Anonymous declares war on Scientology

[Muyotwo]

Dude. You did not just post the truck explosion video. You did not just do that.

Wow Dami. Just... wow. Insert a corruption of L O L.

[deoxys]

Everyone has seen Fox11 and its really pretty ridiculous. Before you make such accusations, look more. Yes, many rogue anon are idiots and criminals. A good majority are not. Most aren't even script kiddies.
The reason behind the protest was actually because anon was upset about Tom Cruise's YouTube vid being censored by Co$. But I can't type anymore I'm tired...

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by damicatz

2.Then it's time to clean house. If you are a member of anonymous, as in the group that's going around now posting threats on Youtube, then your group needs to disassociate from those that are claiming to act on their behalf and then committing crimes. I am not talking about those that simply post as anonymous but those who go around identifying themselves as the group anonymous as in the so-called "hacker" group.

While it wouldn't be too tough for me to distance myself from /b/'s affairs, what you're arguing for is basically the reason why manji aren't allowed publically in America or Germany; people can't remove themselves from connotations by some extremist group and permanently (and are educate in schools to) stereotype an icon that was originally religious into something dangerous. Even without the religious connotation, hating something because of connotations is culturally backward in a society that promotes tolerance and diversity. If the matter was slightly tweaked, i.e. to create a national stereotype of black people, said people would not be able to evade the national stereotypes no matter how much they try.

What I worry about with "Anonymous" is that all people stereotype anonymous users as the group of /b/-tards who refer to themselves as anon. So long as folks are smart enough to know the difference and tolerant enough to accept it - that is, "only part of an apple might be rotten" - I'm fine with that.

Originally Posted by damicatz

3.Two wrongs don't make a right.

The equation is more along the lines of, "one right causes two wrongs". Quantitatively speaking, I see the right (the diminished influence of Scientology) to be of greater value to the world than the two wrongs (DDoS attack on a brick-and-mortar home store, crashing a school webserver). There are very few decisions in this world that are Pareto efficient; ninety nine point nine percent involve trade offs and loss of welfare for some people somewhere. To say that something should not be done because it hurts someone is a call for inaction, something that promotes the inefficiency of an already bloated bureaucratic government. The key is really defining whether or not Scientology is as threatening as it really is, but given it's lobby power and fanatical intolerance to criticism I daresay they seem as dangerous as folks say.

4. I see. Even if that's the case though, I would still find it unlikely that the Church of Scientology would house a web-server that hosts its website or a server with highly classified documents (I don't think the folks are savvy enough to TrueCrypt stuff) anywhere within reach of a non-member a system administrator. Who is the say the sys admin wouldn't go prying into the server looking for data on how to screw over the organization? Any server in a public data-centre would be a compromise, and given the Church's extreme funds (remember, tax-exempt status) they should own their own data centre as well. Even if it costs ten million dollars to build, this is an organisation getting money from some of the richest folks in Holywood consistently and in liberal amounts. They can burn some cash on a little security.

[deoxys]

Anon did NOT make that threat. That was made to setup anon and make it LOOK like they did.

Anon would never call scientology a religion; anon woul never call themselves "Elite Anonymous"; and anon would never make threats.

This is either the work of an anonymous who is upset that the rest of anon is "Doing the right thing" when, back in "the old days", many anon hacked accounts and stuff for lulz.

Or, it's the work of a scientologist.

[Jerichi]

If I could interject quickly, I'd like to point something out that Dami seems to be forgetting.

Anon is -not- an organized group and few of the actions are given some sort of consensus before they're done.

In some way, the worst part about Anonymous is that anyone can be Anon and the best part is that anyone can be Anon.

Anonymous is a general name that anyone can use since there's no means of legitimate affiliation, and the ease of calling yourself Anon can create more numbers or the illusion of more numbers at the least. There's a drawback to that strength, though, since any little dumbass can go off and spam Anon all over the place and make it look like the whole group is responsible.

You and the general public probably don't realize that completely. While it's sort of fair to make that generalization since the identity of Anon is based on a generalization anyways, it doesn't mean that all Anon are script kiddies and bored hackers with no respect for the law. Also, this lack of true organization makes it hard to prevent the idiots from being idiots and doing things like that, but the lack of organization is also a source of power which many Anon like to show off. To criticize the actions of the group as a whole is sort of difficult to do, but then again, it's hard to complement them as well. There are people who are protesting and mailing senators and whatnot. Admittedly, their efforts are being somewhat undermined due to the nature of the hive-mind for immediate gratification lulz, and there's little way to fix that that I see.

If you can find a way to regulate something without a hierarchy, please share it, but I'm not sure that it's completely possible. Anyways, regulation would sort of defeat the purpose, no?

Regardless, while I agree that the actions which some Anon are taking aren't the best, to criticize the group as a whole for leading this attack is a little unfair. There are people following the law. They're just don't get as much attention since following the law doesn't have as much shock value. Like VGM said, it could very likely be one person pretending to be the whole.

Just something to think about. Respond if you wish; I'm not really in the mood to debate about all of this nor am I moderate enough to mediate it. Also, this may seem a little jumbled since I added things in once I finished the post to get my point across better.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Jerichi

If you can find a way to regulate something without a hierarchy, please share it, but I'm not sure that it's completely possible. Anyways, regulation would sort of defeat the purpose, no?

There is a way that doesn't undermine the nature of Anonymous - lurking more. If Anonymous adapts a certain script of norms and values, they'll moderate their own behaviour and create a more cohesive and effective yet still formless and chaotic assembly. The big question with /b/ is if it will follow Usetnet to the grave in getting too bloated too quickly, not allowing the status quo to succumb to newfolk. If /b/ overcomes the threshold, we could see something amazing being born.

[deoxys]

Just wanted to pass along this news from Enturbulation... Anon is already taking it's toll on Co$

Originally Posted by AnonKiwi

Hi. I thought I'd try and collate evidence that we're winning this struggle. That is, examples of Anonymous action having directly led to problems for the church or people getting out.

Please feel free to add to my links and quotes. Winning is win!

All of this stuff has happened since our glorious worldwide protest.

Scientologists evicted in Santa Cruz

Head Honcho of Alberta, Canada mission quits

Can anyone in Alberta verify this? If this is true, then can we consider this the first victory of the battle?

Tory reports from an insider: We're driving the COS crazy

Our protests lead to a radio show where an Irish scilon leaks new info

Originally Posted by Anonakitty

Eventually Adrian Kennedy , the shows presenter asked "Why don't the Co$ just pack up and leave this island altogether"?.
My favourite bit was when asked who the leader of Co$ Ireland is , he stuttered a bit , then went quiet then mumbled something incoherent , at which point Adrian Kennedy was convinced that it was a shambles .

Reports are coming in of Scientologists leaving the Church due to protests

Originally Posted by AnonNow

I have heard of two people who are leaving Co$ after having their eyes opened by Anonymous' actions, and one maybe.
No names or stories though, I'm sure you understand why.

Narconon no longer allowed at at poster's school

Originally Posted by L Ron Habbo

I then talked to the principle, he explained that they had been using them off an on for nearly 15 years, and had them this year, because the police are under-funding. We had a little discussion, and the result was that he decided not to let Narconon back in the school.

Dropping into the local COS to deliver Valentines cards freaks out Scilons

Originally Posted by Mazack

Managed to go into 5 offices and handed cards to several surprised looking Scios with a big smile on my face, saying "Happy valentines day!" before walking out of the office area. The lecture man met me and started leading me to the door saying "Come on man, you can leave come on..." I tried to give one to a pregnant gal who was chiming "You're trespassing! You're trespassing!" over and over but she didn't take it. The people at the front counter were looking at the cards Anony had given them. with big frowny faces. Anony and I walked out the door and Huzzah covered our backs as we left. No tails sited.

[/quote:2e9b6cfx]

[Lady Kuno]

Rule 34 would be both interesting and akwardly hot.

Aside from that, Oh lawd is that some win?

[deoxys]

yup that be some w

candleja

[Doppleganger]

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/12/North ... s_ba.shtml

[Muyotwo]

"Representatives of Anonymous could not be reached for comment."

I lolled. Can't really stop Anon from gathering peacefully, particularly since they don't know who Anon is. Other than being the Marcab Confederacy.

[Lady Kuno]

Also heard they were gonna bring kids to counter protest at the same time then stage violence against them or something. Jeeze wtf is up with that. >( Glad I'm not going.

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by damicatz

And now, the actions of Anonymous are going to come back to bite them in the ass.

Remember when I said actions have consequences? Well, how do you think the judge is going to feel when presented with evidence that Anonymous engaged in cyber warfare and DDoS attacks? It paints Anonymous as a bunch of criminals and $cientology as the victim. In effect, Anonymous has actually HELPED $cientology.

Sadly for Scientology there really is no evidence that those behind the attacks were actually Anonymous. Anonymous being, well, anonymous really helps with issues like that. And even if the group "Anonymous" is restrained by an order, no names are named, so the happy Anons can just call themselves "Dave" and picket as regular.

We are Dave. We are legion.

Edit: I was right. Judge bitchslapped the restraining order away.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Muyotwo

"Representatives of Anonymous could not be reached for comment."

The hilarious counterpart to that line are the Anonymous comments in the comments section.