
Anonymous threatens net blackout over SOPA - noduerme
http://youranonnews.tumblr.com/post/14561417793/anonymous-update-and-message-on-opblackout
======
cheald
Look, I appreciate the sentiment, but a website compromise spree is only going
to give the lawmakers more ammunition with which to create more legislation
designed to oppress in the name of protecting us from the bad guys.

Speaking as a parent of two kids, temper tantrums never work.

~~~
jdpage
As far as I can tell, they're not telling anyone to deface sites - they are
saying that you should black out your sites, and encourage others to do the
same.

Wikipedia was/is considering doing something similar.

~~~
cheald
I may have misread the statement. I read the statement, addressed in part to
"Hacktivists", reading:

> Replace the front page of every website we can with a simple, clear protest
> page.

Given past operating procedure, that seems like a call to action to deface
every site you can get access to. If it's not, then I rescind my original
comment.

------
tobtoh
A random thought popped into my head around defacing sites. Rather than
defacing the front pages of every website they can, they should change the 404
pages to say something like 'Content censored by SOPA legislation'.

Every time someone comes across an out of date link, or makes a typo they will
think that they have been denied their request due to SOPA :)

------
kevingadd
The actual article makes no references to hacking or defacing websites. It
explicitly references outreach and legal protest. The poster of this link
clearly has an axe to grind, and based on the number of kneejerk responses he
was successful.

~~~
tobtoh
Yes they did:

"Replace the front page of every website we can with a simple, clear protest
page."

~~~
andrewflnr
It's sort of ambiguous, but the sentence "Encourage friends, businesses,
organizations, social media to take a stand along side us in the same way"
implies voluntary cooperation. Without anything more explicit, it seems like
they're talking about people voluntarily replacing their own front pages.

------
drewblaisdell
It's unfortunate how many of the comments in this thread are based on the
title of the HN link to this article and not the actual article.

------
murz
> The House Judiciary Committee is reconvening on the 21st of December. In
> short, we were lied to.

I think Anonymous is mistaken. The house judiciary committee's website
indicates that the scheduled Dec 21st markup has actually been postponed [1].

[1] <http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html>

------
meanJim
I would really rather Anonymous just stay out of this. Kind of taints the
purity of the Anti-SOPA campaign and its never good to be associated with
criminals, especially the ones who expose active duty undercover cops who have
dedicated their lives to protect us. Just saying.

------
nsomaru
If google would make an anti-SOPA doodle for their homepage, that would be
awesome, and effective too.

------
eigenvector
I am not sure whether vandals are any better than censors, but I'd rather we
got rid of both of them.

~~~
noduerme
I think there's enough information present to get a sense of the Tao between
the two... vandals are, if not a complete straw man, at least an over-hyped
source of genuine danger.

Personally, I'd take vandalism, and having to white-wash my storefront any
day, over a government forcing my payment processors to shut me down by fiat.
Frankly it's hard to imagine someone I'd sympathize with who wouldn't feel the
same way; but if you're that person, now's the time to air reason on the side
of order; a few weeks from now the cause will definitely be lost.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
If SOPA's proponents fight dirty, why can't the opposition? I'm speaking
pragmatically here. Unfortunately, institutions are amoral to the core, and
respond best to power. Affecting change is not as easy as maintaining the
moral high ground and repeating your position. People may need to feel the
consequences of their actions.

There must be a way to use the public's fear as a way to carry this message.
Why can't we fund commercials for each state that list the bill's supporters
as trying to censor the Internet? Alternately, why not blackout some of the
more important routers in protest? I hate that I'm suggesting we break things
temporarily to get people's attention, but, what else is new, right?

The problem is marketing: how do we make people care?

~~~
noduerme
I think we should break things. If I ran any US-facing websites I was the
beneficiary of, I'd break them in a heartbeat. But it's not really the answer.
The US congress is full of what appear (on youtube) to be cockroaches. They're
not sycophants or nice guys who started well but somehow ended up favoring the
deportation and torture of civilians, censorship of the internet, and negating
your property rights in favor of multinationals that want to frack your
pasture. You really should deal with the vermin the way Tunisians, Egyptians,
Libyans, and now Syrians have dealt with theirs; we wouldn't be having this
stupid conversation if the aliens that ran your country weren't a bunch of
unrepentant nazis.

So now you pried my opinion outta me ;)

------
digitalsushi
...and everything looks like a nail.

------
alpswd
The proposed "OpBlackOut front page kit" for those who dont feel like
downloading it --

<http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/115/anonymousq.png>

------
EGreg
I think this is very ill-conceived. If they want every website they can deface
on the internet to get defaced, this will not prove anything.

Moreover, I would like to ask a question ... aren't only FOREIGN sites
affected by SOPA's provisions for revoking DNS and cash flows? What exactly is
a foreign site?

Aren't domestic sites already being seized and no one really cares?

Or am I mistaken?

~~~
the-cakeboss
I believe that this is the case. There are already provisions in place to deal
with sites within the juridiction of the DoJ. The primary affect of the bill
is to give powers to those 'injured' parties seeking recourse against those
sites thought to be distributing copyrighted material. The bill ( from my
reading, I could be mistaken ) grants no new power to deal with domestic sites
beyond amending the definition used in conjunction with already existing laws.
Specifically section 2319 of title 18 of U.S. Code.

This link seems to expire so hopefully linking to the google item will work...

[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&#...</a>

------
gojomo
If I may update Freud…

 _Anonymous_ seeks to deny the state the power to censor websites, not because
_Anonymous_ wants to do away with website censorship, but because they want to
monopolize it.

------
paulhauggis
I really don't like SOPA, but I also don't like being on the same side as
these children. If they don't get their own way, they throw a tantrum by
DoSing certain portions of the Internets.

~~~
marshray
I tend to agree.

Using a DDoS campaign to protest web censorship is just a bit more irony than
I can handle.

~~~
Generic_Name
No where in the article was there a call for a DDoS campaign. They're saying
to be active in the protest of SOPA by putting it on your website and by
encouraging other to do so as well: "Encourage friends, businesses,
organizations, social media to take a stand along side us in the same way.
Use/distribute the OpBlackOut material we’ve provided for this purpose, or
make your own (but please try to be concise and indict SOPA specifically so
the message is clear, unanimous and omnipresent)"

~~~
marshray
Yeah, reading it again I see the .zip file for download. I think the message
would be more accessible if they had an example site that didn't didn't
require one to download and unzip stuff onto your local drive. (hmm...)

------
noduerme
Mmm...short of making a judgment on this, I think as the forces of order and
chaos get pushed into closer-range conflict by the ideologues on either side,
there are bound to be more violent confrontations until the matter's settled
one way or another. Having it settled in favor of chaos would be to basically
retain the status quo. Settling in favor of order would be an entirely
different internet. Our impact in this, individually is limited. I'm not
backing Anonymous by posting this, but I do think at some point we need to
pick a side and support not just the logical, but also to some extent the
emotional arguments that go along with it.

