Anonymous targets US Chamber of Commerce website

Online mischief makers Anonymous are set to launch a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on the website of the US Chamber of Commerce later today, in retaliation for the organisation's support for the draft PROTECT IP Act.

The 'hacktivist' collective announced it would launch the DDoS attack at 20:00 Eastern Standard Time.
If passed, the 'Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property' Act - 'PROTECT IP', for short - will allow US Justice Department officials to force ISPs and search engines to block access to web sites it believes to be infringing US copyright laws, and would require other companies such as advertising network providers and payment processors to cease doing business with them.
Anonymous said that the US Chamber of Commerce is being targeted for its support for the bill, which critics accuse of having disastrous implications for freedom of speech and the open exchange of information online.
The collective issued the following call to arms yesterday:
"As pioneers of this new world, it’s our duty to resist and fight those who attempt to stop us. Whether you’re a journalist or blogger, or a participant of Anonymous, or the activists on the ground who protest against these corporate thugs and oppressive regimes and risk everything for freedom of information and speech, we are all in this battle together and we have a responsibility to protect our civil liberties.
"This attack tomorrow will send yet another message to the pigs that run the state that we will not be another cog in the f****d up clock that these corporate entities attempt to preserve through their political puppets in Washington.
"This is our world now and we will fight for it. Take it or leave it."

Thoughts and comments?

You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 4

    I agree with anonymous on this there is enough censorship in this world we don't need this crap as well. This should not be allowed to pass and I hope it never does.

  • 2

    I completely disagree with this, a cyber attack on the US government is most definitely not the way to go. If you want the bill to not be passed then you should protest it, not by sending a cyber attack. I disagree with the bill completely but I am 100 percent against the attack.

  • 1

    Somehow... I get the idea that there are better ways of enacting positive change than cyber attacks on the US government.

    Despite what us Americans have been told, one man can't change anything. I'm not sure of your nationality, but, most large nations are dominate, and want a dictatorship hidden by a democratic curtain.
    - EDman123 June 1, 2011, 5:26 am
    The only way one person can change anything is to gain the support of the people. So no, one person can't change anything by themselves, but one person can get the ball rolling.

    Declaring cyber war on the US Government without the support of the people (BTW support on the internet is NOT the same as public support IRL) will only serve to alienate Anon from the majority of the people, reducing their influence.

    Furthermore, they should be pushing for more practical compromises. For example, having a concrete and transparent criteria for shutting down a website that is open for viewing to the public.

    Cyber attacks should be their last resort, not their opening move.
    - BobTheJanitor June 1, 2011, 5:44 am
    It's a peaceful riot, no? There's no real way this could alienate Anonymous, seeing as how, once people find out about this, they'll hate it too. I have nothing to fear, but I don't want the government all up in my IP. That's my personal stuff, and if Obama wants some porn sites to look at, he should just ask.
    - EDman123 June 1, 2011, 5:57 am
    one mans IDEA can change a country not the man himself.
    - 24paperwings June 1, 2011, 6:34 am
    There is actually a very real way this could alienate Anon. Because they did not lay the necessary public relations groundwork BEFORE attacking, and just assumed that public support would come out of nowhere. All it takes is some fat ass in Washington to claim "cyber terrorism", connect Anon to the PSN outage, and the majority of people will turn against Anon.

    And before you tell me "Anon didn't attack PSN", I already know that. But there are two reasons it doesn't matter:
    1) A "press release" by Anon on an obscure website most people don't even know about is not enough to dispell the rumor that they did it. For many people, the PSN outage is the first time they heard about Anon. Lets not forget that there is still a good sized group of people that think Obama is a Muslim.
    2) Even if the public doesn't care about whether or not Anon was involved in the PSN outage, the very "press release" they put out about it alluded to the fact that fringe elements within Anon could have done it without the consent of the organization. That same fat ass in Washington can than claim that the organization has no hierarchy and is therefore out of control, made all the more damaging by the fact that it is somewhat true.

    To be absolutely clear, I am not debating whether or not Anon's goals are right or wrong, just the methods they use.
    - BobTheJanitor June 1, 2011, 6:34 am
    Exactly, but if the person who had the idea doesn't put forward the effort to make is idea heard, and more importantly understood, than nothing will happen.
    - BobTheJanitor June 1, 2011, 6:38 am
    I agree entirely about what you're saying (just butting in and adding my opinions) but if someone doesn't stand up against stuff like this, then we're essentially letting people control what we can and cannot view based on some fat cats judgement in power. I'm English, but no doubt if the Americans do this, we'll quickly follow. We have freedom of expression and freedom of speech and we should be allowed to express it, and I for one don't want some big shot bill in Government deciding what I can and cannot look at. I like Anonymous, and I hope to God that they can do something about this to stop it..
    - SuDoku June 1, 2011, 6:50 am
    How about this, Bob, if the government(I am America, obviously) decides to false-claim we did something, I will publicly, irl, claim my allegiance to Anon(with a disguise on) and, not to be a spokeperson, but more of someone who can relay information. Messenger of sorts.
    - EDman123 June 1, 2011, 6:57 am
    That is actually exactly what is at stake. If Anon keeps going nuclear right off the bat without cultivating public opinion first, they risk being alienated to the public. If that happens it doesn't matter how right they are if nobody trusts them.

    Off topic, I'm glad to see you've taken to KitKatKid's picture of you.
    - BobTheJanitor June 1, 2011, 6:58 am
    Well they've got my vote. I know it's only one person and it's not even in the same country, but if they pass this people have the right to go batshit insane.
    And the impression I'm getting is only people in your government want this, no-one else. Yes a cyber attack may not be the way to go, but I hope they can fuck shit up bad style for them.

    Thanks, I like it :)
    - SuDoku June 1, 2011, 7:02 am
    Your getting the idea, but that sort of thing would have to be done beforehand and at a large scale. For example: get a ton of people in Anon masks to protest the Act, make clear what it is you dislike about it( stay as specific as possible, avoid at all costs generalizations like "America is run by Corporations", even if it is true in some cases), and make clear why you disagree with the Act( again, stay specific).

    THEN, if the fat asses ignore you, you do a cyber attack. Again, don't use language that makes you sound like some weird jihadist-communist. That will show people that Anon is organised, reasonable, and more importantly: has the teeth and backbone to stand up for what they represent. That is how you win a public relations battle.
    - BobTheJanitor June 1, 2011, 7:19 am
    Thank you, and even though I'm a very well informed American (even watch BBC news), this is the first I have even heard of this PROTECT IP Act. Unfortunately, any media coverage about it now will most likely be about the attack, not the Act itself.
    - BobTheJanitor June 1, 2011, 8:17 am
    I heard about this a few months back because I got an e-mail about it for some reason. Well that's the problem isn't it? The media might as well be a branch of Government it reports what they want you to know. The only time it doesn't is during an election, or in the UK at the time of the Government expenses scandal.
    - SuDoku June 1, 2011, 8:22 am
    In America, it's not so much that the media is controlled by the government, it's that the media only reports on things that will get them better ratings. The more people that watch the show, the more they can charge for ads, so earthquakes and celebrity scandals will always trump things like the government crackdown in Syria and the ongoing fight in Libya. If wars can't beat a celebrity scandal for the media's attention, then a copyright law sure won't.
    - BobTheJanitor June 1, 2011, 9:02 am
    I completely agree. I hate turning the news on and hearing about who Jordan's divorced this week or which Premier League footballers shagged which slag, I'd rather know about the important things. What gets me, is these days if a soldier is killed in Afghanistan, it's no longer big news. These people give their lives and they get all of 30 seconds coverage, if that.
    - SuDoku June 1, 2011, 9:09 am
Related Posts