "enacted something I don't like". But that's not a subversion of democracy; that's when you enact something a lot of people don't like.

Yes, there's a time and a place for writing the system off and taking justice into your own hands. This isn't even close to it. That's not something to be taken lightly.

[1]: http://www.jerf.org/iri/blogbook/communication_ethics

Are you sure the DMCA was enacted democratically? That it was passed by Congress isn't strong evidence for that.

To be honest we're probably not going to find much common ground here. I don't consider America a democratic nation, or at least not an example of one to strive toward. But I think I can distinguish between "subverted Democracy" and "enacted something I don't like."

> The essence of Democracy is not that the majority wins.

You are defining democracy differently from how I would define it. The essence for me is majority rule.

> The essence of democracy [...] is the losers agree to go gracefully and wait for the next vote for their next chance at victory

I'd label that as constitutional government rather than democracy.

51% rule does not work if 49% pick up the guns when they lose and start shooting. If you are fortunate enough to live in a well-civilized country, you are fortunate enough to live in a society that has internalized the fact that it's ultimately not good for anybody to do that. A casual glance around the world will show how not-inevitable that is. It's not two different definitions; it's the engineering mechanics whereby "majority rule" actually works, actually occurs, instead of... something else. (Multiple different sorts of something elses... I don't mean that I have one particular one in mind. But presumably some sort of something else that doesn't involve majority rule.)

If that 49% never 'wins', they have absolutely no incentive to continue their union with the 51% majority. It would make no sense for them to do so - why always stick around the with the husband who beats you?

Sure, it's not thrown down time after the first defeat, but when every single issue time and time again comes down to such a huge split, when does it make sense to just end it and have the 2 groups separate?

That's an excellent point well made. The logic of democracy is trumped by the logic of real life.

However, in this issue I don't think we're talking about a 49-51% split. This is a very powerful minority imposing their will of a largely silent majority. Your logic still stands though: At what point do we break our union. Anonymous's action indicate to me that we may well have reached that point.

I think democracy gets conflated with justice too many times. There is absolutely nothing good or bad about democracy....it is merely a way of representation and governance.

The real question should be about justice. What is actually right and wrong? It does not matter if the people being denied a voice are a majority or minority...the only thing that matters is what they have to say, and if it has merit.

while we're sat here debating the subtleties and semantics of what "democracy" means, Anonymous is out there being the change they want to see in the world. Anonymous are better democrats than I.

To criticise exclusively "the means" of Anonymous in this sense is to close your eyes to the other sides "means". Things like lobbying, spreading democracy through war, nepotism, and simply ignoring constitutions altogether to do what ever the hell you want. All of which are privileges you and I don't have. Your vote will not change that. You can march on washington (or London (or anywhere) as they did against the Iraq War, Student Fees and Austerity Cuts) and you will not change a thing.

The banks have taken all our money, but while you pay full income Tax, Barclays Bank pays 1% corporation tax. Monsanto poison our food and use their power to make what was illegal yesterday, legal today. Pharmaceutical companies fudge trials or re-market pills and potions in a way that they know will harm people, but no one will ever go to jail for manslaughter or murder or bodily harm.

I've yet to see a better advancement for democracy in my lifetime than the Low Orbit Ion Cannon. It only works when we all pull the trigger together, which is a safety feature no other kind of democracy has.

"I see pure, unfettered democracy in action."

I see an extremely tiny minority using intimidation in an attempt to force political outcomes they could not hope to achieve by democratic means.

Excellent point. It reminded me of Clay Shirky's TED talk, on institutions vs. collaboration: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_on_institution...

I'd add another problem with this state where more ideas, movements, tribes, etc. find critical mass via better and better communication technologies, is the side-effect of these groups forming echo chambers of ideas leading to more divergent groups with less in common, thus creating harder to resolve differences.

> Now the internet lets us find the most emotional people possible about a particular topic and put them all together in one "place".

Sort of reminds me of the White people that are able to find each other on the internet and hate on another race. It has formed segregated groups and have executed killings based on what people and communities talk about online. I pretty much agree with your assumption. Its going to get worse.

"Acts of valor" the group commit are spread far and wide, drawing in more members, thereby creating a feedback cycle which encourages more and more dramatic acts.

Off topic, how is it that people can be against socialism, and yet also personally glory in the acts of soldiers and sports persons, etc.? Isn't that exactly taking something from the hard work of the capable few and spreading it over a whole nation in such fashion that the people who need it more can 'take' the most from it?