We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists

We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists

2012, Society  -   189 Comments
Ratings: 8.23/10 from 31 users.

Chernobyl HeartSo who is Anonymous? They've been called criminals, "hackers on steroids" and even terrorists. But the vast majority of those who identify as Anonymous don't break the law.

They see themselves as activists and protectors of free speech, and tend to rise up most powerfully when they perceive a threat to internet freedom or personal privacy. Whether you are a soccer mom or a member of Congress, you live in an electronic landscape that has exploded with largely unchecked intrusion and surveillance.

You are tracked by government databases while corporate advertisers are looking to buy your personal data for pennies. In this landscape, the existence of the collective internet culture called Anonymous makes the case for anonymity.

Using tools of disruption and spectacle, they have also become the face of dissent for a variety of human rights and information freedom groups around the globe.

They are a legion of loud but largely masked geeks, hackers, pranksters and outraged citizens who have unwittingly redefined civil disobedience for the digital age, and found themselves in the middle of one of the most important battles of our time. Please support the authors. Buy the DVD, stream or download the film.

More great documentaries

189 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Why is it now saying does not exist?!?!?

  2. ????????????????????????????????????????

    art found on the web

  3. I follow Anonymous on FB...and I support the fight...but I am puzzled why i cant seem to watch the flick...says its private?..someone hook me up! Power to the peeps! Stop bein sheeps!

  4. Excellent, excellent, excellent vid!!!! With all the god docs that are seeming to be pushed by TD, it nice to see that there's a nice break from the crap being forced down my throat! Really liked the story line and a good history with some of the players in the movement. Wish I could have been there with you guys!

  5. hell you guys are too much.. gotta stop posting w a real name... but someone has to stand up.... go get f ed... otherwise owed and operated and such

  6. from what i took on this is it was a matter of standing up for your principles in the manner that best expresses your self.

  7. @overtheedge

    I am aware of what would happen if they showed themselves or had a spokesmen. And my point is the fact that they're not willing to go through any of those obstacles directly correlates to the lack of belief/importance of the issues they're "saving" us from.

    I'm glad you brought up Assange, a true martyr; the antithesis of Anonymous.

    1. Allan Young
      so do you demand all those that work for wikileaks identify themselves? should they identify their sources? if not don't the workers,volunteers,supporters and whistle blowers suffer from "the lack of belief/importance of the issues they're "saving" us from." why is Assange seeking refuge instead of facing the charges even if he is extradited to the U.S or elsewhere. isn't what he is doing hiding. i agree with his seeking refuge and avoiding a possible extradition at this time. all i am stating is if he lived by your rules he would face them head on. and what if he is guilty of the sexual charges? his actions will forever taint an unrelated cause (wiki leaks)

  8. Personally I think wearing a mask is a symbol which represents your lack of belief in what you're fighting for.

    If somethings really important to you, you'll go to jail for it.

    1. Allan Young
      some have gone to jail for it. and others have been charged and await trial. yes they try to conceal their identity. but in my opinion the mask is more of a symbol of the faceless mass that we are treated as. they also do not wish a hierarchy and leaders so by putting a mask as the face nobody is more powerful/famous than the group. we all know that if their was even a spokesman (or woman) for the group their targets would be relentless in attacking them. the media/public would also attribute the missteps of any such person as a misstep of the group (see accusations towards Assange true or false have damaged wiki leaks by association)

  9. @ Lak

    No, you are wrong about that. You almost couldn't be any more wrong about that. The only thing these two groups have in common (and bear in mind that I'm talking about Anonymous at its BEST - like I've SAID, more than once, already...) is that they both fight anonymously for what they believe in.

    And that's it.

    Anything else you might try to shoehorn into it would certainly just stem out of a (predictable) petty contentiousness on your part, because I can't believe for a moment you are so morally blind as to be unable to see any real difference between the two.

    And I watched every single minute of the doc, thank you very much.

    "It's LIFE, Lak: Pick a side."

    Nope, not Dubya... Not even Anakin Skywalker. Nothing whatsoever said about only two choices here, either... Evidently, you suffer from some sort of "printed language Asperger's" (perhaps more accurately characterized as a stiff-necked failure to read between the lines), so let me spell it out for you very carefully: I mean, just the realization that very little in life is so black and white as you'd apparently like to insist everyone believe it is, and that if sometimes a just, necessary fight has to be waged a little outside the bounds of what is strictly legal, or even WITHIN the bounds of what is not altogether pleasing, that does not, ipso facto, make it one that shouldn't be made. There are times when all sorts of factors need to be weighed in the balance, and most people are capable of understanding that.

    1. I will agree to all your demands. Please truce. Otherwise kill me now.

    2. Sure. Just secure all your pets after I leave. You never know when the bloodlust might set on me again...

    3. I find it funny how you oppose anonymous but you never had your photo posted as an avatar. Vlatko did, Pysmythe did, i did, Dew did (thanks to her daughter)and many others did and do...but many remain anonymous while giving their opinion and arguing on many subjects with many posters.
      You are anonymous, do you realize that?

    4. Didn't say I opposed Anonymous - said I opposed their behavior. I agree with who they go after it's the how that disturbs me.

      If you want a picture just ask for a picture.

    5. "And THEY get to decide which org/person/gov't to wield their power on? They get to decide who is wrong and who is right? They get to decide what is free speech and what is not? And not only do they get to decide these things they don't even have to let it be known who the deciders are. Hell, they are worse than the problem they are supposedly working to correct."

      sounds like opposing to me but i see you agree with why they oppose if not how.

      I didn't say i wanted a picture, i said you are (have been) anonymous on TDF.

    6. Guess who's new ultrabook laptop got hacked yesterday? Of course it's nothing more than a coincidence - of course it isn't.

      Yep, had a plug-in installed on my Firefox. And it wasn't one of Firefox's. Of course it's all coincidence.

    7. oQ...As you probably know if you follow the news, in Ontario it will now be illegal to wear masks in marches, protests, new law!

    8. Good thing there's no Mardi Gras in Ontario.

    9. That is for riots and unlawfull assembly, it is already against the law to participate in riots, being masked would be an added offence.

    10. You better re-read the news, it is for all assemblies, unlawful or not.

  10. I think for the most part that what you’re saying has an element of truth in it, and you are brave for dealing with it like you have with well researched arguments. You see, I have managed to read most of it now, albeit it being rather hard to follow. I just wish you could be more concise with your posting so that there is some element of understanding to be gleaned from the many posts that you have written. Twaddle means nonsense – purely and simply. If you look at your posts, that’s what they become in such a density as you have posted. You may have the most relevant argument in the world, but what’s the point if it looks as disjointed and nonsensical as what has been seen here.

    Heh...Now I’m doing it....

    1. If the posts look disjointed you should see an MRI of my brain. It is extremely difficult to handle three or four or five discussions at one time. I sincerely do appreciate you pointing it out.

      PS I'm not whining. Oh no. No whining here.

  11. To me doing something for people all over the world is much better than sitting at home and resigning yourself to the gluttony of entertainment and luxuries. If selfishness is life then might as well be live like an innocent little sheep and watch as you lose your freedom bit by bit.

    Luckily, not much of that has happened yet (or has happened and somehow recovering its freedom as time passes). The video clearly shows that if anyone, no matter how insignificant they are in the scheme of the world, can get things done if they join together, and the internet ensure that something like that can be achieved on a global scale.

    To me this documentary seems like a warning to all the law breakers who hide behind a curtain of power. Sort of like, "You think you could get away with all the inhumane things you've done, hiding behind your little fortress of power. Well, think again, you've pissed off the world and the world will come and get you."

    In all truths though, if nothing significantly detrimental happens, you won't see very much unified movement (it is notable how people can find discontent in almost everything life). The Anonymous is there and it will often home in on anyone that threatens the freedom and liberty of individuals. Beware!

  12. might not agree with all of their objectives or the manner which they enact them, but the concept is there strong, and i couldn't agree with that more.

  13. I see. Going after my weak point. The old free the stoners ploy. I can't hear you la la la la I can't hear you la la la la.........

    1. Wow, you really can't take a hint. This multiple posting thing you have going here...What's all that about? Do you find it hard to complete your thought process, or is it more like cerebral diarrhoea? Or is it just a sad tactic to post continuously so that when people try to find the posts that actually matter to them, they are bombarded by your twaddle?

    2. @Felix_Dies,

      Do not get personal and use insults against the posters, keep it on topic and talk about the doc in question, thank you.

    3. I see no difference between Felix's post and the many Hundreds of similar posts by Robertallen1 on numerous, i say numerous docs.
      My opinion is that; if you're going to let someone talk this way, then let every one talk this way.
      I can supply examples if you wish, they are very easy to find.

    4. oQ,

      You opinion is noted, but what I said still stands.

    5. Apologies to those who I may have offended. I did not mean to become personal. I just think it’s really irresponsible and highly annoying to bombard a commentary with your own comments over and over again. I am sure there are rules against posting like this, and keeping your posts to a certain length also. I feel that despite the good intentions and arguments of the couple involved, that it really stilts and dries up what should be a stimulating conversation about the documentary. This might come across as a bit of a moan, but I think from the other commentaries that I have tried to read, that this is a bit of a problem on this site.

      At the end of the day, how can other people have a conversation when the boards are dominated by a couple of people over-zealously posting? That’s what I felt like when my first ever post to this conversation was blotted out by three posts from the person I got personal with.
      @ Over the Edge seriously, I know how much you’ve enjoyed your conversation. I’d quite like to ‘learn something’ from someone else now. Many thanks.

      @ oQ I loved what you said there, hunny. I’m so pleased that you have written to Anonymous. If you find anything out please let us know. It would be interesting to find out what we can do to help with the causes they support. One day, maybe we will be able to take those masks off. Until then...

    6. Having this doc on TDF is bringing attention to Anon.
      I just wrote Anon and invited all Anonymous to come on TDF.
      In my opinion if all the people who spend their life complaining about the world we live in right now, were to line themselves with Anon on the causes they feel are the most unjust.... just for a week....loud and clear...with or without a mask...those masks would no longer be needed.


    7. Felix_Dies
      i am enjoying the exchange with lak and his volume of posts (not much if any lower than mine) are on topic and in response to multiple posts to him. i have no problem with his posts and think they are reasonable and if we do not look at the information of those who disagree with us. how will we learn anything? if you want to see " bombarded" look at John Jacquard for that. even after multiple posts were deleted.

      i have enjoyed the exchange and your posts were read and taken into account. i respect your views and i can say you have given me food for thought. while i still disagree i feel that we will (or already have) start to go in circles. so i propose we "agree to disagree" for now. i am not conceding or ignoring you as ii will continue to follow this thread. all i am doing is stating that i have given my reasons for my position and further discussion at this time would be fruitless in my opinion. maybe others will be better at putting the case for anonymous better than i . does that sound fair?

    8. Thank you. Very gracious of you.

    9. And you are correct. Our respective positions on this matter appear to be intractable. Truce.

    10. No my friend. Take another look. I'm holding to a very unpopular position here. It's all I can do to answer these people. If you notice, They are asking me what about this and what about that.

      But I do appreciate you bringing it up. I would have but it would be considered rude to call a person's thoughts twaddle especially if they are decent and open.

    11. lmao...owned and operated much?

    12. Actually we all have weak points and i am the first to say...go Anonymous take down the hemp/marijuana haters even if you have to wear a mask to do so.

  14. Do you see the same problem I see with that?

  15. And tying up Scientology's phone lines has accomplished exactly what? Are they still being tied up? Are the protesters still protesting? Or is it business as usual? I understood them to say they were going to "destroy" Scientology. I see no destruction. I would not call this even a "disruption". More like much ado about nothing.

    1. lakhotason
      again . they are aware that they are being watched and they cannot act with impunity. also anonymous did state that this will be a long operation that has not been concluded. anonymous stated plainly that scientology is a large and powerful organization that would not go down (their goal was to remove them from the internet not destroy them completely) easily or quickly.

    2. Cannot act with impunity? Did you just not concede the site is up and operating? Sounds like acting with impunity to me.

  16. What a great documentary! I really enjoyed the cheeky wit of those hackers, and was completely moved by their fight to expose so many different criminal cults/organisations/governments. It would have been even better if there was a meaningful commentary going on below from different people rather than the rather boring scribblings of a couple of inflated egos throwing their weight around over a very pointless argument. Come on people; let’s open this conversation up before it dries out! Did anyone find any other interesting things that Anonymous have been involved in?

  17. Let's get one thing straight about this child pornography thing. I would bet every penny I have in the bank that the authorities have done more to end child pornography than Anonymous has. And when the authorities get their hands on this human garbage they go to jail.

    Add to that the exposing of these people by Anonymous ties the authorities hands. The very thing used to jail these people, the evidence, is now unlikely to be admitted in court. So the pornographer gets a walk. In other words, Anonymous' actions in the end benefit the pornographer. Consequences.

    1. lakhotason
      " I would bet every penny I have in the bank that the authorities have done more to end child pornography than Anonymous has" and i would agree with you. anonymous has turned these individuals in to the police and helped though. they have taken down at least one of their sites ( it contained over 100 gigabytes of child pornography) and the man they turned in was arrested after the police did their own investigation based on anonymous informing them. the police have their own evidence.

    2. No I didn't help, it hurt. Of the 1500 exposed for child porn care to venture a guess how many have been arrested? Did you say zero? As I told dewflirt I have spent the morning raking through google. I could not find one arrest stemming from this action. I can tell you what I did find. One, the authorities are on child porn like a duck on a junebug. Two, the authorities, with an almost factual degree of probability were already on these people. What has happened as a consequence is that the evidence cannot be used and the child pornos were alerted. Bet a lot of hard drives were destroyed that day. There goes the evidence and 1500 child pornos are still out there. This is why there have been no arrests.

      I suppose this answers your and Vlatko's question at the same time. Here is an action that was wrong. Not a damn good thing came of it.

      Oh and here is another tidbit. Ran across a report that the porno website, Lolita, is still up and running. Couldn't find another source so you may if you wish take the report with a grain of salt.

    3. @lakhotason,

      No you didn't answer the question. That particular action (or any other) is not morally or otherwise wrong. You've been asked to answer that.

      You're basically saying that the job could have been done better if evidence were handed down to the government instead of publishing them on the net.

      But @Pysmythe already explained that to you: "Hey, fellas, what's up? You know, I was just randomly surfing porn on the net the other night, and guess what the hell I found?!"

    4. It is not morally wrong to take an action that results in child pornographers to benefit from that action?

      And you don't think that taking that information to the authorities works? I invite you to google "child porn arrests" and start counting tips from citizens that resulted in arrest. Go ahead. I dare you.

    5. @lakhotason,

      No need to dare me. Dare yourself to properly research and understand the benefits of the anon actions. OTE properly listed the positive effects in that particular case. If you can't see them, I don't know what else to say to you.

      Was it wrong what they've done? Absolutely not.
      Could have been done better? (Tip Off) Maybe.

      Let say they misjudged (although I don't know the specifics of that case), they thought by publishing the info they will sort things quicker and better.

      What you actually do is nitpicking. I thought we were talking about their overall character and the justification of their actions. If you scroll way down you'll see that you've claimed that their actions are the same as their enemy's (authorities) actions. Supposedly anons are not different than their enemy. Now you're telling us that they do completely the opposite of what authorities are doing. Decide, what is gonna be?

      You also keep dodging the question, but I'll ask you again: Tell me which of their actions were morally wrong?

    6. A truce. A truce. My friggin' kingdom for a truce.

    7. @lakhotason,

      There was no war @lak, thus no need for truce. You're probably right on many points. People are not perfect. What I was trying to say is that anon actions are not intrinsically evil. That is why they tend to resonate with the masses.

    8. I understand that Vlatko. I really do. But that's no reason to pass up a chance of being a smart-ass. Thanks.

    9. lakhotason
      "guess how many have been arrested?" i am going to guess none. but 1589 users were identified and i am sure they feel less secure of their ability to upload and view these videos and pics with impunity. what about Chris Forcand he has been arrested after he was exposed by anonymous. i agree that a lot of hard drives were destroyed that day and many hopefully were scared away. only time will tell if an investigation was negatively effected and supposing one was based on nothing is evidence of nothing. i totally disagree with " Here is an action that was wrong. Not a damn good thing came of it." and here are some reasons.
      - light was shone in a dark place and sometimes that is all that is needed to stop an action
      - the site was down (i agree briefly) but some child's abuse was not broadcast on this site for that time and a temporary reprieve was given.
      -the owner and users of that site are now known and i will make my own bet . they are being watched now.
      - this site, it's owner and users were published in papers and reports both online and traditional avenues and an increase of public knowledge is never looked at as " Not a damn good thing " it is always good.

    10. So you're going to blow off 1500 child pornographers because they "feel less secure". Child pornos are not scared away.

      All of what you say is well and good "light was shown" etc but there are 1500 child pornos that took a walk on this. Do you not see? How can you excuse their behavior that allowed, no, was the primary cause why this happened?

  18. I'm still having a problem understanding how "the actions taken in those specific cases was warranted" means anything other than they can take action if they think it is warranted. Either I'm real dense or I've stepped into an alternate universe.

    Where did you say it is not freedom? "You ask, 'Once again I will ask you is this justice? Is this freedom?' NO NOT EVEN CLOSE" (your words).

    Now as far as answering your questions just let me say I agree 100% with you - the analogies are not the same.

    1. lakhotason
      you asked "I'm still having a problem understanding how "the actions taken in those specific cases was warranted" means anything other than they can take action if they think it is warranted." because my support is not set in stone. they have my support based on what they have done so far. i have no idea if i will agree with future tactics.

      maybe i am misunderstanding this part but those were not my words (in quotes) i quotes your post. those were your words.

      why are they different? why is a disruption in person ok but a disruption on the internet "mob rule". what about the specific instances i stated?

    2. Your answer to my questions "No not even close" is a direct quote. Just scroll down it's there in black and white.

      I will answer your question but first let us dispense with euphemisms. Let's don't say disruptions. Let's look at each and everything done under the aegis of Anonymous and call it what it is. You pick an action and I'll do my best to answer. Is that fair enough?

      Now in contrast I will go with Dr. King since you brought him up. I hope by doing it this way you will be able to see the difference in "disruptions".

    3. lakhotason
      okay now i understand. my mistake. i thought you meant the other part was my words. but the "not even close" was in response to a totally different subject (specific action v. any action). but it is a measure of justice for those groups that are immune to typical justice. and freedom i will say yes. the world (as you know) is not black and white so pure justice and freedom would be nice but in most (if not all ) cases we have to take a measure of both .

      okay i will pick one action. tying up scientology phone lines.

  19. Comparing the good things Anynomous does to an electronic version of a sit-in certainly makes sense.
    It's a shame some have to take things too far, but that even happened in the 60's and 70's but the message still got across.
    I would hope that these Hackitvists continue risking their talents to fight the good fight and keep "the establishment" in line. After all, you never allow a bully to hit you twice or he will not stop.

  20. Yeah, back home down South we had our own version of Anonymous. These fellas take it in their heads that justice needed to be dispensed then they were the ones who were gonna do the dispensin'. Them boys would all put on their MASKS (Jus' so's they'd be ANONYMOUS ya know). Then they'd go round a grab some poor soul , string him up real good, then pat each other on the back and say, "That b*stard had it comin'. Stringing him up was WARRANTED."

    Funny how we never thought to call them boys Anonymous. But I figger if they want to call themselves KKK it's their business. Both appear to do the same thing though.

    Moral of the story? Never ever never use Martin Luther King's words in support of a lynch mob. Real bad form.

  21. @ Lak
    If an action in the name of what is morally right is just "benefiting me," I'm perfectly content to be that selfish. And if that action has had to be taken by "stepping on the rights of others," I'm perfectly content to be that lawless.

    Everything else you're concerned about, or that you're accusing me of, I feel has been well enough addressed, implicitly or directly, in what I've said so far. If you can't, or won't, read it carefully enough, that isn't my problem.

    1. Then you are no different than your enemy.

      And I never accused you of one thing.

    2. Yes, you've never accused me of anything... but in your post immediately preceding this one (and addressed to no one, in particular), you make a false (though clever) comparison of what Anonymous has done with the actions of the KKK... And you well know I'm from the South, too, because we've had more than one exchange in the past about that commonality between us.

      Real slick, the way you did that there, chief, but I'm afraid it's a horse that won't run.

      Look, I understand the point you're trying to make, and I even mostly agree with it... But I think you're being far too general here, whereas I've been pretty specific about what actions I would personally condone. For example, I don't think anyone is going to fail to see the moral distinction between lynching people of color and "lynching" a bunch of bags of sh-t who post graphic pictures of innocent children being sexually abused...

      Let's just stick with this example a moment, too, shall we? In this case, what exactly is Anonymous supposed to do, waltz down to the local police precinct, or ISP, and say, "Hey, fellas, what's up? You know, I was just randomly surfing porn on the net the other night, and guess what the hell I found?!"

      You know good and damned well what would happen to them if they did any such thing... And if they decided to simply give an anonymous tip about the sites to the proper authorities, there are all kinds of reasons why nothing would be likely to get done about it: Jurisdiction problems, servers located out of country, the general inertia of bureaucracies, etc., etc.

      So, if they feel that strongly about it, what are they left with in such a case? The POWER their anonymity affords them to try and bring down such sites, while at the same time protecting themselves from laws that would hold them criminally responsible for even having viewed those sites on their computers.

      THIS is the kind of moral, socially just action I'm talking about is acceptable to me, Lak. Not "mob rule," not the "KKK," and not "roaming bands of vigilantes"...

      So long as these are the kinds of battles Anonymous chooses to fight, I will be happy to wish them the best. And in such cases I see no dishonor whatsoever in being "no different from my enemy".

      If you're THAT worried about a slippery slope... if you really can't see some of the distinctions here... then I feel a little bit sorry for you.

      It's LIFE, Lak: Pick a side.

    3. I don't think it's a false comparison. The behavior is exactly the same and in each case the reasoning is the same. I'm sorry if using the KKK as an example puts these peoples behavior in a different light but it's their behavior that put them in that light.

      As far as they are out there fighting the good fight let's take a look at one little thing. Your freedom fighters find it hilarious to go on a children's website, hack the website, and tell the children they need to go do something else. Something to the effect of "you shouldn't be on this website. You should be doing something other than playing on the computer (now there's a piece of ironic advice). One even went so far to mock the kids and laughed how they pissed the kids off. "They really love that pool" too bad.

      Now this is only one example but if you watch the doc there are many more. There's your "freedom fighter". What a hero! Bullying kids for a laugh. Anonymously at that. What's the matter. Scared of a few kids. The point being and I'm sorry if I keep repeating it, pay attention to their behavior. Thinking it funny to bully children should tell you all you need to know.

      Yes it is life and I lead a very good life thank you very much. As far as picking sides why only those two choices? What is this "if you're not for us your agin' us? Seems I've heard someone say that before. Right before the bombing started.

  22. I hope each of you understands that you've given very reasoned responses. Still it is three (sorry) four-on-one. Not that I'm whining. I sincerely appreciate the reasoned response but give me a moment or two (i.e. I'm stoned)

    1. Lak.....do take a moment.....what the hell is wrong with a few people compare to the many many many who control, who take a mask, who mask the truth, who know no truth?
      Young mass wondering how can we make a change, how can we be heard, how can we be noticed, who can we?

    2. What you fail to grasp is that these people are behaving in exactly the same manner as the government. Their methods are a mirror image. The government justifies the means by the ends and so does Anonymous and so by extension do each and every one that supports this. You will not change anything by taking the low road.

      I know I keep repeating this but I do so because no one addresses this. I keep hearing how they're sticking it to the man etc etc but this point is being avoided. You need to think about whether you wish to go down that low road.

      Look at the past. History will tell you where this will lead. Time and time again people have listened to seductive words and failed to pay attention to what was being done. It always ends badly. If your ally acts just like your enemy you don't have an ally. You have two enemies.

  23. The whole reason I started using this site is for watching docs like this. One of the best."Our goal was to wreak as much havok as possible... because it was stupid." "Riding around in a virtual spaceship with the words f*grydagrydo written on it wearing afros and dropping virtual bombs on little villages and concerts. And waving giant p*n*ses around. Annnnd, that was the most fun time I have ever had in my life." Beautiful.

    1. Little dark-suited cartoon dudes with giant afros forming themselves into overhead swastikas, lol.
      Oh, the irony!
      I'm still chuckling about that one.

    2. TDCOW, excellent comment. By far the best. BTW, TDF is a decent site to see docs though there is that problem with some who have strident comments but may have never bothered to watch the doc.

  24. @John Jacquard

    Do you honestly have some kind of notion that the Powers That Be don't play by a different set of rules than the rest of us? And the censorship, more properly called simply anonymity, they employ is for their own protection in a Western world that is increasingly looking very much like inverted totalitarianism, particularly here in the "exceptional country" of the United States, where it is now legal to literally vanish your a$$ forever on not much provocation whatsoever, bypassing completely the former right of Habeas Corpus, so long as just enough care is taken to nail a good enough label on you. And if THAT (among other things) isn't suddenly playing by a different set of rules than what our Constitution guaranteed us, I don't know what the hell is. These people have, by and large, brought down such measures upon themselves, and so Anonymous has chosen to fight fire with fire.

    So what?

    And if you tell me that two wrongs don't make a right, I'll tell you that two negatives make a positive.

    Listen, when they come out in force against apple-pie, grandmothers, and babies, you may well believe I'll be among the first to come out and disparage them and what they're doing. But in the meantime, if they impudently slap the faces of those whom the majority of people would consider have justly deserved it, I am not going to split hairs and pi$$ and moan about their perceived failure to assume some moral high-ground their competition has certainly not done, either. Sometimes it is NECESSARY in this world to be underhanded; the politicos and the corporations have long had that lesson learned better than anybody. And now it is time we the people learned it (again), too. If the PTB want to keep their pretty, privileged heads off of the guillotines, they'd damned well better start learning a new lesson of just how serious about serious change the people of this planet are becoming. And if those who would infringe (or worse) upon the rights of others for their own gain insist on using whatever unfair advantages have accrued to them as a result of their power and position, why on earth would you consider it inherently hypocritical or immoral for those who don't enjoy those same advantages to employ whatever means are at their disposal, in an effort to ameliorate, or even defeat, things that are clearly injustices?

    1. Well said Pysmythe ;)
      Edit, you'll know this -

      And many more Destructions played
      In this ghastly masquerade,
      All disguised, even to the eyes,
      Like Bishops, lawyers, peers, or spies

    2. Last came Anarchy; he rode
      on a white horse, splashed with blood;
      he was pale even to the lips,
      like Death in the Apocalypse.

    3. Yet if you fight fire with fire; that is to say break the rules as your oppressor has broken the rules, haven't you taken on the very same behavior as your oppressor? Then what is the difference between you and your oppressor if the two of you agree that the ends justifies the means?

    4. You write well when you're p*ssed off. 2 very good comments back to back.

  25. there is your evidence.

  26. cen·sor -any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
    an adverse critic; faultfinder.
    a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
    b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

    1. hyp·o·crite
      ? ?[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
      a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
      a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

      ? ?[bih-lahy] Show IPA
      verb (used with object), be·lied, be·ly·ing.
      to show to be false; contradict: His trembling hands belied his calm voice.
      to misrepresent: The newspaper belied the facts.
      to act unworthily according to the standards of (a tradition, one's ancestry, one's faith, etc.).
      Archaic . to lie about; slander.

    2. wow ... ;p
      I guess your dead set against this group and never heard of the expression "fighting fire with fire".

      I mean take a look at Wiki-Leaks.
      Its the same concept, the founder created a method in which individuals can send vital information about governments, banks, etc. without repercussions and remain anonymous.
      The reasons for this is obvious, anyone who speaks out with vital information can be crucified if caught, therefore without anonymity people would be too afraid to give vital information. And it worked.

      Ultimately the powers to be had to attack the founder and cut its funding; guess because he wasn't anonymous.

      Ironically, being anonymous against the powers to be is the only way to protect yourself while simultaneously giving you the free will to do something without repercussions.
      Ironically its the only way to successfully protest in a system that has become more monitored, and the only way to expose the truth is to work in the shadows!
      Wow, I didn't think this concept would boggle the mind so much.

  27. they are not against censorship , if it is 1. their means of expression and only identity 2. not providing a solution for themselves to NOT have to be censored so they have no right to makes these claims! they want to mess with whoever and pretend it's a higher cause when they are CHOOSING to censor themselves to not have to have consequenses for their actions just like if someone robs a 7-11! well hey to the robber he just needed baby formula !

    1. a real hacker would identify the root cause and offer an alternative not hide themselve so they can still be "normal" in society becuase their face isn't reconized! that is a coward! theie a part of the system by day and hiding by night , then offer no solution to the very reason why they say their censorship is noble! meaning they want to stay that way do whatever they feel righteous and then pretend like a normal citizen ! if every self interested group followed the same principles banks, government police (self concealment) imagine the state of the world then?

    2. Didn't Anonymous fall out with the Venus Project?

    3. besides a real superhero makes their own logo or costume not stolen from a cheezy movie

  28. The point of Anonymous, at its best, appears to be very simple to me, and not too much different in intent from what activist authors and philosophers, for example, used to do in bygone times, when they felt compelled to publish their political tracts under pseudonyms, to hopefully keep from being imprisoned or worse. And that is: To make the ruling classes, governments, corporations, religions, et al., which will not hesitate to extend their powers as far as they possibly can, aware of the simple fact that, though they do not fear the ordinary citizen, in reality they ought to. And the MORE so when it turns out they can't find a neck to put a boot on. Ultimately, this is NOT their world; it is OUR world. And every power such have ever had has in reality always hung by a thread, which they well know. And now, with this technology of the Internet, this is more than ever the case. The status quo doesn't LIKE this aspect of the modern world; the inherent capability in it is a direct THREAT to their SWAY over all those faceless masses... I think Anonymous serves to remind those in power, whoever and wherever they are, that as broad and tight as they think their nooses are, they will be fools if they depend upon that, and that there will ALWAYS be those capable of slipping away and holding them to account. The point is NOT a proper political idealogy, or creativity in choice of a representative face mask, for Christ's sake... The point is: If you rule a thing, you really only rule by proxy. And you would do well to remember that.

    And I think that is a point which is always relevant.

    1. here's the thing Anon itsnt providing a solution to people NEEDING to censor themselves! so they shouldn't say their against censorship! they are actually for it! when it suits their needs of cource but i guess everyone else plays by a different set of rules huh?

    2. We aren't talking about publishing anti-government pamphlets here. We are talking about people doing real damage. There is a great difference. We are talking about people bragging about their power. Who openly threaten with that power. Power corrupts my friend. Always has and always will. Best to keep that in mind.

    3. I don't agree with everything they've done, and certainly wouldn't agree with everything they could potentially do. But I absolutely do agree with the fear of the common people, the fear of that unknown variable, they instill in any kind of entrenched power, from governments to child pornographers. That latter is a form of censorship I know I could always support, and as to the former, I think it's abundantly clear that governments don't fear their citizens nearly as much as they should. For me, at its best, Anonymous represents a kind of diffuse power, the only sort of power that can be trusted, a moving target spread out over too a wide an area for anyone to get a clear shot at. I think it's VERY important to always have this kind of potential in the world. In fact, for me, I admit it's more the IDEA than the ACTIONS... But if you don't have some action, who's going to take you seriously? Whenever they are careful enough to pick their targets as a result of clear injustices, they will have my support. But if they should get out of hand and just start wreaking real havoc for the hell and humor of it, then I say throw them under the blade quicker than Robespierre.

    4. If you don't agree with everything they've done and certainly wouldn't agree with everything they could potentially do then why in God's name are you supporting them? You are in fact agreeing that it doesn't really matter what they do as long as it benefits you. By that reasoning you would have no objection to gangs of vigilantes roaming the streets - as long as it benefits you. And these people are no less vigilantes, or to be more precise, lynch mobs.

      You seem to be worried about the government stepping on your rights but have no qualms about Anonymous stepping on other peoples rights. They go out and lynch without a trial. That tends to strip all rights away. And what is their authority? They claim to speak for the people. Who says they speak for the people? Beware of one who claims to speak for the people.

  29. what specific mechanism so they offer to substitute so that they wouldn't HAVE to censor themselves?

  30. there closet activists

  31. so what fight censorship with more censorship? do you fight abortionists with more abortions? if they are serious, proof it, what alternative( to the part of this current system that they are against) do they suggest?

    1. basically what changes do they specifically address , so no one would have to fight the system and censor their identity? and if none what use are they just to say that our current system, and culture is fukked up and wrong? yeah we all know that but if you have no alternative what progress are you making? it seems to me they want to be anonymous because they have no actual solution to anything, and they don't want to deal with consequences of going against society, that way even though they are the dork that gets beat up , they can still pretend to be the scholarly football player (in public)

    2. There are two reasons for the masks.

      1. They are looking for complete freedom of information and they are completely against surveillance by others. Its the right to search whatever appeals to you without being watch and judged by others. (I suppose they are a bit hypocritical by hacking personal emails but they only do it too people who generally deserve it)

      2. By wearing a mask no one person is in control. No one person comes up with a dream and gets others to follow. Ideas are born out of the collective thoughts of like minded people. This is different to the fact that they believe (and I believe) that the internet shouldn't be censored.

      Also if politicians did all start wearing masks they would never get elected. Trust is built over time and you never know if you're talking to the same person or a new person with new ideas. Its like a new method of democrocy. Instead of voting at a particular time you just see which way wind blows and let public opinion decide what should be done. But it is a method that could never work on its own. Maybe by integrating both methods it could stand a chance. Voting makes people decide when decisions need to be made and hacking keeps it in check if it goes tits up.

    3. Complete freedom of information except if that information concerns who they are.

      And they wear masks for one reason only - to hide their identity. Has nothing to do with whatever about leading and following. That's absurd.

    4. exactly thats what im talking about

    5. During all the demonstrations and riots here it has been standard procedure to cover your face. If I was going up against a British copper I'd be thinking a suit of armour might be a good idea. When anon turn up they wear their masks, they are identifying themselves as Anonymous. Honestly, they stick out like a sore thumb.

    6. What have these demonstrations and riots accomplished? What has Occupy accomplished? What have these people accomplished? What is their goal? Daniel Ellsberg accomplished more in one simple straightforward act than these people have ever done and he didn't need a mask.

    7. Ellsberg tried to be sneaky but was outed by a reporter :)

    8. Oh imagine that! And a free press to boot.

    9. I see a difference between freedom of information and right to privacy.

      And no they didn't one day say lets wear masks so we can have an organized group that can control itself blah blah blah. But they didn't one day say lets start a group called anonymous that is a hactivist group for freedom of the internet. It evolved and from the fact that they were a group of people who interacted anonymously. Why would they suddenly start posting there identities? That's absurd

    10. That's odd. They have no qualms about exposing a person's private Email yet insist on their right to privacy? They say one thing and do another. That should be a warning flag.

      The only identities being posted are those who have already been exposed. Give me a break.

    11. I thought most politicians wore a mask....their own face.

  32. Great doc! Loved the analogy to the bird flock.

    Anonymous people? Isn't that what most TDF's participants are. Most won't post a picture of themself, most won't say where they are from (too precisely), most won't tell their real age, most won't disclose their education background, most want to stay as anonymous as possible.
    Me, i don't give a flying flip flop. You can find me walking down the streets of Nelson anyday. I have been an open book for 3 years here, and not once have i been approached by TDF, face to face....mind you...i'm not much of a provoker.

    1. Ha,Ha, when you least expect it, I will tap you on the shoulder. As the Anonymous do.

    2. made me laugh....

  33. Great documentary. I will be sharing this one around.

  34. Thank you for being there. We the people need you. Kids or not, I for one am greatful.

  35. What I'm really trying to say is I'm very skeptical. Every political movement that has claimed to be speaking or acting on behalf of the people has, in the end, never been acting on behalf of the people, only on its own behalf. And Anonymous is a self-proclaimed political movement which claims its actions are on behalf of the people.

    1. Never hurts to be sceptical I suppose. I do think that sometimes you have to decide for or against though. They are what they are, pretty much beyond control, take them or leave them. They're like an online occupy flashmob without borders. I just like them, they're a bit naughty but not nasty and they seem to be doing okay so far ;)

  36. i don't understand anon is against censorship, and secrets but the whole movement is about keeping their personal identity secret and censored? i don't get it?

    1. what if news anchormen kept a mask on, or the president or bankers all allowed to be anonymous it is hypocrisy and frankly not very intelligent concept. only cowards do not stand up for and face what they believe in.

    2. It is this Anonymity that essentially is their strength, the ability to personally fight or 'prank' individuals without being accountable for their actions, (publicly, socially, legally). 'Anonymous' therefore is a symbol not a true organization, its decentralized with many different views. It is so successfully in uniting individuals because if gives people an outlet to stand-up against the powers to be in collective ways without personal repercussions.
      "Divided we fall, together we stand. "

      In a world where censorship and monitoring is becoming increasingly prevalent in society and peoples lives, communal collective ideals within the internet become a new median for individuals to find this aspect of unmonitored collectivism one in which normal aspects of societal monitoring aren't applied.

    3. i don't understand how that ties into the particular statements i made? or how it isn;t hypocrisy?

    4. [ quote ]In a world where censorship and monitoring is becoming increasingly prevalent in society and peoples lives, communal collective ideals within the internet become a new median for individuals to find this aspect of unmonitored collectivism one in which normal aspects of societal monitoring aren't applied. [ / quote ]

      i understand the idea of that , but why BE CENSORED yourself if your an organization AGAINST censorship? how does this make sense?

    5. They're not censored, just careful. Can't exactly be a gang of outlaws if you're in solitary and though I'm no expert I'm going to hazard a guess that DDoS doesn't work by post. I'd like to see it tried :) But that would be like a petition wouldn't it? Does anyone sign those anymore ?

    6. their Closet Activists! LOLOLOL do you think MArtin luther king JR wore a white pillow case with the eyes cut out because he was afraid of the consequences? NO ! not to mention they stole that mask from a movie! what couldn't even design a friggin original logo boo!

    7. John Jacquard
      please stop repeating yourself and using racist undertones to illicit an emotional response. while being completely off topic

    8. racist? martin luther king stood up for what he believed in and made a difference! that's racist? its exactly on topic they hide behind a movie mask offer no solutions and are hypocritical by their own fundamental design!

    9. John Jacquard
      racist? yes. there are numerous types of face coverings you could have chosen to get your point across. but when you choose "white pillow case with the eyes cut out" or "white sheet " it is obviously used to refer to the kkk and illicit an emotional response. please do not insult our collective intelligence by denying it or justifying it. as i will not allow this conversation to go in that direction. you are trolling

    10. what? my point was he didnt make a mask out of what ever was available at that time (no movie ones i guess) he stood up for what he thought was right how does pillow case automatic have to mean kkk? your the one imagining that not me im talking about things related to the topic.why does skin color matter or have anything to do with these topic?

    11. don't you know ALL our DNA goes back to africa if you got race issues think about that for a moment

    12. John Jacquard
      "offer no solutions"? they defend an open internet, tracked and turned into police internet pedophiles, helped curb the acts of suppression by Scientology, defended the LGBT from acts of discrimination by organizations and governments not to mention the help provided to those in countries who have their voice silenced by their government by providing safe access where possible or posting their message for them when not.they do not just offer solutions but implement them and make them a reality.

    13. okay those are good things by what do they have to do with the mechanisms which make them have to censor their identity? what are their solutions for that so that they can show themselves?

    14. And the movie stole Guy Fawkes face! Anonymous should be done for handling stolen property!! ;)

    15. Anonymity is about the pure power of an idea, seperated from the preconceptions, prejudices, etc. that go with identity. Its about exploring what we believe in and stand up for when no one is watching which allows us to shed the mask of social norms and expectations and express our self freely and honestly. Its about rising above the identity others have attached to you, the identity you have attached to yourself- letting go of identity all together and just concentrating on the idea being discussed.
      Anonymity is also about keeping it about 'We, the people..." instead of being about one person or some specialized sub-culture. Its about being effective when the people you are fighting have our political and judicial system firmly in thier pocket. Sure we could prescribe to this antiquated notion of "being a real man" but its not about rushing in like John Wayne, hands on hips red scarf flying in the wind- " Take your hands off the lady Mr. Scientology or i'll fill you full of lead." Its about getting the job done, and anonymity both serves that purpose in a utilitarian sense as well as expressing it in a symbolic sense.

      Does anonymity open the door wide for hipocracy- yep. But that doesn't matter, I could careless whether the guys that do these things practice what they preach or not- they are not symbols, they are merely physical agents attempting to inforce the will of the people on a system so powerful it demands these measures. WE MUST OWN the the space that is THE INTERNET if we ever hope to bridge the gaps between cultures that "they" purposely created and share the ideas that will soon save this world- That begins with standing up for even the most "off color", perverse sites, the most trivial vids, right down to individual posts like this one. It starts by showing them "they" cannot hide anymore, "they" cannot harrass anymore, that we can reach them and make it hurt, that above all our ideas will not be censored. But we will never be able to do that if we prescribe to the old ideas like the one you are expressing, which would effectiively end this movement before it got started. That's exactly what "they" want, for us to think like we have been systematically trained to do all our lives- then "they" can easily anticipate our next move and cut us off at the pass, after all it was "they" who trained us to think that way in the first place. No, if we are to have a fighting chance we have to re-think what courage is, what loyalty is, what community means, etc.

    16. You could "careless (sic) whether the guys that do these things practice what they preach"? So, as long as it appears to be to your benefit that's just fine. What happens when the day comes that it is not to your benefit? And that day will come. Will you care then?

    17. okay so they do not want to accept consequences of their actions? but what of say politics adopted those attributes wearing masks and anon what if government or military officials did the exact same thing they do , thats what i mean what they stand for would be a horrible world if anyone in a postion of power and control or government got to sensor their identity right?

    18. John Jacquard
      look at Julian Assange for an example of a reason to keep names secret. also there are no leaders so there is no person(s) to hold up as a symbol for the movement. lastly these people have been silenced by a government/organization/individual before when their identity has been known. i hate to quote a bad movie but here goes "you can't kill a symbol but you can kill a man"

    19. please address the statements i made in particular thank you sir.

    20. John Jacquard
      i thought i did. i will try again. they have no issues with self censorship. it is when an organization/person/government censors/holds down/silences others or information that they get involved.

    21. And THEY get to decide which org/person/gov't to wield their power on? They get to decide who is wrong and who is right? They get to decide what is free speech and what is not? And not only do they get to decide these things they don't even have to let it be known who the deciders are. Hell, they are worse than the problem they are supposedly working to correct.

    22. hey lak
      i agree to a point.they are a group that will turn on itself if it goes too far. hackers have been around since the arpanet days. some have been good and some have been not so good. we have to accept that they will be around so i prefer to have a loosely knit organization that is at least partially self policing and socially accountable than a disperse set of individuals that have no checks at all

    23. Socially accountable to whom? How can one be accountable if one's actions are anonymous? I'll be clear. What we are talking about is nothing short of mob rule.

    24. lakhotason

      "Socially accountable to whom?" as far as i know the hard core highly skilled hacker is in the minority within the organization. they rely heavily on sheer numbers and average people to achieve their goals. so if they decide to take actions that are outside the values of the group the numbers will not be there. if nobody showed up at the scientology demonstration the results would have been different. if the numbers are not there ddos or tying up phone lines will not work. think of the occupy movement as an example. there was no real leadership nut they (for the most part) were civil and when some went out of line others tried to stop them and even cleaned up after others. i do not agree with all the actions of anon but i am glad they are there

    25. I'm sorry, did you say "as far as I know"? So you don't really know. In other words the inverse could be true also. This is my point.

    26. lak
      yes i did say "as far as I know" look around yourself. here on TDF we discuss things,tell each other about events,gather and share ideas and solutions. i suspect very few of us are experts in every area we comment on or try to provide solutions for. and more importantly few of us use our real names,use pics of ourselves as our avatar and at the end of the day know very little about each other. anonymous started on threads similar to this (they took it to a completely different level). we here even go as far as to delete any personal e-mails and the like that are posted for the safety of the poster. is there a risk of them going too far? yes. are you justified in being skeptical? yes. should caution be taken? yes. your stance is reasonable but i think mine is too. they will get my support until such time as that support is abused.

    27. the people that your describing are cowards and hypocrites then because they are promoting censorship. if you don't know everything you can about the comments your posting then they are worthless.
      REAL ACTIVISM means changing the institutons you are afraid of

    28. John Jacquard
      wow you just don't get it . do you? they are not against self censorship (with holding identity or information concerning yourself) they are against censorship being forced upon others. by your logic we should publish the faces and names of every undercover cop or agent because we wouldn't want to censor. maybe stop hiding the faces of whistle blowers i mean if they do not leave themselves wide open to get killed they are cowards right? maybe we should publish the names and addresses of those who killed Bin Ladin. they have kept their identity private so those seals are cowards? i will not be responding to you again. respond if you wish.

    29. have you watched the doc with as much attention as when you watch zEITgEIST OR Peter Joseph?
      the mean may be different but the goal is sort of similar.

    30. Then in your opinion it is reasonable to support mob rule. Unknown faceless people who swagger and revel in their so-called power. People who openly and gleefully threaten to crush you if you so much as cross them. Look at the doc and tell me if this is not true.

      This is your idea of justice? This is your idea of freedom?

    31. lakhotason
      come on lak. we were having a reasonable discussion until this latest post. they do not " threaten to crush you if you so much as cross them". yourself among others here have opposed them and we both know you have nothing to fear for your opposition. all they are is today's version of the "protest", "march" or "sit in". those tactics were employed to cause a disruption and give a voice to the people. times have changed and they have learned that the groups that they oppose have no qualms with dishonest tactics to silence them. so they shield themselves from this. as with any protest there will always be those who will tip over a car or loot. but that should not diminish the message. there are many who oppose them and they do not threaten to crush them. can you name a specific group they opposed that you can hold up as an example? some specific tactics and actions that were not warranted? do you oppose their disruption of governments that threaten demean and sometimes jail and kill people for the crime of expressing their sexuality? do you oppose the efforts to stop scientology from following,spreading lies about and filing baseless lawsuits against those who cannot defend themselves? do you oppose the supplying internet access to those who have been effectively cut off by their government? how about the WBC who falsely accused them of deeds they did not commit and when Anonymous politely informed them that it was a lie and asked them to stop they refused? or is it the "censoring" of free speech and expression of pedophiles that you oppose?

    32. You need to look at the doc again. Those words came not from me but from them. When speaking of Scientology these words were used, "take down and destroy". It is not I who said this. So let's be clear. It is their purpose to take down and destroy an organization that crossed them. I would suggest it is you who is being unreasonable.

      It appears you are saying that these actions were "warranted" (your word). So then it is ok to do as you wish as long as you proclaim your action was warranted. That is not reasonable and you know that.

      I am most certainly not opposed to stopping Scientology. I am opposed to stopping Scientology by using the same behavior as Scientology uses. That would make me no better than Scientology. If you wish to go down that road and support these people then you are morally responsible for their actions. You cannot pick and choose. You won't be able to say "Well I like some things they are doing but I'll disassociate myself from the bad things they do". Doesn't work that way.

      Once again I will ask you. Is this your idea of justice? Is this your idea of freedom? That's the important point here and you seem unwilling to answer these two straightforward questions.

    33. lakhotason
      i agree that they said take down and destroy when talking about scientology but you said "People who openly and gleefully threaten to crush you if you so much as cross them. " nowhere in your post to me did you say scientology. it appeared as a general statement referring to anyone and everyone. where did i say "it is ok to do as you wish as long as you proclaim your action was warranted." i stated specific cases and yes the actions taken in those specific cases were warranted. they did not use the same methods that scientology uses. did anon destroy each and every person that opposed them? did they hire detectives to follow them? did they spread lies and accuse innocent people of bieng sexual predators and deviants? that is just some of what scientology does. what they did is disrupt their communications over a short term .

      you ask "Once again I will ask you. Is this your idea of justice? Is this your idea of freedom? " no not even close. they hand out a measure of justice because of the power and influence of organizations like this make them immune to justice (for now). my turn to ask again. what is the difference to the this movement and the "sit in" "march" or "protest" of years past and today? occupy tried to shame,disrupt and punish those responsible for their actions. there were many treats to "destroy" or "cause damage to" the banks. there was some actual destruction of innocent property. there were calls to the offices and attempts at internet action. were the protesters wrong? was it "mob rule" or was it a diverse group of frustrated people tired of waiting for action that never came from authorities voicing their opposition and taking action.

      here are some quotes (i know appeal to authority lol) by Martin Luther King, Jr

      "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists"

      "When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."

      "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."

    34. I don't understand. You are saying it is ok do do as you wish as long as your actions are warranted. "..and yes the actions in those specific cases were warranted" In other words we did what we wished because we proclaim our actions to be warranted. It is baffling to me.

      But let us get to the important thing. You freely admit that this is not justice nor is it freedom and yet you say their actions are warranted. Then how is it when the government's actions are not justice nor freedom can you say their actions are not warranted. You don't seem to see that they are both BEHAVING exactly alike. I did not say they use the same tools so don't digress into that. What I did say was their BEHAVIOR was the same.

      PS Let's not start throwing quotes around. That leads nowhere.

    35. lakhotason
      i never said " it is ok do do as you wish as long as your actions are warranted" and you know it. i stated specific cases and said "the actions taken in those specific cases were warranted." not even close to the same thing. where did i say it is not "freedom"? as for the quotes i agree sorry (i did admit argument from authority up front). i have tried to address your questions but i keep having to repeat mine without you answering. so i will restate and elaborate for you

      were the illegal ,disruptive, and inconvenient to innocent citizens "sit ins" at lunch counters justified? and what is the moral difference between tying up a restaurant and tying up a website? aren't they both "mob rule"

      what is the difference between standing in front of a tank and illegally disrupting a government carrying out its orders and disrupting communications and intel to save gays and lesbians from being killed?

      what are morally wrong with the other examples i gave? and no i do not have to agree with everything an organization does in order to support them. as for my analogies i agree that the cases are not the exact same. but at the time the actions by those who we see as wrong now were legal, supported by government and had support of a significant number of locals (in first case) at the time.

    36. Yes they could be worse but I think more for the people that have something to loose. Its nice to see some balance for a change. How much of a difference they can actually make...who knows? But I wish them the best of luck. As it stands they are a real and honest good in the world and there isn't a lot of that around.

    37. that is correct! lak i mean

    38. did martin luther king jr hide behind a white sheet when it came to fighting against the system for what he believed in? did JFK?

  37. The last time I threw caution to the wind nine months later I was a new daddy.

    1. It was worth it then ;)

  38. All well and good but is not Anonymous becoming a law unto itself? Who's watching the watcher?

    1. Throw caution to the wind Lak, or turn a blind eye ;)

  39. Very good doc, if I was younger, free and single and my laptop wasn't pedal powered and I knew anything at all about hacking, I might have joined up. Well they (anonymous) have my support in the form of me stealing their cool stickers from lampposts in town :)

  40. @ fonbindelhofas

    I don't think it was "standing for the people" that made the powers that be hate and fear anon, it was/is their ability to disrupt commerce and expose secrets in my opinion. In other words their potency stems from their technical abilities more than what they stand for- which is really different things to different people. We have lots of activist groups that stand for the people but, they are not as practically effective as anon is. When you have the ability to shut down web sites and effectively destroy your enemies ability to reach people, make money, etc. you have basically got'em by the short and curlies. Conventional protests and so forth never empowered the people to this degree.

    1. i agree 100%, but u get what i had in mind

  41. just like about everything, what stands for common people, anon are branded terorists

  42. I have to agree with Pysmythe, I was very surprised at the level of involvement, and dedication that modern hackivists have. You can't see this and not have respect for the movement.

  43. Great doc, one of the best I've seen here. Check it out, you won't be disappointed.

  44. How awesome was that? Everybody who cares about anything honest, has to respect an Anon Ops based open organization who will fight for freedom - on the internet - and in the world. At a time when so many human rights activists felt alone; when so few were willing to stand up, to stand out, to show up, there is NO question that it is ANONYMOUS who rode to the rescue - not once - but again and again. Sure, people r people, there will always be a few, who sometimes lose perspective, so what. It is anons ability to attract very smart people- with intelligence, humanity, and skills, that keeps some more honest then they might otherwise be. No doubt we have needed this now! I, like millions more, have been watching and am bloody proud of anonymous. My humble thanks...

    1. @Jo McKay:

      I agree, I think ANONYMOUS is the Bee's knee's, the Cat's meow!


  46. Every generation finds its voice eventually, a way to "fight the power". My parents generation used conventional protests and civil disobedience coupled with the music scene and lots of drugs. My generation uses cyber attacks, hacking, memes, etc. coupled with the power of anonymity, redundant gloabal connection, and pure technical savy- oh yeah, and lots of drugs. I would say the art of civil protest has grown up a little, despite all the pranks and one liners. One thing anonymous should remember though, your real power comes from the court of public opinion, lose that endorsement and it will all fall apart.

  47. One of my favs on this channel

  48. Law does not equal Justice. Two very different things.

  49. Thumbs up.

    In a side note, i predict that in the distant future the internet will be saturated with commercials and spam, every time you hit refresh or the back button it will show you a 2 min commercial, enter password get a commercial, hit buy get a commercial, don't move the house for 20 min get a commercial!

    It will be a day like no other. People will riot in the streets and burn other people while screaming. "There HE is get Them!" Clowns will be teaching tricks inside museums, Samurais will wield fish that fire lasers that explode into more lasers which in turn explode.

    And the worst part is that, Mimes rule the world. :o
    Thank you for listening to whacky radio, have a great one :D

  50. Great Stuff!

  51. Really great doc

  52. Righteous to the core and governed by the morality of legions.

  53. The Good the Bad and the Ugly of Hacktivisim.

    Pretty cool documentary on the evolution of the 'Anonymous" phenomena and its origins .