Wikileaks Founder Jailed in London!

[Father Heathen]

Anonymous has never, at any time, distributed child porn (unless you count that godawful japanese ****, which is drawings not photographs).

No, real children unfortunately. It was on 4chan, by people claiming to be members of anonymous. Surely you've heard them toss around cute words like "moralfag".

Terrorism, murder, hacking, fraud, harassment, yes. But there's always been zero tolerance for real kiddy fiddlers at Anon hangouts.

Murder, huh? Care the share the surely fascinating tale behind that one?

 

[Requia]

Putting pics of real children on 4chan gets you banned and your IP forwarded to the FBI. That's never been any different.

As to the murder one, a video went up on 4chan of a crush video (woman in high heels stomping on animals, kittens I believe in this case). The woman in the video turned up dead a few weeks later.

 

[Alceste]

I went there once when the site began to gain infamy and notoriety. What I saw was images of real child porn and animal cruelty. Surely you can understand why I might be slightly displeased by people who would produce, distribute, defend and encourage this sort of material, I hope (all claimed to be done by members of anonymous)? Am I really out of line for being upset by harm and suffering inflicted upon helpless children and animals?
Even if it were only underage girls desperately seeking attention from the worse possible crowd or horribly unfunny and annoying memes, that would still be enough reason to hate that place.

From witnessing the words and actions of people claiming to be members of anonymous.

You know someone could beat and rape someone you know and love while videotaping it, then upload it where it is forever circulated on the internet for countless thousands to view your loved one's now immortalized bloodied and crying face for their amusement. And all they would have to do is claim that "anonymous delivers". There is no screening or criteria for "membership" and no rules that govern or dictate what actions are or aren't sanctioned. That's all I'm trying to say, anyone can to anything, making the moniker as a group meaningless. How could it be considered a group when most don't even have any sort of association with one another other than a name?

All it takes to be a member of anonymous is to claim to be a member of anonymous. That's what I meant when I said it was meaningless to give the group any credit. In fact I'll starting saying that I'm a member so I can bask in the glory and victory of those hack attacks.


I hoped we had more common ground than that.

I think you may be confusing the act of posting offensive material anonymously with claiming to be a "member" of "anonymous.". Many forums and blogs automatically ascribe the name "anonymous" to any poster who declines to offer details.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think you may be confusing the act of posting offensive material anonymously with claiming to be a "member" of "anonymous.". Many forums and blogs automatically ascribe the name "anonymous" to any poster who declines to offer details.

Honestly, that's kinda insulting. Seriously. I know the damned difference.

 

[Father Heathen]

Putting pics of real children on 4chan gets you banned and your IP forwarded to the FBI. That's never been any different.

Well, of course the site is going to watch it's own back regarding legality, and I wasn't suggesting that the owners/administrators of 4chan were ringleaders of sorts.

As to the murder one, a video went up on 4chan of a crush video (woman in high heels stomping on animals, kittens I believe in this case). The woman in the video turned up dead a few weeks later.

See, that's what I mean. You get multiple people, all claiming to represent the group "Anonymous", who make statements and conduct actions that conflict and contradict with one another, yet are stuffed beneath the umbrella "Anonymous". That's what I'm trying to get at; that's it's too broad and vague to credit it as a group or to define it's agenda and tenets.

 

[Alceste]

Honestly, that's kinda insulting. Seriously. I know the damned difference.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Your experience differs from mine I suppose. Wampus goes to 4Chan all the time and tells me there's no kiddie fiddling or sexual violence there. Sometimes I peer over his shoulder to look at funny pictures and haven't seen anything of the sort myself. The only Anonymous actions I'm aware of involve retaliatory hack attacks (I.e. On Fox for sloppy coverage), nasty pranks (like ordering hundreds of pizzas to an unsuspecting person), a sustained weekly rally in opposition to Scientology and these DDoS attacks on companies participating in the persecution of Wikileaks / Assange. I understand the phenomenon started with just making life generally miserable for certain unfortunate web citizens, but time has passed and there is much more to it than that now, as the Scientology action and the wikileaks info-war indicates.

 

[Alceste]

Well, of course the site is going to watch it's own back regarding legality, and I wasn't suggesting that the owners/administrators of 4chan were ringleaders of sorts.

See, that's what I mean. You get multiple people, all claiming to represent the group "Anonymous", who make statements and conduct actions that conflict and contradict with one another, yet are stuffed beneath the umbrella "Anonymous". That's what I'm trying to get at; that's it's too broad and vague to credit it as a group or to define it's agenda and tenets.

Central organization and consistency isn't what defines a group. That's why Anonymous is interesting. There's no leader, authority or command structure, no ideological manifesto, participation is voluntary and they still get the job done. At least I find that interesting on account of my anarchist leanings. Of course there is a dark side, but that is also interesting.

BTW, when I refer to "Anonymous" I am only speaking of actions that require the participation of large numbers of people to be effective, like those mentioned in my last post. Maybe that helps clarify things?

 

[Alceste]

Oh, and really 4Chan mods don't want anything to do with Anonymous. They deleted posts about the DDoS attacks and did whatever they could to suppress them, then took credit when the action was successful.

 

[croak]

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Your experience differs from mine I suppose. Wampus goes to 4Chan all the time and tells me there's no kiddie fiddling or sexual violence there. Sometimes I peer over his shoulder to look at funny pictures and haven't seen anything of the sort myself.

Does he visit /b/?

 

[Alceste]

Does he visit /b/?

Wampus has corrected me. In fact he never visits 4Chan. Ever.

 

[croak]

Wampus has corrected me. In fact he never visits 4Chan. Ever.

Good.

And don't visit /b/. Ever. Unless morals, ethics, and general sanity don't mean much to you; then by all means, do what you like.

For the record, I've never visited /b/, and never plan on doing so. I think I've glanced at the main 4Chan page, though.

 

[Alceste]

Good.

And don't visit /b/. Ever. Unless morals, ethics, and general sanity don't mean much to you; then by all means, do what you like.

For the record, I've never visited /b/, and never plan on doing so. I think I've glanced at the main 4Chan page, though.

We don't even glance at it. It turns out it was eBaum's World we've been looking at all this time.

 

[Starsoul]

Thank heavens! The worldwide manhunt is over for the man with the defective condom.
If only the international community devoted so much attention to capturing Bin Laden, but Assange has far more enemies.
It appears that Wikileaks will survive his incarceration quite nicely....so cockroaches, beware the glare!

looks like Assange poses a greater threat to Us then Usama, since bin laden Only made the Us look all hurt and vulnerable to be able to strike Afghanistan with all that anger and revenge : P , If laden was wiser, he'd thought of wikileaks instead.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Sir David Frost interviewing Julian Assange
Julian Assange interview - FROST OVER THE WORLD - Al Jazeera English
　
"Julian Assange, the co-founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks - which is currently releasing over 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables - is in the UK fighting extradition to Sweden where he is wanted on charges for sexual assault.
He joins Sir David to talk about a host of issues, from his personal situation to the role of WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency, championing the right to reveal government secrets, when it is in the publics' interest.
When he co-founded WikiLeaks he saw that he could encourage, through successful examples, people to step forward to reveal abuses by governments - to produce more justice. Subscribing to the motto that "courage is contagious", Assange claims not to be an anarchist; rather his modus operandi is to promote responsible governance.
Now his lawyers are concerned that he will end up in an American jail, either directly through extradition from the UK, or through extradition from Sweden.
Assange heavily implies that receiving a fair trial in Sweden is doubtful. Why was the most senior prosecutor in Sweden removed (and replaced) after he said there was "no evidence or even suspicion" of rape? Why do Swedish authorities refuse to provide British officials with any evidence of crimes Assange allegedly commited - including witholding the statements of the victims?
He is hesitant to blame his two accusers for their allegations against him, suggesting they could be innocently caught up in a greater political scheme."