Whenever I see a journalist romanticize Anon or LulzSec (Violet didn't), I'm reminded of pastor Martin Niem?ller's oft-quoted but seldom-assimilated lines:
"...Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
As long as quick-draw cybercriminals are free to "shoot and kill" whomever they please, none of us is safe. Not even their fans and sycophants.
As long as these cybercriminals fail to internally restrain themselves--and what "born-again" from any cause can do that?--they give foundation and examples to those who would wrap us all in more laws, restrictions, mandatory consent forms, licenses, permits, registrations, fees, taxes, and, oh yes, databases.
Must Anon and LulzSec hasten the day when ISPs are required to provide feds the private info they have on every subscriber--including IP address, installation address, and credit card info?
Ironic that this "freedom-promoting" dupe-group is the exact instrument and excuse that governments and militaries will use to legalize snooping deeper and tightening their nooses on your and my freedom of expression and (former) privacy.
If I were a conspiracy buff, I'd suspect that was the goal all along.
Naah!
Discussion on:
Message 9 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
