Comments:Teen hacker admits to attack on scientology.org

Anonymous is doing the right thing now
I am glad that Anonymous has shifted tactics of Project Chanology away from illegal methods and instead now focuses on peaceful protesting around the world and other peaceful non-violent means of getting their message across. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Are Freedom Fighters
I recently spoke to a intelligence professor at a local university in the San Francisco Bay Area, who wants to be unnamed because of possible harassment from the cult, about the DDoS attacks against Scientology and their illegality. The professor laughed at the issue at hand where a young teenager in New Jersey is being charged for maximum penalties. DDoS wasn't a big deal at all. Nothing was defaced, nothing was destroyed, and the site was restored eventually. He laughed harder when I asked about the "cyber terrorist" label which Scientology likes to throw around. He stated that "Unless someone attacks a government website to steal information or cause harm to the government or citizens, there's no way [Anonymous] are terrorists. In fact, he said "we know about real terrorists, you're definitely not." In fact, the DDoS is considered a "cyber sit-in" by some national security experts, akin to peaceful acts of civil disobedience. Which are reminiscent of the 1960's in the Civil Rights movement. Sit-Ins in restaurants that didn't serve African-Americans throughout the south were the main highlight of civil rights. Standing up for freedom which Anonymous is carrying out.

The take for Scientology is to call people who are against it, terrorists in any form or fashion. Scientologists called filmmaker Mark Bunker a terrorist when he was just posting films all over the internet about the organization. Paulette Cooper, who was nearly driven nuts by the cult nearly 25 years ago, was falsely arrested by the FBI because she was getting to the truth of the matter. Scientology tries their damnedest to discredit people because they don't want the truth to come out. This is what scientology is trying to do to Anonymous. Paint them as the worst thing possible: Hitlers using Godwin's Law (their continuously failed argument used for religiosity), and Osama bin Laden (failed argument against Constitutionalism and America).

The DDoS retaliation caused immediate media attention on the subject of Scientology. For nearly a couple of years after the South Park episode, the topic remained dormant. Scientology claims that it lost 70,000 dollars during 4 days offline. That comes to mind, are they a business selling whatever "Road to Freedom" or are they religion as they claim to be. You cannot be a religion and a for profit business at the same time, it would be a scam, which is illegal. Most religions and congregations wouldn't keep track of finances until Tax Season which is during February - April 15th. Alexa, an online traffic searching tool, can search the website affected from the previous day to a period of 5 years. That site can be used to search for online traffic before and after the event and to compare the amount of money they claimed to lose or gain. All the hacker did was to cause Scientology to lose face.

To describe Anonymous in a nutshell: Anonymous is actually a freedom fighting machine that uses dark humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamAnon (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised no one has mentioned Internet Hate Machine yet. Fephisto (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL SCIENTOLOGY JUST GOT PWNED

TIME TO FIND A NEW ALIEN SOUL SCIENTOLOGY

TIME TO FIND A NEW ALIEN SOUL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.8.240 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

These guys are awesome. All they do is peacefully point out hypocrisy. Welcome to the Civil Rights Movement, Web 2.0 style! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.175.31 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What an Idiot
The hacker could potentially go to jail for 10 years, all because he stopped a few people from getting access to Scientology's website. Was it worth it? From my perspective, certainly not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.223.98 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Lisa McPherson. 129.12.230.196 22:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, he took the wrong sort of action. Essentially, his heart was in the right place, but his mind was not, if that makes any sense. - 75.109.77.86 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cos tactics
Although it might be perceived as being illegal, the Ddos attack certainly does not constitute a ten year prison sentence. I wonder what claims the CoS brought to justify their ludicrous expenses. I have to agree that the means to resist an organization or unwanted idea ought to be done through peaceful demonstration and protest, but when these things fail to bring to light the many atrocities committed by the CoS, harsher means are necessary. However, by attacking servers I think Anon is sending the wrong message. The CoS will continue to use barratry to silence all opponents and critics and the only way their evil will ever be brought to light is by continuous and relentlessness public protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.46.58 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Scientology is an uncaring bastard. How can you charge money for a religion? How can you believe the crap they put out?

Go \b\ And anonymous

—219.90.174.40 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.156.128 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An attack on those that attack the most vulnerable?
My biggest concern with Scientology (as well as quite a number of other religions) is that they seem to prey on the most vulnerable- the mentally ill, drink and drug addicts, or just people that don't fit in- and then lure them in to do whatever they want them to. What makes it worst for Scientology is that they're not even a religion; they're a business, and are run as one.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with them that psychiatrists are evil and only in the business of giving sedating medication from pharmaceutical companies that give them a back-hander of cash in return. But then they go right up their own arse and tell people they're actually from an alien race, and that Christianity was actually some film our souls watched many years ago.

They then impose some king of Stalinist regime on their Sea Orgs members. And since they're on international waters it's all fine.

Scientology should be brought under public scrutiny in every country around the world. Are you trying to tell me the brand of psychological terrorism they call a religion is OK? -Ronius (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel scientology is another cult just like all the other organized religions, but I think attacking them only gives them more reason to make them look good and individuals who disagree look bad. I think that hacker's talent would have been more useful if he made a website stating why he disagrees with scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtr225 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.74.36 (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter
If Scientology were well-accepted, Anonymous would be branded a terrorist and a bigot. Makes you wonder about other so-called 'religions'. What would the backlash would be like if someone DoS'ed the ADL site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.16.5 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Frightened boy caves
Another silly little boy hiding behind the anonymity of his computer screen committing stupid crimes for lack anything better to do - immediately caves when confronted with his felony. If he really believed in what he was doing he would plead not guilty and stand up for his beliefs. If he really believed in what he stood for he wouldn't be anonymous. People who believe in what they do are not afraid to be known for what they stand for. The members of society that shun recognition are the criminals - that's why bank robbers use masks, why burglars operate under the cover of darkness, why con men steal others identities. Too afraid to face the world or to be known for their actions. The pathetic attempts of "anonymous" to cast lies and derision and to foster hate and intolerance will pass like a bad plate of beans - painful while it is being digested but always resulting in a bad stench and a pile excrement. Dmitriy Guzner's arrest and conviction is a much needed laxative that will hopefully flush out more of these fools. _08:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pleading guilty when there is evidence shows a degree of intelligence. Comparing a denial of service attack with a bank robbery is, at best, disingenuous. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pleading guilty to stupidity is no indicator of intelligence and pleading guilty to a felony is a good indicator of criminality. Hiding behind anonymity while propagating hate crimes is certainly disingenuous when compared to robbing a bank and would better be compared to what?, the twisted, 'rebel without a cause' cyber jihad of the religiously intolerant? Oh, I'm sorry, we are being way too hard on this poor misguided fool that doesn't know any better. Smart enough to cause a ddos but too stupid to know what he is doing? Criminals only protest laws once they are caught breaking them. Freedom of speech to a bigot is freedom to tell lies and spread discontent and a free internet to an anarchist group such as anonymous is license only to harm and disrupt others access to free speech. --Crokodile (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crokodile (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly it'd be better compared to preventing people from visiting a bank. They didn't deface their website, they didn't steal any money or information, all they did was overload their web page for a short period of time so that no one could access it. I'm not saying thats right, but robbing a bank is certainly much worse in my opinion. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are looking for more acute comparisons then perhaps we should compare it to preventing people from visiting a library. An internet website is primarily for dispensing information for anyone that requires it - such as a library. Preventing people from reading books has been championed many times in the past, lets see now, the Inquistion, during the Nazi regime, Stalinist Russia, oppressive regimes in Iran and other Middle East countries. Sounds quite like the idiots of anonymous, lets "save" everyone through censureship. Robbing a bank in my opinion is not worse because a bank robber's intentions, although illegal are quite well defined, whilst anonymous hackers and activists, whose intentions, motivations, connections etc are masked, carry out threats, illegal hacking and other mischief ONLY under the cloak of anonymity because once their ture activities and motivations are brought to light, they run quickly away like the cowards they are.--Crokodile (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I support them.
I support them! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.80.195 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with "Frightened Boy Caves"
Honestly, if you look at the facts, anonymity is the only thing protecting people from Co$ attacks. They are well known for blowing charges far out of proportion, to the point of actually destroying someone's credit, and even siezing their assets.

An excellent example of this is the early 2008 Co$ protests by Project Chanology, where multiple reports of "reporters" trying to get pictures of their faces without their Anon masks or ski masks, instead of actually getting their story. Clearly, if you were in that circumstance, a Scientologist member trying to get names/pictures to bring them to court and/or harass them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.5.180 (talk • contribs) Honestly? If you look at the facts? If your "honesty" and "facts' are a measure of truth then innuendo, generalizations and unsupported gossip is the new level of integrity we should all aspire to! The only "attacks" that I know of that the Church of Scientology is responsible for is for bringing before the judicial systems of many countries around the world the Governments, corporations and individuals that have overtly or covertly attacked, libeled, slandered, stolen or otherwise infringed on their civil, religious or legal rights. If that is something that you disagree with, which presumably you do, then coversely, it could logically be assumed that you are for anarchist, anonymous, illegal infringements and other physical and defamatory attacks on legally incorporated entities to occur and that you disagree with laws that allow same to use legal legal recourse to counter or stop such activities. If you are "honestly" and whilst "looking at the facts" going to make such assertations, perhaps some facts would add credibility to your point of view and without which seem just more justifications for criminal hate mongering.--Crokodile (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * RE: "The only "attacks" that I know of that the Church of Scientology is responsible for.." Thieves have difficultly finding police stations. Ever hear of "Operation Snow White?" "Operation Freakout"?  And numerous other documentation that they are following L. Ron's stated policy on how to deal with those who oppose them? While religions can be dangerous, even Christians ones when they exalt a man or an org. above the Bible, when a religious mafia incorporates the legal system as well as police, then you end up with not only an exceedingly deceit-ful but a very dangerous org, that has  no right to portary themselves as the "victim."


 * The below may be called the "Sermon on the Money and it's Means", by L. Ron. Hubbard


 * "After speaking for about an hour at the meeting, Mr. Hubbard answered questions from the audience. He made the following statement in response to a question about making money from writing: `You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'" - Sam Moskowitz, 1994 affidavit on Nov 1948 meeting of the Eastern Science Fiction Association


 * "Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair on end." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965


 * "Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"


 * "If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs


 * "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."- L. Ron Hubbard, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, 1955


 * "When we need somebody haunted we investigate...When we investigate we do so noisily always."- L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959


 * "So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." - L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959


 * "A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists"


 * Under Operation Snow White, “Scientology operatives committed infiltration, wiretapping, and theft of documents in government offices, most notably those of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Eleven highly-placed Church executives, including Mary Sue Hubbard (wife of founder L. Ron Hubbard and second in command of the organization), pled guilty or were convicted in federal court of obstructing justice, burglary of government offices, and theft of documents and government property. The case was United States vs. Mary Sue Hubbard et al., 493 F. Supp. 209 (D.D.C. 1979).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White


 * Here is more if you can bear it
 * http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm
 * http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scandal_of_Scientology
 * http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/cooper/sos.html
 * http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint7
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoASMyv9Cek
 * http://www.xenutv.com/


 * As for me, I intend to follow Jesus Christ, which Hubbard and his org stands in stark contrast to. Thank GodChristianSouldier (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)ChristianSouldier (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go anonymous!
Scientology must fall!

Xenu.net and Project Clambake FTW!

-66.41.147.177 03:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous has a point
Anonymous is not a hate group. Anonymous is not a group of lifeless trolls. Anonymous is a group dedicated to protest against hate, hypocrisy, and the like. The protests against the CoS began because the CoS was trying to censor anything that made it look bad. I'll be nicer than others, I do not believe it to be a cult. But I do believe that the CoS infringes on net neutrality, which is something I feel strongly about. And let me reiterate - Anonymous is a group of thousands, if not millions of cyber savvy people from around the world. Not geeks, not troll, not bigots (though i will admit, some may be). They simply wish to expose the CoS's hypocrisy. Here's another person they went after with good cause: Hal Turner, ultra-conservative white nationalist. Think about this. Why would so-called "bigots" attack other bigots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.147.1 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and Anonymous
Anyone that can do anything to stop these arrogant,hypocritical thugs who interfere in other people's lives, gets my vote. I think the e-meter thing warps their brains. They think they're perfect. That's why they fail in relationships. Looking at her(him) instead of themselves. You must think like them or you're against them. I'm against them! —117.20.68.76 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes
Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.66.254 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes
yes, Anonymous is doing the right thing. I mean come on, scientology pulled the biggest theft of government documents, but didnt get charged for it? But some teenager who hacks on their site gets 10 years in prison? Seems kind of out of place if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.192.70 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

not okay
This is my opinion. —65.30.65.144 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous has the right to protest
Just like any other citizen in this country, anonymous or not, they have the right to protest against anything they would care to protest against.

It seems clear to everyone except Scientologists that it's nothing more that a money hungry cult that preys on people who feel hopeless, so why not spread awareness of that fact to potential victims?

DDOS is about as much cyber-terrorism as chaining yourself to a tree. It's not like Anonymous is hacking into government networks and stealing nuclear missile launch codes. I doubt that kid will serve one year, let alone ten. I say good for him. Spread the word.

Maybe someone should start a church of Anti-Scientology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.208.174 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * DDoS is still illegal. There are better things to do than close off access to a site just because you don't agree with it. That'd be like every time an edit war started on Wikipedia, the guy decides to DDoS it just because he didn't agree with the way they ran things. - 75.109.77.86 10:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for Him
I do believe that what the 18 year old man did was right. Scientology itself states that they have a god given right to express opinions and challenge opinions by any means necessary. So basically they are pressing charges on this kid for doing what they believe is a given right to do!!!

yes
scientology is a dangerous cult

4@x0|2 wtf?
What is the point in sending someone down just for stopping access (temporarily)to the CoS website? At last check there were a lot worse things that he could have done. DDoS is about the EASIEST 4@x EVAR!!!! It is barely even worth noting. They should LOLing at him as opposed to raging. I say he did a good thing, but for God's sake (i'm an atheist), do things with a bit more attitude next time!!! Use of 4@x0|2 is really smegging me the smeg off!!! Anonymous.

I do think anonymous is doing the right thing. I am not part of anonymous, but have looked at all the information pertaining to the scientology protests, and it turns out that scientology is actually unsafe, and inhumane cult.

I'd like them to not be exempt from taxes, and if they watch scientology a bit closer, and make sure they stop doing cookoo stuff, then everything will be alright.

If anonymous can do that, the more power to them.

-AnonSupporter

my penis hurts —90.210.206.254 09:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) u guys r wierd!!!!!!!LOL: )

Is Anonymous doing the right thing?
Anonymous is great!!! Rock on anonymous!!!