Did Rob actually say that he thinks shutting down Wikileaks is wrong?
I've not read the article (paywall and that), but from what I've heard, he was just arguing that DDOS attacks might just not be the right way to go about protesting, and not that the subject of the protests is wrong.
(I've not read the article (paywall and that), but from what I've heard, he was just arguing that DDOS attacks might just not be the right way to go about protesting, and not that the subject of the protests is wrong.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:05,
archived)
Nope, no mention of how he view wikileaks censorship or the attempts to shut it down
However plenty of derogatory commentary about the kids/children and 40 year old Disaffected nerd he claims are responsible for the DDOS attack.
And an argument that this was completely the wrong thing to do as it is somehow subverting the wikileaks revolution.
Quote
“My belief is they're just kids, and lots of them could literally be children, although there are probably some 40-year-old disaffected nerds in there as well,” said Rob Manuel, who runs B3TA, a British messageboard similar to the 4chan board that spawned Anonymous, though he is at pains to say he is not involved with illegal “hacktivism”.
He explained how the campaign came about. “Things either catch fire or they don't on these kind of boards. For instance, recently there was a Send Christmas cards to [incestuous rapist Josef] Fritzl campaign that really took off. It's extremely bad taste, and designed to offend, but it works.
“This one has caught fire because people give a s**t about it. People really feel their internet freedom is being eroded.
“Technically, what Anonymous has done is simple, and they can keep on doing it. The worry is someone makes an example of one of them, which is trivial to do. Someone could make an example of Coldblood, for instance.”
Although the attacks have generated publicity, Manuel believes they may have harmed the aims of WikiLeaks.
“I think this was completely the wrong kind of thing to do. The narrative for the WikiLeaks story keeps changing but this takes it away from the extraordinary material that is being released. The revolution has been subverted.”
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:38,
archived)
However plenty of derogatory commentary about the kids/children and 40 year old Disaffected nerd he claims are responsible for the DDOS attack.
And an argument that this was completely the wrong thing to do as it is somehow subverting the wikileaks revolution.
Quote
“My belief is they're just kids, and lots of them could literally be children, although there are probably some 40-year-old disaffected nerds in there as well,” said Rob Manuel, who runs B3TA, a British messageboard similar to the 4chan board that spawned Anonymous, though he is at pains to say he is not involved with illegal “hacktivism”.
He explained how the campaign came about. “Things either catch fire or they don't on these kind of boards. For instance, recently there was a Send Christmas cards to [incestuous rapist Josef] Fritzl campaign that really took off. It's extremely bad taste, and designed to offend, but it works.
“This one has caught fire because people give a s**t about it. People really feel their internet freedom is being eroded.
“Technically, what Anonymous has done is simple, and they can keep on doing it. The worry is someone makes an example of one of them, which is trivial to do. Someone could make an example of Coldblood, for instance.”
Although the attacks have generated publicity, Manuel believes they may have harmed the aims of WikiLeaks.
“I think this was completely the wrong kind of thing to do. The narrative for the WikiLeaks story keeps changing but this takes it away from the extraordinary material that is being released. The revolution has been subverted.”
I completelyfail to grasp what you are actually complaining about. The man gave an opinion. He might be right or wrong.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:47,
archived)
I'm complaining because I believe he is wrong in his assessment, unqualified in his opinion, opportunist in his timing and involvement. And above all damaging to any attempts to teach the sites that are colluding with wikileaks that their behaviour is unacceptable.
OTOH having publications for sale on amazon, whilst also accepting payment for such via visa, master card and paypal perhaps there is a perfectly prosaic reason why mr Manuel would take a negative view of attacks agianst said organisations.
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:59,
archived)
OTOH having publications for sale on amazon, whilst also accepting payment for such via visa, master card and paypal perhaps there is a perfectly prosaic reason why mr Manuel would take a negative view of attacks agianst said organisations.
But isn't your right to say thatexactlty the same right for him to say what he did?
If you are taking the stance that gagging Wikkileaks is wrong; how can you take the stance that gagging Rob is right? You either have censorship or free speech; make your mind up.
Edit: I don't expect an answer because there isn't one. And i'm missing QI for this.
(If you are taking the stance that gagging Wikkileaks is wrong; how can you take the stance that gagging Rob is right? You either have censorship or free speech; make your mind up.
Edit: I don't expect an answer because there isn't one. And i'm missing QI for this.
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:06,
archived)
You seem to have confusedAnonymous and Wikileaks.
As far as I am aware, Wikileaks has nothing to do with Anonymous. It is entirely a one-way relationship.
Might be wrong - point me to evidence if that is the case.
(As far as I am aware, Wikileaks has nothing to do with Anonymous. It is entirely a one-way relationship.
Might be wrong - point me to evidence if that is the case.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:07,
archived)
ha ha hamy secret agenda to protect amazon because of the few old copies of the joke book that still get sold.
(
rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:10,
archived)
I was askedand I'm a huge fan of wikileaks but don't think anon is doing the right thing
( rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:22,
archived)
So Did you think they were doing the wrong thing when they did exactly the same with ACS:law?
Did you offer your opinion to the press then?
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:26,
archived)
Did you offer your opinion to the press then?
nobody asked me then - the media contacted me over this anon thingI don't just phone up the press offering my opinion on random news stories.
( rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:32,
archived)
Just roll with it, RobI agree with free-speech but don't like people being pressured into making a statement that they may regret.
(
Fr_Jerry_McGwier looked over both shoulders at,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:42,
archived)
it's a double edged sword talking to the mediabecause of b3ta, I've been dealing (not seeking out) with press requests since about 2001. Whatever you say to them, there's only one thing for certain - somebody is going to be pissed off.
Anyway - I must go to bed.
(Anyway - I must go to bed.
rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:57,
archived)
You ain't gonna win with the pressThe way to tackle it is to make your point then perform a publicity swerve.
Anyway, look at that owl that's just dived like a demon. Isn't nature just great?
See!!
(Anyway, look at that owl that's just dived like a demon. Isn't nature just great?
See!!
Fr_Jerry_McGwier looked over both shoulders at,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 9:25,
archived)
Did you think then like now it was counter productive?
Did you think it was a group of children and disenfranchised 40year olds?
Do you believe the consequences of that DDos we're detrimental to the aims intended (I.e. To punish ACS:Law)?
You've had your fair share of run ins with lawyers regarding B3ta. The apology to "artist formerly known as" springs to mind. I'm thus at a loss as tohowyou can take a negative view of any and every action, short of outright physical violence or harm, which helps keep attempts to stifle wikileaks on front centre of news papers.
Elsewhere it has been pointed out that the proj chanology DDos was unsuccessful until it becak an information distribution exercise. My argument is that without the DDos phase proj chanology would never have taken off.
Due to the popularity of this site you must know or have heard how substantial and pervasive web censorship is in some countries. A quick rev look up of my IP addy would act as a starter (wikileaks censorship? Try you tube censorship for size)
For my part I'll disappear and relurk after this for another 5 years, hopefully by then we won't be looking back on wikileaks and Anons actions and feeling like pastor Martin Niemoller
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:53,
archived)
Did you think it was a group of children and disenfranchised 40year olds?
Do you believe the consequences of that DDos we're detrimental to the aims intended (I.e. To punish ACS:Law)?
You've had your fair share of run ins with lawyers regarding B3ta. The apology to "artist formerly known as" springs to mind. I'm thus at a loss as tohowyou can take a negative view of any and every action, short of outright physical violence or harm, which helps keep attempts to stifle wikileaks on front centre of news papers.
Elsewhere it has been pointed out that the proj chanology DDos was unsuccessful until it becak an information distribution exercise. My argument is that without the DDos phase proj chanology would never have taken off.
Due to the popularity of this site you must know or have heard how substantial and pervasive web censorship is in some countries. A quick rev look up of my IP addy would act as a starter (wikileaks censorship? Try you tube censorship for size)
For my part I'll disappear and relurk after this for another 5 years, hopefully by then we won't be looking back on wikileaks and Anons actions and feeling like pastor Martin Niemoller
My concern is very specific.Wikileaks is an amazing thing that has been exposing extraordinary behaviour from our governments.
I'd like the media to be reporting on the content the leaks - following up the stuff exposed - validating its truthfulness.
However, instead the authorities have first gone on a manhunt for JA, then this is followed by the Anon attacks. This has become the story. This is deflecting from the stuff I believe is important.
I support Wikileaks but I don't support Anons tactics in this specific case.
(I'd like the media to be reporting on the content the leaks - following up the stuff exposed - validating its truthfulness.
However, instead the authorities have first gone on a manhunt for JA, then this is followed by the Anon attacks. This has become the story. This is deflecting from the stuff I believe is important.
I support Wikileaks but I don't support Anons tactics in this specific case.
rob,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:10,
archived)
I bet you were in the Socialist Workers' Party once.
Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...",
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:11,
archived)
Although to the centre left of the political spectrum, I've never joined or affiliated with a political organisation
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:43,
archived)
Are Anonymous not apolitical organisation?
They have very clear manifestos.
(They have very clear manifestos.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:47,
archived)
Possibly yes of a sort but as indicated I'm not affiliated with or a member of it.
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:08,
archived)
Do you not find theconcept of a mob following the orders of a few using anonymity as a shield, just as scary as a lying government?
Especially, when their own ethics have been so dubious in the past.
If I was to take a deliberately extreme parallel, I'd say that Anonymous base themselves on a terrorist organisation, and many people join not through political reasons, but rather to feel edgy.
I will be very surprised if Wikileaks ever say that they support Anonymous.
(Especially, when their own ethics have been so dubious in the past.
If I was to take a deliberately extreme parallel, I'd say that Anonymous base themselves on a terrorist organisation, and many people join not through political reasons, but rather to feel edgy.
I will be very surprised if Wikileaks ever say that they support Anonymous.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:12,
archived)
Not in and of itself no, (I also dispute the characterisantion of anon as a mob following orders). However I accept that any collection of persons using anonymity as a shield has the potential to be quite scary be that anon paypal shareholders or even wikileaks themselves. That said I find your critique of anon to be substantially correct. But the again one mans terrorist organisation....
As for wikileaks not supporting anon I suspect you are quite correct which is all the more ironic given anions success in ferreting out ACSlaws emails, Sarah palins emails, and a fair raft of animal abusers personal details to the extent the abuser was apprehended.Not to mention providing a large number of wikileaks site mirroring facilities.
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:01,
archived)
As for wikileaks not supporting anon I suspect you are quite correct which is all the more ironic given anions success in ferreting out ACSlaws emails, Sarah palins emails, and a fair raft of animal abusers personal details to the extent the abuser was apprehended.Not to mention providing a large number of wikileaks site mirroring facilities.
.If you dispute the characterisation of it being a mob following orders, how would you yourself characterise it?
The communiques certainly take the form of orders, and there it has the scary mob mentality, since it deliberately avoids the idea of individuality by the whole concept of anonymity.
"But the again one mans terrorist organisation...." is what?
They are not freedom fighters, because they have no stated goals as an organisation. Wikileaks could be described as being such, but Anonymous seem to be just tagging along, for whatever reason, be it genuine political concern or just wanting to boast about their power.
I'm not going to argue that they have done some good stuff, and the current campaign is very much a grey area. However, I fail to see how you could admire them, with all the shit that goes along with it.
(The communiques certainly take the form of orders, and there it has the scary mob mentality, since it deliberately avoids the idea of individuality by the whole concept of anonymity.
"But the again one mans terrorist organisation...." is what?
They are not freedom fighters, because they have no stated goals as an organisation. Wikileaks could be described as being such, but Anonymous seem to be just tagging along, for whatever reason, be it genuine political concern or just wanting to boast about their power.
I'm not going to argue that they have done some good stuff, and the current campaign is very much a grey area. However, I fail to see how you could admire them, with all the shit that goes along with it.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:15,
archived)
regarding you not being happy with him being"opportunistic in his timing and involvement" I would say that may be an unfair accusation.
If he's been called up by the reporter, then they have gone to him and asked his opinion. He's given it.
If he's gone to them, then you have a point.
But until you know FOR CERTAIN that he went to them, you shouldn't accuse him of being "opportunistic in his timing and involvement"
And I say that as a reporter...
(I know... needs more Cunt...)
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 18:04,
archived)
If he's been called up by the reporter, then they have gone to him and asked his opinion. He's given it.
If he's gone to them, then you have a point.
But until you know FOR CERTAIN that he went to them, you shouldn't accuse him of being "opportunistic in his timing and involvement"
And I say that as a reporter...
(I know... needs more Cunt...)
What do you think he said that was incorrect, and why?Whenever I've looked at 4chan, it seems to be teenagers exchanging porn. Nowt wrong with that, it's what teenagers do. However, if they are the core of Anonymous, then I suspect they enjoy creating trouble rather than have a well considered political aim.
I also don't really believe that Wikileaks is a "revolution". The internet has made revealing documents far easier*. Wikileak's strength was that it was created by people willing to put their faces to the documents, rather than make people delve in the arse end of the internet to find them. However, if anything, anonymous have the seedy edge that Wikileaks had managed to shake off.
If you look at the harm that the violent protests did for the student fees campaign (they got the front page coverage, rather than the many more peaceful protests), I think that Rob has a decent point, and I'm not sure why it has angered you.
(* Good article on that here: www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/wikileaks_1.html)
(I also don't really believe that Wikileaks is a "revolution". The internet has made revealing documents far easier*. Wikileak's strength was that it was created by people willing to put their faces to the documents, rather than make people delve in the arse end of the internet to find them. However, if anything, anonymous have the seedy edge that Wikileaks had managed to shake off.
If you look at the harm that the violent protests did for the student fees campaign (they got the front page coverage, rather than the many more peaceful protests), I think that Rob has a decent point, and I'm not sure why it has angered you.
(* Good article on that here: www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/wikileaks_1.html)
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:53,
archived)
You squirehave it in one!
*here is your currently unclaimed £5*
(*here is your currently unclaimed £5*
hooker1uk Filth monger of the lowest degree!,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:57,
archived)
I'm well into the parallel between leaked documents and mp3sthe internet is famously a distruptive technology - it makes copying things really easy, whether it's songs, movies or government secrets.
The music industry has dealt with it in a number of ways
* DRM - basically increased security, which has failed
* LEGALS - hunting down filesharers just makes people hate the band / industry
* INCREASING USABILITY - iTunes for example, is for some, easier to buy something than pirate it (not us techy people who hang out on b3ta of course, but your mum maybe)
* CHANGING BUSINESS MODEL - basically going live. Lots of big musicans earn more money than ever by fuck off tours.
So assuming secrets will always be leaked - what can governments do?
* DRM - presume they are attemping to increase security at the moment. This will fail as it only takes 1 person to leak.
* LEGALS - Christ they are doing that at the moment, at the cost of making people hate the government
* INCREASING USABILITY - not sure how to apply this to governments, but I certainly wish their websites were more usable.
* CHANGING BUSINESS MODEL - this is my real hope. Governments doing less bad shit because they know they'll be found out.
(The music industry has dealt with it in a number of ways
* DRM - basically increased security, which has failed
* LEGALS - hunting down filesharers just makes people hate the band / industry
* INCREASING USABILITY - iTunes for example, is for some, easier to buy something than pirate it (not us techy people who hang out on b3ta of course, but your mum maybe)
* CHANGING BUSINESS MODEL - basically going live. Lots of big musicans earn more money than ever by fuck off tours.
So assuming secrets will always be leaked - what can governments do?
* DRM - presume they are attemping to increase security at the moment. This will fail as it only takes 1 person to leak.
* LEGALS - Christ they are doing that at the moment, at the cost of making people hate the government
* INCREASING USABILITY - not sure how to apply this to governments, but I certainly wish their websites were more usable.
* CHANGING BUSINESS MODEL - this is my real hope. Governments doing less bad shit because they know they'll be found out.
rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:08,
archived)
It is fascinating to see where things are going.With the internet, the government are basically fighting the geeks on the geek's home ground. I really can't see them winning via the legal route.
( monkeon schmonkeon,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:33,
archived)
There is a very clear difference between what you say which is eminently reasonable and what Mr Manuel has which is IMO not.
Put simply you speculate and couch your words clearly as supposition and opinion "it seems to be" " if they are" Rob's words are clearly and unambiguously claims and assertions.
There is a very clear difference between /b/ and the "moralfags" that get involved in hacktivism indeed it's arguably the wild west nature of /b/ that is coopted as rebels without a cause. As such Manuel's assertions about the nature of anon fails the initial laugh test, as he either doesn't realise or fails to acknowledge that anon is not just /b/
As for comparing the student protests with operation payback in my view I disagree with the comparison. The student protests have seen wanton, mindless and chaotic violence wrought on targets mostly not associated with the cause of their grievance. Anon hacktivism OTOH has been very precise in targeting the specific sites complicit in the economic "sanctions" launched against wikileaks.
(,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:17,
archived)
Put simply you speculate and couch your words clearly as supposition and opinion "it seems to be" " if they are" Rob's words are clearly and unambiguously claims and assertions.
There is a very clear difference between /b/ and the "moralfags" that get involved in hacktivism indeed it's arguably the wild west nature of /b/ that is coopted as rebels without a cause. As such Manuel's assertions about the nature of anon fails the initial laugh test, as he either doesn't realise or fails to acknowledge that anon is not just /b/
As for comparing the student protests with operation payback in my view I disagree with the comparison. The student protests have seen wanton, mindless and chaotic violence wrought on targets mostly not associated with the cause of their grievance. Anon hacktivism OTOH has been very precise in targeting the specific sites complicit in the economic "sanctions" launched against wikileaks.
it's very tricky - I got a phone call from a newspaper and I told them what I thoughtI haven't even read what they wrote up about it - but it's unlikely to represent the whole of my views. Being as I didn't write it.
edit: more coming - accidentally pressed submit halfway through
(edit: more coming - accidentally pressed submit halfway through
rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:20,
archived)
i know anon isn't entirely /bI live on the same internet as the rest of us.
( rob,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:25,
archived)
I state againas above. You are keen on free speech and information. But you want Rob to keep his mouth shut. The defence rests.
Edit; the defence is bored and naffing off.
(Edit; the defence is bored and naffing off.
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:22,
archived)
RE:The student protests have seen wanton, mindless and chaotic violence wrought on targets mostly not associated with the cause of their grievance.
In the past, Anonymous has attacked things such as an epilepsy website. Do you not think that the press would pick up on things like that and tar any new cause with it?
In reality, I know it's more blurred than that, but the nature of Anonymous means that they can only be seen as "good" as the sum of their parts, which does seem to feature a lot of twats in their ranks.
(In the past, Anonymous has attacked things such as an epilepsy website. Do you not think that the press would pick up on things like that and tar any new cause with it?
In reality, I know it's more blurred than that, but the nature of Anonymous means that they can only be seen as "good" as the sum of their parts, which does seem to feature a lot of twats in their ranks.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 23:41,
archived)
In the past /b/tards have attack the epilepsy website and yes the demarcation is blurred and yes the purpose of the attack was both unjustified and offensive. But should the possibility of the press using past transgressions to attempt to tar a cause stop those involved in arguably positive cause activism from taking part due to these prior transgressions by others
Should the WWF shut up shop because phil the Greek is a bit of a racist?
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:26,
archived)
Should the WWF shut up shop because phil the Greek is a bit of a racist?
No, but they should perhapsdrop the Anonymous banner and put their names to the cause they believe in.
Shit sticks, and Anonymous is forever going to be tarred with trolling of quite a nasty nature.
(Shit sticks, and Anonymous is forever going to be tarred with trolling of quite a nasty nature.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:33,
archived)
As demonstrated amply by assange and manning associating your name with politically and legally questionable activities no matter how admirable the objective is fraught with risk
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:12,
archived)
But it alsogives an organisation legitimacy and shows someone's convictions.
Anonymous seem to use bullying and threat, rather then discussion, and so could never gain the respect that an organisation like Wikileaks has.
(Anonymous seem to use bullying and threat, rather then discussion, and so could never gain the respect that an organisation like Wikileaks has.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:23,
archived)
questionby ranting about it are you not breaking
THE RULES OF TEH INTARWEBZ (mainly 1, 2, and 34)
encyclopediadramatica.com/Rules_of_the_Internet (NSFW)
Joking aside here Rob has an opinion. So be it! There are a lot of people who don't give two shites or know nothing of anonymous or wikileaks!
I like the work they (anon) do against scientology, but sadly from the actions of some they are tarred with other shit that hangs around them,
(eric douglace, jessie slaughter, and so on) This does not help improve the portrayed image they have in the media's eyes! (lucky a lot of us can see WWP, and the protests on youtube, ect)
(THE RULES OF TEH INTARWEBZ (mainly 1, 2, and 34)
encyclopediadramatica.com/Rules_of_the_Internet (NSFW)
Joking aside here Rob has an opinion. So be it! There are a lot of people who don't give two shites or know nothing of anonymous or wikileaks!
I like the work they (anon) do against scientology, but sadly from the actions of some they are tarred with other shit that hangs around them,
(eric douglace, jessie slaughter, and so on) This does not help improve the portrayed image they have in the media's eyes! (lucky a lot of us can see WWP, and the protests on youtube, ect)
hooker1uk Filth monger of the lowest degree!,
Sat 11 Dec 2010, 22:55,
archived)