Comments on: As far as cyber-pranks go, this one is just wrong..

By: drbuzz0

drbuzz0 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:58:56 +0000

Yes, but there is actually a loosely-organized group known as “Anonymous.” Yes, it is confusing because the word normally is used generically. Also there is a band (or was) who’s name was “The Band.”

This lead to similar confusion.

By: DavidK

DavidK — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:59:31 +0000

Anyone can be anonymous on-line. Scientology is against its members taking medication to stop them from getting seizures, for example, Tory “Magoo” Christman – http://www.entheta.net/archive/personal_story/tory/affidavit.html

Jocelyn Dorfmann died from an epileptic seizure in Scientology care in France – http://www.whyaretheydead.net/others/Jocelyne_Dorfmann_34.html

Heribert Pfaff died from an epileptic seizure in a Scientology hotel in Clearwater – http://www.whyaretheydead.net/room758.html

James Stewart committed suicide after CoS put in him in a Condition of Doubt for having epileptic seizures in public – http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/kult-epelep.htm

By: Dave G

Dave G — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:42:31 +0000

I don’t know if it was Scientology and I won’t speculate too much, but I would not put it past them!

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:06:00 +0000

barky said:

I’m a former Scientologist, and can tell you with absolute certainty that skepticism is indeed the correct choice here. It is not unlike Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs (their covert ops wing) to do these type of things to frame Anon. They’ve done it before: http://www.xenu.net.

Well if I understand correctly it was simply a few posts with some Javascript in them so it would be very easy to hide. At best they might keep the IP address, but that’s easy to deal with by using a public proxy. I doubt that we will know for sure who did this unless someone squeels.

My gut feeling is that it was not “Anonymous” or anyone involved with that. I doubt there would be any evidence unless it was something like a calling card or there was some word or code that pointed to Anonymous without actually admitting it straight out.

I can see how a hacker-type might leave that. Something like their initials: claims credit but totally unprovable to be connected to one person. Only there is one problem with this and that is that this event is so meanspirited I don’t think anyone would claim credit for it because people would backlash. It might be circular logic but I bet it was planted. But I still don’t think they’ll ever prove anything.

By: barky

barky — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:44:35 +0000

I’m a former Scientologist, and can tell you with absolute certainty that skepticism is indeed the correct choice here. It is not unlike Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs (their covert ops wing) to do these type of things to frame Anon. They’ve done it before: http://www.xenu.net.

By: Howard

Howard — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:52:55 +0000

Well that’s fine if it’s not an organization and is just a loose group following. I don’t see why that matters. If they can track this back to any person then they should be prosecuted whether or not they did it completely on their own or whether it was a bunch of people or whatever. Anyone who actually was involved in it should be prosecuted, but I don’t think they will because it’s very hard to trace these things back. The way someone will get caught is if they go and brag to friends about it which is often the way these things crack.

By: Sung Li Kim

Sung Li Kim — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:55:16 +0000

Having lurked among them for a while, the deal with this “Anonymous” group is pretty complicated. They’re not any particular organization, but rather just Internet posters scattered across a few message boards and IRC channels. They’re not very cohesive – organized things like CoS is only the doing of a few big pushers and a legion of drones which follow them, while others may be cruising Myspace or Livejournal looking for trouble, still others pranking websites such as the one mentioned, etc… There is no central command. It’s hard to consider them an “organization” any more than a cluster of insects (Even those tend to have some sort of structure!)

Even if someone attempted legal action, there wouldn’t be much they can do except at most close some of the forums. Then I’m sure (as it has happened before) they will very quickly move onto another.

I suppose it’s more of a nomadic Internet warrior tribe more than anything.

By: Howard

Howard — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:06:48 +0000

The worst thing this caused was a day-long severe migraine. If however you ever get migraines and someone triggered the worst one you had had in a year or more you would want blood and have little mercy on the person responsible.

Seriously though, just based on the pain it caused it’s about as bad as a mild physical assault in severity. I’d not even bother with any hacking charges. Those don’t get much for this kind of thing and at worst it’s a trip to Club Fed. If the state that this person is in is in the US then they should forget the fact that it was online and treat it like multiple counts of assault.

By: Magic Donuts

Magic Donuts — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:05:53 +0000

Yeah lets not forget that there’s just some circumstantial evidence that it might have been anonymous. It’s not proven so we can’t condemn them but whoever it was it was inexcusable.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:43:16 +0000

I wouldn’t be so quick to accuse Anonymous. Scientology has a proven track record of faking bomb threats to incriminate opponents.

I’m staying skeptical.