An Interview With a Target of the FBI’s Anonymous Probe

[derf]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

I found it, the girl is a twit and I hope that they fry her.

I wonder if she's cute

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by derf

I wonder if she's cute

Maybe but I doubt it, fat emo type is my guess...

[derf]

Well that answers that question. Next story please

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

I found it, the girl is a twit and I hope that they fry her.

She most certainly comes across as a twit, but that is not illegal. The millions of twits currently running free serve as proof. She only deserves to be "fried" if they can prove she broke the law.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

She most certainly comes across as a twit, but that is not illegal. The millions of twits currently running free serve as proof. She only deserves to be "fried" if they can prove she broke the law.

I don't know about that. There is such a thing as facilitating a crime. If you provide the means by which a criminal conspiracy is hatched, and actively maintain control of that medium, are you not somewhat liable for the acts that follow?

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by goof2

She most certainly comes across as a twit, but that is not illegal. The millions of twits currently running free serve as proof. She only deserves to be "fried" if they can prove she broke the law.

Um true, but she basically admits to being part of a conspiracy to do just that. If you and I conspire to murder Trip, even if only I pull the trigger, you are still guilty as well. What her group is doing, whether you agree with them or not, is illegal. When they attack company "A" or "B" they are also affecting all of the innocent employees of that company and anyone that might need to use their service. The funny thing for me is that the corporations that A fights are made up of all the little people that A claims to champion. No one "owns" Paypal or Mastercard, sure the CEO might get fired but another will just replace him. The people that are hurt are the drones that work there and the little old ladies that will lose retirement money when the stock falls.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I don't know about that. There is such a thing as facilitating a crime. If you provide the means by which a criminal conspiracy is hatched, and actively maintain control of that medium, are you not somewhat liable for the acts that follow?

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

Um true, but she basically admits to being part of a conspiracy to do just that. If you and I conspire to murder Trip, even if only I pull the trigger, you are still guilty as well. What her group is doing, whether you agree with them or not, is illegal. When they attack company "A" or "B" they are also affecting all of the innocent employees of that company and anyone that might need to use their service. The funny thing for me is that the corporations that A fights are made up of all the little people that A claims to champion. No one "owns" Paypal or Mastercard, sure the CEO might get fired but another will just replace him. The people that are hurt are the drones that work there and the little old ladies that will lose retirement money when the stock falls.

If they can prove she was a conspirator I'm fine with her being punished. Only hearing her side of the story (the only one presented in the story) I'm not sure her participation rose to that level. The Feds probably have a different view on the matter though.

AL, I agree with you about these "attacks". They seem misguided to me and the lack of support for Wikileaks serving as the motivation only reinforces my perception. I hope those who are involved in the "attacks" learn that the internet isn't quite as "Anonymous" as they like to think.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

If they can prove she was a conspirator I'm fine with her being punished. Only hearing her side of the story (the only one presented in the story) I'm not sure her participation rose to that level. The Feds probably have a different view on the matter though.

AL, I agree with you about these "attacks". They seem misguided to me and the lack of support for Wikileaks serving as the motivation only reinforces my perception. I hope those who are involved in the "attacks" learn that the internet isn't quite as "Anonymous" as they like to think.

Lock your router and hide your SSID, or the FBI might end up mistaking 'them' for you.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Lock your router and hide your SSID, or the FBI might end up mistaking 'them' for you.

Weren't you arguing for her prosecution as a co-conspirator a few posts ago? As long as the standards of proof still hold I'm not particularly worried about me.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Weren't you arguing for her prosecution as a co-conspirator a few posts ago? As long as the standards of proof still hold I'm not particularly worried about me.

She ADMITTED to facilitating illegal action, by stating that she helped provide the 'location' in which plans were made.