Anonageddon – we did it for the lulz

( Anonymous applauds the brave Libyan people, who have chosen self determination after four decades of de facto slavery under the heel of a repressive regime.
Now reportedly under the control of the citizens and military units loyal to freedom, the eastern portion of Libya, including the border crossing to Egypt, has become a shining beacon of hope to other repressed peoples of the world.
“We arrived in Libya through a border post now completely controlled by the opposition.”
Anonymous previously gave the UN 24 hours to declare a no-fly zone to protect the brave rebel soldiers and the good people of Libya:
That 24 hours has expired, with no no-fly zone and no progress. Libyan civilians are still under attack from Gaddafi’s mercenaries – hired to slaughter his own people. The UN didn’t do anything more than play patty-cake with Gaddafi, even while Gaddafi’s genocide continued:
“The Gaddafi statement was just code for his collaborators to start the genocide against the Libyan people. It just started a few hours ago.”
Any organization that gives a voice to a genocidal maniac like Gaddafi, and none to the people he has enslaved, is unjust! Anonymous will not accept this.
It would seem that even Gaddafi knows what is required in that circumstance:
“Revolution, revolution”
The Libyan rebels are the glorious Washington rebels of our age, the only difference being that the insane Gaddafi is about 500 times crueler on his best day than King George ever was on his worst day.
In the same way that Washington was funded, equipped and supported by France to victory, we now request that France repeat that. Shower the rebels with anything they ask for or need. In the interests of modern day burden-sharing, we ask that every other nation of the world, especially Egypt, do the same.
Since Anonymous stands for individual liberty, any Libyan rebel should be able to independently request whatever material assistance they require – medical, political, financial or military. Anonymous believes that French largesse should not be something that only Americans should be worthy of. Likewise freedom.
Good luck Libya! Let’s hope someone, somewhere in the world provides some backbone and REAL support, instead of just mouthing the words to pretend they care. Starting with, but not limited to, the no-fly zone that both Anonymous and Libyan rebels have ALREADY requested.
  1. Anonymous’ latest:

    #anonsec, mesh network how-to
    The idea is to write a how-to on building mesh networks. The n00bs must understand it. Mesh networks are usefull, as they cannot be censored nor shut down.
    Later on that How-to can become part of Anonymous’ uber-secret handbook regarding safety. Version 0.2.0, a downloadable .pdf, can be found there

    Join #anonsec where you find the mesh pad link in the /topic…

    An Open Letter to Anonymous to Clarify Their Position on Free Speech

    Recently, some members of Anonymous explained their decision not to attack Westboro Baptist Church by citing their support for free speech. This seems entirely reasonable, and likely to reflect the majority of views in the Anonymous collective. However I would like someone on Anonymous to therefore defend the recent attacks on Mastercard, Paypal et al. The attacks were apparently in retaliation against those companies’ decisions to suspend their relationships with the Wikileaks organization, as a response to the recent leaking of diplomatic and other classified cables. Was Anonymous defending free speech then?

    Most of the time, we think of the right to free speech as the right to express one’s own opinion on any subject. But Wikileaks was not doing that. They were expressing other people’s opinions — opinions which those people has chosen NOT to express freely. No matter what your opinion of the merits of the Wikileaks discosures (and for the record, I believe those released so far are going to do more good than harm), a straightforward case of free speech it certainly is not. Assessing the rights of the public to have access to ALL government communications is a nuanced and complex problem, and falls under the heading of freedom of information, rather than speech.

    However, in the case of Mastercard and the other companies, they were choosing to not support Wikileaks. You may disagree with them about whether Wikileaks deserves support, but they were simply exercising their right to decide for themselves about this issue, and express that decision (in business terms). They may be corporations, but that is much more clearly an exercise of free speech than anything released by Wikileaks.

    So I’m confused. Anonymous is a collection of individuals, but support for free speech seems the most widespread common feeling, and yet the cooperate attacks seemed widely supported as well. WIll someone explain in the comments?

    An Open Letter To The World

  2. Say What?
    Did Stephen Colbert join ‘Anonymous’?
    Posted on 02.25.11
    Categories: Featured, Nation
    On his show last night, Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert dug into the protest group “Anonymous” and came away with some wondering if he’d become a member. Speaking to Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, his guest told him, “We’re all Anonymous, is what they say.” Seconds later, a Guy Fawkes mask flashed across the screen over Colbert’s face (at 3:23 in the following clip).

    For a closer view of Colbert’s ‘Anonymous’ shoutout, click here:

    This video is from the Colbert Report, broadcast Feb. 24, 2011.—glenn-greenwald

  3. Harvard Law Prof: Amazon’s WikiLeaks Shutdown Set Dangerous Precedent

    As WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange awaits a decision later this week on whether he’ll be extradited to Sweden to face sex crime charges, Harvard Law professor Yochai Benkler wants to remind us of another legal challenge to WikiLeaks that’s been largely forgotten over just the last month: the companies including Amazon, Visa, PayPal and MasterCard who cut off service to the company at the first whiff of political controversy.

    In an upcoming paper to be published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Benkler takes apart the government and private sector response to WikiLeaks’ year of ever-more-controversial revelations. He analyzes legislators’ calls for Assange’s execution after Cablegate, the negative media blitz, and vigilante hacker attacks on the site. But perhaps most interesting is his analysis of Amazon’s decision to kick WikiLeaks off its cloud computing service immediately following a call from Senator Joe Lieberman for private companies to cut ties with the group.

    Because the company apparently acted on its own, without direct order from the government, this decision is unreviewable by a court. Given what we know of the materials as they have come out to this point, there is little likelihood that an official order to remove the materials would have succeeded in surmounting the high barriers erected by first amendment doctrine in cases of prior restraint. The fact that the same effect was sought to be achieved through a public statement by an official, executed by voluntary action of a private company, suggests a deep vulnerability of the checks imposed by the first amendment in the context of a public sphere built entirely of privately-owned infrastructure.

    Benkler, a faculty member at Harvard Law’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, writes that the same method was used to cut off WikiLeaks’ payments from Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal: “The implicit alliance, a public-private partnership between the firms that operate the infrastructure and the government that encourages them to help in its war on terror, embodied by this particularly irritating organization, was able to achieve extra-legally much more than law would have allowed the state to do by itself.”

    He cites other examples of how government pressure on private companies has violated civil liberties: McCarthy-era black lists were generated by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, but enforced by private sector hiring practices. And AT&T was pressured to allow NSA wiretaps under the Bush administration and in return granted immunity from law suits by the government.

    But WikiLeaks’ exile from Amazon’s servers deserves special scrutiny, because it shows just how receptive the Web–where media outlets are often built on layers of pay-as-you-go services–can be to this kind of extra-legal government intervention. Benkler doesn’t argue that Lieberman’s pressure on Amazon and others to jettison WikiLeaks is illegal. In fact, its legality is exactly what calls into question the future of free speech online.

    Read Benkler’s full paper here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: