Profile Link: https://hackforums.net/member.php?act...id=1193715
Age: 17
Questions
Q1: Can the actions of Anonymous be justified?
Answer:
What/Who is Anonymous:
Anonymous is a loosely associated hacktivist group, in which case the term 'group' should be interpreted loosely as well. There is no actual group or leadership, nor is there a way to enter or join the group. One is instantly a part of Anonymous as soon as he/she wants to. Anonymous is a large group of anonymous people representing and supporting an idea through activism and hacking. They have a large influence on society through the internet and their actions always get media attention due to the size of it.
What actions did Anonymous perform:
Anonymous has repeatedly DDoS'ed and defaced multiple websites related to governments of various countries, including the U.S., and those of many different companies and organisations.
Why it can be justified:
Anonymous fights for freedom, justice, and fights against (online) censorship. They have attacked the website of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which is responsible for safeguarding recording artists' rights, in order to speak their voice and let the IFPI know censorship is not being tolerated by Anonymous.
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and later PIPA and CISPA are seen as major attacks on the anonymity and privacy of all internet users, the acts would limit users online and seriously shrink the ability of sharing digital content and freedom of speech.
They have also organized operation Darknet, which was meant to not only DDoS many child porn sites available in the deep web but also release many user names of people being a member of these sites. They are fighting against child porn and pedophilia every single day.
Why it cannot be justified:
Numerous attacks on the Sony network and leaks with lists of personal details and log in credentials of various companies have caused issues while loading websites, and losing ownership of various accounts online. Especially gamers were seriously damaged by these actions as the PlayStation Network had to be shut down for maintenance during and after the attacks.
Even though Anonymous claims to be wanting to fight censorship and wishes to keep the internet an open space accessible for anyone, they somehow contradict themselves by leaking personal information of thousands of people, as well as denying people access to websites through DDoS attacks on those websites.
The sole fact of DDoS'ing and defacing websites, and spreading personal information, is illegal and a crime. Making a point, speaking your voice and protecting your ideology through committing crime is wrong.
Anonymous is also trying to be involved in politics by repeatedly DDoS'ing the governmental websites of those political parties of countries they do not support, or are against. This is actually blocking those governments from functioning correctly and does not help in solving any possible political or social conflicts at all.
Q2: Does real freedom of speech still exist or has it been limited?
Answer:
What is freedom of speech?
This is the political right to express your opinions and ideas through any form or medium you wish to use. It is also written under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Legal limits existing since the existence of the right of free speech:
The Declaration also states that no human being should be subject to any form of discrimination, in which case someone's words may offend another person, such as a racist statement. This is disallowed, thus is limiting a person from expressing his thoughts or opinion. This is rather controversial and contradictory in some occasions, and in real situations, a judge is needed to decide whether a person has actually offended a person or not, or whether he/she has the right to say certain things in public. Even though laws and country-specific rules exist to narrow down contradictions and situations which are hard to solve, I sometimes still see situations in the media in which case the side of the government or corporate is chosen above the side of the opponent, usually a citizen or a single human being, even if a judge would prove the opponent right, in another case, the chances are 50% that the other side would be proven right.
I personally find the fact that a contradictory situation is allowed, a huge fallacy in the Declaration, and in the constitutional law of many countries. An actual example is the following: Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who is against immigration and Islamic mosques, has repeatedly told people in public what he thinks about non-Dutch civilians and immigrants in The Netherlands. Many of his statements were offensive and seen as racism and hate speech, in which case he wanted other people to hate Muslims. This has been reported and he had to appear in front of court, where he was charged for many of his accusations. Later, he was acquitted by the court of all charges, because the judge found that the statements were acceptable within the context of public debate.
This example shows that drawing a line between discrimination, racism & hate speech on one side, and the freedom of speech on the other side, is very hard to draw.
In other words, we are being limited on occasion, and not in general.
I'm not covering internet censorship as these are laws and/or decisions made by the government of the country in question.
Q3: What is the best way to tax someone's income?
Answer:
In order to be able to answer this question, let me explain the two most common situations:
Taxes should be based on the size of your income = progressive taxes: This pretty much means that there is a fixed formula or even a percentage which, based on your monthly income, defines how much taxes you are supposed to pay to your government. A person earning $1,000 would have to pay 35% or $350, while a person earning $25,000 would have to pay 25x $350 or $8,750 in taxes.
In my opinion this is beneficial for the government, as someone who has a higher income, automatically is regarded as a wealthier person and for the fact that he/she is allowed and able to make a lot of profit, he/she should pay more taxes in return, to the government.
Taxes should be fixed and equal for every body: This means that your loan or income does not affect the amount of taxes you have to pay. This is beneficial for the wealthier people, as they eventually get more money in their pockets, and every person is treated equally, thus no one should be complaining about taxes, when everyone is supposed to pay the same amount. The negative side of this, is wealthy people and the middle class, being able to pay those taxes, while the lower class would be unable to pay them. To fix this, the tax rate could be lowered, but this would result in the taxes being extremely low for middle class families and wealthy people, making it almost a joke, as well as massively decreasing the income of tax money for the government.
A balance ...
My answer to this question is the following: I believe that only a balance between both plans will result in the best possible way of taxing citizens. Progressive taxes should be required, as wealthier people still get enough income even after they have paid taxes, thus there is no way for them to become poor or make loses, and it is only beneficial for the government. (The formula calculating the taxes shouldn't be too high either, otherwise more money is leaving the economy than money entering it, thus the buying power would go down.) Here's where the 2nd plan get's a role: There has to be a roof, a kind of limit, on the progressive tax, making sure that after a certain amount of income, the progressive tax no longer is allowed to go up, thus you would maintain a steady amount of taxes to be paying. I suggest the same to be done in the opposite situation; People should only be taxed starting from a specific amount of income, thus preventing the taxation of extremely low incomes, thus also protecting families and individuals who barely earn money from paying taxes.
Political Affiliation: None, as all possible political groups contain aspects I dislike or find bad, in order to run a country and represent a majority of people in a correct way. If you would ask me what my closest political affiliation would be, I would answer: Democratic socialism.
Sexual Orientation: Straight, yet completely respectful to other people's choices and I do not find bisexual or gay people wrong or different in any way, nor do I dislike them. My sexual orientation is based on the sex which I feel attracted to.
Sex: Male
What is God to you? To me, the word 'God' refers to the the event or miracle which made the existence of the universe possible, in my point of view 'God' is not an individual who created the world, nor is it something that can be related to the view of God in religion, it is solely that what scientists call the Big Bang, but with everything before the Big Bang included.
Religion: I am an apatheist as I don't know whether God exists or not, and I don't care either. At first I thought I was agnostic, but now I understand the difference between the two much better.
In one sentence, describe yourself: An open-minded individual who's not afraid to give his opinion regarding a subject, yet totally respectful to others and fights against any form of discrimination.
Sources:
-
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
-
Playstation Network by Sony, down due to DDoS and hacking attacks
-
Geert Wilders
This is the application I used to enter Logic, and as you're using the exact same application form, I'm using the same application. My points of view have not changed, hence why I'm copying my own answers.
![[Image: Pi0HBk0.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/Pi0HBk0.gif)
