Is "Anonymous" a Terrorist Organization?

Peter Grimm · Feb 28, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Since many people seem to think that protesting = breaking the law its six to one, half dozen to the other.

It doesn't matter what they "think" the law is.... it's the law. Protesting is legal. Hacking is illegal.

Peter Grimm · Feb 28, 2012

Ikari said:
No their not! Canadia has Frenchies in it, and Australia is descended from criminals.

hehehehe

I forgot about the blasted French, that does put a dent in my argument.

Enola · Feb 28, 2012

I think they started off as Robin Hoodish. But then they wandered off from that an have become something else entirely. What that is, I don't know. Kind of like PETA's initial intent to what PETA is now. Way off the mark.

samsmart · Feb 28, 2012

Peter Grimm said:
I don't buy that. Good ideas spread like wildfire. There are a lot of positive ways to get your message out.

Seriously Peter Grimm. I agree with you.

But here's the problem.

The government doesn't want to implement them, especially if doing so cuts into the profits of a big business that pays lobbyists that pays Congressmen and Senators for influence.

Take SOPA and PIPA. Those laws weren't pushed because of popular support to criminalize online piracy. Those laws were pushed because big media outlets were paying lobbyists to pay legislators to pass them.

Take NDAA 2012. That law wasn't pushed because of popular support to indefinitely detain fellow citizens. That law was pushed because the federal government wants more power to stay in power, even though it's a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The corruption is so great that ex-Senator Chris Dodd, who is now the CEO and chief lobbyist of the Motion Picture Association of America, threatened politicians who did not support SOPA and PIPA of cutting off campaign contributions to them.

MPAA lobbyist Chris Dodd said:
“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd told Fox News. "Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.”

MPAA threat sparks White House petition for bribery probe ? The Register

The bribery is so open and so blatant that the biggest fight in Congress was between banks and retailers over interchange fees.

In the first two months of 2011 groups associated with a coalition opposing the implementation of new rules for debit “interchange” fees that banks charge to businesses had already contributed over $500,000 in political action committee money to dozens of lawmakers, including backers of a bill that would delay the rules from going into effect.

Groups Opposing Debit Card Rule Have PAC, Lobby Support - Sunlight Foundation

The fees Chung pays are a tiny fraction of Wall Street’s swipe fee windfall; banks take in a combined $48 billion a year from these “interchange” fees on debit and credit cards, according to analysts at The Nilson Report. That money comes out of the pockets of consumers as well as merchants, as stores pass on whatever costs they can to their customers.

Major retailers -- the Walmarts, Home Depots and the Targets of the world -- complain that card fees are one of their biggest annual expenses, and they’ve entered into a Capitol Hill battle royale against card companies to roll back the lucrative fee regime. Last year’s financial reform bill ordered the Federal Reserve to crack down on debit card swipe fees, a $16 billion pool of money from which $8 billion flows to just 10 banks. As a concession to Wall Street, credit card fees were left unscathed.

But the clock never ticks down to zero in Washington: one year’s law is the next year’s repeal target. Politicians, showered with cash from card companies and giant retailers alike, have been moving back and forth between camps, paid handsomely for their shifting allegiances.

The swipe fee spat is generating huge business for K Street: A full 118 ex-government officials and aides are currently registered to lobby on behalf of banks in the fee fight, according to data compiled for this story by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan research group. Retailers have signed up at least 124 revolving-door lobbyists. And at least one lobbyist has switched sides during the melee. Republican Thomas Shipman of Cornerstone Government Affairs registered to lobby for the merchant’s leading player, Walmart, in 2010, only to move over to Visa in 2011. (The firm’s executive vice president, Fred Clark, says that while Cornerstone is registered to lobby for Visa on “electronic payments,” the shop told the card company it wouldn’t lobby on interchange fees specifically, because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. He also says that while Shipman was registered to lobby on behalf of Walmart in 2010, he never specifically lobbied on the interchange issue.)

“Oh man, this is unbelievable. You’ve got the banking community, the financial community, pitted against the retail community,” says Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). “They’ve both been in my office and I’m a clear yes vote on this ... so you can only imagine those who are trying to figure this out or are still on the fence. They must be getting flooded.”

The flood fills the hallways with lobbyists and deluges the airwaves with ads. For weeks, Washington’s Metro system has been papered with pro-plastic ads on trains and station walls. It’s a way for card networks to flex their muscles, to put lawmakers and lobbyists on notice that they’re willing to spend big to win. “Where does Washington’s $12 billion gift to giant retailers come from? YOUR DEBIT CARD,’” blares one ad. This being Washington, a poster on the Metro was hacked by a swipe fee reform supporter, who crossed out “YOUR DEBIT CARD” and penned in “BANKS.”

A senior Senate Democratic Banking Committee aide, Peter Bondi, spotted the defaced ad and snapped a Twitpic. He sent it out on March 31, the day that a bill sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) was coming up for a floor vote. The Tester bill called for a two-year delay on proposed debit card fee caps that Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) had pushed through Congress last summer.

Swiped: Banks, Merchants And Why Washington Doesn't Work For You

The basis of our U.S. Constitution and our republic is that the federal government governs by maintaining the consent of the governed. But those who govern no longer care about the consent of the people they write and execute laws for. What they care about is getting paid. And so they will write and execute whatever laws that keep them paid.

And I'm not talking about their federal or congressional salaries. I'm talking about "campaign contributions" and promises to sell their networks in the government by being hired as a lobbyist.

And the people of the United States has no direct method of dealing with all this. The United States is a representative democracy. It was hoped by our Founding Fathers that those representatives would work for the benefit of our democracy. But they aren't.

Rather, they are working for the benefit of whoever pays them.

And because of that, our Congressmen and Senators will write laws to protect themselves and their big money donors - not their constituents. And the more their constituents act out against these policies, the more lobbyists will pay Congressmen and Senators to write laws to silence them.

Which was why free speech can only be exercised in certain zones instead of all over our nation. And why American citizens suspected of terrorism - not those convicted for terrorism, and not those arrested for terrorism but just those suspected of terrorism - can be detained indefinitely without redress. And why there are pushes to privatize prisons so businesses can profit from criminals, and so they pay off judges to be hard on crime and campaign legislators to make sure there are enough harsh laws to keep those jail cells full.

So sure, good ideas spread. But what good is that when those with more money pay legislators to keep those good ideas from being implemented because it would hurt their personal profit margins?

Kal'Stang · Feb 28, 2012

samsmart said:
...

Everything you said samsmart is SPOT ON! I really don't think you could have hit the target as much dead center as you just did.

StillBallin75 · Feb 28, 2012

Cyberterrorists maybe? Although I find the word "cyberterrorism" to be a problematic term in and of itself.

In my opinion they seem to me like a bunch of troublemakers.

Temporal · Feb 29, 2012

I would almost be tempted to call them a terrorist organization for the sole reason that they are announcing and publicizing threats, which can cause fear in the public. But no one is dying because of these people. They aren't bombing anything, aren't injuring humans like a suicide bomber or the 9/11 attackers. So, "terrorism" doesn't quite fit here.

Can Anonymous be a terrorist organization, or an organization at all when it has no leaders, and no identifiable members?

It seems more like a slogan call to me: vigilante justice for whoever wants it and has the ability to hack networks. It's just a way of saying that hackers, too, are pissed off with the U.S. government. Although that's nothing new. What's unique about them is that they cite social and political reasons.

So basically... what's the difference between a hacker who was already hacking the U.S. government and its corporate cronies, and a hacker who does it on behalf of Anonymous? Just philosophy.

If there's not much difference, then are any hackers "terrorists" as opposed to just being people committing standard fraud or data crime? Careful how you answer that one.

Hatuey · Feb 29, 2012

Ikari said:
No, they're not. They're likely to be classified as one though so that the US government can subvert a multitude of laws to track them down. Dissent these days seems to be a form of "terrorism".

There is a difference between dissent and illegally stopping the government from conducting business. For example, not getting off a bus because of segregation? Doesn't stop the government from properly operating. Sitting on a lawn and not moving? Doesn't stop the government from operating. Shutting down government websites because you disagree with the government? That does stop the government from properly operating. If these kids were out on the street demonstrating, I'd have some respect for them. However they're not looking to peaceably assemble. They're attacking the government.

BmanMcfly · Feb 29, 2012

I'm sure that anonymous will be called terrorist at some point.

jamesrage · Feb 29, 2012

X Factor said:
Anonymous has declared war.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...056-anonymous-declares-war-us-government.html

In their statement, they say they have been classified as a terrorist organization (I don't know if they have been or not). I see terrorism as involving physical violence toward people or property. What do you think? In your opinion, are they a terrorist organization?

I say no.If Anonymous had a history of violence and could do more than just hack computers then I would say sure they are terrorists. But temporarily shutting down government websites and other hacker **** are not acts of terrorism.

Is "Anonymous" a Terrorist Organization?