Monday, December 22, 2014

Anonymous and Sony

Okay, this isn't exactly a Times article.  I don't trust even the major newspapers or media outlets, so trusting this outlet to be accurate is a stretch.  Still, pretty cool.

But why would anonymous do this?  What does it accomplish?  Nothing much, except, hopefully, the release of what looks like a pretty funny movie.

I'm glad to know that anonymous, at least some of them, and I agree, it wasn't North Korea behind this hack.

The Freedom of Information act does not give the public the right to the work product of corporations, the act gives individuals the right to view government records which are not confidential.  The act is specifically a U.S. thing, Sony is a Japanese company.

Not sure discussing the Freedom of Information act makes a lot of sense.  I'm also sure anonymous knows that 100K for a 43M dollar movie is chump change.

Sony should have dumped "The Interview" to PirateBay back around December 4th or 5th when they understood this mess was real.  No one would have believed Sony corporate had done it.  Now, if the movie hits bittorrent everyone knows it will have happened because Sony corporate made it happen.

Anonymous isn't exactly an advocate of Free Speech, they tend to quash the speech of those they disagree with.  In some cases, such as child pornography, I agree with them.  In other cases, I disagree.

I don't have much use for totalitarian groups of any kind.  I believe in minimal restrictions on freedom, however, I believe that some freedoms, such the the freedom to exploit children in sex for profit ventures, the freedom to enslave people, the freedom to force a person to do anything, need to be restricted.

I can argue against homosexuality from, probably, around 40 different view points.  The only viewpoint I can argue for homosexuality is that people have the right to do whatever they want with other consenting adults.  I don't believe I have the right to forbid anyone from doing anything with other people as long as no one is hurt.  So, as a Christian, while I think of homosexuality as a sin, and I can argue against it in many different ways, I also believe that people have the God given right to choose their own lives.  The only people who get into heaven are sinners.  Since no one is perfect, everyone ends up at the end times with unrepentant sin.  Those who have a personal relationship with Christ enter.  Those who don't will choose a different path, no matter how "holy" or "religious" they were believed to be on Earth.

Were I the kind of person who believed that what I believe is right and people who do not agree with me are wrong, I would want homosexuality outlawed since I believe it is "wrong".  Here is the problem with that for me, God created choice so if I make "bad" choices punishable I am placing myself in God's judgment seat.  I set myself up as equal in ability to judge with God.

That isn't a popular belief set, but, it is mine.

I do believe in taking action against those who are interfering with the rights of others to choose.  For example, Westboro Baptists are welcome to sit in their church and spew their garbage to each other.  They have the right to publish their sh*t to the web.  They have the right to protest.  They don't have the right to disrupt funerals and cause emotional damage to others, in my opinion.

I thought the actions of people who stood in front of the WBC protesters was great.  Even though I agree with anonymous about the WBC, I didn't think and don't think that attacking the free use of the Internet and disrupting the WBC's freedom of speech was a good idea.

No matter how much I hate a particular ideology, I have no right to stop someone from spewing it, unless, as in the case of a funeral, it causes deliberate emotional or physical damage.

That's my basic ideology though, what about anonymous.  Truthfully, I think anonymous uses a similar ideology, except, they have no problem attacking the things they hate, regardless of anyone's right to freedom of speech or net neutrality or Internet Freedom.  In addition, the individual members often jump to conclusions and strike without really understanding what it is they are doing.

That is not always a bad thing.  It is often better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.  Still, anonymous, in many ways, becomes the very thing they hate when they suppress the net freedoms and the individual and collective freedom of speech.  Anonymous becomes the jack booted, totalitarian thug that they hate.

Is it possible to protest against a system willing to kill people without becoming that jack booted thug?  Truthfully, I doubt it.  There will be collateral damage in any war.  Soldiers will kill the wrong people.  Some will commit terrible crimes.  It becomes impossible to police every individual soldier in any war.  Anonymous is engaged in a war and they will screw up, they will commit war crimes.

Does that make them evil?  No more than it makes anyone else evil.  No one is perfect.  No one agrees with everyone about everything.  No one disagrees with everyone about everything.

So why the Sony thing?  What does it accomplish?

Truthfully, I'm not sure I care.  I hope anonymous manages to get the movie released so I can watch it on the big screen.  If not, I hope it is available on bittorrent so I can see it on my flat screen.

And I hope the GOP releases everything they have on Sony to Wikileaks.  That is where that information belongs anyway.  Maybe anonymous can hack GOP and make that happen.  Now, that would be cool :-)

No comments: