06.17.2015 02:19 PM

In which Anonymous makes the case for the very thing they oppose

Not very strategic, boys and girls.


  1. Matt says:

    Pretty sure the irony will be lost on them.

    • davie says:

      One irony might be that what they did is illegal because they did it…but would be legal if our government did it.

  2. davie says:

    2011 election in my riding up north. We elected a Conservative, as usual. I think there were 5 candidates. the one who seemed to me most capable, knew local issues best, articulate fellow, ran his own business, was the candidate for the Pirate Party. He was good on all issues, but he left all the other candidates way behind in his explanations of high tech and info control. All that he spoke of has been happening world wide the years since 2011: leaks, spying, disclosures, more spying, and amazing high tech developments. That party was on to something.

  3. Meh says:

    I don’t think this cyber attack came from anonymous. I tend to frequent several websites where many people who consider themselves part of anon go, and before and after this attack occured there was no chatter about this on those sites nothing, zip zero zilch. So either this was perpetrated by a handful of resourceful anons who knew how to shut up about it ( knowing many people who call themselves anonymous I find that hard to believe)or another group using the name anonymous as a scape goat.

    • !o! says:

      Exactly. This is not in line with the ethos/culture of the anonymous idea.
      It’s clearly some guy who may or may not have orchestrated it taking credit for it. Doesn’t seem like he speaks for any group, officially or otherwise, and what his overall objectives are or circle is is another question completely.

  4. Peter says:

    This puts some things into stark relief. There are lots of bloggers who regularly criticize many aspects of modern law enforcement and security measures. The militarization of the police, tasers, G-20, cyber-snooping, surveillance, C-51, etc. are all debated exhaustively, But not a lot of time is given over to looking at the reality of cyber-crime, cyber-terrorism, extremely sophisticated gang culture, the reality of the drug culture, arresting people on crack’ etc. I’ve never been able to figure out why taking pictures of the police with a cellphone is exercising our freedoms while the police taking pictures of protestors violates their rights. I’m by no means a rote police-supporter, but arguing civil liberties as if we were back in the 1920’s is ridiculous. You can blame Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for the decline of privacy and individual freedoms.

    Anonymous are anarchists/fascists drunk on their cleverness, power and self-proclaimed virtue.

    • doconnor says:

      Bloggers do talk all about the problems of gangs and people dieing from drugs that is caused by drug prohibition and the focus on enforcement rather the treatment. Also how weakness in cyber-security is caused by the government desire to spy on people and that is exploited by cyber-criminals.

      The people have rights to privacy, express themselves and protest. The government does not have those rights. Police when acting as the pointy end of the government do not have the right to privacy.

      • Peter says:

        Yes, people have a right to privacy. They also have a right to efficient, effective police services. My point was simply that the debate doesn’t move forward when most people just hurl those two shibboleths at one another. Did you really mean to suggest the government is the cause of cyber-crime?

    • Tired of it All says:

      Just on the one point about pictures: I think that in a nutshell, the state has no business in my business until I prove they need to think otherwise by words or deeds.

      I think that while a bystander could be part of a group intent on causing harm to police through taking pictures, it is not very likely on a balance of probabilities (organized crime does it, but they are not bystanders).

      The question of likeliness that applies to what the police would do with your photo is not immediately evident and rarely disclosed. And therein lies the rub.

  5. P Brennan says:

    must be Stephen Harpers doing ..he is blamed for everything else…

  6. Kelly says:

    What if it’s a false flag operation? Russians, Chinese…

    Regardless, I doubt Anonymous really cares what anyone thinks about them since they’re an amorphous idea more than an organization. They are a concept now…sort of like Al Qaeda. In fact Bill C-51 won’t actually protect anyone anyway. Look what happened tonight in Charleston. Why didn’t the American snoops get the white racist terrorist before he attacked a black church and killed 9 people.

    • MCBellecourt says:

      Actually, it appears more and more that Bill C-51 is designed to protect the elite and to hell with the rest of us.

  7. Jim Walsh says:

    What is of course unsaid, is why our 6,000-strong “Shared Services Canada” IT department, costing us easily over a billion dollars a year, hadn’t put in adequate DDOS protection on the public-facing Government websites. Perhaps what’s needed is another billion dollar contract with Bell/CGI to sort things properly out?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *