Discussion on:

And now, an important message from Anonymous

... then why have they allowed Google to survive this long? Facebook isn't any worse than Google...

J.Ja

I don't think Google poses dangers to your privacy as much as facebook, at least not today. Google's search is starting to become a useless thing because of all the ads appearing instead of what you are looking for. However my searches on Google or even my emails in Gmail, however Google treats them (mining blah blah...) , are not "out there". My colleagues can find where I hang out with my friends after the work hours from my facebook profile however. Think about it. You get that facebook is far worse than Google... at least today. And of course this is just a single example not a full analysis.

Apparently you haven't read " Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google Inc."
Though I'm no fan of Facebook, either...

What can Facebook know about you that you don't choose to disclose?
What can Google know about you, that you have never disclosed?

Think about it.

Many average users thinks that "personal" and "private" and "protected" amount to roughly the same thing, especially online. Thus, their *personal* profiles on facebook MUST be private, and as such have some protection from abuse... and with that line of reasoning, they feel perfectly safe announcing everything online, and facebook asks for all these details, encouraging all of it to be posted.

Google at least brings up the idea of privacy every time you go to post a status update on Plus, and they don't hide the ways they use your data... they acknowledge stuff which facebook tries to sweep under the carpet.

Oh, and google hasn't fouled up their privacy management so royally that *any user* could access your details without your consent (Facebook has had occurances of this).

If google repeats the mistakes facebook has made regarding privacy and data protection, I'm sure anonymous will target them, too.

Google knows you even if you don't use google+.
Even if you use Facebook, odds are that Google knows more about you than your Facebook profile reveals. And that's without you disclosing it in a google-provided medium.

Google does not know YOU. It knows about someone interested in certain things connecting from that IP. IP is shared between people and they change their address and IP anyway. Your friends do know who you spent the past weekend with, from your facebook page however. Your consent in revealing the data is irrelevant here. This is a danger to privacy that other one is not. As I said earlier, that is how it is today. Not necessarily tomorrow.

Google also gets your reverse DNS, and google can peg you if you log into gmail or picasa or whatever.

Yes it can do evil. Does it though? My original argument was that. Reverse DNS does not reveal anything about you. You change your ISP after a while and reverse DNS does not mean anything anymore. The danger is there sometimes. But with facebook it is an inherent part of its business model.

Google doesn't do anything evil... Google only wants to give you what you want, or ads for what you want.
If you switch ISPs the rDNS changes, yes. But not the fact that Google has used it as an identifier for you, to map your doings. - If you use google services, they'll peg the new rDNS to that as well - adding, not detracting from their knowledge.
Switch ISPs, and Google not only learns your new DNS, but also that you have changed ISPs.
Use an "anonymizer" and google knows that you use one, since they have a limited number of IPs to them...
Google learns from everything.

But what have you disclosed unknowingly while you were on facebook or google?

Everything you do online is another breadcrumb on a trail of disclosure that most people don't realize.

you've disclosed but rather to whom it was disclosed.

http://trevorsarchives.selfip.net/funpics/images/FullSize/anondoesntforgiverx4.jpg
http://trevorsarchives.selfip.net/funpics/images/FullSize/WorryInternet.jpg

That you have nothing whatever to do with the editorial polish of Anonymous presentments.

I don't know what you'll do when they take it down. Hopefully, it won't mess up all the white space on your page!

I'm not too worried. If they do take it down, well, then I'll just find something else to do. It would probably be good for me if they did take it down, since I seem to waste too much time there anyway.

I do have a problem with people labeling them as "Hacktivists". No, they aren't activists who are hacking for the greater good. They are criminals who are hackers that are doing this for their own gratification.

Isn't that the same as imposing a Nanny state? 'We know what's best for you, poppet. You just let us worry about what sites you should visit.'

Geez, why aren't they going after sites known to actively push malware? Oh, wait; maybe most of those are run by Anonymous members.

Incidentally, 'important message from Anonymous' is an oxymoron.

Yes, that would be a Nanny state. I agree, that they and we would be better served if they'd go after those pushing the Malware, but like you, I figure a lot of them are the ones delivering malware.

It seems some of the folks claiming to be Anonymous are indeed persuing activist agendas. But, fair enough, there are also those who simply join into the opertunity for some self-gratification attacks.

My point is simply that you can't discount those who are persuing actions because others are malicious.

I agree, it's strange. The idea behind anonymous predates computers and the "hacktivists" are a very small group of teenagers who have taken up the name. They have gotten a lot of press because of their disruption but have largely failed to inform people what anonymous is.

It used to be common for writers to anonymously publish questionable material. It's called "Ghost writing". At the dawn of the internet everyone was anonymous. Nobody used their real names.

considering the dawn of the internet was in academic/military circles... name and position were always shared on everything, just because that indicated the academic credibility of the content being posted.

You don't trust a guy with a phd in chemistry to give you good research about the effects of zero gravity on living organisms, just like you don't rely on the biologist's paper about ballistic weapons.

As Hackers.

They are certainly not "Hackers" in the True Sense of the Word just a bunch of people who have been labelled with that Title by the "Brain Dead Media Ijiots" who where searching for something sensational to publish on a Slow News Day to scare the General Public with yet again.

They are Criminals nothing more nothing less and they are certainly not Hackers. Well if you want to blindly and stupidly follow the Mass Market Media they are Hackers but then again Ive never heard Mass Media Reporters being described as anything more than a large bunch Lazy Drooling Idiots who steal all of their content from others who can not complain or seek redress.

The first case of Cracking occurred in Melbourne University many years ago and the Term Hacking came about much latter when the Idiots in the Mass Media tried to coin a term for something that they didnt understand to scare people who understood even less. So they Stole a term used by Computer Savvy People to describe themselves and completely misused it and have continued that trend.

After all when referring to the Mass Market Media you need to remember Never let the Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story. They have used that for many years now long before there where computers so why change things now.

I however expect Supposedly Professionals IT People on a Professional IT Site to know better though, however I may be delusional though.

Now who wants to discuss the correct Short Hand for Microsoft on the day when a major breakthrough has been discovered for the Disease MS?

Col

HAL 9000, we Must! be siblings from different parents.

The vast majority agree that the word has come to mean 'someone who performs malicious or criminal computer activity'. The minority of us who use it to mean ' someone interested in pushing the boundaries of a system's capabilities' have lost the battle, with no hope of counterattack.

Queered.

And they consistently used the term "krakkeri" about the perps, and even included an info box with a clarification for the term, as well as comparing it to the correct meaning of the word "hakkeri".

Never give up, never surrender.
Or if you do, just to see if they'll let down their guard.

This one isn't worth it anymore, at least not to me. It's like 'Band-Aid' becoming a generic term for an adhesive bandage; it reached the point it wasn't worth Johnson & Johnson's time or money to defend the trademark.

Apparently the Finnish press is more technologically literate than here in the US.

If this finnish trend (and it is a trend, ten years ago they thought the other way around) is a part of a wider tendency, then the world around may sway.
If the world sways, then perhaps the US will sway too.

Sometimes resonance can do wonders.

Of course, most of the time things just go to crap. So I see your point, too.

According the a news report last night within 50 years we will run out of Chocolate.

Now there is a Battle that must be won as we can never allow that to happen.

Col

Are the ones that used to bug me until I quit caring (the one is where they are kept, or that you possess; the other, where they are manufactured). The "media" can't bring itself to say the right one if it had a mouthful of it.

There used to be arsenals that were also armouries... until the combination of factory activity and high explosives storage proved itself just too exiting.

Have both definitions for Arsenal, both a place of manufacture and of storage. Armoury (Canadian/British spelling) is storage. Though in many Canadian towns, the armoury is both where the arms are kept and where the militia meets and drills.

I've marked my calendar. And set a reminder on my smart phone. God help me if my account does go down.

I cants play my farmville! How will my friends keep up with my latest gossip-rag quality status updates?

(Not direted at you specifically Boxy. I just couldn't resist. I'm sure some folks have business dependencies on facebook for for the majority it would be a noticable absense of social chaff.)

I was directed by management to start a Facebook account. Needless to say, I use the same name I do here. Not my real one!

Whatever for? And how do they force you to update it? Do the quality of your posts affect your annual review? How about the quality and / or number of so-called 'Friends'?

It's about the company having a "presence" in the new hip medium (ie. marketing channel). I wouldn't say it's uncommon and facebook will get just as saturated with company sock puppets as mysapce did.

On the other hand, it should be an additional marketing channel. I can think of very few business models where facebook connectivity and profile updating would be a primary profit generator.

It does make coordination with other deptarments easier, kind of like what Sharepoint was suppose to do? It didn't do anygood to tell the boss this medum was totally insecure either. We just dug in and put up with it.

Couldn't cure Davette.

But just taking Face Book down for a little while is no real issue. Personally if it was to be attacked, I would like to see it's complete Data Store Destruction. It's the only way to get your personal Data off their Servers. And to do that the required things would have to be put in place months prior to the supposed Attack Date.

Maybe if it ever happens it will show people that the Cloud isn???t all its cracked up to be. That would be worth it if nothing else.

Now I wonder which of my FB Accounts they think is real.

Col

What about all those services that routinely crawl the web, archiving everything they find? Just destroying FB's databases won't affect them.

But taking out the entire Internet is way to difficult to comprehend let alone try.

Though there are quite a few sites that I personally wouldn't mind disappearing completely and without trace.

As for TR though they seem to be doing quite a good job of this themselves with their constant Redesigns to increase usability and functionality seeming to do neither.

Remember what this place was like when we first started coming here? It's a far cry from that now and not much of a improvement along the way.

Now Thunk I haven't handed out one of those in a while now.

Col

and would be happy at total data destruction. Of course, I can't see how that could be accomplished without a well hidden data bomb in the back up archives.

Thank you sir! And may I have another!

Bah.. you just need to hose a few trunk routers.

AnonOps claims no such event is planned (granted, nothing stopping some spinter faction of Anonimous from going ahead with it).

"
TO PRESS: MEDIAS OF THE WORLD... STOP LYING! #OpFacebook is just ANOTHER FAKE! WE DONT "KILL" THE MESSENGER. THAT'S NOT OUR STYLE #Anonymous about 12 hours ago via web Retweeted by 100+ people
"

https://twitter.com/#!/anonops/status/101152229087657984

How can an organization that claims to have no leaders also have an operations center?

That's the problem with a decentralized structure; there's no way for outsiders to identify legitimate communications.

The US Government and Media had to 'invent' Al-Quaida in order to have someone to blame. People can't wrap their heads around the fact that one person, armed with the right tools and knowledge, can have such a long-reaching, devastating effect on 'civilization'. A GROUP, now, well that's different...