"it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts"
This is quite the hypocritical statement coming from the FBI. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Anonymous, Lulzsec, and the FBI is that the FBI act by executive fiat. I don't support Internet vigilanteism, but I also don't support the concept of the FBI as an untouchable force who are no longer held accountable by the public they are theoretically serving.
At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary.
The scary part isn't that scofflaws and pranksters exist, which (as you say) is practically inevitable. But what if we as a society may some day depend on them to preserve our freedom?
Viewing my world in terms of black and white has always been more of a comforting illusion than a reasonable approximation of reality. I realize this. But either these self-styled hacktivists are rationalizing their hooliganism with noble-sounding platitudes or they honestly believe that their way is the best way to fight against corporate corruption and government abuse of its own constituents.
If the former, it's becoming less obvious. And the latter is a frightening thought indeed. One day I might have to choose between a government agency whose actions have transcended public accountability (as in the Instapaper raid), corporations who will gladly sacrifice me on the altar of their own convenience (as in the Peter Adekeye case), or a capricious band of anonymous malcontents who might fight for my rights or might hold me up to public mockery and exploitation "for the lulz".
But what really scares me is that the choice will be made for me.
I have to find myself agreeing with this, the fact that these individuals (FBI members, govt agencies in general.) are funded beyond the means of normal individuals and given resources that money can't buy. (well I'm sure enough of it can.) Gives them an edge that many people can't fight against. They can do whatever they want with impunity. Now I can't say that opening up a server and releasing all it's users passwords is right, or fair, but there comes a time in war where there must be casualties. In this war of Anon VS govt/corp, Anonymous must use unfair tactics, if only to level out the playing field.
That all said, this all reeks of a cold civil war, maybe something will come out of it, maybe nothing will. I'll just keep doing what I do, solving issues of non-freedom the way I can, one person at a time. A lot could be done if people just acted better towards each other. But I think right now that's too much to ask of us(humans).
The fact that we're even able to have these thoughtful discussions means that at least we're evolving as a species.
For the sake of our survival, may we eventually get to a point where people are judged more for how they treat others, rather than what they are able to purchase.
Cory Doctorow's novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, "whuffie" is the ephemeral, reputation-based currency. The book describes a post-scarcity economy: All the necessities (and most of the luxuries) of life are free. Whuffie has replaced money, providing a motivation for people to do useful and creative things. A person's Whuffie is a general measurement of his or her overall reputation and is gained (or lost) according to a person's favorable (or unfavorable) actions.
First time I've seen that phrase with the 'espionage' added in there. Makes perfect sense though, espionage should have been part of that term decades ago
There is no difference between what Lulzsec and Anonymous do, compared with the FBI storming into a data centre without warrants and grabbing hardware.
I think that the FBI isn't really the overblown privacy killing big govt overlords that this lil anon skirmish seems to paint them as. The FBI, for the most part, do a mighty fine job of enforcing the law and keeping the peace. Also the FBI operates largely on a case by case basis, they are not an intelligence or defense agency, they are in the justice department.
I think the orwellian big govt agency these hacker guys seem to base their doctrine against is the NSA. The 'we can listen to any phone call on the planet, imprison our whistle blowers, collect every bit of data on everybody, consume 1/4 of the power of the baltimore metro area for our data centers, have projects so secret you didnt know you didnt know about' NSA. Either anon knows this, and know they stand NO chance hacking the NSA, or theyve been misguided on who to target. my vote is a bit of both... I'm not gonna give you sources on this, but there is plenty of legitimate and credible reading out there to satidify your curisioty.
Also, hi out there to all you intel analysts reading... ;)
Is an aircraft crashing into a building not a source of "blunt objects, explosions, pointy things, or projectiles" that can maim your body?
So far the acts of these groups have only been against typical websites. What happens when it escalates to aircraft, air-traffic control systems, nuke plants, dams, and other things where disrupted systems could cause massive loss of life?
Aren't you missing something here? LulzSec also claims to have a morally reasonable agenda. Indeed, LulzSec claims to be entirely in the right, morally speaking. Now, reasonable folks can disagree about whether they are actually in the right, but it's false to claim that they are not "pretending" or claiming to have a morally reasonable agenda. They are, quite clearly, making that claim.
To me, that's the definition of hypocrisy. They pretend to be acting from a moral (or at least societal) high ground and roundly condemn the actions of anonymous. However, both are engaging in the exact same behavior. Now that's hypocritical!
The FBI doesn't normally, and it is not their purpose to engage in the exact same behavior. 95% of the time, they act within bounds I suspect you agree with. I wouldn't consider the 95% hypocrites, only the 5%, and so I can't call the whole agency hypocritical, only parts.
Are you allowed to break into other people's property and use weapons to enforce your own system of rules on them? Nope.
Are you allowed to lock people in a cage for decades because they do something you disagree with? Of course not.
Is the FBI allowed to do this? Well, yes, but only because they're special and you have to do what they say, not what they do. Now what's this word hypocrite you speak of?
This is quite the hypocritical statement coming from the FBI. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Anonymous, Lulzsec, and the FBI is that the FBI act by executive fiat. I don't support Internet vigilanteism, but I also don't support the concept of the FBI as an untouchable force who are no longer held accountable by the public they are theoretically serving.
At this point, I'm not sure which one I find more scary.