A question for the ''new'' breed of anonymous Hacktivists

example:

the WWP "no posting personal information" rule.
It was always the rule. But almost everyone used to ignore the fact that personal info of Scientologists seemed to be exempt. Sue didn't, and he bitched and kvetched privately for years.

It isn't "suddenly okay now" to post personal, private information about Scientologists on WWP. It isn't "suddenly not okay" either. It was ok/notok before, and it's ok/notok now. Only the standards we use to judge ok-ness have been upgraded, and they're a lot tighter.

Some anons think it's ok to post personal stuff, because Scientology is a horribel clut. I'm one of those. I would guess MOST chanons do. Even sue has posted confidential dox. [fairly sure. don't have specific dox to back that at the moment] But the line between 'ok' and 'not ok' is different for each of us.
Smurf might post stuff that I consider 'not ok'.
I might post stuff that Sue considers 'not ok'.

I try not to, because it's important to respect the shared values such as they are.
I'm probably much closer to Sue than Smurf in where I'd draw the line.
b& people normally get b& not because they "broke the rules" but because they disrupt the social compact. The idea that we respect eachother, and make reasonable accommodations when we disagree with others.

Anonymous has always supported people who flout convention. But those who flout too much, never make a good fit. Troublemakers who "make a little trouble" have been the mainstay of Chanology since day 1. Ones who "make a lot of trouble" eventually find their way outside of the community.

Are you running for office as well?

no,
I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Oh ok, just a little troublemaker then.

LOL this again.

Let me shed some more light on this...

Back when the Wikileaks scandal came up, OP has been trying to rally the Montreal cell into FOI protests. Unfortunately the vast majority of our cell is composed of people strictly devoted to Chanology and feeling very strongly about it, while not caring much for WL, so naturally nobody joined in. My impression was Shaw probably still holds that against us

Later on we poked fun at some of the "Anons" showing up at the local Occupy - people who have obviously never had anything to do with Anon before (not that it matters much, tho), and FREELY and EAGERLY giving out their names and personal info to the media (or anyone who asks!), only wearing the V masks some of the time, seemingly just to bask in the fame (or infamy) the Anon "label" carries.

Shaw then started a huge lenghty debate in their defense, stating they're no different than chanology (facepalm.jpg) SRSly? We have non-masked, namefagged exes and non-masked critics, but it's entirely different. None of us, at least in this cell, does this for f***ng self-promotion (IE, "I'm <insert real name here>, member of Anonymous, I came here to make a difference in blah blah"). That was our point all along. Let me rephrase that: they have every right to work towards their goals, but as far as being "Anonymous" goes, they're simply doing it wrong. You show your face and reveal your name, you're not Anonymous. You're still a Chanologist, an Occupier, an FOI activist, but not "Anonymous".

As for "leaders", I don't think your point there is valid. Skills or means do not make a leader. Sure those people are relied upon, but it's a collective where everybody pitches in their talents, abilities and means for the common goal. More charismatic or energetic individuals may be followed at a given time because it's convenient and efficient, but that can change at any moment if someone else comes up wuth something exciting, or if their goals and ideals are no longer the same as those of the rest of the collective.

IMHO, nothing has changed, tho keep in mind I'm saying this from the perspective of a cog in an old Chanology cell. Someone newer, from another initiative, may tell you something different, and that's fine too

Chill out, stop complaining, have fun

If someone says Smurf is a fucked up mentalist OSA horror story is that posting personal information or not?

wish I'd said that.

How life is supposed to be...

I'm still sore that no-one backed Operation Nigger-Dick. You guys suck.

FTR, Sabu's not in a cell, he's in a witness protection program and his standard of living has probably improved considerably as a result.

What is a rule? If a rule is unwritten how do I know about it? I never saw the first version of this rule written anywhere, so maybe it was more of a "custom" (rule) than a "regulation" (rule). Personally, I prefer an Anonymous with many customs and few (or no) regulations, then what is and is not "okay" can only be discovered through experience--you have to risk a teeny little something to find out.

Is nice. The idea that we fear each other, and take reasonable precautions when we disagree with others is probably more realistic.

In theory, what you say is correct, and for the purpose of strategy in war, tactics, plans, etc. should of course be kept secret, and re-read my post and highlight for me where I claimed otherwise. But, since you addressed a topic I am very opinionated about, allow me to respond.

To what point does "classified matters of national security" cease to be legitimate and become a cloak to mask illegal behavior that violates the Constitution, subverts the democratic process, and simply would never be seen as acceptable to the American people. Organizations, such as the NSA/CIA, have used "matters of national security" to allow suppression of legitimate dissent (google COINTELPRO), unethical and unconstitutional scientific research (google MKULTRA), and assassinations and regime changes in violation of the CIA charter (find a 20th century history book). And these are just the older examples from the 40's-80's.

But why should we, as American Citizens, be okay with what these hacktivist watchdogs are uncovering. Why do we value our own privacy, because we have fourth amendment rights which have been extrapolated by the Supreme Court to include the "right to privacy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

A Representative democratic government by public necessity has no right to privacy. And if we discover they are abusing their powers to classify state secrets to conceal illegal, or grossly unethical activity, it is OUR PATRIOTIC DUTY to stand up and HOLD ABUSIVE AUTHORITY ACCOUNTABLE.

I am SICK of apathetic Americans rehashing old non-nonsensical arguments such as the "secrets that endanger lives" scenario to justify the ABUSE of SECRET KEEPING POWERS. In my opinion, it is JUST like using the "ticking bomb" scenario straight out of a season of "24" to JUSTIFY TORTURE in VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS WE AGREED TO AT THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

I totally agree dude, I laugh sooooo hard at the Occupiers wearing V masks because they've watched the movie too many times. But I love Occupy, so I don't give them too much crap for it other than the occasional joke or two.

I bought the graphic novel. No FaceBook Frog, Desu or anything. Totally shit.

See Terms and Rules, linked on every page: https://whyweprotest.net/community/help/terms

I guess i should add some nuance to what i wrote earlier, since what i wrote is mainly based on the way things are done now. I do agree with your points about agencies abusing "classified matters of national security", on the other hand i think far too much information are leaked, alot of it is not important at all for those matters you mention, and could in worst cases break innocent citizens privacy or even endanger lives. It kinda seems these hacktivists belive any information is good information, maybe its better to focus on the relevant information?

A bit offtopic, but since you mainly speak of ddos in your first post. It should be said that i dont follow US that closely since i'm located in a different continent, but i get the impression we have better mechanisms to detect abuse in our government than US. But seeing local anonymous kids ddosing a government party during their annual meeting felt kinda provocating, since that made them unable to communicate during their meeting, and i dont see how that supports freedom of speech.

Well, sure, I'm not saying you're wrong, but you can't expect the average Joe to be aware of such nuances. From the outside it all just looks like "doublethink" and/or plain hypocrisy. Here in Scandinavia kids fight the Data Retention Directive by committing the very same type of acts it's partly supposed to stop. And when they're not busy doing this, they fight/attack their critics. Not exactly a pragmatic approach, imo. Not sure if this is what OP meant, but my two cents, anyway.

Is it hypocrisy or is it double standards? Maybe it's both. Maybe it's neither. Wooooooooo!

Reading comprehension fail, Rulio.

That's what she said.

...............so while you guys are busy debating, Big Brother is trying to sneak up behind you and he has a hard on.

soon

View attachment images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJ7tgGEL1Np29Z7V7r0DtfOoEEJ3u4P

View attachment images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFdo5B7l_S0veJoDAWcz8Yc6jXc4ggk