Anonymous spaffs Monsanto employees' details Anonymous has latched onto yet another new target with the release of potentially sensitive data from controversial agricultural giant Monsanto. The notorious hacktivist collective released the names, addresses, emails and phone numbers of more than 2,500 Monsanto employees and affiliates, as part of an action its has …
"Few in the rag-tag group seem much bothered by the possible collateral damage caused by the release of personnel data on serving soldiers, gamers or others that its various operations have spewed onto the net. "
Likewise, I don't seem much bothered if they all end up in jail somewhere. There's no higher purpose, no noble cause here; it's just purely criminal.
It's too easy for people to say "I just work here". That doesn't fly when you commit other crimes, so why should it work for employees of really bad corporations? Trafigura springs to mind - if I knew someone who worked for Trafigura, I would try to avoid associating with that person. They should find another job that doesn't contribute to bad stuff.
Whether this is a reasonable proposition in the current economic climate, or whether this is a proportional "punishment" for someone working for Monsanto, is another matter altogether.
"It's too easy for people to say "I just work here". That doesn't fly when you commit other crimes, so why should it work for employees of really bad corporations?"
OK, well by that logic we can tar and feather the cashiers at my local RBS? They have absolutely nothing to do with the problems RBS brought onto the population, but why not, if it brings you catharsis.
I would say RBS is not a good example - the low-level employees had no idea what the clowns in investment were doing. That's why I chose Trafigura as an example - no-one will argue that they're saints.
Again, I know it's hard to justify in our economic system, let alone in the current economic slump, but people should choose not to work there. It's one of the few ways we can affect corporate behaviour.
appears to be one of the declared targets in the article .......
Or the receptionist at Monsanto, she is just working there to pay to bring up her children, does she deserve to be tarred and feathered?
Not everybody even thinks that Mansanto is unethical by the way, how about the scientists who think what they are doing is a good thing?
I think describing Monsanto as evil is way over the top?
That aside you don't really have any justification for the poor wee lass who is just working there to pay her bills, as the office is just down the block, and they gave her a job? Why should she take a load of flack for your suspicions that Monsanto are evil?
They have seen the power of their actions, and like it, so now they want to use it more. What will truly define them as a group will be knowing where to stop before they become more of a cyber terrorist organisation, than a group of direct activists.
Agree with another thread that publishing employee details is not on as this exposes innocents to risk, and this is what they seem to be doing.
If you poke too many Bears one of them will get you.
I guess that depends on the definition of innocent one chooses to apply.
I have no particular axe to grind here, not a massive fan of GM, which i understand is a field in which Monsanto are big players. (pun intended)
but if I was then I would almost certainly feel that 'innocent' people didnt work for Monsanto and by their own choices made themselves fair game.
Resorting to good ol Reductio ad absurdum - anyone worried about bin ladens right to privacy being curtailed? - apart from the pakistani authorities who were protecting him {oops}
I think a lot of the point of anon is that they are not a traditional type of 'group' I am curious to see if that really works:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/07/anonymous_feature/
this article touches on the issue, some people are more charismatic\ socially powerful(?) and inevetably end up taking a leadership role. i guess it could be that in anon the criteria are just different?
The cyber terrorist issue is kinda funny. Given the fact that AFAIK all anon targets could be accused of 'taking unfair advantage' using political power or old fasioned folding stuff to promote their agenda to the detrement of the wider public and bugger the consequences. (I assume this Monsanto is the same one that bought the '97 labour government, and in a totally unrelated sequence of events the '97 labour governement allowed Monsanto to plant GM crops in the wild when there was still significant disquet as to the wisdom of doing so)
Seems to me more that real world bullies ar straying into Anons playground and getting a bit of their own medicine.
Hardly unqualified support but as lurker says above. when you see the target it's hard not to say 'Oh Good!'
It would be fantastic, e.g to see rupert murdock's voicemail posted online :D
Illegal, for sure, but gloriously apposite.
Monsanto has been a target for the "oooh-a-bandwagon" crowd for years, probably starting with the hysteria around saccharin. They got special attention from the left when Monsanto came up with the Agent Orange defoliant used in 'Nam, despite Monsanto having no say in how the product was used by the US military. They've also been criticised for patenting their biotech work on products like seeds. For those Anons now desperate to look like they actually know something about Monsanto's "evil deeds", check out probably the most concise (if not the most frothing) online dump at http://www.laleva.cc/pharma/monsantofiles.html.
It seems that whenever one of these stories come out, someone is always quick to brand the hackers with the C word. What an amazingly insightful observation! You could be a lawyer.
Or maybe that's not the point at all. Maybe they resorted to such methods because the legal system is largely controlled by big companies like their opponents so little can be done against them within it. Or maybe they're just trouble-makers out for a laugh. But they're criminals either way so I'm not sure what point that observation is supposed to make.
It almost seems like these comments are attempting to base the definitions of right and wrong on the law, when of course it should be the other way around.
Likely it was the dead ducks that pushed them to this. One of the problems the tar sands has is difficulty dewatering hydrocarbon tailings. Ducks see the glistening water and land, but get stuck in the hydrocarbon laden fines left over from the process. I'd like to see technologically adept but rabid enviros try to come up with a dewatering method that works instead of simply bashing the industry outright. Surface chemistry courses are available at all your fine engineering schools.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
