BMI taken out by Anonymous Hacktivists affiliated to Anonymous have taken out the website of Broadcast Music Incorporated in a protest against its stance against file-sharing. The denial of service attack against the US-based performing rights society began late on Wednesday and remains ongoing, leaving its main bmi.com site difficult to access. …
"The title of the article did leave me briefly wondering why Anonymous would want to Hack British Midland International Airways."
Never flown with them, have you? They're easily up to the level of 'service' provided by BWIA in the 1990s. There's a reason why BWIA was known to those who had to use it as Better Wait In Airport.
The only reason why they're not the world's worst airline is... well, RyanAir exists, and as long as that is true no other airline need worry about occupying the bottom rung.
They were good at the time, the rot set in with the demise of the British Midland breakfast sausage.
The cold wind of economic reality blew through the airline industry and we found that our foil-covered breakfast no longer had a sausage in it*. Horrors. From there it's been downhill all the way.
*Except for Business Class who still got a sausage, but it was the smaller sausage previously served in economy. This was worth it for the irony value in seeing some alleged Big Swinging Dick complaining to the trolley dolly about the pathetic size of his sausage.
Nobody would notice, I think.
A construction crew took out our whole Reichstag (parliament building) the other day and no one gave a damn. Except for when the greens started crowing they would still use the toilets (apparently the flushing mechanism is somehow dependent on electric power and so they were closed) and nobody could forbid them to make shit.
Of course our greens are experts at producing shit that some other poor sod has to clean up.
At least it afforded us a good laugh on the Spiegel forums.
... this just can't be right. Anonymous are about representing the 'rights' of people, you know defending freedom of speech, and all that whatnot. Not just a bunch of self serving, self interested criminals... I know because I keep reading it from the posts of some of the duller members here.
A DDOS is very different to a sit in, for a start at a sit in you have to get up from behind your computer and go to where your are going to protest. When you are at the sit in, you are demonstrating that you disagree with whatever you are protesting against. A company suffering a sit in can get a court order to order you to leave the site. A DDOS however is slacktivism, it's a few clicks of a mouse and you are hidden from pretty much all consequences, unless you are unlucky.
Oh and for the record: Don't ever compare Dr King with Anonymous, just don't, it's grossly offensive. Protesting against racism, racial segregation, a corrupt legal system and lynchings is nothing, absolutely nothing like protesting that someone prosecuted you for taking their copyright.
"Oh and for the record: Don't ever compare Dr King with Anonymous, just don't, it's grossly offensive. Protesting against racism, racial segregation, a corrupt legal system and lynchings is nothing, absolutely nothing like protesting that someone prosecuted you for taking their copyright."
Pretty soon Assange will be compared with Hans and Sophie Scholl, by ignorant twats who think that freedom means freedom to do WTH they want.
The rise of moralfags to such a degree where they control anon is sad indeed, back in the day they were internet Mongels trashing peoples forums, social website profiles, online tv shows, social games and, anyone who just happened to look like they'd be funny to troll, for no reason other than it was hilarious.
Now most anons think the cockmonglers real name is grinman, and that they're on some kind of crusade for a higher purpose and that being anon is cool.
However there's true anon out there, patching their voices into their ero games to enhance their sexy times. Like a hoard of worker ants.
Did any of these attacks hurt Big Content in any way that mattered? No.
All they did was give the oportunity to Big Content to make themselves appear under attack and chased by the big bad "hackers" (their friends at news corps certainly helped with that by overblowing and distorting the facts). While the actual harm to Big Content is zero.
This is bad, because the general public had just started to form and unpleasant picture for Big Content, and now they start forming a bad picture for consumer rights activists and possibly the internet in general, while Big Content suddenly appears as the good guy.
Anonymous needs to regroup. Either find a way to hack Big Content in a way that matters, or stop those silly DoS attacks. They are not harming Big Content, period. You can instead focus on creating an easy to access torrent repository in some remote island in the pacific , offering the latest releases from piratebay. That might hurt them.
The intelligence and education of the average loud-mouthed member of Anonymous is well defined by their lack of grammar, spelling and geopolitical insight. Most members of Anonymous, as enthusiastic as they are, are unlikely to understand the reasons behind the actions they are being encouraged to carry out.
It's too bad, because they could become far more effective if they understood the long-term effects of their actions. Most appear primarily interested in being able to download stuff for free off of their parents' Internet connection without having to work to pay for it, and mixed with the attributes of your garden-variety attention whore they are likely to do more damage than good.
Sure, they use AnonOps for their base of operations, but how much structure is there to their operations, and how much of that structure is your typical Anonymous slacktivist (I love that term and am going to spread it around like their mommas spread their legs if their end of the gene pool is any proof) going to be aware of?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
