RSS
Twitter
Anonymous Might Not Be So Anonymous; Member Pleads Guilty To Scientology DoS
from the so-much-for-that-plan dept
While I can sympathize with the concerns that some folks have over Scientology, it did seem like the massive denial of service (DoS) attack against the group put on by "Anonymous" (basically a group of griefers from some online message boards) seemed to go a bit too far (and, yes, I recognize that many griefers think that their whole reason for being is to "go too far"). Now it appears that one of the kids involved in the denial of service attack has been arrested and agreed to plead guilty for the attack, meaning that at least some members of "Anonymous" aren't quite as anonymous as they believed. In the end, the whole thing seems to have done nothing much. It was a nuisance for Scientology, but allowed the group to portray itself as a victim, and certainly didn't do much of anything to slow the organization down.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
"It was a nuisance for Scientology, but allowed the group to portray itself as a victim, and certainly didn't do much of anything to slow the organization down"
Way to go "Anonymous." Aside from pretending to be an organization and drawing unwanted attention to a popular hangout you've now actually helped an actually evil organization (as opposed to merely incompetent).
The Church of Scientology *is* a cancer on society that needs to be removed, but you idiots need to learn how to fight.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yikes!!
The Church of Scientology *is* a cancer on society that needs to be removed, but you idiots need to learn how to fight.
This hatred for Scientology is somewhat concerning. I must admit I certainly dont believe in Scientology- But that does not mean others are not free to believe what they like. It almost seems like some people want to go on a Jihad against Scientology. If you live in the U.S. we have a little something called "Freedom of Religion".
There is nothing to fear. If someone who believes in Scientology breaks U.S. law, they go to jail. A lesson Mr. "Dmitriy Guzner, 18, of New Jersey" could learn the hard way. Right now the only thing going for Mr. Guzner is that there is a shared fear of Scientology. He may get a pass. Only encouraging more attacks.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
There is so much blatently bad information in that blog.
Epilopsy attacks where not from an anon, and if you look around you can find the guy who did them admiting to it.
the 'real' protests just went viral and included quite a bit 'Intenet'/'digital' subculture. The people who organized them are very real and very public.
The blog article itself does not link to a real news source just more blog articles. It also looks completely and totally like a speel campaign.
Surely you could've posted links to the court documents or a local/state paper after verifying your facts.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You can always go to the Smoking Gun to see some documents. Actually, I read about this there, first, and yes that's a link to this story on their site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
There is so much blatently bad information in that blog.
Such as?
Epilopsy attacks where not from an anon, and if you look around you can find the guy who did them admiting to it.
And yet, elsewhere in this thread even, "Anonymous" takes credit for the attacks.
The blog article itself does not link to a real news source just more blog articles. It also looks completely and totally like a speel campaign.
Since when is Wired News not a real news source?
Surely you could've posted links to the court documents or a local/state paper after verifying your facts.
We link to the news sources from where we get our stories, and then we leave the comments open for exactly this purpose. If you think there's something wrong, you bring it up so we can discuss it. We have never claimed to be journalists. We simply state our analysis given the stories we have in front of us, and then open it up for discussion.
Holding us to some artificial non-existent standard doesn't do much good.
If there's a problem with the post, explain what was wrong with the original story. Don't get so angry at us.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Well, you know...
There are lots of groups that call themselves Annon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who's the Real Evil One?
I'm not a Scientologist. I don't agree with their ideas. I think many of them are rather silly. None-the-less, labeling them a "cancer on society that needs to be removed" is a more dangerous idea than any that they espouse. In fact, promoting the eradication of them or any other religious, political, or social group that you dislike can actually backfire and end up promoting them. They get to play the victim. People identify with their suffering. And they grow even stronger. (Case in point: Prior to WWII, Hitler decided to "eradicate" the Jehovah's Witnesses. He threw some into concentration camps, killed others, and waged a propaganda campaign against them. Not only did he fail to eradicate them, but by the end of the war there were more JW's in Germany than at its beginning!)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Who's the Real Evil One?
@ Motown:
One big thing you are missing out on:
The war vs Scientology is NOT against the *religion* itself but against the organization called *church of scientology*
If you want to believe you are really the soul of an alien fine whatever. But when you start using policies like "Fair Game" were you murder people critical of you there is a problem.
When you use brainwashing techniques and force people to throw away contacts (friends, family) from their "old" life there is a problem.
I'm no pacifist. I'm no Pro-Life advocate or anything. But murder is wrong, as is manipulating people. No one is in the right when they do such a thing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Who's the Real Evil One?
Godwin's Law: As any conversation's length increases, the probability that Hitler or the Nazis is brought up by someone in their argument approaches 1.
Good job, Motown.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Who's the Real Evil One?
Godwin's Law: As any conversation's length increases, the probability that Hitler or the Nazis is brought up by someone in their argument approaches 1.
QFT!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Who's the Real Evil One?
Correct. I will fight for their right to exist because once the government gets rid of them, the southern baptists and Catholics are next. If you succeed in empowering the removal of rights that you personally might not like, your right will be so much easier to remove as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Who's the Real Evil One?
@Motown,
You're also forgetting that your Hitler analogy is best turned back around on $cientology itself. ElWrong Hubtard was a Hitler wannabe of the Nth magnitude. The system of $cientology, if allowed to actually propagate widely, would make Hitler's ideas pale in comparison.
Jehovah's Witnesses are a nuisance and I've had to turn them away from my house many times, but they don't make a habit of killing anyone's pets, or hiring private investigators to stalk protestors, or using the civil courts to sue anyone who would question their nefarious organization.
The organization that is $cientology is evil and should be dismantled. As another poster stated, if you want to believe you're infested with space cooties and spend countless hours and dollars to remove them, have at it. Where I depart from that thinking, however, is that the evil cult of greed has to sufficiently brainwash and indoctrinate people to the point that they'll swallow that garbage, so IMO, the beliefs are also at fault and should be eradicated.
Hail Xenu (and Seth)!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Who's the Real Evil One?
It's the evolutionary instincts of religious ideology at work here. The Catholic church has killed, maimed, intimidated and subjugated/molested millions in the name of dominance.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Who's the Real Evil One?
I happen to have a pervasive developmental disorder (Asperger's Autisim)
Do you know what the 'church of scientology' preaches one should do to people like me? RM-45. Bullet to the brains. *Bang*
Yeah, I don't like them any more then I like any other group that preaches homicide.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mate, do you even know what annonymous is? Or what they did, and what other idiots did under their guise? Do some research before you spew crap about people with no understanding. They aren't responsible for individual actions, how about you look at what the official annonymous actions were. Everyone has the right to protest, to point out facts often hidden.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Mate, do you even know what annonymous is?
Yes. I'm quite familiar with what it is.
Or what they did, and what other idiots did under their guise?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with what they did.
Do some research before you spew crap about people with no understanding.
I could suggest the same of you. You claim I don't know, but you don't point to a single factual point that was incorrect.
They aren't responsible for individual actions, how about you look at what the official annonymous actions were.
Did I say they were responsible for individual actions? No. All I said was that some of the participants who claimed to be a part of anonymous discovered that they weren't quite so anonymous.
Everyone has the right to protest, to point out facts often hidden.
Indeed. Who said otherwise?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
The problem here with communication is that there are a lot of groups that call themselves 'annon'. And people claim allegiance to groups that don't nessessarily claim allegance to the people.
The DDOS attacks are considered (By the group of anon that belives in peaceful protest) well, assholes.
And so the peaceful protest people are getting pissed at you for assossiating the differen Annons.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Some positive came out of it
Their actions gave exposure to the negative aspects of the Scientology cult. That's a positive result in my eyes. There is something very wrong with a religion that demands exorbitant amounts of money and separates you from your family and friends.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Some positive came out of it
Their actions gave exposure to the negative aspects of the Scientology cult.
The DoS did not do that. The other actions did.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Anon
Google "Lisa McPherson"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Anonymous individuals are all around you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Really? I've given up on listening to people for ideas and advice. I mean, my own thoughts are sometimes lost in a sea of nothingness.
But after throwing a few ideas out to people, I find that the neighbor's puppy has some pretty good advice sometimes.
Look what we've become. Asking for advice from a dog.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not so Anonymous
You are not the first to say such nonsense about Anonymous so I will try to explain how it works. May you and others like you understand their mistakes.
Strictly speaking Anonymous is not a group because it has no members. If you had taken the time to read at least the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article, you would have understood that much, but you didn't.
Anonymous is used as a plural noun and represents all the actions of anonymous users on the Internet. When you post anonymously, YOU are part of Anonymous.
You cannot restrict Anonymous to the people who participated in the DoS attack. Saying that Anonymous is responsible is nonsense. Anonymous has no head, no regular members, no organization, no directives, only actions that manifest themselves on the internet as the sum of individual participations.
Your last mistake is the most blatant of all. You show that you have no knowledge of the change that took place after Mark Bunker talked to Anonymous on YouTube. If the DoS attack lasted 3 days, it is nothing compared to the months during which the members of anonymous manifested peacefully in many cities around the globe.
Get informed. You can start with Xenu TV, YouTube and Wikipedia.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Not so Anonymous
You are not the first to say such nonsense about Anonymous so I will try to explain how it works. May you and others like you understand their mistakes.
I'm quite aware of how anonymous works. My point was just that there was this belief among some that by claiming to be under the anonymous umbrella, they really were anonymous. That's clearly not true.
Strictly speaking Anonymous is not a group because it has no members. If you had taken the time to read at least the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article, you would have understood that much, but you didn't.
Uh, again, I'm quite aware of this. The point was that the individuals who claim to be a part of anonymous were not, in fact, anonymous.
Anonymous is used as a plural noun and represents all the actions of anonymous users on the Internet. When you post anonymously, YOU are part of Anonymous.
Indeed. But it doesn't make you actually anonymous. That's the point.
You cannot restrict Anonymous to the people who participated in the DoS attack.
I didn't.
Saying that Anonymous is responsible is nonsense
I didn't.
Anonymous has no head, no regular members, no organization, no directives, only actions that manifest themselves on the internet as the sum of individual participations.
I never said otherwise.
Your last mistake is the most blatant of all.
You haven't pointed out a mistake, and I don't see how mistakes can be "blatant" but whatever.
You show that you have no knowledge of the change that took place after Mark Bunker talked to Anonymous on YouTube. If the DoS attack lasted 3 days, it is nothing compared to the months during which the members of anonymous manifested peacefully in many cities around the globe.
Huh? I'm quite aware of the protests. But this has nothing to do with the protests. It was merely pointing out that the DoS attacks didn't do much.
If you blame me for not explaining that all "anonymous" are separate, how can you then get pissed that I didn't lump in those totally separate activities?
Get informed
I am.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mike, don't troll me bro. I've been a long time supporter of your articles and even defended you on occasion. Anonymous is not limited to internet message boards and the title is pretty ridiculous when anonymous consists of hundreds of thousands of members and only one of them revealed themselves.
Also it's not a group, it's simply a collection of people who, for obvious reasons, wish to remain faceless and unnamed. Which is why it's easy for the media to go about portraying all of them as "CRIMINAL HACKERS" -Fox News, "Racist activists" -Fox News, "Cyber terrorists" -CNN, when this is the act of a few anonymous people. Anyone who phones in information without giving a name is Anonymous, anyone who posts without a name is Anonymous. You ever leave a $10 next to someone and walk away because it seemed like they needed it? Anonymous.
As you can see, everyone without a face or name is Anonymous, so it's hardly right to group any of them together or say that "Anonymous" is responsible for DDOS attacks. That goes without saying if someone doesn't reveal their name.
In fact it reminds me of the Odyssey when Odysseus says his name is "Outin" (Nobody) and proceeds to stab Polyphemus in the eye. The cyclops roars and his brothers stand outside his cave and ask if anyone is attacking him to which he replies "O brothers, Nobody is attacking me this night." and they stalk away. Odysseus was Anonymous.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Mike, don't troll me bro
Not a troll.
I've been a long time supporter of your articles and even defended you on occasion.
And I appreciate that, but no one agrees with someone else 100% of the time. :) Sooner or later, we were bound to disagree on something.
Anonymous is not limited to internet message boards and the title is pretty ridiculous when anonymous consists of hundreds of thousands of members and only one of them revealed themselves.
I recognize that. I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear. I never said that Anonymous was an official organization or that everyone involved was revealed. The point was that when everything began, many people took credit for "Anonymous" actions, often believing that in doing so they actually were anonymous. This has shown that's not the case.
I also never said that they were "limited" to message boards, but that is how the effort came together.
Also it's not a group, it's simply a collection of people who, for obvious reasons, wish to remain faceless and unnamed.
Hmm. A collection of people IS a group. The two are synonymous. I never said that it was an ORGANIZED group with people in charge or anything. But it is a group of people.
As you can see, everyone without a face or name is Anonymous, so it's hardly right to group any of them together or say that "Anonymous" is responsible for DDOS attacks. That goes without saying if someone doesn't reveal their name.
This is playing word games. The point was that the people who did it acted under the banner of anonymous, and by your very admission that makes them a part of anonymous. My point is that simply acting as anonymous does not make you actually anonymous.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I love you Mike.
Well by organized group there can, of course, be different grades of organization. It's not as if Anonymous is completely chaotic, without communication or uniformity. The largest Anonymous campaigns such as that against Ebaum's World, Scientology, and Virgin Mobile, are what is recognized as Anonymous. I do take every opportunity to point out that just because some random kid DDoS's a site or raids a forum and posts the headless man in a suit with "We do not forgive, we do not forget" does not mean they act in the interests of Anonymous as a whole.
It's hard to concretely describe who they are, because by doing so you make Anonymous a real group that could be very organized. However, it has no head, no board of directors, it's simply like a Union but without knowing who any of the fellow members are.
As you can see that poses ENORMOUS confusion for both the members and non-members. How do we know the intentions of a faceless mass of people who can't be identified? It's easy for fear to prickle at people and even easier for low-life media corporations such as Fox to feed on that fear by claiming that random teenage retards are acting under the interests of the whole of Anonymous. And paradoxically, Anonymous both is and is not those kids. But I think for the sake of everyone's sanity, it's best to only group them by their main campaigns. Disorganized yet united.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Standard Procedure
Come on... innocent plead guilty all the time as a matter of judicial procedure, some times for lesser sentences, "cough" pandering, "cough", "cough", etc.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
DoS
Those who are part of Anonymous do not condone the acts of some people carrying out acts in their name.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I guess Mike's agenda is becoming clear to the legion of Mike's followers now? Everything he writes is slanted to his viewpoint, just like any other media outlet. You only hurt your cause when you get caught making up the facts. How do you expect RIAA to listen to your new "business model" ideas when you get caught fudging the facts just like you accuse them of doing?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I guess Mike's agenda is becoming clear to the legion of Mike's followers now?
Huh? What "agenda"?
Everything he writes is slanted to his viewpoint, just like any other media outlet.
Okay, is this really that complicated to understand? I've said it a bunch of times, but let me be clear. This is NOT a news site. EVERYTHING we write is based on our OPINION and ANALYSIS and INSIGHT.
You seem to think it's a big deal that you've discovered we have an opinion on this site. That's not a big deal because that's the POINT of the site.
How do you expect RIAA to listen to your new "business model" ideas when you get caught fudging the facts just like you accuse them of doing?
What does the RIAA have to do with this? I did not "fudge the facts." When I point out where the RIAA fudges facts, I can point to actual examples. No one here has done so. Perhaps I did not explain my point clearly, but I did not make up facts.
And I never said that the RIAA needs to listen to me. They are obviously free to do what they want.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
You go John!
Your agenda for free music of course.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Church of Scientology != Scientology
The belief system of Scientology may be good or bad, but what someone believes is none of anyone's business.
The Church of Scientology is a corrupt, evil, criminal organization, led by David Miscavige, who committed perjury, abuses his staff, runs pseudo-prison camps and worse. Google "Scientology crimes" and "David Miscavige".
Anonymous and Scientology critics are opposed to the Church of Scientology as a criminal organization, and want all those who are breaking the law to be brought to justice.
Those who practice Scientology outside of the Church of Scientology are not and have never been attacked. The protests have nothing to do with the belief system. Please do not forward this anti-religious bigotry. The protests are not against ANY religion only about a corrupt organization and the criminals in charge.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Church of Scientology != Scientology
The Church of Scientology is a corrupt, evil, criminal organization, led by David Miscavige, who committed perjury, abuses his staff, runs pseudo-prison camps and worse. Google "Scientology crimes" and "David Miscavige".
I understand your point. And you may even be correct. However stating the Church of Schientology is the evil entity and the people who believe in it is ridiculous. It would be like saying Catholic worshippers are just fine. Its those Nuns that gotta go. If David is a criminal he will be found guilty in a court of law. Not by an 18 year old hacker who has an axe to grind.
There are many typical Christian religions whose members break the law. Look at Ted Haggard for example. This vigilantee type agenda is absurd. But as ridiculous as the Church of Scientology is (And yes it may have corrupt members) the Church has every right to practice its twisted faith.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Church of Scientology != Scientology
It is not the Scientology religion that is being questioned. It is the actions of the Church under the direction of David Miscavige.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Church of Scientology != Scientology
@Hmmm
You have completely misinterpreted what I said. "Nuns"? WTF? The Church of Scientology is LED by David Miscavige, who does illegal and criminal things. His policies of corruption, fraud and abuse are propagated throughout the organization because HE dictates what everyone does. Comparing this to "nuns" in the Catholic Church is comparing apples and horses. It would be a more accurate comparison if the Pope started personally beating people and running special "Catholic prison camps". If the Pope did that, people WOULD protest - don't you think?
I agree that someone DDoSing the Church of Scientology's web site is illegal and wrong. It was minor and it stopped. The abuses and crimes of David Miscavige and his organization are major and have NOT stopped.
There IS a difference between vigilantism, like the DDoS attack, and peaceful protests. I condemn the first, and support the second.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Church of Scientology != Scientology
Calm down there bud.. I am not defending Scientology nor David Miscavige. The pope is not free to do as he wishes. If he was guilty of the crimes you listed he would have to deal with law enforcement and the courts. This is a matter for the Feds and law enforcement.
If your promoting DDoS attacks its you and not the Church of Scientology nor David Miscavige who are going to be under the eye of law enforcement. If you continue your attacks you could even make the mistake of Martyring the fool. And I am sure you wouldnt want to do that.
If people want to pay $19.99 to become cult followers there is not a whole lot you can do about it. Just make sure your not one the ones who drink the Cool-Aid...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
DoS
I can not in any way condone an attack on someones beliefs. The oddest thing about being human is having free will. We have the free will to make good and bad choices. BTW, I also in no way endorse/condone or in any way agree with anything Scientology has to say! But here in America, at least for now, they have the right to say it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You make the statement that the activities of Anonymous "certainly didn't do much of anything to slow the organization down"
WTF? Do you have any actual statistics to back up that statement? Anything?
If you actually look, you will see that the Church of Scientology is in serious trouble all over the world. As people have become informed of the crimes being committed by the organization, they are staying away. Go and look. You will see the church buying up buildings -- but they are empty. The church may still have some money, but it is not doing well at all.
Granted, the church was already having serious problems before the protests, but the protests have significantly accelerated the collapse.
Interestingly, Scientology outside of the corporate structure of the Church of Scientology is doing fine.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You make the statement that the activities of Anonymous "certainly didn't do much of anything to slow the organization down"
WTF? Do you have any actual statistics to back up that statement? Anything?
You really think that having its website down for a few days hurt it?
If you actually look, you will see that the Church of Scientology is in serious trouble all over the world.
That had nothing to do with the DoS.
As people have become informed of the crimes being committed by the organization, they are staying away.
Again, nothing to do with the DoS. The other protests may have had something to do with that, but we were talking about the DoS.
I love how people get so mad at me because they think I said Anonymous was an organized group responsible for the DoS attacks, and then in the same breath freak out that I also don't give them credit for the in-person protests and other online info.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ahh
I'd have to agree, the DoS was pretty silly and useless.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
We are not one
I understand how it seems, whenever someone mentions Scientology or Anonymous, it gets pretty wild, but we are not all one.
I'm not anyone else, so whatever THEY said is not in the "same breath" as what I said. I guess it may seem like this beast that snarls and barks and contradicts itself, but I'm just me -- I'm not part of Anonymous and I do not necessarily agree with anything anyone else has said here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Dear Mike
Please don't post stories about Anonomious or about the church of scientology. They are troll summoning spells of the highest order, and they are of little intrest to the focus of the site.
Thanks.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fair article, Mike. I agree that the DDoS didn't really help matters. Infact many of the critics of scientology stood up and screamed bloody murder at the DDoS attacks.
I think the reason people are becoming angry with your story is that it seems a bit slanted. It paints the myriad as kids and mere griefers, (though I'm sure this was not your intent) while failing to point out that the DDoS was condemned by many. Moreover you make no comment on the fact that throughout the whole affair many anons were reading and learning and became very aware of the what the CoS is. This began their campaign of well informed, peaceful, worldwide protests.
I understand that the piece is only short and didn't really need that other information, but I'm sure you can see why people would become annoyed, especially when the CoS has a massive propaganda campaign trying to portray protest Anons in the same light, and worse, as your article.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment