Anonymous threatens to destroy Fox News on Guy Fawkes Day

[video=youtube;fa_FzQV5fpE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fa_FzQV5fpE[/video]

Link to article


I am quite excited to see the results! But people, what do you think of this? Discuss. (Personally, I think they are awesome)

 

Anon calling Fox the bullies. Now that is a laugh. In particular because they are doing this now, people have come to terms with the fact that Fox is not balanced news.

All the same I'm curious as to how well this will actually work. Giving someone a week notice that they are going to be hacked is just asking for your operation to fail.

 

Yeah, I don't see them succeeding.

You know, I have to wonder.
When did all of these hacking clubs begin?

I mean, seriously.
I think they're just trying to cause a scare.

Sure, they've hacked before, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of places have tightened security in anticipation for future hacks.

 

Its a collection of members of 4chan, at least that is how it started. They saw things, they came together, and they are awesome at what they do.
Anonymous make statements, and I honestly dont think that a weeks worth of preparation can keep them out, because of the sheer number and quality.

 

Numbers don't help that much in this type of thing, either you know how to get in and do it or you don't. Once you have the required number of people for the operation more people don't help much. Really it can become a liability to a degree.

And you can use some quick and dirty security to keep a site secured for a day. They tend not to be great for business, but they are better than being hacked.

 

What I meant by numbers is that they have several different ways of getting through. If they co-operate, and different people have different techniques and skills, its a bigger chance they would be able to bypass layers and screw up more.

 

I don't like anon. They are essentially cyber terrorist. But in this case they are right.

However, I must point out that most news is polarized. Either extremely conservative, or extremely liberal. They should know better. They will not change anything. Its a waste.

Additionally, did they say, "Can't no longer be tolerated" at about :50? Isn't that a double negative?

If they really wanted to take down Fox, they will. Its as simple as that.

They do not need to compromise the content of Fox News, but rather, just attack them. Something as simple as bombarding their website with inquiries will overload their server. Fox can do little to stop that.

They did not threaten to penetrate their security, but rather declared them a target.

For every barrier setup, someone is trying to outwit it. You get enough people working on a problem, it'll be solved.

We do not know how long they were preparing. They may have been working on this for a while.

Yes, extra people are a liability... but assuming a minimum criteria of skill is established, extra angles of attack being attacked at once will yield more flaws faster.

 

Suppose I give you a week notice before dropping a bomb on your house. Yeah, I'm giving you a week to prepare. Make a shelter, get all your possessions out, all that stuff. But that's not going to keep the bomb from dropping.

Anonymous is basically doing the same thing. One way or another, they're going to get in. They don't care so much about what they get out of what they do so much proving that they can do it. All they're doing is giving Fox a chance to back up whatever they absolutely CANNOT lose.

 

well it gives you a heads up to watch for when the guys will come around to your house and you could potentially shoot him before he does anything XD but i know what you're trying to say.

anyways my opinion, what do they think they'll accomplish with this? it's not like hacking into their networks prevents them from airing coverage of these Wall Street Protests in anyway. it's like they just make stupid excuses to hack people and then do it. why even make these stupid excuses? why not just do it? also, it's not like a DDOS attack does much to actually hurt people.

 

I believe it's more of a statement than anything. Like most of Anonymous' hacking, I think. Which is why Anon is very vocal about their actions.

 

Quoted for truth. Even if Anons attack fails completely... the fact that we watched this video gets their point across. People who would not have viewed Fox as polarized are giving it a second look now.

 

"(Not just Fox News), but Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck.
Our primary targets because they claimed to be fair and balanced only to become right wing bullies and thugs!"
It's because political people have gone back on what they've said before, so it's justified.

And it's not freedom of press if what is being told is a lie or twisted so that one point of view is favored. Freedom of press means the freedom to tell the truth, not to claim bias to be facts.

 

I find it ironic that Anonymous identifies so heavily with a man who attempted to tear down one "evil theocracy"... in order to install his own. Foreshadowing, anyone?

No, but I digress... Anon makes a lot of promises like this. Given its propensity towards leaderless community, I would take any "official" announcements with a bucket of salt. You can never be sure if the news is from a respected elder or a loud-mouthed punk with no support.

Not to say I wouldn't enjoy Fox News getting a proverbial sock in the mouth... Then again, my general policy towards Anon announcements is skeptic hopefulness.

 

I am not very familiar with them that much except for the PSN outage(I dont know if they really did that or not). I believe it was a month or less ago I heard they will take down FaceBook in November. From reading comments of videos of them on YouTube people seem to worship them or just making jokes sounding like they are. Whats next? Sending videos about taking down airport security?
Again, I am not very familiar with them. I only know a little of them.

 

Except when people begin twisting lies and all that stuff, it doesn't even fit into the category of Freedom of the press. The first Amendment says no one can control what others can say, but there is a boundry. If you want, I could give quotes from my American Government book. All of Chapter 6 is about the media.

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out though. I mean, I think attacking a Fox News might make others see exactly the problem with it, but who knows if they'll actually succeed.
Gotta give them credit for the nice logo though. That's pretty creative

 

It probably wasn't. That's just a rumor. It's not really something they have any reason to do, and official statements have denied involvement, however trustworthy that is.

That one I find a lot more trouble believing. I've been on the AnonPlus forums once or twice, and that seems to have been either a false alarm or someone making a claim that the group is not prepared to back up. It's been expressed that there is not much cause to attack Facebook, especially since a lot of important efforts are coordinated through the site. I've been invited to my fair share of Occupy x events.

Well those are very different things. Which is it? I'm willing to bet most of the hype is either misguided or in jest. Not to say they don't have support, of course.

Whatever they promise or threaten, it only has as much weight as they have coordination. The more controversial the subject, the more divided they will be; the more dangerous the job, the more of them will be needed to make it happen. Unless the Anonymentality goes utterly viral--and I'm talking the end of V for Vendetta, here--they probably will not be able to do anything on that large a scale. True to their mission statement, Anonymous only has the power the people give them. At least, for now they do.

I still find it funny to hear people talking about Anonymous like it's some kind of underground organization. Anonymous is less a group and more a mindset. The name--and, I'd wager, most of the "members"--come from 4chan, where there is no formal registration process, so most members post anonymously. It essentially referred to the site itself, the full, non-exclusive collective of all of its posters, and there was never a unifying opinion or driving force behind the bunch until very recently, when a group seems to have split off and started doing things. Even then, there's still a fair bit of disorganization due to the structure.

As for hacktivism efforts: There's quite a few hackers in the bunch. That's really all there is to it. Until the past few months, the general format for an Anonymous hack attack was "Hey, these guys are kind of begging to be hacked, anybody got a few minutes?" Basically the internet equivalent of TP'ing someone's house. It's kind of surprising to see it's become anything more than that, and sometimes I find it hard to take them seriously. But I guess the fact that they're appearing in the news is proof enough that they've become more than just a bunch of dudes who go to some website.

They make every effort to put forth an image of protecting people's rights and freedoms, but they continue to be associated with the much larger, much more chaotic Anonymous collective of 4chan, which is given to things like stealing people's identities, destroying or overloading websites that bad-mouth them, and so on (and there are as many hackers among the latter camp as the former). I think it's important to distinguish between the fellas who spend every other night fapping to tranny gifs and the fellas who are out in Occupy Wall Street with Guy Fawkes masks. In fact, it would seem the two don't always get along.

So the problem with figuring the group out is that you never know exactly who you're talking about. That, and it can be difficult to divide the activists from the pranksters. If you want a group history, you're not going to find much, since they've just been a part of the collective for all this time. Figuring out which deeds were the work of hacktivists and which were the wrath of angry internet junkies is tough as well. At any rate, just remember that both groups tend to be a bit chaotic. They have some organization, to be sure, but it's too easy for someone with decent video editing skills and a working mic to make an announcement that passes itself off as "official." Nothing is official with Anonymous until it happens.

 

You say so, but who gets to determine truth in the eyes of the law? The people who enforce the laws would, by my reckoning. The notion of freedom of the press allows people to spew propaganda from both sides instead of one. If we allowed truth alone to be expressed, then all news would be censored according to what the government said was fact. Discerning truth is a responsibility left to the readers, and that is as it should be, but that doesn't stop you from hating those who spread lies intentionally.

Taking down a site is fine with me, especially in this kind of case, but when it comes to freedom of the press you cannot argue that they do not deserve to be free, only that they do not deserve to have so much influence as an organization.

Actually, LulzSec both gave out warnings for the hack and took credit for it afterwards, while Anonymous denied all involvement. For more information, see the links below.

LulzSec: "We're hacking Sony right now"
Lulzsec publishes PSN dev source code
Post-PSN Hack: Sony confirm LulzSec hack
Post-PSN hack: LulzSec again hack Sony future attacks promised