Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Twitter Crime

Anonymous Helps Turn In Hacker Who Targeted Charity 234

Posted by samzenpus
from the community-watch dept.
netbuzz writes "A hacker who defaced and disabled the website of a New Zealand film company known for helping poor children could find himself in legal hot water in his home country of Spain after his attack spurred a Facebook/Twitter posse that included members of Anonymous, who the hacker may have been trying to impress. 'Apparently, one of the (Anonymous) rules is you don't hack charity sites, you don't hack sites of people trying to help kids,' says the owner of the damaged site. 'This guy was trying to impress them, to try and get into their group and boasting about what he'd done — but they turned on him, they chased him.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Helps Turn In Hacker Who Targeted Charity

Comments Filter:
  • Not Anonymous? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Haxagon (2454432) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:35PM (#40851475)

    Facebook/Twitter doesn't sound like Anonymous, it sounds like scriptkiddies and armchair activists who just want to look like the coolest kid in middle school.

    • Re:Not Anonymous? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cmwatford (2679257) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:43PM (#40851541)
      Doesn't that make up a rather large portion of each anon movment? Also, every time I hear someone refer or imply to anon being a group or organization I cringe a little.
    • by Tarlus (1000874)

      A 35 year old script kiddie, no less. Who lives with his mother.

      That's actually true.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by citizenr (871508)

        A 35 year old script kiddie, no less. Who lives with his mother.

        That's actually true.

        Its perfectly normal for guys to live with their parents that long in Europe. Its traditional in mediterranean (Greece, Spain, Italy. etc)

        • Re:Not Anonymous? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Boscrossos (997520) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @04:01AM (#40853229)
          Don't generalize that too much, though. Mediterranean maybe, but here in Belgium, and our neighbors France, Germany and the Netherlands (which, you'll have to admit, is a sizeable part of Europe), we generally move out after university, or as soon as we find a job.
          • Don't generalize that too much, though. Mediterranean maybe, but here in Belgium, and our neighbors France, Germany and the Netherlands (which, you'll have to admit, is a sizeable part of Europe), we generally move out after university, or as soon as we find a job.

            Well, the reason is in your answer, "... as soon as we find a job..." which in many parts of Italy can often mean "never". I'm living in NL now and for what I can see, dutch kids are encouraged to move out by means of lavish (by IT standards) subsidies and a fairly inclusive and accessible job market. I'm pretty sure many Italians would be more than happy to carry their affairs away from their parents' home, if only they could...

        • by Nyder (754090)

          A 35 year old script kiddie, no less. Who lives with his mother.

          That's actually true.

          Its perfectly normal for guys to live with their parents that long in Europe. Its traditional in mediterranean (Greece, Spain, Italy. etc)

          that's the excuse I'd go with also.

        • Re:Not Anonymous? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @05:06AM (#40853507)

          As a Spaniard I can tell you that you have no idea what you're saying.

          How can it be traditional? 20 or 30 years ago people were working, married with children and owning (paying 10-year mortgages) a house at 18.

          With the rise of people going to college things changed nowadays, but you're regarded as a failure and mocked if you live with your parents at 30.

          It's true that many people lost their jobs and now they're living with their parents but that's obviously not a tradition.

          I cannot speak for Greece but I know a lot of people from Italy and it's the same.

          • Yeah, many students from south Italy move out to go study in another (better) University. It's the locals that don't have any incentive to do so, after all who in his/her right mind would pay 500EUR for a bed (just a bed) in an overcrowded apartment if they could avoid that. The problem in Italy is that social security for the older generations couldn't be cut so what the right wing establishment did was simply to cut back on the younger. Left without decent opportunities they ended up staying on family bu
          • Same with the Asian culture. The children often stays with the parents even after university.

            The only MAJOR difference is the parent lives in the basement.

            My house doesn't have a basement. However I claimed my mom as a dependent on my tax returns.

            • by Kelbear (870538)

              Indeed, asian family, stayed in my parent's house paying low rent. My wife-to-be even moved in for a few months near the end until we had finally saved up enough to buy a house and my parents gifted my rent payments back as an additional down payment on the house.

              Rent paid within the family stays inside the family. Rent paid outside the family is just gone. With money as tight as it is for young folks in this economy, keeping the family together can help save the family money.

          • by fleeped (1945926)
            I can speak for Greece: you move out when you get married, or if you can make a living and have had enough living with your parents. The latter is more frequent when you go to a university in a different city, be forced to live by yourself, and then rediscover the 'beauty' of living with your parents. The crisis has been skewing the staying-with-mom age range, as you'd be a fool (or desperate) to start paying more than half of your wage for rent/bills while you have a house around already.
          • I noticed that in the Northeast, it's far more common for people to live with their parents well into their 20's due to high housing costs....whereas in the southeast, most people are out of the parents house by 18 if they go to college or 20 if they're working because housing is so cheap.

        • Othewise no.

          Good to see this "hacker" fits the loser demographic we've come to expect from these sorts of people so perfectly

    • by elucido (870205)

      Facebook/Twitter doesn't sound like Anonymous, it sounds like scriptkiddies and armchair activists who just want to look like the coolest kid in middle school.

      Sounds like a bunch of snitches. This makes Anonymous look less than serious as an organization.

  • by ancientt (569920) <ancientt@yahoo.com> on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:38PM (#40851495) Homepage Journal

    I want to hate them. I believe in following the law. I believe in following the rules of society and government. I believe that doing bad things in the name of good is still bad. Still, it is hard for me to hold Anonymous as evil when they are doing good like this, fighting the evil (of child porn) and injustice (Sony.)

    If you are an Anonymous member reading this, then know this, I am against you. I hold wrong what you do and how you do it, but what you are accomplishing... you have torn my ethical code. So here's to you, I raise a glass, may you be punished for your wrongdoing, may you suffer the consequences of your misdeeds, but despite that, may you accomplish the good things you aim for. If you have the balls to be willing to take the just desserts of what you have done and still have the guts to do what you feel is right, then kudos to you.

    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:46PM (#40851569)
      Laws do not equal morality. Immoral things are legal and moral things may be illegal. You are the one that has to live with your decisions, supporting the "law" blindly is foolish because it rarely leads to the correct (moral) decisions. There exists a law higher than the laws created by the thugs in power.
      • by artor3 (1344997) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @11:04PM (#40851721)

        Blindly disobeying the law is even worse. Most laws are pretty good. Vigilantism might feel good, but when adopted at a wide scale, it's terrible.

        Disobeying the law just because you're a mental teenager wanting to "fight the man" is stupid and harmful.

        • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @11:27PM (#40851867)
          Blindly following the law is much worse than opposing it.

          If you name the worst crimes, the worst tragedies to occur in human history, the Killing Fields, the genocide in Rwanda, the holocaust, etc. were all committed by people simply "following the law", soldiers just "following orders". If you name the biggest heroes in the world, chances are they were breaking the law.

          But, its your life, you have to live with your own decisions. I for one will do what is moral, even if its not legal. I'm not going to break the law simply to, but I'm not going to blindly follow some law just because its the "law". When the current events today have become the textbooks of tomorrow and my children or grandchildren look at the tyranny that exists and asked if I opposed it, I can look at them in the eye and give an honest answer and not be ashamed.
          • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:25AM (#40852221)

            Bullshit. You immediately jump to the worst incidents in history, and point at them as though they're representative examples. They're not.

            Insisting that you'll just follow your own code instead of the law works great as long as you have the "right" morals. Funny thing about that, everyone seems to think their morals are the right ones.

            Maybe I think it's immoral for my daughter to have a kid out of wedlock, so I kill her and her boyfriend as an honor killing. After all, it's my morality, and how dare your laws condemn it? Maybe I think abortions are immoral, so I won't let my employees have them, and how dare the law say otherwise? Maybe I think it's moral to drive drunk so long as I'm super-duper careful. How dare you take away my right to drive? Maybe I think it's moral to lynch murderers, and whoops, turns out that guy was innocent. How dare you make me follow your "due process"? Maybe I see no problems with dumping toxic waste in your water supply. How dare you fine me for it?

            You're a child. Anyone with the slightest idea how the world works would realize that if you tell people to ignore any law they don't like, you get chaos. Sure, if you ever find yourself working as a Nazi death camp guard, disobey those orders. But such disobedience is warranted as the exception, not the rule.

            • Very very well said. Kudos to you.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Pubstar (2525396)
              You were doing really good until

              Maybe I think it's moral to drive drunk so long as I'm super-duper careful. How dare you take away my right to drive?

              At this point, I stopped reading. Actually, I should have stopped reading at the above example. I think you misunderstand what morality is and how you can impose it onto other parties. Your morals are a fine thing to live by and maybe even to break a law or two that goes against what you believe to be morally right, when it infringes on other peoples liberties then you are going to be in the wrong regardless of your morals. Pick better examples next time, yeah?

              • by Kelbear (870538) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:46PM (#40857591)

                I don't see how the post above can be modded +5 insightful, it is literally the opposite of insightful:

                The grandparent post Pubstar is responding to:
                "Insisting that you'll just follow your own code instead of the law works great as long as you have the "right" morals. Funny thing about that, everyone seems to think their morals are the right ones.

                Maybe I think it's immoral for my daughter to have a kid out of wedlock, so I kill her and her boyfriend as an honor killing. After all, it's my morality, and how dare your laws condemn it? Maybe I think abortions are immoral, so I won't let my employees have them, and how dare the law say otherwise? Maybe I think it's moral to drive drunk so long as I'm super-duper careful. How dare you take away my right to drive? Maybe I think it's moral to lynch murderers, and whoops, turns out that guy was innocent. How dare you make me follow your "due process"? Maybe I see no problems with dumping toxic waste in your water supply. How dare you fine me for it?"

                Grandparent poster is illustrating the mindset of the misguided as an example of how a society without law enforcement and only individual moral judgement can lead to chaos. The Grandparent does not actually believe in these things, but is pointing out a series of hypothetical stances that other people may use in their individual moral judgement to do terrible things.

                Thus, the parent poster above, responding to the grandparent poster has completely and totally missed the point and is flat-out NOT insightful.

                Quoting the parent poster: "At this point, I stopped reading. Actually, I should have stopped reading at the above example."

                I think you should have kept reading, otherwise you might have realized your mistake.

            • by dontbgay (682790)
              Man, that's some good righteous condemnation right there. Instead of wrapping your brain around the idea of depriving someone of life being immoral in itself, you lambast the guy as if he's taking part in "honor" killings himself. Then you proceed to call him a child. Do you get nosebleeds that high up on your horse?
            • by cyborg_zx (893396)

              I hate to point this out but even in this very thread there are people who would wish they were that Nazi guard so they could obey the orders with glee.

              Genocide is a recurring fashion I'm afraid.

              You can't make the "bad" social goals go away by constructing laws because ultimately laws are just things people agree to do that are written down. Just like anything else their meaning only arises from implementation, not from definition.

            • by rizole (666389) <rizole.gmail@com> on Thursday August 02, 2012 @05:04AM (#40853501) Homepage
              Bullshit. You immediately jump to the most contentious counter examples, and point at them as though they're representative. They're not.

              Anyone with the slightest idea how the world works would realize that if you tell people to ignore any law they don't like, you get chaos.

              Stop polarizing, things are only so black and white at the margins.
              He didn't advocate ignoring laws you don't like, he was talking about following his moral compass and you don't get chaos by advocating people follow their moral compass. You do get conflict and the need to compromise if people do that but how is that different from what happens anyway?

            • I think you miss the point. The point is that legal != moral. Look at your first example. Killing the daughter simply isn't moral. I'm sure that honor killing has been at least de-facto legal in some cultures at some points in history. No doubt it has been considered by many or most people, at those times, to be The Right Thing To Do. No doubt there are hold-overs who still thing it's right. But in Western culture, it is horrifically immoral. So, sure, make a stand: you're going to uphold your tradi

            • Something that was _not_ forbidden by law yesterday, may be forbidden tomorrow. Having said that, what do you think.. when there is no law on something that you also presume subjectively as a good thing (that there is no law about that something) today, and in few years they introduce the law, let's say, limiting people (including you) to do something that was fine to do yesterday. This is happening all the time, btw.

              Will your viewpoint change then ? If not, then you're contradicting yourself, since at that

            • by equex (747231)
              some of us rather have chaos than tyranny.
        • by Genda (560240)

          But peaceful, civil disobedience, has a long and honorable history. From Gandhi, to King, to Mandela, to the Occupy Movement. When laws are unjust, it is the responsibility of the moral man to contest the law. When those in power oppress or thwart the will of the people, it is the prerogative of the people to let those in power know that what they have done will not stand.

          Over the years I have seen people tried for attacking even killing child molesters. I'm not condoning taking the law into your own hands.

      • I wish I had mod points for you. This statement is so very much the truth, I also believe in the rule of law, however I also believe in ethics and morality. It's a large reason I left the military after two war tours. Just because I was given an order didn't make that order right or just despite the lawfulness of it. It's also why I believe in civil disobedience and standing up for what's right.
      • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @11:40PM (#40851953) Homepage Journal

        Laws do not equal morality. Immoral things are legal and moral things may be illegal. You are the one that has to live with your decisions, supporting the "law" blindly is foolish because it rarely leads to the correct (moral) decisions. There exists a law higher than the laws created by the thugs in power.

        I think this is very smart.

        At a time when all social institutions are failing us, when all leaders - religious, political and business - are failing us, when the very rule of law has been perverted to turn all but a very few into slaves, one needs to give a "higher law" some serious thought. It needn't be a religious thing, as many philosophers and our very experience has shown, but if we're going to avert the inexorable march of dystopia, it's something to be considered.

        The "rules of society" have been thoroughly turned on their head, and it's time to look very closely at oneself and decide what's right. The slogans of what's coming can be seen very clearly in advertising every few minutes on television. Unless they're recognized and carefully examined, and their wrongness discerned, we'll just end up going along with them.

        One thing about anonymous: they make people talk about what's right and wrong outside of the usual framework of the corporate hegemony that passes for "the rules of society" in 2012. Laws are for more than just making things orderly so sheep can be slaughtered with minimum fuss.

        In that regard, I'm glad anonymous exists. In a real way, they're kids, muddling through the confusing mess of what we are told is "right and wrong". They're figuring it out for themselves rather than just accepting the "work hard, don't rock the boat and pay the man" morals of today.

        What's important about anonymous is not what they do, what they decide, but what we do - what we decide. They're sort of an unintentional crucible - a lab for how society forms and how it fails. There is a lesson there for those that care to see it.

        • by BeanThere (28381)

          The "rules of society" have been thoroughly turned on their head, and it's time to look very closely at oneself and decide what's right.

          Agreed, though I think the path to do do so, is to use truth and reason, objectively, and at a high standard of clear and rational thought.

          • by Genda (560240) <mariet@got.nERDOSet minus math_god> on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:11AM (#40852457) Journal

            And when our founding fathers found these truths to be self evident, and the oppression of their native land unbearable, they did what they knew in their minds and hearts to be moral and just. The disobeyed the despots. They fought for that, which they knew was worth of living and dying. Our society has ceased to stand even for itself let alone its posterity. Is it not long passed time to say, enough, you may not rob me of another right or personal freedom, in fact I'm taking what's mine back and you cannot have it. Not now, not ever.

            • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @02:28AM (#40852819)
              Or you could dismiss the 'truths to be self-evident' thing as just some powerful rhetoric, because those things are *not* self-evident. There is no great trancendent book of rights. The only natural law on such matters is the law of the pointy stick in the ribcage: Whoever has the power to enforce their will by force is the natural ruler. America didn't win its independance because it was morally better, or because of the strength of their arguments: They won because they had the advantage of some good leadership and fighting on their own turf against an enemy with severely stretched supply lines and political infighting back in Europe.
            • by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @08:01AM (#40854355) Homepage

              It's worth pointing out that there's a step in between "I'll just go along with it" and "Shoot the tyrants": It's the step of quiet non-compliance and organizing, which the revolutionaries also took before the first shots were fired. The reason there were British troops in Boston is that the British government had no belief that their laws were going to be followed, and by the time they were trying to seriously punish the Bostonians the revolutionaries had about 1/3 of the population on their side. The reason the colonists won at Concord (after losing badly at Lexington) was because they had carefully organized a communications network which meant that word of the British movements was moving much much faster than the army.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            Agreed, though I think the path to do do so, is to use truth and reason, objectively, and at a high standard of clear and rational thought.

            "Clear and rational thought" has also lead the world to some very dark places at times.

            The rhetoric of the founding fathers was high-flying, but their morals not so much. They were as likely to engage in moral equivocation and equivalence as the guys today. You don't come to the conclusion that slavery is acceptable based on "natural law" or the eternal laws of God. N

      • unfortunately (Score:4, Insightful)

        by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @11:49PM (#40851983) Homepage Journal

        Not every individual has a Sterling moral code. plenty do, but sone believe they do, and in fact have a "morality" far more screwed up than the law. Therefore, the law is far better than individial judgments of morality, because the thugs in power have a lot more to be accountable for rhan a random thug on the street. Plus the law gets considered, refined, corrected. The "morality" of some random Joe comes from what exactly? You trust him more than a governmental system continually refined and corrected?

        So its a nice fable, the righteous vigilante, it makes for great Clint Eastwood movies or Batman movie. But its a fantasy. In reality, its more often about a deranged fool doing a lot worse than any cop force and judiciary.

        • by osu-neko (2604)

          Not every individual has a Sterling moral code. plenty do, but sone believe they do, and in fact have a "morality" far more screwed up than the law. Therefore, the law is far better than individial judgments of morality, because the thugs in power have a lot more to be accountable for rhan a random thug on the street. Plus the law gets considered, refined, corrected. The "morality" of some random Joe comes from what exactly? You trust him more than a governmental system continually refined and corrected?

          You're basic mistake is to assume that law and morality have anything at all to do with one another. The rule of law is for preserving order and harmony in society. It's what's necessary for people to live, work, etc, and institutions to function, a set of rules make it all possible. It's not about determining and enforcing any idea of what's morally right and wrong. Often the law may make illegal what is also immoral, but that's not the reason it's making it illegal, that's just happy coincidence. Mor

        • Re:unfortunately (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Genda (560240) <mariet@got.nERDOSet minus math_god> on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:40AM (#40852585) Journal

          You look, and you listen. Are you telling me you can't tell the difference between Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin or Franco from Gandhi, Mandela or Lincoln? Start with the words. Then observe the actions. A despot is easy to spot. When Mandela became President, he invited one of the men who guarded him in prison as a VIP guest. He spoke to his nation reborn and said that we must forgive, that until these men are forgiven, none of us is free. That is how you tell bloody brutes from men of faith and dignity. If the men who run your nation are not among the great men of purpose and humanity, then you must stand up and face them. If the media is owned by despots then speak in the streets like King. If your words are wise, and deep, and resonate in the human heart, you will be heard. You don't fight for fighting's sake. You fight to preserve that which is good and just. If in your struggle you break bad laws, then you pay the consequence gladly. Gandhi was arrested, and beaten many times. It didn't stop him, it didn't even slow him down.

      • by BeanThere (28381) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:06AM (#40852097)

        “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” - Martin Luther King

        • by nedlohs (1335013)

          Except for all the things that weren't. You know minor things like becoming Fuhrer

        • by bloodhawk (813939) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @04:52AM (#40853457)
          Actually hitler broke many many laws both locally and internationally in his actions, if he had followed the law he would not have been able to do much of what he did. What he did do though is retroactively change the law to make his illegal actions legal.
      • by Intropy (2009018)

        I agree with part of what you're saying. Law and morality are not the same thing. But I don't think you have a basis for the claim that "supporting the 'law' blindly is foolish because it rarely leads to the correct (moral) decisions." It certainly doesn't always lead to the correct moral decisions. It's not the best "moral algorithm." But I'd bet that blindly following the law does lead to moral decisions more often than not. Definitely more than, for example, blindly disobeying the law or behaving randoml

    • by PopeRatzo (965947)

      If you are an Anonymous member reading this, then know this, I am against you. I hold wrong what you do and how you do it

      And know this, Anonymous: my opinion offsets his, so it's a wash. Carry on.

    • by mcrbids (148650)

      Doing things anonymously is a basic part of human history. The Boston Tea Party was an anonymous demonstration. I've performed acts of civil protest anonymously, in favor of what I feel was for the common good. I broke no laws, and was polite and careful.

      By simply stating "If you are an Anonymous member" you demonstrate your utter failure at understanding what anonymous is. It's not a group any more than "upset girlfriend" is a group. (I'm aware of no formal organization of upset girl friends, if there is a

    • by couchslug (175151)

      "I believe in following the law. I believe in following the rules of society and government"

      Have some Law. There are more but these examples will do:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws [wikipedia.org]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws [wikipedia.org]

    • If you are an Anonymous member reading this, then know this, I am against you. I hold wrong what you do and how you do it, but what you are accomplishing... you have torn my ethical code.

      Except - they haven't actually accomplished anything, nor are they the on track to accomplish anything. So, I call bullshit - you're not torn at all, you're heavily biased toward them. (And seriously, equating child porn with Sony? Your bias runs really deep.)

    • by hkmwbz (531650)

      If you are an Anonymous member reading this

      There's no such thing. Anonymous is not a group where you apply for a membership. Anonymous is basically anyone who's anonymous online.

    • by T Murphy (1054674)
      Based on the article Anonymous just traced the Twitter account to a person and that in formation was submitted to the police. It doesn't appear they sidestepped the law, and they haven't taken it upon themselves to punish the guy. Now we just have to hope there is sufficient evidence to convict the guy, as an email from someone in Anonymous isn't proof enough they have the right guy.
    • by elucido (870205)

      I want to hate them. I believe in following the law. I believe in following the rules of society and government. I believe that doing bad things in the name of good is still bad. Still, it is hard for me to hold Anonymous as evil when they are doing good like this, fighting the evil (of child porn) and injustice (Sony.)

      If you are an Anonymous member reading this, then know this, I am against you. I hold wrong what you do and how you do it, but what you are accomplishing... you have torn my ethical code. So here's to you, I raise a glass, may you be punished for your wrongdoing, may you suffer the consequences of your misdeeds, but despite that, may you accomplish the good things you aim for. If you have the balls to be willing to take the just desserts of what you have done and still have the guts to do what you feel is right, then kudos to you.

      You think child porn is evil but the society,media and government which sexualizes children isnt?

  • ...meet teacup.
  • I have a theory: this idiot couldn't find an insecure enough (for his skill level) website from a bank or a politician or something like that. So, his vulnerability scanner came up with that 1 site so he "hacked" it, and I use that term loosely. This is approximately the equivalent of walking into my work, saying you're a m@d skillz hacker, and finding that 1 person with their login password on a sticky note on their monitor and saying you hacked their login...and I guess it's like someone really nice or
    • This is approximately the equivalent of walking into my work, saying you're a m@d skillz hacker, and finding that 1 person with their login password on a sticky note on their monitor and saying you hacked their login...and I guess it's like someone really nice or something lol. Absolutely pathetic.

      Still useful to make a point:

      • why was that sticky note in a space where the public had access?
      • why was the resource protected by that password only protected by a password, and not some additionally security measure (such as restricted only to access from a well-protected internal network?)
      • why did the password give access to all database records, rather than only the ones of interest to the account owner?
      • why was some irrelevant data (the is_nigger bool column....) included in the database at all?

      Hacking charities, not so much.

      Some charit

  • The main goal of Anonymous, if such a thing can be strictly defined, is to do things that are funny.

    The reactions of offended people are often funny, in a warped way, especially when people display stunning illiteracy or are venerating someone just because they are dead (see tribute pages for utter douchebags like Lee Hotti). Sometimes they do things that cross the line into "Dude, not funny", but that's the nature of a group whose membership is so loosely defined.

    For every successful raid or whatever, ther

  • Thinking back to the "good old days", when Anonymous members would be sending nice letters like "snitches get stitches" to people who informed on them.

  • 'scuse me, but impress Anonymous? While I have to admit they are great at PR, so far their "hacking" skills are not too impressive. Judging from the data I could gather so far, their targets were so far sites whose admin should be shot. Not fired. Shot. For gross negligence. How did he want to impress them? By showing them he could fire more "or 1=1" sql requests per second?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't question that they might be able to bring out more sophisticated attacks, just so far they have only shown

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...