Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by Lacelotte, Jun 24, 2011.
I didn't realize that a Scientologist was a corporation. Nice try.
You really are thick as shit, aren't you?
Heh, that's all you've got to say? Cute.
Background info on Data Protection Law precautions UKfags took back in the day:
What To Do in UK if Scientology has your personal details
(Just FYI for us yankfags that dont realize what were missing here ITT)
ScientologIST =/= ScientologY.
tl;dr: OP may or may not be right, but before you reach a conclusion either way there is other shit to consider and find out. Slow your roll. Regardless of how it went down, chanology anons need to exercise caution.
It's a fair point being made about dox (or more specifically, the lack thereof) in this thread. However, that doesn't necessarily mean OP is wrong or right. So before we go off on the dox or gtfo mantra and shit all over OP, who I think was simply trying to provide a heads-up to the rest of us to exercise caution, let's try to get more information.
If OP or other UKfags can chime in, that would be great. I'm curious about the following:
OP states he was approached by freelance media about his invovement in anonymous?
Question: If true, then who gave the media his name? How would he be identified by the media to contact? This is of course the key question.
It leads to this:
Three Anons were namefagged in the article posted.
Question: What connection do these three have in common? Are they all chanology anons? I don't know the answer to that, as I don't know all the Londonfags and their socks? For example, did all 3 get C&D letters from Scientology in 2008?
Question: Would it be out of character for Scientology to do this to anons? I think the answer to that is pretty clearly "no" given the behavior of OSA in the past with regard to Anons. Does that prove they did it? No.
Question: If not Scientology, the who else benefits from outing Anons to the media for this particular story? That question deserves some deep consideration. It is also related to the issue of what commonalities exist among those namefagged in the story if they were being specifically targeted.
OP's gut reaction is that it was CoS, which is not an unreasonable response. More information is needed to confirm. In order to get that information (if it is even available), some Anons over there are going to have to make a choice to pursue this legally. They have no obligation to the rest of us to do so if they are not comfortable making that step.
At the very least, it is worth being cautious whether it was CoS or troll or who-the-fuck-knows, cause it may happen elsewhere to other already namefagged anons. The media frenzy over LulzSec and Anonymous' hacking activities have put chanology Anons in a position to be attacked given that the media is inherently lazy with little time for nuance or the distinction of one arm of "Anonymous" from another.
Of importance: the photo of lacelotte used in the news article was at the very least provided by CoS since it was taken by them and from inside their org during a protest. Just noticed that part of an earlier post.
Keep in mind that even though Daily Star hacks aren't the most reputable of people they still won't reveal their sources on any story no matter how many FOI claims are filed.
The real point here is that Lancelotte has good reasons to suspect that Scientology has breached ICO rules by continuing to process personal information when specifically asked not to.
That on its own is enough to warrant a further complaint to the Commissioner
He also mentioned that the photo of him used in the print edition was one taken from the org.
No it isn't because you still don't even know if Scientology had anything to do with this. Furthermore, if some Scientologist decided to pass along this info, how is that breaking the ICO rules?
afaik, everybody mentioned was a chanologist.
Of them, one has not been active for a year. One has not been active for 2 years. One, while previously having had an RFW callout has never received a C&D. One of them is just plain wrong.
Will not be more specific as will not do OSA's job for them.
It's good to see they don't know shit if they're looking at doxing people now that they were photographing 2 years ago.
The game has changed and they don't even ...
Daily Star is like a joke right? Like the National Enquirer? If that's the best "news" they can get then it's bad for the guys named but I laugh more at the fail of the cult for only managing the Daily Star. If it's discovered a paper like that is sticking up for Scientology and printing its propaganda it will probably lose however many hundred readers its got left.
Thanks. You gave more than was needed. All were/are chanologists.
I want to know what the evidence is this freelance journalist is what he said he is. We do have experience with "freelancers" that later go "oh by the way I work for Scientology."
Question sent to Martin and to Hartley.
Lacelotte has been open in his anti-scientology campaigns for years - it was only a matter of time before he came under attack from scientology. This is very standard scientology defaming and attacking of critics. They often use or create information about a person that would cause embarrassment to them.
NB. If you request files kept on you by the cult they will deny having any, hide them from authorities and then start an even bigger file on you - scientology is a criminal, intelligence gathering organisation.
Asking for dox or stfu in this situation is just showing you lack a very basic understanding of how a criminal organisation like scientology works.
That's certainly what their more-or-less secret "religious scriptures" will tell them to do, yes.
Like Al Capone's income tax, I'm always wondering idly if the Data Protection Act could be the flaw in OSA's operation that they're incapable of seeing before it's way too late. There was mumblings about data protection issues in Italy (but waiting for Italian courts to do something is as tiring as waiting for Belgian courts...). My point is that OSA is institutionally incapable of actually obeying the law (breaking that law is one of their purposes) and maybe, one fine day, the law will be applied to them.
Reading what others have to say is not your forte, isn't it ?
Sorry to disagree. Qualifying policy letters a "religious scriptures" is not true. Even the DC judge in Sparrow's case managed to get that.
I didn't say they had to be paid, I just pointed out that it wouldn't be surprising if they were. The Star had no real reason to run a false story on this subject. As a sensationalist piece it's hardly a big eye-catching headline. It certainly doesn't appeal to the masses, Anons are hardly big news as far as Britian is concerned. Brits are wonderfully apathetic. Rags like the Star are only interested in what catches peoples attention, celebs, films, benefits and the like. It hardly fits their usual agendas either, so why run such nonsence? Simplest answer, they would profit from it.
There's no real reason for that story to exist, it ONLY serves the cult's agenda. The paper contacted someone with the opposite view and ignored their input. Why? Obviously it didn't fit with the agenda, that or they weren't interested in the otherside, they were just confirming the target.
The photos, as previously mentioned by numerous posters, strongly suggest that the information came from the cult as the pics were taken from their building.
You're right, this is not evidence, but it certainly strongly suggests scientology involvement. The photos are reason enough to suspect that the cult has breached the Data Protection Act and provided source material for the story, the namefagging serves no purpose other than to forward the cult's agenda (I'd even call it reckless on the part of the Star) and since there's no reasons to suspect that any of the people named actually had any involvement in Hacking (as the article points out), there's no clear reason for the Star to chase this up on their own.
I'd love to hear why the Star thought this was a good piece though, if they genuinely ran it purely out of their own interest.
If anyone is worried about this but is unable to go to a solicitor for whatever reason, it might be worth taking a trip to Citizens Advice Bureau.....if you can find one that hasn't been closed by Tory Policy. They may be able to get some accurate information for you.
The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the Daily Star, because it isn't a public body. FOIA only applies to the government and bodies that it owns.
It could - perhaps - be in breach of the Data Protection Act - but good luck proving that.
- It's practically a puff piece, it makes Anonymous sound so interesting. I wouldn't say that the tone of the piece is anti-Anonymous - that's just the Daily Star's writing style.
- Nobody believes anything they read in the Daily Star (for US Anons, think 'National Enquirer' but with a lot more tits).
- If they have said anything provably false - which I doubt - then a 'no win no fee' libel suit would be an excellent way to air all Scientology's dirty laundry in court.
- The Press Complaints Commission can be found here:
and the Code of Practise is here:
and your best bet is probably part 3 (Privacy).
NB you don't have to be the person named in the article, to complain to the ICO. More complaints = taken more seriously.
You don't need to be a UK resident.
Daily Star article is here:
It would be fun to contact the Daily Mirror and The Sun journos who have written stories about Lulzsec guys to see if they were offered this information as well.
No point contacting the PCC, the Daily Star isn't part of their scheme.
Alternative possibility: To media, Payback = channers = Chanology = whoever else might be casually related to Anonymous. And if you hadn't noticed, Anonymous has been in the news lately. So they covered a protest done by anons. That also relates to any negative tone to the article you may think you see, because we haven't been in the news in a positive light.
See, I can make up theories without supporting evidence and propose them as fact, too.
EDIT: Actually, it appears I have evidence after all!
OP: is this the article you were referring to? What part of this exactly sounds more like OMG SCIENTOLOGISTS to you rather than OMG HACKERS ON STEROIDS as stated above^?
What was proposed as fact? I pointed out several times that the theories are just theories but are the likliest explanations based on the information.
And no, they didn't cover a protest, they defamed and outed several people for supposedly being involved with Hackers. That's very different. They used photos from a protest that were taken from within a scientology building. How did they get those photos without scientology involvement? As I said, as would have been in the post you quoted if you hadn't cut it.
Okay, so they accused people of being hackers. That's obviously because of the Lulzsec connection. So Scientology gave them a photo. And? Lulzsec is a hot topic right now, they don't need any damn encouragement from Scientology to write about them. You're seeing conspiracies when you should be seeing basic media logic.
Not really, as I've been continuously re-stating, it's just a theory and it's not a conspiracy. Just a naff paper, following up on a story in the way the often do (not checking sources etc) in such a way that it was likely provided by scientology. That's not a conspiracy, just crappy journalism. As for the photo, scientology is notorious for distrusting the media. They just happened to change their tune and start "playing ball", volunteering photos. The piece isn't about scientology, so there's no need for the paper to contact them. It's about Anons.
Are the staff of the Daily Star in the habit of informing the cult about every piece that may be relevent to them? Seems unlikley. Does the cult have someone working at the star, who discovered that they were running the story? Also unlikley.
So why then would the cult just happen to provide photographs? Why would the Star just happen to request them?
Likeliest answer, cult provides story with pictures regarding supposed hackers, crappy paper runs story without checking.
Obvious OSA handing over their dead agent file on Anonymous to idiot Star reporter is obvious. However, as the story contains no tits and/or footballers wives, readers will have forgotten about it by now.
On the whole, seeing your opponent's cards is a good thing - if this is the best they have on Anonymous, no worries! It gives the impression as Trap indicates that they have a pile of unchecked data which they are not updating. Whatever the hidden crimes of Chanology Anonymous are, they have totally failed to find any.
why can't it be a library pic of a protestor? Reuters has some.
It appears they've pulled it: the page is no longer found, even by searching the site.
Which is why, Sending a Data Protection request to the Star. May yield both a different result, such as a better chance of getting some source material. And also anything the Star provide which the cult does not, for a similiarly apropriate request to them. Could be direct evidence of the Cult lying and breaking said Data Protection Laws.
Also, encase somebody missed the article before its removal. Here's a cached version.
(I've noticed recently that Bing cache's new content twice as fast as google ;-) )
Did you not see Lancelotte's post about the photo? Or the Anon who posted about the Knight & Day raid info that could only have come from an OSA stooge?
That, my friend, is what we call EVIDENCE
Posted above, but yes.
Where's Lacelotte and the others?
Hope they're busy discussing 'no win no fee' with Carter Ruck.
i wonder if a proper investigation might find sticky fingermarks belonging to our old pal Duncan Williams ?
The newspaper will not reveal their sources. A journalist who does that is finished.
A journalist who gets the arse sued off his paper for defamation probably wont last long either.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!