Bad day for Sony

[karamazov80]

I've taken courses on terrorism and have read and struggled with many definitions of the term myself. But personally, I think it is taking it a bit far to consider web-based hacking as discussed here "terrorism."

In general, I agree with much of Star Puffs' official U.S. definition (politically motivated, targeting civilians, violent behavior). Except that I might not include actions committed by "subnational groups or clandestine agents." Though it may be abhorrent, I don't consider acts by a legitimate or semi-legitimate governmental entity terrorism, and that definition allows for it. And frankly, some behaviors engaged by the U.S. and other governments would be lumped into the category of terrorist behavior by that definition.

I might also throw in a bit about motivations and the theatrical nature of the act, but that makes it harder to quantify which is probably why it isn't in such a "technical" definition. In a way, the "political" component subsumes those others anyway.

 

[CollectorNC]

I hate hackers. They sometimes act like terrorists and eventually I'm sure they'll be treated as such. There's way too much of this going around now a days and it has to stop at some point. Stiff penalties need to be given out.

They are terrorists.

 

[karamazov80]

When you spread that definition so thin, at a certain point, what does it mean? You are a terrorist if you blackmail someone, or if you interrupt the flow of commerce and inconvenience people because of principle using illegitimate means under the law or social convention? There are lots of abhorrent actions out there that shouldn't be considered terrorism, IMO. When you call this terrorism, it lessens the meaning when you discuss genuine terrorism.

 

[THX-182]

Gosh people. Who cares if they are terrorists or not. Bottom line is that they are jerk offs who are causing problems for people and breaking laws. We don't need to use fancy words and delve into psychology about the whys or what not. They should be caught and they should be punished. We all agree on that point.

 

[karamazov80]

Meh, I'm only interested in this thread because of the "terrorism" debate

 

[kain4521]

I just want my nice peaceful video game section back.


Damn forum terrorists.

 

[Matt S]

Anyone that wants to create havoc for the sake of it, or for some agenda is not cool, imo

 

[DiFabio]

We all agree on that point.

Do we? I'm not so sure.



I don't have a Playstation 3, well, I do but it's not mine. My family has one, both of my brothers play it (I will too on occasion). Anyway, three days prior to this incident the system got the "yellow light of death". They were both pissed because it happened while they were playing Black Ops so now the disk is stuck in there.

Thankfully we have a warranty for it so Sony will either try and repair it and retrieve the disk or reimburse us.

Pretty ironic and perfect timing considering what's going on with the psn accounts currently. I tried to explain this to them, but they don't care, they want the PS3 back. Atleast now they're doing things like going outside and reading.

 

[Star Puffs]

And that would allow for any 'passive' agent of force to operate with impunity.

It would certainly not allow them to act with impunity. Harassment, trespassing, theft and host of other non-violent crimes, do not cease to be crimes just because they do not classify them as "terrorism".

Even more troubling is that your broad definition of "terrorism" could be read to include non-criminal offences that at present have only civil remedies, e.g. libel.

If every crime that impinges on "life, liberty or property" were classified as "terrorism", then I am hard pressed to think of any crime that would not not so defined.

Standing outside a business and disrupting access by employees or customers would be permissible, so long as no one was assaulted. Blocking traffic with protest marches.
...
Do you get the idea? Non-violent coercion gets a free pass under that definition. It protects nothing except for the activist's 'right' to infringe upon the lives of their targets.

So suffragettes, African-American civil rights marchers in thee 1950's, people demonstrating against the Viet Nam War and LGBT protesters are all "terrorists"?

Your view on "passive" force would make all non-violent protests illegal, unless of course the government gives you permission to protest. Do you really want a government to be able to regulate whether people can protest against it actions?

Classifying non-violent resistance as "terrorism" is unconscionable given the history of government abuse of power and civil liberties. Witness the 'new and improved' Egyptian government making banning public protests one of its first acts.

Lawsuits that serve no purpose other than to drain the defendant's bank account.

Some of the worst "terrorists" in that case would be businesses with staff lawyers, who salaries are sunk costs, and thus the price of a suit are only minor court fees.

The government also has bottomless coffers in that regard, using our tax revenue no less, when it comes to defend its violations of its own laws or civil liberties.

America is a country founded on violent, let alone passive, resistance to government. Beyond the military fight, the revolutionaries did horrible things to civilian loyalists and certainly deprived them of life, liberty and property.

Should Sam Adams' beer labels read "Brewer – Terrorist"?

Is George Washington on the $1 bill no better in moral terms than if Afghanistan or (a post-monarchy) Saudi Arabia puts Osama bin Laden on its money some day?

 

[tewhitte]

 

[BadMoon]

It would certainly not allow them to act with impunity. Harassment, trespassing, theft and host of other non-violent crimes, do not cease to be crimes just because they do not classify them as "terrorism".

Even more troubling is that your broad definition of "terrorism" could be read to include non-criminal offences that at present have only civil remedies, e.g. libel.

If every crime that impinges on "life, liberty or property" were classified as "terrorism", then I am hard pressed to think of any crime that would not not so defined.




So suffragettes, African-American civil rights marchers in thee 1950's, people demonstrating against the Viet Nam War and LGBT protesters are all "terrorists"?

Your view on "passive" force would make all non-violent protests illegal, unless of course the government gives you permission to protest. Do you really want a government to be able to regulate whether people can protest against it actions?

Classifying non-violent resistance as "terrorism" is unconscionable given the history of government abuse of power and civil liberties. Witness the 'new and improved' Egyptian government making banning public protests one of its first acts.




Some of the worst "terrorists" in that case would be businesses with staff lawyers, who salaries are sunk costs, and thus the price of a suit are only minor court fees.

The government also has bottomless coffers in that regard, using our tax revenue no less, when it comes to defend its violations of its own laws or civil liberties.

America is a country founded on violent, let alone passive, resistance to government. Beyond the military fight, the revolutionaries did horrible things to civilian loyalists and certainly deprived them of life, liberty and property.

Should Sam Adams' beer labels read "Brewer – Terrorist"?

Is George Washington on the $1 bill no better in moral terms than if Afghanistan or (a post-monarchy) Saudi Arabia puts Osama bin Laden on its money some day?

........................

 

[NosferatuBill36]

Edit: You know what? I'm not even going to bother.

 

[Jen]

Edit - you edited your post so I will edit mine.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

........................

this is my thoughts on it

 

[NosferatuBill36]

Edit - you edited your post so I will edit mine.

 

[Star Puffs]

I guess an adult conversation on a meaningful topic is deeply threatening to some people. I look forward to our future when public debate is reduced to insulting emoticons, Internet memes and a few words that marginally qualify as a complete sentence.

 

[plasmid303]

We are now 'collateral damage'.

A statement from a member of the Anon group today:

The consumers in this are as one might call, collateral damage. We are very cognizant of the fact that we are not making friends nor allies among the average consumer with our attack. This is unfortunate as a concern should always be, will the very people we seek to support not see what it is we are trying to achieve. In this case, many don’t. There has been a lot of hate spread throughout the internet and over forums that we are being reckless and simply punishing consumers more than Sony.

https://www.warpzoned.com/?p=5412

 

[BadMoon]

I guess an adult conversation on a meaningful topic is deeply threatening to some people. I look forward to our future when public debate is reduced to insulting emoticons, Internet memes and a few words that marginally qualify as a complete sentence.

.....................

 

[Scarlet]

We are now 'collateral damage'.

A statement from a member of the Anon group today:



https://www.warpzoned.com/?p=5412

Doesn't that sound like what the "conventional" terrorist would do to achieve their agenda?

As in "We don't care who gets hurt as long we get what we want."

 

[lerath666]

I guess an adult conversation on a meaningful topic is deeply threatening to some people. I look forward to our future when public debate is reduced to insulting emoticons, Internet memes and a few words that marginally qualify as a complete sentence.

This is what we're heading towards apparently.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L0yQunhOaU0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

All kidding aside, i do rather enjoy reading all the flaming directed at the "group" that is anonymous. I'm curious as to how much anyone here actually knows about them. i often get the impression that it's about this much.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DNO6G4ApJQY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Some other info that made me laugh. as it shows some people ( the head of the security company in this case) Has no idea what He's talking about.

https://gawker.com/#!5769950/colber...is-like-sticking-your-_____-in-a-hornets-nest

Granted, I's Colbert, but What I'm referring to is the comment that "he had info on the leaders of the Anons."

There is no leader. It's not an organisation. It's more like the western concept of a possy. someone decides to do something, posts it to one of their boards, and it creates a snowball effect. More and more people join in, doing things to "irritate" the target. This continues until they achieve what they set out to do, or, more likely, they get bored.

Just food for thought. a great deal of the time, it's a bunch of kids between the ages of 13 and 20.