Anonymous "hackers" caused epileptic fits in users of an epilepsy forum. In this attack, possibly the first computer attack to inflict physical harm on the victims, the unknown attackers created hundreds forum entries with flashing pictures.
A 33-year-old woman who suffers from epilepsy clicked on a forum post which caused her screen to be filled with a rapidly flashing pattern in different colors. She locked up and could not move until turned away by her 11 year old son.
Wired.com reports that evidence suggests the attack was the work of members of Anonymous, an informal collective best known for their recent DDOS attacks on the Church of Scientology.
An anonymous person may not be part of the Anonymous group protesting the church of scientology. The "evidence" is also stated as being severely circumstantial. The Co$ has already mailed itself white powder, and called in bomb threats, why not skew more stuff and put it on "Anonymous".
The group of people protesting the Co$ report on their site that they had absolutely nothing to do with this. They do not condone this type of action, nor did they have any part of it at all. On a related front, Xenu was found in the Ozark caverns this weekend. He is in stable condition, and will be prepping a DC-8 for space voyage when he's released.
The summary makes a central point out of what was only a bit of speculation at the source. That kind of sensationalism hearkens back to Hearst's yellow journalism.
Wow, really trying hard on this one aren't you? So anyone does anything bad now and is anonymous automatically gets blamed on a group called anonymous? Fcking ingenous I say!
While it's certainly better than Terryeo's submissions of "The CoS bought something," as others have said, it still skews the source information, implying that there is much more evidence supporting the idea that Anonymous was behind this.
The beauty behind the idea of Anonymous is that anyone can be Anonymous. Anyone can post to the imageboards that seem to be their haunt, even Scientologists.
Despite the obvious bias, I'd at least like to thank darkpanorama for trying to write a real article, in stark contrast to Terryeo. Regardless of who the perpetrators were, this is a terrible event; hopefully, this will pave the way for safeguards in the future.
I would also like to ask, why has L. Ron Hubbard left scientology.org? The only information I can see about him is his name on the Dianetics book on the right -- pardon me if I'm mistaken, but isn't this like a site about Christianity with no links to Jesus?
if an anonymous group of nerds does something people like, they are a cohesive unit of good people, but if they do something people don't like, it is a small splinter group of punk kids.
Newsflash, they're all punk kids. Of varying oldness. The idea that there is an official Anonymous website is probably enough reason for some of them to go out and do their own thing, whether you like the results or not.
Hypocrisy. Haven't seen you jumping up when it comes to the general all-is-bad about Scientologists that Anonymous spreads. But Anonymous is fail, just because everyone can hide behind the title, even outright psychopaths. They better throw out some people.
Wrong. Again ... if you want to call me a hypocrite, then quote me. I will back you if you can quote even just once I said that ALL scientology is bad. In fact, I have said quite the opposite. Scientology in itself IS a valid religion, it was a religion (albeit small) before L. Ron came around. But after he seized the religion it stopped being what it should have been. I have said this before, but for you I will say it again.
Anonymous fully supports Scientology when it comes to "Free-Zoners". Meaning, there are scientologists out there who believe the material SHOULD be free to ANYONE. Anonymous does NOT wish to destroy the religion, they want to see REFORM in the religion. Anonymous believes that knowledge should be free and so should religion. When you are being controlled, told who to talk to and not to talk to, worried about becoming an 'SP' (Suppresive Person) and thus an enemy to your own people. That is not freedom. If you want to speak out against religion you should be allowed and not have to worry about your family/friends being threatened by the religion. (Look up Scientologies "Fair Play" policy)
Again, before you attack me ... do some research and know what your talking about. Anonymous NEVER HAS said once they were out to destroy scientology.
"Hello leaders of Scientology. We are Anonymous. Over the years we have been watching you, your campaigns of misinformation, your suppression of dissent and your litigious nature. All of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation the extent of your malign influence over those who have come to trust you as leaders has been made clear to us. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organisation should be destroyed."
Hey ... I don't believe in it. I personally accept the FSM as my loving saviour. But that doesn't mean I should dictate what people should and shouldn't believe. Just the same, I won't tell you which political affiliation you should follow. Sure, I will tell you my quams with it ... but I am not going to tell you that what you believe is wrong, because I don't know a single person who can prove that. But if you do ... then by all means, enlighten me.
If someone wants to believe in Xenu and his evil ways ... all the power to them.
This article is terribly misguided. The CoS have stooped far lower than this before in framing their opponents .CoS actually is against Epilepsy medication as a practice .In fact they encourage sufferer of this condition s NOT to take their meds ,and treat themselves with vitamins instead , its called "purification rundown" and is a dangerous process carried out by unliscensed laymen using Dianetics instead of recommended professional help. Thats how Herbert Pfaff died. Google it.
Finally someone comes to back me up instead of attack me.
@All reading Tara's post While your at it Google "Operation Snow White" and "Operation Freakout". That should give you an idea of how manipulative this organization is.
Ha what are you talking about? Last I checked people do not choose to become jews for the express purpose of being greedy and having a big nose. We're talking about a punk kid club with a mission statement that involves doing punk kid things. It is the purpose of the group. That's a fact Jack. Raphael is cool but rude, Michaelangelo is a party dude. These things cannot be argued.
I am saying if you can paint this as all "Punk Kids" then what other paint to you use to cover other organizations or groups? It's soooo easy to stereotype isn't it? But your facts have no basis, for I am an example. Punk Kid? Hardly, I am working in IT for a respectable accounting firm at the ripe old age of 26.
Hacker? No. Cracker? No. Punk? Maybe if you consider I like rocking out to Rancid. Kid? LOL!
Using the same paintbrush you do ... I could just as easy paint all Muslims as Terrorists or all Christians as Bush lovers.
Actually I totally agree with that statement. I know for a fact I have a form of epilepsy. I know this because I frequently have fits, but everytime I am tested the doctors tell me that I don't. I have been tested for both Grand and Petite Mal Epilepsy but both came back negative. The only test they have ever performed on me though is strobbing lights in front of my eyes. The problem is that it doesn't happen with stobbing lights, it happens for me during moments of intense excitement.
IT employee by day, punk kid by night. Nothing surprising there.
Maybe you missed the part where I said "of varying oldness" but I really don't care how old you are or how much respect you think you deserve for having a job.
I see, you're "an example". You aren't a "hacker" but you're part of a "hacker" group, is that right? So I guess you just sit around doing nothing then? Or maybe you work on their website? Yeah, super impressive stuff.
I am kind of amazed that you aren't getting this. Christianity is a religion. It was founded as such, and I often poke fun at it as such. But it doesn't have "mess up the websites of people you don't like" anywhere in its commandments. If that was the #1 tenet of the church, then it would be a punk kid church. End of story.
I don't mean to hold that up as the only reason why I am criticizing them. Frankly the grandiose language and godmode naivete of the people who think that kind of tactic actually accomplishes much is another decent example.
"IT employee by day, punk kid by night. Nothing surprising there."
If 'punk kid' makes you feel better as a person, then keep on saying it.
"Maybe you missed the part where I said "of varying oldness" but I really don't care how old you are or how much respect you think you deserve for having a job."
I don't ask for respect, I never have and never will. That is something that is earned, not given. Which is why I have no respect for you.
"I see, you're "an example". You aren't a "hacker" but you're part of a "hacker" group, is that right? So I guess you just sit around doing nothing then? Or maybe you work on their website? Yeah, super impressive stuff."
Giving 'Anonymous' the name of a "hacker" group is totally in your own mind. 'Anonymous' is not a group of people getting their jollies from DDoSing websites or attacking Scientology. If you think that is the truth ... then you are very misguided. Sit around and do nothing? Hardly. I have a life, I don't sit at my computer all day. In fact during the night I like going out with friends to a pub or going to a park to practise my poi. Hmmmm ... I must be a hacker. Also 'Anonymous' has no website, if you think that 4chan is their website, again you are horribly misguided and have no concept of who 'Anonymous' is.
"I am kind of amazed that you aren't getting this. Christianity is a religion. It was founded as such, and I often poke fun at it as such. But it doesn't have "mess up the websites of people you don't like" anywhere in its commandments. If that was the #1 tenet of the church, then it would be a punk kid church. End of story."
Yes, I won't say their aren't bad apples in 'Anonymous' but saying that the few represent the many is not the way to address this. Go to Scientology's website ... it appears to me that its up and running. 'Anonymous' was stupid when they first went after Scientology, they thought the best course of action for dealing with this group was to attack their website. But thanks to the sane and sensible in the group, as well as Wise Beard Man ... we smacked some sense into them and told them to stop. I never have and never will condone the attacking of websites to make a point. You probably don't believe me, but I have never once DDoS'ed any website in my entire life.
"I don't mean to hold that up as the only reason why I am criticizing them. Frankly the grandiose language and godmode naivete of the people who think that kind of tactic actually accomplishes much is another decent example."
Now this statement is one I can actually agree with. Like I stated before, I don't condone the attacking of any organizations website. Every side deserves to be heard, and the few 'punk kids' that you describe are the one's giving us the bad image. But again, just go to Scientology's website.
"If 'punk kid' makes you feel better as a person, then keep on saying it."
Also makes me feel better as a person: these chocolate covered banana chips.
"I don't ask for respect, I never have and never will."
Well you were sure quick to bring up how respectable your accounting firm is, as if that is supposed to reflect well on you. Just saying.
"Giving 'Anonymous' the name of a "hacker" group is totally in your own mind."
And, you know, in the article and all of the comments up to this point. If you objected to it so much maybe you should have complained days ago. But regardless, there is Anonymous and then there is Anonymous. One is an internal meme of little consequence and one is a t-shirt that people put on when they go somewhere else and start causing trouble.
"'Anonymous' is not a group of people getting their jollies from DDoSing websites or attacking Scientology."
Yeah, I don't even know how to reply to that one. Maybe in your mind a group denotes the same people consistently but I don't subscribe to that definition.
"Sit around and do nothing? Hardly. I have a life, I don't sit at my computer all day."
I actually meant during the goings-on that this article and others are about, not the whole day long. So again, no need to start talking about what an upstanding citizen you are, it's ok.
"Also 'Anonymous' has no website"
I was under the impression that some random ``Anonymous`` people had made a small page and posted that whole "Scientology is dum" manifesto on it to begin with but if that isn't the case then nevermind. Once more I'd be interested to know why you didn't ask me about that the first time I brought it up though, instead of making some silly comparison between yourself and the jews.
Oh, right, the manifesto nonsense was a Youtube video first. Ok then, replace "work on their website" with "work on their Youtube videos".
Getting back to your comment:
"Yes, I won't say their aren't bad apples in 'Anonymous' but saying that the few represent the many is not the way to address this."
This is more than a small problem though. The thing is, Anonymous is about pockets of consensus and not much else. The ideals are dictated by the number of people in the group - or part of the group - who are inclined to subscribe to them. The group already exists and the ideals come later based on who thinks what would be funny. Maybe the majority of people who call themselves Anonymous will frown on some attack performed in the name of Anonymous, but that's really too bad, because they fostered the environment where that could take place. It's just a result of the way the group defines itself. The only thing that makes one act more legitimate than another is the number of people involved. Which brings me to something else.
"'Anonymous' was stupid when they first went after Scientology, they thought the best course of action for dealing with this group was to attack their website. But thanks to the sane and sensible in the group, as well as Wise Beard Man ... we smacked some sense into them and told them to stop."
Haha, so now it's a group.
But there you go. Their plan didn't work, they got chided by someone that a lot of them looked up to, etc, so ideals changed. Whether it was the power of love or the power of embarrassment, I don't know. But I never said that punk kids can't be talked out of doing something dumb.
And now on to you and the sane people you're talking about.
"You probably don't believe me, but I have never once DDoS'ed any website in my entire life."
I can believe that, sure. And I can believe that there were people who said "hey guys, don't DDoS Scientology and make a Youtube video about DDoSing Scientology, nothing will happen and you will make us look like ineffectual punk kids". Maybe you really feel like you're getting a raw deal and someone else - easily someone just as qualified to speak for Anonymous as you are - is tarnishing the good name of Anonymous with all of the epileptic fits and wasted fax machine ink. I have only one answer to that: you can either go on feeling that way, or admit that it is a consequence of the way the group works and stop identifying yourself with it. By all means, keep going to the real-world protests and such, but it seems to me like you're trying to amend the punk kid club constitution to say "but maybe we should be good instead" and I just can't see the point.
