And the corporations they seek to disrupt are just high-life thugs. They may have a lot more power and money, but they are equally corrupt.

And two wrongs do NOT make a right. There are better and far more effective LEGAL ways to bring attention to corporate issues than this pointless grandstanding Big Brother Anonymous wastes our time with. And in the meantime, the only ones who are truly affected by their antics are common everyday people, like you and me, who get to pay the price for the crimes of Anonymous. Or do you honestly think a company such as Monsanto would hesitate to pass the cost of "system upgrades" or "improved security" to their customers and the general public?

Ha!! Laws?! How have those laws protected us against banks, corrupt politicians and giant corporations? Bankers, politicians and corporations run amok destroying environment, lives and our dignity. Never once taking responsibility, laughing in our faces profiteering from the breakdown they cause! Show me where the "LEGAL" system has in recent history brought these corporate sluts to justice. Monsanto sues poor farmers for accidental cross pollination and WINS where is there justice. Now this Giant seeks to destroy the organic industry by making us accept their genetically manipulated grains AND IS WINNING. When will this LEGAL system work for us??? I'm sorry I LOVE the Idea of Anonymous! All the governments in the world could not fight against Anonymous, because in the end Anonymous is an Idea not a person and if an Idea is popular you can never defeat it.

Alex, don't worry about the cost of Monsanto products being "passed on" to the "general public." The entire Earth and all her beings--water systems, land, all creatures--are already paying for M's genomicide through theft of indigenous knowledge. Price hikes on RoundUp need not effect you personally; DON'T BUY IT! Monsanto does not offer one single product that the world needs!

Actually Renee, not buying their products is EXACTLY what people should do -- that's a perfect (and legal) way to make your voice as a consumer heard. When a company's profits fall, their advertisers leave, and stores begin refusing to stock their wares, the company WILL revise it's approach.

With corporations, always remember that THEY need US for our money far more than WE need THEM for their products.

In the meantime, we can contact our local and national elected officials, boycott retailers, distributors, manufacturers, as well as the products themselves, and make sure the word is out to the public at large through public forums, media, petitions, legal and peaceful protests, and non-frivolous lawsuits until the laws are updated to reflect the best interests of the people they are intended to serve.

The laws DO work, Nonya -- but only if YOU put in the work to HELP them to work. The perfect place to start working on that is at the ballot box, where the legislators who pass those laws get their start -- and if for whatever reason you're not voting, then I'm afraid you're as much a part of the problem as Monsanto is.

Being "new to Anonymous," I'd suggest you do a bit of research on them before you get too committed.

This is the same group who was disguising pornographic videos as children's videos and uploading them to YouTube. The same group who has been attacking the very concept of copyright, all because they don't want to pay for their music and videos. The same group who hacked the Epilepsy Foundation website and placed seizure-inducing images on the front page. The same group who attacked scores of online gaming sites just to be a nuissance to players, and who are most likely behind the recent Playstation Network data theft (which exposed millions of people's private information, leaving them all wide open for mind-numbingly easy identity theft). The same group who spent it's early years hacking Facebook accounts and harrassing posters on online forums.

So noble! Yeah. Riiiight.

And whatever cause you mistakenly believe they are supporting, either as an entity or as individual members, will forever be tainted by those criminal actions.

There was a really nice couple who lived down the street from us when I was growing up. They had the biggest Christmas display in the neighborhood, and were always willing and able to lend a hand to anyone in need. They even donated enough for the local church to rebuild when a storm nearly demolished the old building. So it was a bit of a surprise to everyone when they were arrested. As it turns out, they were running one of the largest meth rings in the state. The husband was wanted for three murders, the wife for two others. When the police burst in on them, the wife was sorting over $18 million in cash spread over their living room floor. Their home had enough automatic weapons to fully equip a small army. The church moved to a new building across town about two months later, as no one felt very comfortable being there once we knew where the money that rebuilt it came from. Because no matter how many good deeds that couple were responsible for, the blood-money taint never went away once it was exposed. And no matter what good you think Anonymous is doing, it will always carry the taint of tens of millions of innocent victims who were just in the way.

As far as Monsanto's product line... try Google for a start, before you start tossing claims of "ignorance" around. It's pretty easy to find listings of dozens of products and brands for which they are directly responsible, from Maverick to RoundUp to Genuity to De Ruiter Seeds and on and on and on... heck, the Monsanto website alone lists their direct product line, even including full-color logos for the reading impaired.

Make a list of products, either professional or consumer or both... then call or visit your local stores and see if they carry them. Yeah, it really is THAT simple.

And if you have an issue with "corrupted politicians" in your area, I refer you to my earlier point: vote. Because YOU have the power to get rid of those corrupt politicians. You. Vote for someone you can trust -- or, at the very least, the lesser of two evils. Do a little campaigning for the "good guys," even if it's just chatting with coworkers at the water cooler. And if you're really riled up, run for office yourself. My neighbor did -- sure, he lost, but he raised awareness of hydraulic fraking in our community, which led the city to ban it outright a month after the elections... which led to several neighboring communities to ban it as well... and now there's state legislation to even further restrict it. See how it works? That's the system in action.

While it may not be fast enough for the "omgIGottaHaveItRightFingNow" generation, it does move and it does get the job done, especially when people (like you and me) put a little effort into it.

The only sheeple I see are the cheerleaders who blindly tail along behind Anonymous with their pom poms, oblivious to the harm their hacker-wannabe antics are causing to the general public.

As I have said before, any fool can destroy something they do not agree with, or attempt to manipulate with nothing more than fear and intimidation -- true change will require work, and effort to succeed. True change will come about because companies and governments WANT to embrace that change, because they hear the voices of the people and respond to them -- not because some script kiddy pulled some public files off a server and danced around like an idiot.

The childish antics of Anonymous will simply make these companies distance themselves from the public ear, at best. It's not helping anyone but Anonymous, who gets some jollies and keeps their name in the headlines.

Alex---> On every article pertaining to Annonymous I see you make the same general comments. "Change takes time and work to succeed" "everyone who generally approves of these big wig companies being attacked is a blind sheep" "ect.". I'd surely love to see your grand plan to expose the terrible things these corperations and buisinesses do, effectively fight against these entities once their transgressions are exposed, and resolve these issues without any harm done to anyone else. The question comes to mind, what power or influence do you actually believe the people have? If the damage prices are already going to be handed on to the consumer and the prices if they weren't attacked but have lax secrity are already forced on the consumer where then is the win? Do you find solice in the reglatory commision? Our government? These buisinesses? Who do you think exactly cares? What side do you think the regulatory commisions or government would take? The taxpayer that gives them "x" amount of dollars or the buisiness that gives them "y"(a larger number) amount of dollars along with the veil of jobs and raising the countries overall GDP? Seems either way the common persons voice is ignored for the value of a dollar. Why exactly would a government or company or buisiness or whatever suddenly change their beliefs and start listening to the people that support their products when they can simply force their will and nothing negative happens? Do you think someone listens better to the person without any punch behind their words, or someone showing equal force? A fly in a grand hall isn't a nuisance until it starts buzzing solely in your face, and until then the fly can be rightfully ignored. I think what Annonymous is really trying to say is... BUZZZ. So would you please explain the alternative you seek in order gain the same ends, that has the same impact, and changes the apparent buisiness model of "money first at any means necessary". Or would you rather criticize others who are trying to make a difference even if you don't like their methods or agree with their ideals. What are these alternate avenues to change you claim exist and how exactly should these methods be deployed? Because this ain't something that can wait 10 years to appear any more. Hey thats buisiness.

And if you would bother reading more than the first line of my posts you would clearly see what my "grand plan" is -- it's not rocket science, it's common sense, and it's been proven to work time and time again.

Tossing your hat behind a gaggle of online thugs looking for cheap laughs, easy thrills, and self-gain may seem like it's changing things, but it's not -- it's just hurting innocent people who are caught in the crossfire and driving those corporate targets further away from the people who want them to listen. Because the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily going to be your friend.

Actually, I did bother to read more than your first line. The only conclussion I can come up with as your "grand" idea involves hopes and dreams of waiting for enough response from the populace in which the power of their voices might etch some need for dialogue between some "champion of their cause" and these companies that practice shoddy buisiness in hopes this will change their methods from buisiness tactics that center solely on money. The conundrum is that you can't deny that each attack they do sparks interest in the causes they expose because they take local or regional problems that may not of been seen enmasse' before, and expose them to a much larger crowd, thus opening up the statistical possibility of a "champion" or several that will continue the fight. Your "grand" plan to wait and talk and bocott and strike and wait and so on may have been effective in the past and for different causes such as with unions, but its use was against a whole different animal. What care does a company have for its consumers past their desire to consume? Unfortunately that desire and necessity can't be satiated because thats what we all do and need to live. Whether the company sells oil, clothing, food, whatever still they will have consumers. To them its the stock holders voices that are heard, much as its fellow congress members and council members and so on that are heard over the people they serve when it comes to drafting new laws that affect more then just themselves, and, more commonly then not, are drafted to the benifit of these corperations and buisinesses who also paid to have a voice, but theirs speaks much closer to the ear of those making laws then ours because of "donations". The same is true wherever buisiness and government meet. What option do you have left when you uncover that bias? This is why it is a different animal and can't possibly be treated as the same. Although, I have to agree in the fact that it would give argument for Annonymous much more solid ground if they did more to follow up their agenda with these attacks in order to help coax the movements they started, and it does seem very anarchist to simply disrupt to prove a point then move on, so I understand your apprehension and aggression against their tactics. And saying things aren't changing is farce, because they have already made changes happen and that fact is undeniable. An example of this is that people all over have become more conscious of internet security and how their online information is secured and whom sees it. Awareness brought this change and even if it was done by accident it still deserves credit.

The enemy of my enemy IS my friend until our unified enemy is no more an enemy to me, then all bets are off, yet unified response mostnormally causes comradery.

Actually, I DO deny that they are sparking interest in causes, mainly because their primary targets to date are things that are already IN the news. Anonymous is simply coat-tailing their way into the headlines, and their actions do more to draw attention to themselves than to the cause you believe they are working for.

In fact, considering their repeated statement of doing it for the "lulz" I'd question any claim of a "cause" for them as a group -- take a look at their recent attacks on online games. A noble cause? Hardly. Kids looking for cheap jollies at the expense of others? Ding!

Seriously, which do you think will have more impact on a company like Monsanto:

-> During a basic DDoS, some random hackers find a way into into an obscure server and find publicly available contact information with a random group of people who may or may not be associated with the company. A month-and-a-half later, news of the breach reaches the media and is more-or-less ignored by the public because it's just not a very exciting or interesting story.

Or...

-> Local groups organize sustained public boycotts of retailers carrying Monsanto products, denouncing the company to the media and providing pre-prepared statements that cite specific data and incidents. Every day, as people go to work, school, or shopping, they will see these groups boycotting outside those stores. Every night it's on the local news. As word spreads, even more people join the boycotts. Sales drop, and stores begin to discontinue Monsanto products simply so they can continue to sell other products.

Think about it. Which is going to have the biggest impact: a breach of negligible data on an unimportant server that 9-in-10 people never even hear about... or the loss of millions in sales, the loss of retailers, and a general public-relations nightmare that's front-and-center on the news every night?

Being a profit-driven entity, a typical company is NOT going to change unless it has a REASON to change, specifically a financial reason. And as long as sales are good, that reason is not going to materialize, no matter how many people angrily vent against them in online blogs like this one. Attack the bottom line and start pulling the money away, and the company will respond and change their ways.

And THAT starts with you and me, average typical consumers with money to spend.

It doesn't take a "champion" to start something like that. It just takes one normal ordinary person to make a stand, to sound their voice. Remember Rosa Parks? She wasn't a prominent public figure like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or a revolutionary like Huey Newton or Bobby Seale -- she was just a middle-aged lady on a bus who said "no." One woman, one voice -- and she was heard and echoed by King and so many others until it all snowballed together into something huge, something that made a real difference for millions of people.

And that's something that phishing a random server for lulzs will never accomplish.

How? In what way do you factuate the statement that you don't see the sparking of interest in every cause they persue? Seems to have sparked your interest in each of their attacks given your obvious awareness to them. Whether that is an interest in the group Annoymous and their actions or an interest in the causes they've haphazardly supported is mute because they walk hand and hand. If you are interested in the group you find out what they've done, if you are interested in the causes then by extension you hear about these groups. The "LULZ" you keep referring to very well could be the combined laughter of a bunch of childish punks but the facts reason to believe there is more behind their actions then you'd like to imagine. As for your senarios of which I think would have more impact, I think the answer is that both equally have impact yet one is more successful at quickly gaining supporters. With the DDoS attack, it is rare you'd ever hear of it unless something was taken that shouldn't have ever been availible or it was carried out in a public fashion. The reason is that these attacks are merely the over powering of servers with requests until no further requests can be granted resulting in shutting off service. More a nuisance then anything, but in doing these they are given publicity, which does spark deeper interest whether you'd like to admit it or not because, whereas in some cases the issues are trapped in local news, through "a breach of negligible data on an unimportant server that 9-in-10 people never even hear about" they are gifted a much larger pool of people. Which is greater: 9-in-10 from 24,000 or 9-in-10 from 24billion+? To further note this point, think about the fact that almost 60% to 70% of people worldwide do a significant amount of shopping online as opposed to going to the store in person. This means two things: One, there simply aren't as many consumers actually at the store in question because they sell the majority of their products in online forums to multiple nations, and two, because of reason "one", there simply aren't as many people standing those picket lines or boycotting these products in person or even going to these stores to affect change as you may beleive when compared to the overwhelming dent that internet versions such as DDoS attacks do. Not saying there wouldn't be people standing to show their anger, just saying that these attacks do indeed offer up much more opportunity for the consumer to become involved if desired.

Being a profit-driven entity, a typical company is NOT going to change unless it has a REASON to change, specifically a financial reason. And as long as sales are good, that reason is not going to materialize, no matter how many people angrily vent against them in online blogs like this one. Attack the bottom line and start pulling the money away, and the company will respond and change their ways.

And THAT starts with you and me, average typical consumers with money to spend.

I'm very confused with this statement. You seem to understand the ways in which to force a company to change their ways, yet you fight against a method thats being employed thats doing just that. Is it because its internet based that you have an issue? Is it because you feel powerless in the internet enviroment? You are ok with people standing in protest, but you have some issue if they do so on the internet? Don't bother feeding me that "they stole creditcard numbers" bs because anyone with sense knows that all credit purchases are tracked and those criminals are, more often then not, caught because of their greed. The credit owner is almost never responsible for fraudulant purchases and the remedies are fairly painless to fix any issues that arise from credit fraud. I won't hear the argument "they stole peoples email, name, phone number, address, ect." becuase this is all public information that anyone can find out if they truely wanted to. So that aside, the real problem is that you feel that the disruption of an internet site from an unregulated group or party that wasn't voted in by popular choice causes unfair censorship to the people trying to access these materials and you feel people should be given the choice to view whatever content they wish without such impediment. Don't organized boycotts and the like do the same involitary censorship? You can still get all the products you want to even when they are boycotted but there is an added difficulty in doing so even if you aren't involved in the causes to which they are being boycotted, yet you become aware by the boycott. Also, do you not see the same ends are met with even with different routes? Do you see the relation of what you suggest as a method to tackle these problems compared to how groups like annonymous tackle the same problems? Its interesting you would quote Rosa Parks to defend peaceful rally when there was nothing peaceful about it according to law and doctrine at the time. It was considered an aggressive attack and unlawful just the same as you consider what annonymous is doing as an aggressive attack and unlawful, even more so at the time. Her actions weren't the spark to a revolution, but were ammunition for the cause because of how widely publisized the situation was and how it gained support for a movement. You can't argue that publicity doesn't garner support whether positively or negatively aquired, nor can you say that, through this groups publicity, support hasn't been aquired for the causes that publicity has been gained for. In all the documented cases, it isn't he actions that have caused change, yet it is because of these actions that others take arms and fight for the betterment of all in a diplomatic way where both sides have equal pull. Rosa Parks' refussal to move didn't change the laws she violated. But, through her actions, and the actons of others like her, inspired by her, and given courage to act because of her, a diplomatic solution was the result. Annonymous' actions in themselves won't change the world a bit, but through them others can find the courage to act and make the changes the world needs and even do so diplomatically. Why can't you pull the positive outcome from this yet?

"You seem to understand the ways in which to force a company to change their ways, yet you fight against a method thats being employed thats doing just that. Is it because its internet based that you have an issue?"

Simple: one method is illegal, one method is not.

Oh, but I'm sure it would be OK to just toss aside those pesky interfering laws since the cause is "right" and "justified," right? But who exactly determines what is "right" for everyone else? Some random hacker I've never heard of? Odd, I don't recall seeing them on the ballot last election. Yet you want them to supplant the legally elected officials we did choose, without any input or control from the people themselves. Interesting.

And where exactly does the authority of this faceless overlord end? They enforce the laws that they deem to be right, that they are in agreement with... without any measure of checks and balances, without any oversight, without any free elections or public discourse, and without any repercussions. Do you want the masses to simply have no choice but to comply? Interesting.

I would assume that they would need to maintain a steady and constant presence in our lives, otherwise those "wrong" things may slip back into the system. Theirs would be a closely monitored and controlled "one way street" for us to follow, so to speak. And I'm sure they'll not abuse such power for laughs or personal gain, right? Surely they don't have a history of such acts -- they're the moral compass you want to guide the rest of us, after all! Again... interesting.

Why, what harm could it possibly do? The very system you describe has worked wonders in Somalia -- once they tossed aside the laws that didn't work for them, and just started playing it by ear, they developed quite the global reputation! Sure, it's one of piracy, conflict, anarchy, and death -- but hey, that's just that "collateral damage" you don't seem too concerned about. Why sweat the small stuff, right? Yeaahhh.

And besides, that same idea worked much much better in Germany -- about 75 years ago, in fact. Perhaps a bit too far before your time -- but hey, why worry about ancient history, right? What could it possibly teach us today? Just forget about it! Yeaaahhh.

And you honestly wonder why I mock these fools? You seriously wonder why I don't see a "positive outcome" to empowering a faceless totalitarian digital Reich to supercede our entire legal and judicial system to become the judge, jury, and executioner of our society, our values, and our rights?

Simple: one method is illegal, one method is not.

Both methods are equally illegal. You quoted Rosa Parks as an example and I showed you why that argument didn't work as an example. What she did was illegal but yet it had an effect did it not? There are plenty of examples of how doing things that the law calls illegal does help and change the laws that were once illegal. You seem to keep your argument squared on the fact that some laws were broken with there actions and think that that has any affect on the law itself. You think because they can do this or that to websites that they are trying to be anyones moral compass or that they wish to forcefully make you believe in there ideals. Where exactly have they done that? Where has anyones voice been muted if they didn't agree? A chat room? Some internet site? What effect does that have on the real world past raising awareness of issues? What power does a faceless group of internet hackivists have past the digital world aside from their influence in their ideas? Do realize that their main objective is one you fight for as well? To stop corruption and promote free speech and the free flow of ideas? Do you actually think they all agree on the same government, corporate agenda, religeous views, ect? They do not if thats what you think. Actually, before they take any action, they vote democratically to see the worthiness of the cause and decide if it fits into the groups overall ideals. They ask for your participation and depend on the people to see where their certain abilities could be best used. If its that you feel voiceless in that movement, then get involved. You may be surprised. The checks and balances are done by the people and for the people, with all their united ideals in mind. That "faceless overlord" you talk about is your neighbor, your boss, your friends, your peers in this world and they have your back even if you hate them for it because of your blinded view of the law and its adherance. Where does their authority end? Easy. Where the power button is for your PC. You can choose not to listen. You can choose not to be involved. You can choose not to use any internet source. But remember, when you power back on, they are still the ones standing up for your right to view any content you want, to not live in the shadows of the lies that are told to you, to be free thinking. Its because of them and people like them that you even have an internet to connect you across the world. Alex, this group is regulated. Its regulated by all the people involved who vote for the missions you hate but yet have still had your best interests in mind and helped you even if you refuse to admit it. Annonymous has no desire to govern anyone and very likely there are already members involved that are your lawmakers. What they want is the corruption to end, the people of this world to stop being taken advantage of by the entitlist elite that are only worried about keeping on top and not worried about the people they serve, the injustices of corperations that pilfer the land and destroy the world without any care or oversite to be held accountable for their actions, for internet freedom so you aren't kept blind to the world through "government internet filters" that tell you what you can and can't see (propaganda much?), for the free distribution of ideas and media, and for transparency in government so things like wars aren't started against the will of the people for someones personal agenda or hatred. These are just a few of the views of the many like them. Not one has anything to do with overthrowing any government or stripping the power of the law or dictating views to society as you wish to believe. Alex, I asked you several questions in my previous post and all you gave in return for an answer was "well its illegal" and then went into an explanation basically comparing it to socialism or the Nazi agenda in cause and effect. How can you even begin to think the internet has that much sway in the world that an online group could become a governmental power or that this group will ever have power outside of the digital realm? Is that your only argument? There is a big problem with this theory. The fact that they are annonymous not in name but in definition. They are everyone and no one. As this is the case, there is no leader and there is no command structure. There is just people from many walks of life that have a similar ideals. There isn't a single voice there are many. If you need further explanation on this point just ask and I'll fully explain why being annonymous guarantees they never have any power past being a collection of folks with shared goals. You are very stuck on the actions and have ignored the results. I showed you some but you ignore them because of blindness for the law. You ask who determines what is "right" for everyone else? The answer is society as a whole determines what is right and wrong for their time and area. For example, in the middle east if you are claimed to be an audulterer the penalty could be stoning to death whereas in America the only penalty is divorce and a finacial responsibilty. Both are considered "right" by their people, but any American would think of such a penalty as stoning "wrong" and possibly a barbaric punishment as any middle easterner would think the American way didn't show enough justice. Annonymous represents society because of their unbias grouping of affectionates which gives them just as much right to decide what is "good" and "bad" as anyone else, but no where do they force you to believe them or agree. They give you free choice to not do so.

Lastly, you brought up Somalia and Nazi Germany, how do these relate to Annonymous given the facts? Somalia almost has no govenment and Nazi Germany was ruled with an iron fist dictator. They are polar opposites in any argument about government. In one, all the power and governing was delegated to the people and their own strength, in the other, no power or voice was given to the people. In annonymous the people decide what should be done in response to injustice, but past that, they let the governments, lawmakers, and people of the world set the rules. Again, how are they related?

Interesting... MSNBC hiding the reasons why anonymous focused on Monsanto...

This article says (cut and pasted from link below):

Anonymous released contact information for about 2,500 people that presumably was snagged from Monsanto on Tuesday and said it had attacked the company's Web servers to protest lawsuits the company filed against organic dairy farmers for stating on labels that their products don't contain growth hormones. Monsanto makes genetically engineered seeds and pesticides (and was one of seven companies that supplied the U.S. military with Agent Orange during the Vietnamese War) and used to make bovine growth hormone, but sold that business to Eli Lilly a few years ago after settling the labeling lawsuits, according to Helscher.

Read more: #ixzz1S2laj3ZF

Guess it doesn't like the link ... Google Monsanto confirms Anonymous hacking attack cnet.

Eat Organics Not Pesticides!

They aren't defending anything. They attack anyone they choose to on any whim they have and then jump to the next victim without accomplishing anything. If they did want to change the business practices they would have hacked in and gotten proof. Instead they retrieve usless info and disrupt a few servers.

Denial of service attacks aren't hacking, they are more like assault. It would be like in the old days before computer if they continually called the company and kept the phone lines busy. Annoying but deals no real harm.