Anonymous And Pro JW Discussion Forums

by DT 33 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  DT

  Regardless of your opinions of Anonymous, they have been busy working against the Watchtower Society and may end up inflicting some serious damage soon.

  Anonymous has a very different culture than the XJW community. They should not be seen as in alliance with us, even though we share some common goals.

  Anonymous tends to resent being viewed as a personal army for another person or group. They have their own motivations and standards of success. We can't control their actions and shouldn't try. However, it appears that they have been willing to accept some input and suggestions that have been offered by the XJW community when they coincide with their own goals.

  Anonymous has been collecting data (a huge amount according to some reports) and may be releasing it to the public in the near future. Eventually, they may move on to taking down or defacing official Watchtower sites. I certainly wouldn't want to stand in their way, even if I could. They may also move on to taking similar action against nonofficial pro JW sites.

  I would like to discuss Pro JW discussion forums. I wont lose any sleep if they get taken down by Anonymous. However, there might be a better way. I want to point out that the Watchtower Society doesn't approve of these websites and their existence makes them uncomfortable. In the event of significant news coverage about the Watchtower Society, they could be an important tool for spreading this news among the Witness community who may be told not to listen to news coverage of these events.

  I know that many in our community have joined these forums to keep an eye on them and occasionally post a comment designed to help them think. This could be even more helpful if they start talking about Anonymous or leaked documents.

  I would like to get your comments. Should we suggest that these sites should not be taken down by Anonymous? Should we try to infiltrate them ourselves (using legal methods)? Should we be worried that our personal information could be compromised if the databases of these sites are hacked by Anonymous? Are the members of these sites talking about Anonymous yet?

  I suspect that this may soon become a hot topic, so it might be a good idea to discuss this now.
• 

  cofty

  I think you have made a good point DT.

  In football I always remind my teams that if in doubt about tactics do whatever your opponent would least like you to do.

  Taking out pro-jw forums would please the borg so lets hope Anon don't do it.

  I would love to join such a forum but they have a few hoops you need to jump through.
• 

  OUTLAW

  If Anonymous doesn`t take out Pro WBT$ JW Sites..

  The WBT$ will..

  The WBT$ has no problems Shooting Themselves in the Ass..

  Trying to control either of those 2 is like trying to organize ExJW`s..

  It can`t be Done..

  Trying to control all 3 is going to get you..

  A Vacation in the Puzzle Factory..

  

  .............................. ...OUTLAW
• 

  King Solomon

  DT said:

  I would like to get your comments. Should we suggest that these sites should not be taken down by Anonymous? Should we try to infiltrate them ourselves (using legal methods)? Should we be worried that our personal information could be compromised if the databases of these sites are hacked by Anonymous? Are the members of these sites talking about Anonymous yet?

  I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but you need to realize these types of discussions likely are exposing legal liability for yourself, the site owner(s)/admin(s), etc. since you're discussing breaking the law (and quibbling that you're discussing which sites should NOT be taken down is pointless: it indicates you have control to suggest which SHOULD).

  The owners here have rules against such discussions, which shelters them from liability (if they follow their own rules to intervene):

  Breaking the law
  This includes libel, condoning illegal activity and contempt of court (comments which might affect the outcome of an approaching court case). You may post a small amount of third party material, but please help us to avoid breaching copyright by naming its author and publication. We are unable to investigate all third party material, so where possible, please provide a link instead.

  You guys really need to keep the Anon chat confined to 4chan, IRC, etc, since it's most all likely being recorded here for future possible evidence for criminal prosecution, and places the owners at risk of being served to provide relevant chat logs, threads, etc.

  Just sayin', if anyone wants to be stoopid (sic) that's their own business, but you should have some respect for JWN to not do it here, so flagrantly in the open....
• 

  cofty

  But DT is suggesting the opposite.
• 

  King Solomon

  Cofty said:

  But DT is suggesting the opposite.

  No, he's admitting to being involved, and having some influence as to suggest targets. That makes HIM as implicated as anyone in Anon.

  Y'all need to review principles of criminal conspiracy law: if you are involved in a "conspiracy to commit" crime, you are just as guilty of doing the actual hacking as the guy who does the actual hacking.

  For example, in "conspiracy to commit murder", the guy who drove the getaway car for a murder is just as guilty as the guy who pulled the trigger. Both face the same penality: the law treats them ALL the SAME.

  The same thing applies to hacking and Anon: the FBI inflitrated Anon at the top-layers last year (taking out a guy named Sabu, who worked as an informant for FBI for months, even using their resources to engage in OPS, with FBI agents watching him 24/7. He cooperated, as he faced 125 yrs for charges he faced if he didn't). FBI and Justice Dep't harvested alot of convictions of those who may not have done anything directly related to the hacking via use of "conspiracy to commit" computer-invasion related charges.

  Point is, if you're in by an inch, you are in by a mile: conspiracy laws don't discriminate.

  Don't believe me? Ask this guy in Chicago, who was charged with hacking and conspiracy to commit hacking, etc:

  http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/12524845-418/chicago-man-enters-not-guilty-plea-in-nyc-anonymous-hacking-case.html
• 

  DT

  King Solomon,

  You raise some important concerns. I would be happy to discuss ways to ensure that we don't cross the line legally or ethically.

  I don't think it is wrong to discuss ways to discourage a group like Anonymous from attacking a certain kind of website. I think it is appropriate to focus on this type of website because there is actually a chance that they would listen. However, I can see how this discussion could be seen as promoting illegal actions against the other sites. I really don't think that is the case and it is not my intention, but it is important to consider how this could appear.

  There could be a lot of tough questions like this if Anonymous continues to do illegal or questionable things in pursuit of a goal that most of us would agree with.

  Once again, I would appreciate comments on how to deal with these issues.
• 

  NOLAW

  I am

  NOLAW

  And I don't give a damned s***

  about the

  law

  Do you think Anonymous are so stupid to get distracted to pro jw sites?
• 

  OUTLAW

  Once again, I would appreciate comments on how to deal with these issues.

  You can`t..

  They are beyond your Control..

  All you can do is Watch..

  

  .............................. ...OUTLAW
• 

  DT

  Thanks Outlaw, that may end up being the best strategy.

  King Solomon,

  Here is a link to the coverage by an important news site about #OpPedoChat by Anonymous.

  http://www.webpronews.com/is-anonymous-using-oppedochat-to-improve-their-image-2012-07

  This report is surprisingly favorable towards this operation by Anonymous. Here are some quotes.

  "#OpPedoChat is a good idea and one that Anonymous should fully embrace."

  "They work best as a sort of vigilante Internet Batman that targets the worst parts of the Internet and society as a whole."

  "That's the beauty of Anonymous though - people can find some form of identity within the group without having to be involved in everything that flies under the Anonymous banner."

  I think that article is more favorable than this thread, and I don't think it crossed any legal boundaries.

  I appreciate the concern about advocating any illegal activity, but I think we should also try to avoid stifling free debate until it becomes meaningless.