Anonymous: Secret Society?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlphaFoxtrotNW
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AlphaFoxtrotNW

Guest
Hey, I had a question regarding the hacker group known as Anonymous. Previously, I know they had attacked several Catholic sites in response to priest scandals but my question is, can one, in good conscience, support this group. Some members of this community are less radical than others, some of the more radical persons seem to promote the “New World Order” and other similar concepts. Just want thoughts about there form of action and if this can be done in good conscience.
~Alpha
 
Well, it is a hacker group, and I do not think that hacking is good in any instance from a Catholic perspective, so I would not support this group at all. Remember the ends do not justify the means.
 
Anonymous I think sprang up from 4Chan’s use of the term. Applying it to every guest. I don’t think they check each others calendars or synchronize watches. I think they just post a challenge and those who can, do. So it’s hard to be with or against a group like that.
 
AlphaFoxtrotNW said:
Hey, I had a question regarding the hacker group known as Anonymous. Previously, I know they had attacked several Catholic sites in response to priest scandals but my question is, can one, in good conscience, support this group. Some members of this community are less radical than others, some of the more radical persons seem to promote the “New World Order” and other similar concepts. Just want thoughts about there form of action and if this can be done in good conscience.
~Alpha
Click to expand...
Yes, its a secret society by the very definition.

You should find it odd, that after so many years of television broadcast journalism, that suddenly *all *tv stations give credence and air time (a voice) to a group that remains ‘anonymous’ . I’m not saying there is any connection, just that its very odd that suddenly, vigilantes get air time. That’s all. Used to be back in the early 80’s and such, hijackers would not been given air time to say what they wanted. There are good reasons for this, (because if you give one group a voice, suddenly more stuff like it will occur) so I wonder why all news networks decided to no longer abide by that common sense. Interesting too that no other groups like it have popped up and given air time as well, since that is the normal psychological copy cat stuff that occurs when hijackers are given such a stage. Surely there must be other such groups, so why does this one get a pass?

I would not give them any credence at all. There is a phrase “consider the source”… well, how can you when you don’t know who or what it is. You can’t. Its ‘secret’… either to draw you in from curiosity, or for some other reason -influence, to instill fear, to tempt, etc… The occult works that way. They know what people are wanting and use their need against them while seemingly acting as though they are for them.

Even if its for a ‘good cause’ like “justice” (and no doubt some of the stories out there surely sound like injustice)… you can’t in good judgement- …support something good and you just might be supporting something evil along with it. What is the use of that? Its uselessness. Scripture speaks of being obedient to government.

Remember Barabbas? Just like in Biblical time, people today will want him more so than the likes of Jesus. They thought Barabbas would be more useful to their plight.
 
I think Anon. is more organized than we think, the last media piece I saw on them, the reporter said they were nothing more than a loosely connected group of people and that may be what they want people to think, but I have to imagine there are at least some at the wheel of this group.

I think what they have done to expose corruption is good though. transparency is never a bad thing when it comes to issues like this.
 
I don’t think they are a secret society. There is no real membership. Anyone can call themselves Anonymous. From what I’ve read, “members” create their own groups for any cause they want. There is no leadership. Members of one group can call on other groups to support a cause, but each group is independent and does its own thing. I wouldn’t support them because the ends doesn’t justify the means. Any good that comes from their actions cannot outweigh the illegal methods they use to do that good. Hacking is illegal in pretty much every country, so the only time it could be morally okay would be as part of a nation’s self-defense in war. For example, if there was a war between the US and some other nation, it might be okay morally for the NSA to hack the other country’s computers to gain intelligence that aids the defense of the country.
 
Jared2914 said:
I don’t think they are a secret society. There is no real membership. Anyone can call themselves Anonymous. From what I’ve read, “members” create their own groups for any cause they want. There is no leadership. Members of one group can call on other groups to support a cause, but each group is independent and does its own thing. I wouldn’t support them because the ends doesn’t justify the means. Any good that comes from their actions cannot outweigh the illegal methods they use to do that good. Hacking is illegal in pretty much every country, so the only time it could be morally okay would be as part of a nation’s self-defense in war. For example, if there was a war between the US and some other nation, it might be okay morally for the NSA to hack the other country’s computers to gain intelligence that aids the defense of the country.
Click to expand...
Well, you do know the US Govt recently employed hackers to get into the Iphone of a terrorist shooter in CA, so do we justify it because they are the authority or is it just as wrong for them?

Plus, the US does use hackers to try and find information on other nations too, if there is no current war, hacking by them would be as wrong as it would be it for us imo.
 
mikekle said:
Well, you do know the US Govt recently employed hackers to get into the Iphone of a terrorist shooter in CA, so do we justify it because they are the authority or is it just as wrong for them?

Plus, the US does use hackers to try and find information on other nations too, if there is no current war, hacking by them would be as wrong as it would be it for us imo.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything wrong with law enforcement using hacking to get into a terrorist’s cell phone. They definitely should not be hacking proactively. It can only ever be reactive. After the crime has been committed, they should be allowed to access that information from the criminal’s personal belongings. I can understand if people don’t trust law enforcement and feel that if they have the ability, they will abuse it.

I should have been clearer in my reply before. I was thinking about hacking between nations. I think it is fine for self-defense during war. We are at war with ISIS, so hacking to thwart their operations would be fine. Hacking other nations we are peace with just in case is wrong to me.
 
Trident_H said:
Anonymous I think sprang up from 4Chan’s use of the term. Applying it to every guest. I don’t think they check each others calendars or synchronize watches. I think they just post a challenge and those who can, do. So it’s hard to be with or against a group like that.
Click to expand...
This is correct. Anonymous isn’t organized beyond maybe a few friends who get together to cause trouble.
 
Rhubarb said:
This is correct. Anonymous isn’t organized beyond maybe a few friends who get together to cause trouble.
Click to expand...
This is exactly it. It easily copyable with the mask and such so as to confuse people into thinking there are many of them, when usually it’s just a few people doing it for laughs. We had “Anonymous” declare a local attack in our town once, everyone knew who it was though.
Trident_H said:
I think they just post a challenge and those who can, do. So it’s hard to be with or against a group like that.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think it’s something they just say to scare off the average person from posting on their site.
 
Jared2914 said:
I don’t see anything wrong with law enforcement using hacking to get into a terrorist’s cell phone. They definitely should not be hacking proactively. It can only ever be reactive. After the crime has been committed, they should be allowed to access that information from the criminal’s personal belongings. I can understand if people don’t trust law enforcement and feel that if they have the ability, they will abuse it.

I should have been clearer in my reply before. I was thinking about hacking between nations. I think it is fine for self-defense during war. We are at war with ISIS, so hacking to thwart their operations would be fine. Hacking other nations we are peace with just in case is wrong to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would agree about hacking between nations at war, and even when they are not at war, I believe this goes on all the time, just look at how often China hacks us, Im sure we are doing the same thing.

When it comes to law enforcement though, I think some things should just be off limits to them, no matter what. If they find hacking leads to them to a major discovery or breaks a terrorism case, I have no doubts they will try to use it on other crimes and justify its use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top