We Are Legion

[O Really]

Plus, it's a blog post, not an official communique. I wouldn't want the left held responsible for me, or the right for Det.Thorn.

Ah, but that's part of the issue, isn't it? There are no official communiques. And the post wasn't that different from the vids \V/ posts, nor from the responses to the post.

[O Really]

Why is the NRA so successful? They're crazy as batshit and everybody knows it. They do and say outrageous things to get attention, but they've got a focus, easily expressed and reiterated, and they've got organization - and a lot of money. They may be the antithesis of what Anonymous would like to see (and me, too) in power, but their operations plan works.

[Boatrocker]

The gun industry money is the big difference with the NRA. Without it they wouldn't have anywhere near the power they do by relying solely on grassroots support.

Yes, Anonymous has chosen a decentralized model, no doubt for both philosophic and security reasons, which brings us back to my accountability concerns. I don't know how its targets are selected. There may have been ones I disagreed with, but I can't think of any. Hence, my mixed feelings.

I always have this uneasy feeling that they are not so much exercising any moral outrage with their antics, as they are simply engaging in high-tech vandalism, 'cause they can. If they are gonna persist in these activities, I'd like to see something more useful come out it of. Pinching and publishing some NRA internal communications highlighting their baser motivations and funding, for example. Hack attacks that just splash profanity and insults across home pages speak to me of 14 year olds with too much money and time on their hands.

[O Really]

For example...I know some banks have too much power, and I know some bankers are crooks. I know banks, doing what banks do, contributed to the housing crash. But would you say that banking as an institution ought to be destroyed and replaced with...what?

[Boatrocker]

For example...I know some banks have too much power, and I know some bankers are crooks. I know banks, doing what banks do, contributed to the housing crash. But would you say that banking as an institution ought to be destroyed and replaced with...what?

I don't care for anarchist/libertarian notions; they are about as scholarly and practical as notions of Easter bunnies. Before you tear something down, you really ought to have some rational idea of what to do next.

[O Really]

As far as I know Anonymous has attacked specific financial institutions for specific deeds, not the institution of banking. I don't think Anonymous has yet tried to adopt a comprehensive revolutionary philosophy. Rather, their thing seems to be to use their skill set to hold accountable folks widely accepted as being bad actors.

These people would appear to disagree with your view... http://anoncentral.tumblr.com/post/3818 ... s-are-more

These too... http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/hacktiv ... -5726/op-1

[O Really]

Matter of perspective and interpretation, I guess.
But when the guy says unequivocally "the bankers are the problem," it sounds pretty broad to me.

[O Really]

Maybe \V/ will explain it to us when he gets back.

[O Really]

He could have said, "the banks" or "banking is the problem." I sure object to what bankers are doing.

There are a lot of banks, a lot of bankers. Surely they're not all the same. Which ones do you object to, and what are they doing that's objectionable? I don't mean to imply there aren't some doing some objectionable things - I'm just interested in your thoughts in particular.

[\V/]

He could have said, "the banks" or "banking is the problem." I sure object to what bankers are doing.

There are a lot of banks, a lot of bankers. Surely they're not all the same. Which ones do you object to, and what are they doing that's objectionable? I don't mean to imply there aren't some doing some objectionable things - I'm just interested in your thoughts in particular.

Do you believe in smurfs O Really?

[O Really]

He could have said, "the banks" or "banking is the problem." I sure object to what bankers are doing.

There are a lot of banks, a lot of bankers. Surely they're not all the same. Which ones do you object to, and what are they doing that's objectionable? I don't mean to imply there aren't some doing some objectionable things - I'm just interested in your thoughts in particular.

Do you believe in smurfs O Really?

Absolutely. They're cartoon characters that have been around for 50 years or so, making a gazillion dollars for their humans, in print, tv, and film. What - you don't believe there are smurfs? "Believe" has more than one connotation.

So are you going to explain whether, in your view, Anonymous is opposed to the banking system or opposed to the specific actions of some bankers?

[\V/]

He could have said, "the banks" or "banking is the problem." I sure object to what bankers are doing.

There are a lot of banks, a lot of bankers. Surely they're not all the same. Which ones do you object to, and what are they doing that's objectionable? I don't mean to imply there aren't some doing some objectionable things - I'm just interested in your thoughts in particular.

Do you believe in smurfs O Really?

Absolutely. They're cartoon characters that have been around for 50 years or so, making a gazillion dollars for their humans, in print, tv, and film. What - you don't believe there are smurfs? "Believe" has more than one connotation.
Wow!!! No reason to continue trying to explain why I asked you that

So are you going to explain whether, in your view, Anonymous is opposed to the banking system or opposed to the specific actions of some bankers?

The best answer I can respond with...of course, the 'current' banking system

[O Really]

I don't want to be pushed into a corner of being the apologist or defender of bad banking practices nor unethical management. But pick any industry you like and you'll find executives getting in trouble over insider trading, misleading stockholders, and general or aggravated sleasiness. I said the banks "contributed" to the housing crash because a lot of what they did was legal, allowed by bad or non-existent regulations. There's plenty of blame to go around. But banks and banking are an essential part of the world's economy, and have no readily available replacement. I've got no problem with working toward reform, regulation, restriction, and improvement, but Anonymous' talk (though not necessarily all their actions) seems to be more in the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" vein than in making long-term improvement.

[O Really]

You may very well be correct about Anonymous' rhetoric, but I did not see the same thing you did in your examples. I admit to not having watched most of \V/'s vids. No disrespect, but it's preaching to the choir with me.

It's true that in many industries people act as despicably as many bankers do. The difference is that few have the power to do as much damage to as many people in as many different walks of life.

As I said, it's likely a matter of perspective and interpretation. But \V/ says "The best answer I can respond with...of course, the 'current' banking system" That sounds pretty widespread to me. Problem is, if Anonymous (or everyone) just attacks the banks' data/sites/systems, they'll focus on tech security and not on changing the objectionable practices.

[O Really]

... Certainly the bailouts, the financial reform bill that did not go nearly far enough, and the utter lack of prosecutions ain't cutting it.

And isn't that more a matter of Congress than banks? The main reason we have regulation on anything is that when charged with "self-regulation," companies usually (always?) act in their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of us.

[O Really]

And isn't that more a matter of Congress than banks?...

There's a difference?

Besides, I included, "The system we currently allow banks to operate under...". I suspect \V/ and Anonymous would agree.

Yes, there is a difference. The banking lobby may own a lot of members of Congress, but we don't get to vote on the next president of Bank of America. We can vote on our own member of Congress. Right now, the inmates are running the asylum, but the only practical way to change that is to get new and improved people to run it.

Actually, back in the day, I knew Ken Lewis - not personal friends or anything, but colleagues in United Way volunteerism back when he was with NationsBank He's not the Devil.

[O Really]

Blame him or call him an angel corrupted by the system, something sure stinks. Then there's what I'm most familiar with, BofA's longstanding and enthusiastic funding of mountain top removal and other climate wrecking.

Oh, I'm happy to blame him, and it's outrageous that after that he floated so gently down on the golden parachute. But do you think it's at all realistic to think there will ever be legislation to prevent that sort of thing? Significant oversight on mergers and acquisitions? Limits on severance packages or on the specific terms of an employment agreement? Not in our lifetime, and probably not that of our great grands. T'ain't the Murican way.

[O Really]

I'm not very good at predictions. I was better when Colonel Taylor/Det.Thorn and "Reality" were here. Their track record for being wrong was impressive, I just guessed the opposite.

As I recall, neither of them was ever wrong. Actually, I enjoyed Thorn. He was like watching a combination of Archie Bunker and Junior Sample only not as smart. Big Ugly Reality, however, never seemed to have much to add to the mix other than generic snark.

[O Really]

More fuel for the fire... http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/techn ... snhp&pos=6

The FBI and some U.S. Attorneys' offices around the country may be reading emails without a warrant, according to documents obtained by the ACLU and made public Wednesday.

[\V/]