[insertgenericusername]

Quote

Quote

What does everyone think about the annoymous threat to DDOS the nyse website? Reckon anything more than thay would happen? Like with Sony and the psn? Will the website really be 'erased from the internet' ??

That 'anonymous' release group doesn't seem to have any affiliation with the main anonymous groups. And LOIC can be traced. It's lead to many arrests and the technology has been hung up to dry. If a group had something big on NYSE, they wouldn't blab about it until the damage had been done (usually in the form of document privacy reduction services).

Quote

Greetings Fellow Anons: As brothers and sisters, we have to look out for one another in times like these.
We have taken notice to a planned attack which has been named #InvadeWallStreet, which is to be held out on October 10 th.
We strongly advise against this action and everything it entails to.
Many of our brothers and sisters have gone down in the fight for using such tactics, like the wikileaks defendants who took down Visa, Paypal, and Mastercard which led to mass arrests.
We do not want history to repeat itself, and are sincerely worried...
From: http://www.examiner....-flag-operation

I think a ddos on NYSE's website would only serve as bad propaganda to be used against the protesters. Right now they're down their not causing any harm, but if investors actually freaked out about the nyse website being "vulnerable" it would really smear an ugly image across the Wall Street occupiers. I can totally see the media scape-goating job losses and pension fund damage onto these peaceful protesters.

Curtis Rutland, on 05 October 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

Anonymous has never done anything that's been effective long-term. Their DDOSs last for, at best, a day or two, then they're distracted by a shiny object and forget they ever had an issue in the first place...

One might argue that Anonymous's releasing of the pepperspray-happy senior NYPD officer had the result of forcing the NYPD to (claim to) investigate the matter. The Brooklyn Bridge arrests were also relatively non-violent (causation? Who knows). Now, I don't think people should ever be asked to live under fear, but at the same time, police officers who are inclined to act unconscionably should be aware of the potential for personal accountability for their actions.

Also, the HB Gary attack was fairly consequential as well. I agree that the efficacy of Anonymous' ddos attacks are questionable, but that doesn't mean "Anonymous hasn't done anything effective long-term." The HB Gary CEO had to step down and investigations are pending.

Quote

Aaron Barr's departure as CEO of HBGary Federal represented the latest twist for the company and its Sacramento affiliate, HBGary Inc. A spokeswoman for the Sacramento company confirmed the resignation.
According to numerous reports, Barr's company, which is based in Colorado and Washington, D.C., proposed conducting a disinformation campaign against critics of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The plan was presented to the chamber's law firm, but the chamber says it wasn't aware of it.
The plan was aborted after the hacker group Anonymous stole tens of thousands of e-mails from both HBGary and HBGary Federal – and posted many of the messages on the Web.
Read more at: http://www.dailykos....erLeaks-scandal,-House-Dems-want-investigation

Plus the whole sock puppet thing was brought to our attention in elaborate detail: http://www.dailykos....-Concern-Us-All

But the ddos thing against nyse is at most a very bad idea at this time and only has the potential to hurt the movement.

LOIC isn't the only way of attack though, if someone decided they really disliked the nyse, a botnet could be used, and the only way to find that is find the botmaster, however, with the releases from anonymous you have shown me, and the updated description I found thanks to modi_123, I must admit the possibility of any real damage seems extremely low. I wonder if the #refref can be tracked http://www.refref.org/

The attack on hb gary shows that they have some skill, so I was really hoping for something interesting to happen. :l oh well.

[Craig328]

Creecher, on 06 October 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

Some friends of mine are actually on Wall Street, they drove up Tuesday and just got there, they said there was a lot of people and it seems like everyone is just waiting for a riot to start.

To me, the thing that I guess "annoys" me most (not sure that's quite the correct word) is that the random interviews I've heard/seen/read with individuals at this protest tells me that either the reporters are looking to portray the group as a bunch of ignorant, clueless children or that the random sampling is revealing that by and large the protesters ARE ignorant, clueless children. Either way, the interviews are sometimes just 1 part "why are you here" and occasionally they ask part 2 "what's your solution". Many times part one is someone parroting the talking points some dude with a bullhorn was shouting earlier and that the interviewee clearly has less than a solid intellectual grip on. Because of this, you don't often get to see part 2 wherein they ask the interviewee what he/she would do to change things for the better and when you do it's nearly always a trainwreck of impossibly ignorant utopian quasi-marxist crap (sometimes complete with all the typical class warfare dialog those conversations seem engender).

I'm all for political dissent. As sloth said, it's what this country was founded on. That said, the people that founded this country had a clearly defined goal, a roadmap for how to get to the goal from where they were and a cogent, believable means to eventually arrive there. These folks have nothing of the sort. It's been widely noted that they're not sure what they want...they're just disgruntled. At that point, for me, it ceases being actual political dissent and becomes more like a mass tantrum.

This is all just my opinion, of course. However, it IS a political campaign season and if these loosely organized dolts had an ounce of brains among them, they'd figure out a way to make their existing demands (I don't endorse that site/blog but it did have their demands conveniently listed) look a lot less like "waaahhh...gimme" and more like "this is something we should work towards". As it is, their demands (while containing some actual kernels of plausible debate) come off sounding like militant children refusing to eat their broccoli. It's hard to take seriously...although, you'd hope someone could emerge to lead them to change that.

[Creecher]

I agree, if some one would step up and take charge of the movement, and get everything organized, then people might take them a bit more seriously.


The fact that their just there and holding signs won't make anyone do anything, but if they get some one that knows what they're doing, and know how to understand all of that legal jargon, then they'll be in better shape because things would actually get done.

[supersloth]

Craig328, on 06 October 2011 - 08:38 AM, said:

To me, the thing that I guess "annoys" me most (not sure that's quite the correct word) is that the random interviews I've heard/seen/read with individuals at this protest tells me that either the reporters are looking to portray the group as a bunch of ignorant, clueless children or that the random sampling is revealing that by and large the protesters ARE ignorant, clueless children.

lil from column a, lil from column b.

[Curtis Rutland]

Worse than the clueless parrots are the people in costume, like it's a Halloween party. Geez, you people are trying to convince the public that you're serious and have an important message. Glad you've dressed up as a zombie to prove that point.

[lordofduct]

Protests tend to be full of ignorant people

That's because people by and large tend to have a large percentage of what we may consider ignorant people.

Look to any large movement, then walk around in the crowd, and yep... sure enough... idiots who the rest want to say, "yeah, but what he is saying doesn't represent us accurately".


What pisses me off is that the media wants to portray them as horrible people. When just a couple years ago another group, who had just as large of a portion of ignorant members, were praised by several media outlets for dissenting and congregating. There methods only slightly different and their demographic just older.

But yes, they're disorganized, they need direction. But that doesn't make what they're doing wrong, it means they're prepared to be led if the right group can come out and do so. What it does prove though is that yep, there's a ton of angry people with their own opinions.


It's not, 'they're unamerican because they're doing it wrong'.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 06 October 2011 - 09:00 AM

[Craig328]

Curtis Rutland, on 06 October 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:

Worse than the clueless parrots are the people in costume, like it's a Halloween party. Geez, you people are trying to convince the public that you're serious and have an important message. Glad you've dressed up as a zombie to prove that point.

Exactly so. It's why I responded to Creecher's post saying his friends are there and "there was a lot of people and it seems like everyone is just waiting for a riot to start". The majority of the people there are there for the experience and to say they did something "socially conscious"...because nothing says social consciousness like sleeping in a park and not bathing for days on end whilst mouthing marxist inanities because all the cool kids are doing it.

I'm sure Creecher's friends are fine decent folk but I'd bet that if you asked why they were there it's be entirely lacking in any specifics...just more like a "we wanted to show our solidarity" kinda thing...oh, and get to have something cool to brag about later. "Yeah, man, I was THERE", kinda thing.

I'm probably being way too cynical about it but I have yet to have seen any examples that inform me any better than my natural repellent skepticism. I think there are significant issues that the manifesto alludes to but they're couched in such idiocy and buried under mounds of "we want it all and we want someone else to pay for it and we believe we deserve it because...well...just because" that's it's entirely too easy (and probably appropriate) to dismiss them.

[modi123_1]

It'll be amusing to see how many kids born next July will be attributed to this event.

[Craig328]

The more I read about their demands (and there's more than 1 version apparently) the less hope I have for these loons to produce anything constructive from their "efforts". Here's the version of their demands that I managed to locate (that seem the least ridiculous):

• CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT"): This one is actually a reasonable debate topic. On its surface it seems reasonable but it would put US institutions in a terrible competitive position versus extranational banks/security firms. Considering that the American banking and securities sector is one of the largest drivers of not only our economy but that of the entire civilized world, this suggestion seems like it needs to be carefully considered rather than just simply demanded.
  
• USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS: This one is just a rant as the Congress already has authority and exerts oversight over banking and securities trading. The rest of this topic's submission so childishly based (actually suggesting watching a movie "narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!)") that's it's difficult to even read it without rolling the eyes.
  
• CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION: As incomprehensible as that and the rest of that demand's babble is, it's about campaign finance reform. Their reasons for demanding this are the product of exceptional myopia (bar corporations from contributing to campaigns...which would include things like PeTA, the Sierra Club and so on...which it would seem they haven't thought all the way through) but that doesn't disqualify their right to demand action.
  
• CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE blablabla: I stopped right there because not only is "the Buffett Rule" not even a piece of proposed legislation, it's clear from the remainder of the item that the author's possibly not even sure how to define it. That it's sure to result in soaking the rich and corporations and such seems enough.
  
• CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: actually, a worthwhile suggestion. They spoil it by ranting about how it's "run by Wall St. insiders" but it'll act so that "citizens and investors are both protected" as though there is some kind of categorization between "citizen" and "investor" and they completely leave out that corporations (the evil entity to blame for everything) would equally benefit.
  
• CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS: childishly stated but the overall concept is valid and is something I suspect most folks could get behind. That's literally all they said though...which, given prior explanative examples is probably a good thing.
  
• CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED: this one is especially good as there are already some laws in place that address this very thing. The issue isn't that regulators go to work for corporations (because that would limit personal employment freedom) it's the fact that those now corporate employees still enjoy access and influence within the government. Their aim is badly off for how to deal with that.
  
• ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.c...h?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind.: That was quoted verbatim because you can't make it more juvenile and insipid than that. Someone watched a movie so now they feel they're possessed of the expertise to pretty much shred the entire economic system that has raised the human standard of living more in the past 2 centuries than in the previous 50,000 years? Nice.

This is, by no means, the total list of their demands as it seems they cannot collectively agree on such a list. Elsewhere you find demands to abandon NAFTA and re-institute tariffs, re-investigate 9/11, open all borders to unlimited and unchecked immigration (basically, no nations or national boundaries), free college educations for all (shocking, that one), close all nuclear power generation facilities (no mention of how they'd have to be replaced by coal burning plants...guess we all just freeze in the dark), forgive all debt everywhere (I'm sure China'd be happy to hear we no longer think we owe them anything...that'll work out well for sure) and so on.

Some coherent thoughts in there but they're being entirely drowned by the massive amount of dumbassery and derp with which they're presented. Talk about how to render yourself totally irrelevant.

[lordofduct]

multiple versions leads me to believe they the ramblings of a small sect of the group, if not just a single individual.

Disorganized lets the craziest of the bunch imitate being the voice of the group.

[Magixion]

Perhaps I came across in the wrong way, and I have not had as much time as most of you to follow the actual movement, I will admit. I am in no way against protesting, just that it needs to be organized. More or less, I echo what Craig has been saying.

I think they would be more effective if they actually had a clearly defined goal and roadmap for what they would like done. In my eyes, most protests seem to just be people who are pissed off and want to get noticed, which usually happens, for better or for worse. The key factor would be how they react once they get noticed. If they clearly explained what they want and lay out something they have come up with, I would give them a lot more respect. From what I have heard and seen on TV (which, granted, is always skewed somewhat), leads me to believe it really is just a bunch of clueless people wishing for the most extreme measures they can think of.

For now, though, I will back off and admit I need to do some more research and come back with what I come up with.

[lordofduct]

See there, you hit the nail on the head with one part.

A protest IS just people who are pissed off and want to be noticed.

Yes they need to get organized, that's kind of what protests are about. They start off disorganized full of angry people who have desires and opinions. The group tends to have a general flavor for the same thing, but it's mostly a mixed bag. The group screaming out is them saying "WE HAVE A VOICE, WHERE SHOULD WE DIRECT IT!?" Leaders don't just appear out of the blue, organizing huge emotional issues spanning across millions of people doesn't just happen. It's a clusterfuck, a scary mess of confused regular people who want to see change but don't know how to do it... how should they? Very few of us have an answer!

But torrent has been whipped up. People have said they have an opinion, and others were like, "woah, there's people that agree with me!". Think of it like chemistry, you have a mixture of chemicals just floating about, you then apply some aggregate... a burst of energy. The mixture riles and stirs and what happens? The like molecules begin to bond and you get your compound.

Every fuckin' movement functions in this similar method. You don't think the tea party from just a few years ago didn't come off as a disorganized muddled mess at first full of ignorant people. But they came together, they screamed really fuckin' loud, some able leaders stepped out of the group and directed them. Yeah, today some people still think they're a bit disorganized, they're still young as a group... but it wasn't very different then this movement in the abstract form. The only difference is they have different political views.

The media has been comparing these kids to other movements in the past including the French in the 18th century, and the Russian revolution. And you know what... they're actually right. Because that's how movements form damn it. You may not agree with those movements, you may have politically different points of views then say the French, Russian Revolutionaries, the Tea Party, or these guys on Wall Street. But that's just a clash of political ideology.

And sorry class, your political ideology; It may be exactly what YOU want but that doesn't make yours or anyone elses right, and all others false. There are faults with Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, etc etc etc. There's also merits to each. And you shouldn't just discredit some part of it just because it reminds you of the whole.

"Universal Health care? That's just the first step towards socialism... you know who was socialist? The Nazis and the Russians!" ... that... that is ignorant.

(and yes the same ignorant attacks can occur in the other direction. Ignorant people pervade every caveat of human philosophy... no ideology is safe from it.)

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 06 October 2011 - 11:07 AM

[Craig328]

Well, insofar as politics goes, I personally understand there are things that I can't support that others wholeheartedly believe in and vice versa. I don't discount their right to organize (or not) and spout inane drivel (or not). In fact, some of the points in their demands have, to me, legitimate grounds for debate and re-examination. Others though, do not and still others, if these people got their way, would literally destroy the country and western civilization as we know it.

Abolishing borders, for instance. Their unwavering chant of "Congress" do this and that is all fine and good...and in a fit of momentary insanity, Congress could decree that the borders of the United States no longer exist...but those borders are shared with other countries who may not be of the same mind. Congress cannot mandate what Mexico and Canada do so this demand is patently ridiculous in any meaningful way. The declaration that all debts be abolished also reveals an incredibly shallow and naive view of the world and how it works. If all debts were abolished (along with their demand to do away with credit ratings) then there would be no capital for any business venture whatsoever. The economy of the entire globe would collapse, followed by famine, wars, untold human misery and other untold disasters...all so a bunch of college douchebags who decided to major in post revolution French art history can get out from under ill-advised debt.

Okay that last part was obviously gratuitous but you get what I mean.

All it does is demonstrate that far from being meaningful, thoughtful, reflective members of society, they're nothing more (the vocal ones, of course) than a pack of amateur malcontents who are collectively absolutely ignorant of how the world works and how it can be remade. Anarchy is not a solution to anything and the demands are so obviously self serving that they all deserve a collective ass-whupping for their self-concerned, self-centered tantrums.

There ARE absolutely legitimate issues to be addressed but tossing in absolutely moronic demands means that some folks will feel entitled to dismiss the whole lot of them.

[lordofduct]

Yes, their opinions are always open to debate.

And yeah, a bit of it is rather "wahhh? That sounds rather crap!"

But I wouldn't say multiple lists that have some crap ideas and other ok ideas and a few good ideas doesn't completely negate the whole lot of them. It just exemplifies the lack of organization.

The fact portions of the Tea Party were rather racist and spewed a bit of bigoted rhetoric shouldn't have and didn't negate the Tea Party as a whole. Why? Because Joe Dickley of Missouri saying all spics should go home doesn't necessarily represent the Tea Party as a whole.

[Robin19]

"Forgive all debt"
Ok, so you don't have to pay back money the bank gave you. Does this mean the bank doesn't have to pay back money you gave and put in a "checking account" or "savings account"?

"Free education for all"
As soon as you convince all teachers and professors to work for free, we'll start seeing free education. Same deal goes for "free healthcare". Convince all doctors and nurses to work for free and you'll get free healthcare.