Has Anonymous gone too far, and should Tactisoft change web hosting sites?

Tactisoft uses GoDaddy for our web hosting, recently GoDaddy was hacked by anonymous so currently we have shut down the game until everyone can log on. Why did Anonymous do this? Alright, why this is happening It seems that BigDaddy openly supports controversial bills like SOPA and PIPA. These bills will give the United States government limitless control on what you see hear and do on the internet. These bills are part of the anti Piracy act and will mainly be used to take down sites like the pirate bay and many other torrenting sites. Which to me is no problem, downloading and sharing software illegally is just that. Illegal. But what happens when they have done what they set out to do? What will they do with the power they now have?

That is what scares me.

There are two sides here

Side A: "Anonymous has gone too far, this is affecting not only BigDaddy but all of the small business that rely on BigDaddy."

Side B: "There is no 'too far' in the fight for complete freedom. PIPA and SOPA are drastic, so we need to be drastic to get rid of them."

Choose your side

hell yeah they have gone too far! they are taking our rights one by one!

shame on america.

I haven't heard about what they have done. Probably because you only told us why "this" is happening without including what they have done.. Don't really feel like googling it either. But I'll just say that the internet works very much like real life in many aspects.

Peoples/groups actions and opinions will make friends and enemies. The more 'important' they person/group is, the more extreme the friends/enemies will be. The friends do favours, the enemies try to undermine you. Legally and illegally.

It's easy to sit and say the illegal side is in the wrong, went too far etc. But people are just trying to protect their own interests.

For anonymous, their interests are being (potentially) undermined by bigdaddy. So they are bound to retaliate in equal or higher measure. It's the way of the world. None of this really effects me.. But unless I'm going by letter of the law, I can't say either side is in the wrong for standing up for what they believe in and protecting their own interests.

You can say that whatever annonymous did effects completely innocent 3rd parties such as tactisoft.. But that's bigdaddys issue and responsibility to provide their service. If for whatever reason they fail to provide the service... I'm sure there are many others willing and able to supply it.


(I'm aware I just typed a load of bollocks without even knowing the story. But maybe some of it will be of relevance to the topic )

Oh woops I will add it, well Anonymous took down GoDaddy (which tactisoft uses) so most people in Europe can no longer log into BD (or any other GoDaddy sites)

We are speaking of Anonymous, not the U.S govt.

Businesses in such a position should remain neutral when it comes to such subjects. You can't put all of the blame on the hackers. If they're stupid enough to openly support such controversial things, maybe they needed to be taught a lesson why they shouldn't be.

It's internet users that make up their business. Supporting something which angers and goes against the beliefs of millions of these internet users is surely going to have some negative side effects!

The lesson to be learned here; Know when it's your battle.

Supporting these acts was an unnecessary risk taken by godaddy.

'Fighting against' those who support such acts IS Anonymous's battle. Godaddy just walked right into the firing line with nothing to gain and everything to lose (customers and reputation).

I'm not siding with anyone here, those bills are rediculous and will shut down lots of small businesses that are relying on sharing videos, images and files. However Anon's act is not too different from the gov, it's violence against violence and this would encourage the gov to push the bills faster, as well as increasing the defense of those who support or related to them.

Well, to me it surprises me in the "free'est" country on Earth that such bills would be suggested, and then seeing how much resistance they get that they wouldn't be scrapped immediately! Good god! Other countries are openly saying that this not only affects the U.S but the world and that they don't feel like it's Democratic, thousands scratch that HUNDREDS of thousands of petitions online and offline and some in particular (the google petition) with over 6 million signers including one of the FOUNDERS of the internet!

With Ron Paul and several other key political figures openly disgracing the bill and the non stop hate our *cough* bureau(cratic)-Democratic country of ours still pushes it through, and for what reason? To protect the millionaire artists and game designers movie directors and writers work from being spread illegally (which btw, really doesn't lose them that significant amount, and no matter what will always be done with or without the internet like in the 90's 80's 70's 60's ETC) Pirating cannot be stopped. They can try to restrain and control but passing laws to rid the world of pirating is completely idiotic, it's like trying to stop the world from smoking pot drinking beer or in desperate cases soliciting prostitution (all of which the govt tries to control but has either lost or is losing it)

Plus hundreds of billions go into these futile attempts at riding the world of such piteous crimes. Focus on the murderers rapists revolutionaries psychopaths child molestors etc but why focus so much attention to kids/teenagers/adults downloading movies, or teens smoking pot...

The Government (not just U.S most of the govt's in the world) are over restricting and spreading funds to thin, it's a circle of debt and I think when no one will lend us any more money 2008/2009 market crash will look like a joke.

If there goal is to bring first world countries down to 3rd world standards they will succeed. If they want a better world they're going in the wrong direction.

/end 2 cents.

I had seen in articles, reviews, and the such, that the SOPA and PIPA acts did not restrict themselves to prevent piracy and such delictive conduct: Anonymous hasn't openly supported piracy as far as I've heard, but their point was that those acts could be used subjectively to restrict for reasons other than illegal acts. They claim that users of the SOPA and PIPA acts as they were redacted could exploit them to restrict legal freedom of people up to some point, like blocking unfavourable content, etc. I haven't read on this since the first SOPA and PIPA tries, but if the situation stands just as before, then Anonymous is being painted here the wrong way: as far as they've expressed themselves, they want to stop even the posibility of the misuse of such acts. And such misuse must DEFINITELY be stopped.

This does difficult the making of the opinion of whether their actions to stop it are wrong or not. Surely they're being painted as heroes: they might be, or they might not, but of course this subject is so incredibly controverted, and requires so much information (most of which is NOT openly seen, or seen at all) that no right conclusion can be drawn on it. The source of this is that the government really hasn't shown they can be trusted 100%, specially on these kinds of themes (whether they use their political power for their own benefit and to take decisions disregarding the people's views or importance) and also, that they are indeed challenging the government head-on and could use the view as heroes to make their own actions seem good, yet if I were to take a side, I'd have to see that the SOPA and PIPA are indeed wrong, and although innocent people to this shouldn't pay for the clash, the clash itself is needed and right, in my view.

Still, seeing as how Anon has acted so far, I'd disagree with Aister's view: it isn't violence against violence. I think Anon is just trying to do the lead, create an impact on the government that is bringing such wrongs, and rallying up the people against them. Basically, Anon is trying to be the good guys, and having the government being the bad guys. That's putting it in a 3rd grade definition, which can fit perfectly to this. And so, if GoDaddy signed up with the "bad guys" then it really isn't too far of Anonymous to shoot them down. Cyberwar... I guess we've moved on from actual wars to wars through the Internet? Maybe in the future we will visit each other's brains to war the host neurologically? Interesting... anyways, these are my 2 cents: they explain why, how and what I think of this. Just a tip though: I hope BD doesn't support the SOPA or PIPA... I dont wanna be reduced back to my Xbox again


PS: No comment on changing from Godaddy... I dont really know, and I dont really care about that.

Annoymous .... well dont want to say anything, bc they can hack the **** out of me but you know, are getting a little aggravating. People need to make momey, or else the sites wouldnt exist.

Anonymous are rebels, simple as that.

I'm not saying I support them or don't support them, but lets keep in mind that everything they've done has not really hurt anyone compared to the millions of people that die every year at the hands of the American Machine.

That being said, are they good guys?

"Right and wrong, is merely a matter of whose being asked, and nothing more."

"Whats is Right can be defined by what we agree on today, but not what we'll agree on tomorrow"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29
http://en.wikipedia.o/wiki/Timeline_of_events_associated_with_Anonymous

If you're really interested in anonymous, watch Russia Today/ They seem to be the only group actually saying more than the word 'terrorists'.

Edit:
OH AND PS:

Jan 2012, - The date SOPA/PIPA was defeated, and shelved. To come back at a later time perhaps?