A terrorist group with the power of sudo is a scary thought.

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/149/

Right. Because that's all they do. Let's see:

1) Stole from Symantec and released the code: https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7014253

2) stole from pcanywhere and released the code: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2012/02/07/anon...

Funny thing is, Google does the same thing with the GPL (IE: "theft" of code): http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/8991.html and the people here on HN want to crucify them.

It's so easy to hide behind a handle/username online. It takes no balls or courage because you have little to no risk. The mere fact that they do this shows me that they aren't really serious about their views and are most likely anti-social kids (or adults with the maturity of kids).

This is stuff that I would have enjoyed when I was 15.

Relax, he was just poking fun at your error in using 'sudo' (the linux super-user command) instead of 'pseudo' (the prefix meaning counterfeit).

Not sure if this is a response to the joke or not, though...

You think that was an error? come on, it's HN!

I ... think it might have been intentional. Notice the xkcd comic.

I don't know what Fox News told you old geezers, but anonymous is not a group. Governments can act in the name of anonymous, and I'm sure they do (surprise!). You're missing the point, but that won't stop you from spewing your condescending garbage.

right. It's not a group. Also, way to generalize!

If a government attacked people they didn't agree with without a trial (Even under the name "Anonymous"), I don't think I would agree with them either.

Anyone using the name "Anonymous" to attack another that they don't agree with is wrong.

I don't like the people the people at the wall street protests so I'm going to steal all their credit card info or fake a police report that they are child molesters. But don't worry, it's all under the name Anonymous...so it's okay!!!!!!!

those examples are from the same theft

> I would never want to be associated with them.

That's rather the idea of being anonymous.

I also will not follow anyone that silences your opinion merely because they disagree. This isn't the purpose of down voting, but it's obvious to me that the supporters of anonymous feel this way.

You most likely aren't downvoted because people want to "silence" your opinion, but because your expression of it is aggressive, unfriendly and borders on ad hominem. That's why I myself downvoted you, at least.

It's fine being critical of Anonymous. Just accusing them of being "terrorists" and "having no balls" is neither constructive criticism nor an opinion worth discussing.

"It's fine being critical of Anonymous. Just accusing them of being "terrorists" and "having no balls" is neither constructive criticism nor an opinion worth discussing."

It's called an opinion. Garbage is spewed about the US government weekly on HN and nobody calles it "ad hominem" (which you also can't just throw around).

I provided proof. Here is another example:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/anonymous-hack...

They sound like terrorists, act like terrorists, so I'm going to call them what they are. I don't care if you disagree.

For Anonymous to be "terrorists", don't they have to successfully scare someone? Or, you know, kill people? Stealing code and DDoSing websites, boy, I sure am quaking in my boots.

For the record, I downvoted you not because I disagree, though I do, but for your tone which was insulting without anything to back it up. Your comment simply didn't add to the discussion.

I provided two articles. I provided another one further down. I think the difference is that you don't agree that those are terrorist acts, not that I didn't provide proof.

Christ, I'm so glad nobody here on HN is running a country.

Releasing some Symantec source code is hardly a great act of terror. Mild embarrassment maybe, but that's about it.

I disagree that they're terrorist acts, but I seriously just downvoted you because of your tone. It was uncivil.

Best to do nothing then, and be one of those who stood aside.

Those are hardly the only two options.

I would rather have my own group. That doesn't hide behind a computer screen.