Anonymous playing the role of policeman

Remove this Banner Ad

Remember when Anonymous were the internet hate machine all about the lulz and bullying people to they an hero and delicious, delicious cheese pizza?

Now though....

533w9z7.jpg
 
Remember when Anonymous were the internet hate machine all about the lulz and bullying people to they an hero and delicious, delicious cheese pizza?

Now though....

533w9z7.jpg


Christ. I feel awkward just looking at those nerds
 
Hmmmm... I seem to remember the witch hunts which occurred after the Boston bombings thanks to Reddit. Best to leave actual investigations to the professionals instead of needlessly profiling and ruining innocent strangers lives
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Remember when Anonymous were the internet hate machine all about the lulz and bullying people to they an hero and delicious, delicious cheese pizza?

Now though....

533w9z7.jpg

That aspect of Anonymous still exists today. The difference is that they used to dwell on /b/ and similar, more public places. Now the hacktivist, hate machine aspect of Anonymous sit in inaccessible areas. Basically, they're smart about where's they're conducting business.

The reason for the pic above is because 'Anonymous' isn't actually a group. Anyone can claim they're a member of anonymous and no one can dispute it because it's not a group, it's a hivemind. The Anonymous of 2003-2008 are far removed from 4chan and /b/ now.
 
So, young girl so drunk she can't stand, and...

"The case was handled in juvenile court, but the Kansas City Star accessed police records of his interview in which he said although the girl said “no” multiple times, he undressed her, put a condom on and had sex with her.

and "For his part, Sheriff White maintains "no doubt" a crime was committed that night. "

the prosecutor who dropped the charges against the boys called it a case of "incorrigible teenagers" drinking alcohol and having sex. "They were doing what they wanted to do, and there weren’t any consequences. And it’s reprehensible. But is it criminal? No."

Well. I am confused.
 
Maybe not to the very letter of the definition but it's a pretty clear act of vigilantism. Many cases of vigilantism don't actually involve undertaking law enforcement but rather just harassing offenders, naming and shaming, making their life miserable etc,.

Seems rather strange your getting all in a huff with someone who is effectively supporting the same position as you.
Today Tonight?
In most cases without evidence or due diligence.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Who holds Anonymous to account?
Anonymous is not an organised collective, it can be anybody. Thus both positive and negative things will be done under the "anonymous" banner.

As a direct response to you actual question however, law enforcement agencies.

It is an interesting conundrum though because plenty of the high profile hacktivism associated with different groups at various time periods, under the moniker of anonymous, has been in direct response to abuses of power or political, religious, corporate and law enforcement corruption.

However, there are plenty of cases of social vigilantism, doing things for the lolz and just plain idiocy, since no one person or particular group can stake claim to the monicker.
 
CAMBUL NUMEN WATCH OUT U R NEKST!
Delivery could have been more succinct, but impossible to argue with the message.

Sadly for the effort taken to raise awareness on this issue, I would expect this individual will be the subject of state harassment after hundreds of man hours and thousands in taxpayer money are spent tracking him down, deciding how to respond, then if deemed worthwhile in building a case and trying to prosecute.

Ol Campbell Bjelke Peterson however, will keep being a dishonest fascist and possibly the worst state leader that Australia has seen in a while.
 
So, young girl so drunk she can't stand, and...

"The case was handled in juvenile court, but the Kansas City Star accessed police records of his interview in which he said although the girl said “no” multiple times, he undressed her, put a condom on and had sex with her.

and "For his part, Sheriff White maintains "no doubt" a crime was committed that night. "

the prosecutor who dropped the charges against the boys called it a case of "incorrigible teenagers" drinking alcohol and having sex. "They were doing what they wanted to do, and there weren’t any consequences. And it’s reprehensible. But is it criminal? No."

Well. I am confused.

Would be based on what she said to the prosecutor, based on statements to the police the kid would be in jail.

Police ask very specific questions matter of fact particularly when it comes to recorded interviews, leading questions can get the case thrown out.

The yank equivalent of the DPP, would prop to see how reliable the girl is, if he can confuse her or get her to admit at some stage she consented the case becomes clouded.

You also have to consider the fact given its a juvenile case there's the very real possibility interview tapes and even statements to the police may be excluded.

Of course it also maybe that the prosecutor is corrupt.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top