Time for Anonymous to be a little more nonymous

hammy says:

01:12pm | 10/12/12

This is the media, only everyone else has to be accountable.

marley says:

01:20pm | 10/12/12

If the media break any laws, they can and will be held accountable.  And even if they don’t break laws, they can be held accountable for poor behaviour by the weight of public opinion, because they can’t hide behind anonymity. Whether it’s Alan Jones or Bolt or the BBC or News of the World, we know who they are and who to blame.  Anonymous bloggers, not so much.

TimB says:

01:21pm | 10/12/12

Badger, for someone who changes his screenname with every second comment, you are the last person on earth who has the right to demand accountability standards.

Cilla says:

01:40pm | 10/12/12

marley
So it’s OK if 90%of the print media prints outright lies as though they were fact in a deliberate attempt to influence public opinion?

excellent.

hammy says:

01:47pm | 10/12/12

The media frequently breach their own standards and cover up for it.  They refer it to their own authority which is full of media personnel and they whitewash it and say ‘nothing happened here’.  There is NO accountability. Never has been.

Colin says:

01:48pm | 10/12/12

@  Cilla s

“So it’s OK if 90%of the print media prints outright lies..?”

90% ?!?

Wow, your tinfoil hat must REALLY be on tight..! Conspiracy theory, anyone?

marley says:

01:51pm | 10/12/12

@Cilla - did I say that? Hmm.  It seems you yourself don’t have a problem with totally misrepresenting what someone says, so I guess you can’t really complain if the press does the same, now can you?.

PS I’m not crazy about the new handle. I liked some of the old ones better.

DOB says:

01:51pm | 10/12/12

Uh, Marley, people can only be held accountable for stuff that other people know about. Right now the “media” decides what you should know about and what level of importance is to be put on stuff youre told.

And the “media” are accountable to no-one except shareholders. Which is another way of saying accountable to no-one but their managers, which is another way of saying the managers are accountable to no-one (since they also determine what the shareholders are told and the rest of the time the managers ARE the biggest shareholders)

Who watches the watchers? Right now, no-one. And thats just the way they like it, which is why - if you read the media - Leveson is the new anti-christ.

Power to the people - or not…

Cilla says:

02:00pm | 10/12/12

marley
I guess you think that it is OK for 90% of the print media to publish outright lies as fact.
Well marley, do you?

Ando says:

02:06pm | 10/12/12

Cilla,
Who will judge the media and who will hold the judges to account and who will hold the judges, judges to account and what is the motive of the judges.
Do the 10% that don’t lie agree with your point of view.

Colin says:

02:29pm | 10/12/12

@  Cilla s

“I guess you think that it is OK for 90% of the print media to publish outright lies as fact…”

There you go with that 90 % figure again. Are you really that deluded..?

TimB says:

02:29pm | 10/12/12

90% now? Whatever happened to the 70% figure?

At least it’s only print media now and not all media though. You’ve learned that much at least. You win some, you lose some.

marley says:

02:30pm | 10/12/12

@Cilla - would I think it right for 90% of the print media to print outright lies as fact?  Nope. I wouldn’t. 

Now, please provide evidence that 90% of the media does this. Because you couldn’t possibly just have put into print as a fact something that you can’t back up with evidence, now could you?

bob says:

02:46pm | 10/12/12

It’s was entirely the Hospital fault for the suicide NOT the DJ’s. Why is this such a big secret.

marley says:

02:48pm | 10/12/12

@DOB - one of the interesting things about a free society is that it provides choices. You think the Australian or the Telly are biased?  That they don’t provide the facts or don’t talk about issues they adjudge uninteresting?  Then read The Age or the AFR or the Guardian, or watch the ABC or the BBC or Al Jazeera.  There’s always the Green Left Weekly or the Anarchist Age, and no doubt their right wing equivalents.

By all means, hold the print and broadcast media accountable for breaches of the law (defamation and the like).  That’s what courts are for. By all means, scrutinise and address complaints of inaccuracy, unfairness or unethical conduct.  That’s what the Press Council is for.  And by all means, boycott radio stations or refuse to buy papers you think are misusing freedom of the press. 

But remember that no one group, no one newspaper, no one political party or theory has a monopoly on “truth.”  We can only know what is true by reading as much as we can on all sides of an argument and reaching our own conclusions.  We have greater access now to different viewpoints and arguments than ever in history, and I simply do not see the point of stifling that freedom by putting a straight-jacket on the media.

Curious says:

02:50pm | 10/12/12

Why on earth would the Royals announce that Kate was pregnant when she was in hospital sick. I thought the MEGA PR Machine that is the royal family would have announce this in a more dignified way.

Shoosh !!! it's a secret says:

02:54pm | 10/12/12

The British Press are not asking the right questions. Instead of laying blame on the 2 DJ’s they should be asking what the Hospital said to the Nurse after the prank call.

TimB says:

03:02pm | 10/12/12

Question: Would constantly changing ones screename be considered a ‘lie’ of sorts? It certainly is a form of decption (even if poorly executed).

PS lying in the press is why defamation laws exist.

Cilla says:

03:09pm | 10/12/12

Thanks goodness.
marley the apologist for the Mdock press and conservative views in general has come to his senses and has admitted that he doesn’t believe it is OK for 90% of the press to publish outright lies as fact.
Now it is just a question of extracting from marley at what % does it become unacceptable.
Is it 80%?
Is it 70%?

So marley at what % do you set your tolerance for printing outright lies as fact?

Cilla says:

03:15pm | 10/12/12

TimB and colin
thank you for your support in getting to the root of the matter.
Feel free to post what percentage of the print media printing the same outright lies is unacceptable to you.
Or just fade away

marley says:

03:42pm | 10/12/12

@Cilla and all your other names - I put my tolerance for the press telling lies at about the same level I put my tolerance for you telling them.  Only thing is, I find that the worst of the press is more honest than you are.

subotic says:

03:51pm | 10/12/12

So marley at what % do you set your tolerance for printing outright lies as fact?

The same percentage as people who use percentages without supplying proof?

James1 says:

03:55pm | 10/12/12

Just so you know, no one thinks you are winning this argument Cilla.  You come across as having very little integrity because you hold others to a standard you do not conform to yourself.

Anon delivers says:

04:02pm | 10/12/12

Which part of the word anonymous don’t you understand?

A Concerned Citizen says:

04:10pm | 10/12/12

Tory do tell, why is it ok for celebrities to prank hardworking nurses, but it is not ok for anonymous hackers to prank these celebrities (which is ultimately what a hacker does)?

Also Tory, this is the exact same campaign against Alan Jones (albiet threatening legitimate actions such as boycotts rather than vandalism- but then again, Jones’ actions weren’t as bad).

I’ll tell you what- as soon as people in privileged positions are held properly accountable for doing the wrong thing, angry vigilantes won’t hack their computers in an attempt to substitute themselves as retributive justice.

Anon says:

04:17pm | 10/12/12

No online comments whatsoever should be allowed unless they show a person’s verified full name and address.

marley says:

05:51pm | 10/12/12

@subotic - yep, just about there.  I’m waiting for Cilla’s evidence of anything.  I suspect it will be a long wait.

Michael says:

01:24pm | 10/12/12

And what, exactly, could an empowered regulator have done? Do you seriously believe that they would have vetoed the prank?

The consequences were tragic, but unforeseeable. Even a regulator isn’t clairvoyant.

line says:

01:44pm | 10/12/12

As NSW legal opinion being reported today is that the surveillance act was breached then yes – we can assume that if we had a regulator that actually enforced the law then this wouldn’t have happened.

WayneT says:

03:14pm | 10/12/12

“When the authorities do nothing vigilantes step in. It’s been this way for several thousand years – why should we expect anything different now?”

Maybe because we are civilized now Line; or at least some of us are. That’s why there are laws in place, to stop tyrants and others from executing people just because they don’t hold the same beliefs, values or simply because they don’t like them. 
    The authorities are investigating and have been since yesterday.  One piece of information that seems to have evaded the main stream media is that the Hospital Management had threatened the two nurses with possible dismissal because of their breach of security and protocol.  This would have had more of an effect on the poor nurse at the center of this tragedy.
    Who cares that a bunch of faceless knuckle-draggers like anonymous aren’t happy about the timing - They don’t speak for the majority.  You are obviously of the ‘witch burning’ or ‘Old west lynch mob’ mentality given your support for their call - or am I just jumping to conclusions too?

Nick says:

03:44pm | 10/12/12

Surely a regulation can only be enforced after the fact of it’s violation?  Most of those who violate the various laws etc that we seem so addicted to generating on a willy nilly basis do not first flag that fact to the other mob charged with making people’s lives less comfortable if they accidentally fart in an inappropriate manner or what ever other transgression they are judged to have committed?

A Concerned Citizen says:

04:23pm | 10/12/12

This is all it comes down to- when people get away with doing the wrong thing (or the law fails to recognize it as being the wrong thing), some angry vigilantes will improve some ‘justice’ of their own. This will always continue until citizens insist that the legitimate rule of law is more comprehensive and accountable.

Also WayneT, if I were to free a lion from the zoo and it ate somebody, would I abdicate responsibility because it was the lion that did all the dirty work? Had these DJs not have harassed these nurses, they wouldn’t have gotten into trouble.

line says:

05:30pm | 10/12/12

Just to be clear Wayne T I’m not saying the hacking hell this station and its advertisers is about to go through is a good thing. I’m just saying its a predictable consequence of our legal system failing to protect us from the media.

All communities enforce norms on their members. Preferably this is done through the civil and professional methods of the legal system - however when they drop the ball (as our legislators have with consistent slaps on the wrist for 2today fm’s horrific behaviours) - then the community steps in in a manner that is far harsher.

It undermines basic social safety but the blame lies with our legal system for not doing their job as much as it does with the vigilantes.

Simple cause and effect. I’m not making a value judgement on the effect. Just saying that the effect naturally follows the cause.

Concerned citizen expressed the point better than I have.

Knemon says:

01:23pm | 10/12/12

These guys are seriously good hackers, I hope 2day FM have good firewalls in place, because they will need them. I look forward to seeing what fun Anonyomous have with 2day FM’s website.

Borderer says:

01:42pm | 10/12/12

People love to be outraged, when you’re outraged then the vindictive spiteful bile you spew is justifiable and that makes it ok…. It’s why I miss the communists and Nazi’s, its so hard to find someone to hate and feel good about it, except Twighlight, that shit is just wrong….

A Concerned Citizen says:

04:29pm | 10/12/12

Yep, Tory is whinging that two pranksters are being threatened with pranks from other pranksters.

I’m glad I’m not the only person to see the irony.

Carolyn says:

01:59pm | 10/12/12

Did the DJs stop and THINK about possible consequences for one minute? Who knows how somebody will react. Nobody knows what trigger it takes to push somebody over the edge. It could have been the pin that broke the camel’s back. Having lived in India and South America, I can promise that humiliation and ‘loss of face’ is reacted to quite differently as to how somebody whose family has, for several generations, lived in Sydney, thereby understanding the Aussie sense of humour, and ‘just gets on with it’.

This poor girl was utterly humiliated and shamed in front of the rest of the world. WE here in Australia may not think it was big deal. But to this lady, and her family, it was. Did anybody stop to put themselves in the shoes of this nurse?She was of India background? There are some parts of India (the Punjab north of India), it is not uncommon for public humilation and shame to lead to suicide. In the mindset of some cultures, the only way to restore ‘face’ or ‘honour’ is to commit suicide. It may seem ridiculous to us. But to others, not so much.

Ultimately, this poor nurse made her decision. However, if somebody had just STOPPED and thought about trigger actions, instead of concentrating on ratings and trying to boost the listening audience of a dying radio station. One issue in Australia is that we expect others IN (in, not from) different countries to act, react,or behave as we would back in Australia, (Bali beer-mat thief mum comes to mind…..“but why isn’t the government DOING something? I’m AUSTRALIAN!”) without consideration of the culture and backgrounds of the person who is being targetted. And if they don’t react or act as we do, then apparently THEY are the ones who have the problem, ‘need to chill/get over it’ or are simply ‘unAustralian’ (the answer for everything!). 

These DJs lost credibility when it was revealed that they’ve sold their ‘story’.  Perhaps the public should instigate an internet campaign to stop the public supporting the sponsors of the media-outlets who paid these two for their so-called ‘stories’??

Tchom says:

02:25pm | 10/12/12

Carolyn is right. No one should make pranks from now on.

Sebastian says:

03:50pm | 10/12/12

@ Tchom

All it takes is a bit of empathy,Tchom, or the ability to see a situation from the other person’s perspective. I hope I’m wrong, but the way I’m understanding your comment is that perhaps because you wouldn’t react badly to a prank, nobody should react badly to the same prank?

What one person sees as a prank may well be what somebody else sees as harmful, as we’ve just witnessed with this sad event.

It doesn’t make either right or wrong. I think Caroline was suggesting that people think about how something could affect another person, particularly if the outcome could be of extreme embarrassment to the person being pranked (in this case for example). 

Unless you are referring to the beer-mat theft. In that case, that lady was stealing. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t a prank. Their laws. We may not agree or like their laws, but it was theft, not a prank.

PsychoHyena says:

03:59pm | 10/12/12

@Carolyn, why is it that the final straw is what cops the blame? We know now the race of the woman, however the prank would have been planned without this knowledge and with the presumption (rather fair too) that it would be someone of British origin.

How hard did you think about your comment before posting it? Did you consider the possible ramifications of it? That perhaps it might prompt someone to make certain decisions? Would you hold yourself accountable if it does?

To question every possibility results in inaction, and sometimes inaction is the worst possibility.

A Concerned Citizen says:

04:43pm | 10/12/12

LWL- nope, I wouldn’t be upset at all if that happened. Nurses are important people who spend most of their waking hours doing the most distressing, strenuous and unpleasant jobs for people who really need them. The two DJs are nothing but forgettable pricks who contribute nothing. And yes, all of the people involved are equally accountable.

Sebastian, usually the kind of people that don’t mind being pranked are the kind of people who do nothing with their time but get bored, get drunk and watch the footy. The kind of people who don’t enjoy being pranked are people who are extremely busy and would like to spend their time more productively than be held up by some lowlife desperate for attention.

Cars says:

06:04pm | 10/12/12

@ Concerned Citizen. I hope you aren’t too busy doing productive stuff that you have no time to laugh, joke or prank. I also hope that you aren’t suggesting that anyone that thinks producing laughs, jokes or pranks is worthwhile has their life priorities all wrong.

SnappyLegs says:

02:16pm | 10/12/12

@wolf, agreed. Anonymous have always, as far as I know, advocated for the “Rule of Law”. It’s not the usual Anon style to play judge, jury and exocutioner, especially before the normal legal process has had time to take its’ course. It’s only when this process has been found to be corrupted or outright ignored that they seem to step in.

subotic says:

02:08pm | 10/12/12

What’s next ?

I’d like to see Mike Tyson do “The Girl From Ipanema” at Liza Minnelli’s next wedding…

sunny says:

02:56pm | 10/12/12

subotic - I don’t think Mike could carry it on his own, maybe in a duet with William Shatner.

Markus says:

02:17pm | 10/12/12

If it wasn’t so hilarious, I’d find it almost sad that even after ‘Trolling’ was the topic of all media conversation for months on end (like the existence of internet trolls was a breaking development), that it is apparent they still just don’t get it.

void says:

03:46pm | 10/12/12

Well said, Anon.  Many Anonymous videos/calls-to-arms are often created by one person trying to start a movement, and most are met with the majority response of NYPA (Not Your Personal Army).  If you look into it, you’ll find that any Anonymous movement that has ever really taken off has been something that people felt was truly worth fighting for (ie. anti-Sopa/Pipa movements, global anti-CoS protests, etc.)  The advantage to being Anonymous, as most people fail to realize, is that one can pick and choose what they want to join in on and support, and, due to its very nature (being anonymous) there is no obligation for one to go with the flow of something that they don’t agree with.  On the other hand, if you join an official organization with specifically mandated ideas, you’re expected to adhere to all of those ideas, even if you don’t necessarily agree with all of them.

John L says:

03:22pm | 10/12/12

Well spotted!

This isn’t Anonymous at all. It is, in fact, Anonyomous, the illiterate band of hackers that, being illiterate, can’t code a damn thing.

They started off calling themselves “Annoy yo Mouse” but gave up because they couldn’t spell it

darthseditious says:

03:12pm | 10/12/12

I just read their demands and it sounds like extortion to me, plain and simple. Normally I would take what they threaten to do with a grain of salt, but considering that a Medical Clinic on the Gold Coast has had its systems hacked and the data encrypted, with the hackers demanding money to decrypt the files (mostly patient records) who knows who is involved with Anonymous and who knows what they really could do if pushed.

A Concerned Citizen says:

04:59pm | 10/12/12

For all we know, “Anonymous” might be a generalized movement for any hacker activist, rather than an organized group.

AdamC says:

02:26pm | 10/12/12

Yeah, it is odd.

Anonymous would be more effective if they had some sort of coherent mission.

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:32pm | 10/12/12

Meh, the intelligence services are big boys. They know how the game is played…..

subotic says:

02:50pm | 10/12/12

Anonymous would be more effective if they had some sort of coherent mission.

But a lot less funny…

A Concerned Citizen says:

04:57pm | 10/12/12

So it’s ok for governments to withhold information to the taxpaying public, including scandals, but not ok to insinuate that people shouldn’t be allowed to harass people when they are trying to do their jobs?

The only people that would have these two attitudes are louts who don’t like getting caught doing the wrong thing.

I on the other hand now have another reason to like Anonymous.

Markus says:

03:26pm | 10/12/12

The outrage from the British media is par for the course.
Had they responded in anything even remotely resembling a rational manner that would have been world news in itself.

A Concerned Citizen says:

04:48pm | 10/12/12

Hacking missiles is terrorism you moron. It would also give governments a VERY legitimate excuse to treat these hackers as a terrorist group (which they then would be).
Denial of service is no more threatening than denial of service. Basically vandalism.

Having said that, I am disappointed that only Israel was targeted- but for all we know, Hamas might just have some dinky site not even worth the time (or nobody in Anonymous knew Arabic to put up a counter-message). I am someone who supports Israel more than Hamas, if anyone asks.