Internet being shut down?

[titlams]

Actually you do. There opinion may be your opinion and that make be the "right" thing for the world. That does not mean what anon are not trying to police the police. If you didn't have dicks like anon going on vigilante on the internet based on some self-founded belief they are right, there would be less policing for the real police to do on the internet. Anon are nothing more than self righteous twats. Period.

Anon took down several child porn sites, which is fair enough, but that is them "policing" the internet, which we are all against right? Before anyone says i'm relating copyright piracy to child porn, I'm not. This is directly about anon, nothing more.

[Mac_Bug]

if you attack the DOJ and the Whitehouse doesn't that make you a terrorist?

[DeafMute]

How else would you fight huge corporations or government bodies akra?

[Shuma]

How else would you fight huge corporations or government bodies akra?

... Terrorism?

[-Str!ker-]

I have to agree with Akranadas. Despite them claiming to be fighting for free speech and all that, taking out websites denies other people their right to free speech. IMHO actions like these don't make them much better then the people trying to pass this bogus legislation. Anon is a long way from being any sort of protector of our rights. I kind of wonder sometimes if the people of Anon actually use the time they waste on taking down sites into something more constructive if they would achieve more. Right now their actions are very short term, unorganized and seem to be purely based on their own interests instead of actually standing up for something. I am pretty sure that if the next round of legislation for copyright protection only effected something like, oh fishing shows on some nature channel, they wouldn't lift a finger because it doesn't fit their personal interests.

As for fighting corporations and the like, I am not sure what would be right yet but these organizations are not one person but multiple people and if there was a way to convince the majority of the right actions to take, it would go much further then inconveniencing a dozen websites for a few days.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I'm fine with most of what Anon does, TBH. I think it is perfectly acceptable to shoot at soldiers who are firing into a crowd, and I apply largely the same principles here.

Re: Terrorism. I found this the other day. Apparently Anonymous has formally declared war on (the government of) America, which makes me wander if American Anons are now liable for some sort of treason charges.

Edit: Striker, Anonymous fought against the old regimes during the Arab spring last year, let's not forget their fight with Scientology, and as late as a few months ago were engaged in extorting a Mexican drug cartel. I think it is fair to say they have more interests at heart than access to free Hollywood-movies.

[Mantaray]

im glad Anon is out there shaking things up a bit. and taking down illegal child porn sites and extorting drug cartels and helping Libyan rebels find targets with Google earth and so forth. they've got more balls then i do.
makes me happy knowing that if americaland enforces some retarded bill that probably the entire government, and entertainment industry will get butt-hurt hard with DDOS and other stuff.
proportional response is a fairly retarded train of logic. but if congress wants to start it there's allways gonna be people out there that'll raise.

[GeoffS]

I'm fine with most of what Anon does, TBH.

im glad Anon is out there shaking things up a bit. and taking down illegal child porn sites

So, internet censorship is fine when it is done by somebody you agree with, but not if it is by somebody you disagree with? Because, make no mistake, when anonymous conduct a DDOS attack and prevent people from accessing a website, they are censoring the internet.

[Aron_DeTomado]

They're not censoring people for disagreeing with them, they're censoring people for attacking them. As long as you don't hack, DDoS, frame, block, or otherwise persecute them or their idols, you'll be fine, regardless of how much you criticise them. When they supported the uprising in Egypt, they were getting requests for attacks on state run newspapers every day, but consistently refused, because they considered the press off-limits. I'm sure they'll exercise as much restraint in the West as in the Middle East.

[titlams]

And when did those child porn sites attack Anon? They disagreed with it so decided to censor it. Right reasons or wrong reasons, Anon are completely hypocritical.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I guess child porn is the exception. I can live with that.

[Methuselath]

Is it just me or does this all sounds like a good set-up for a Cyberpunk shadow wars story? Censorship is bad and all, but the narrativist in me can't help but to feel somewhat... I suppose excited?... about these turn of events. Governments making laws that infringes of freedom of speech, shadow tech organizations declaring cyber war against government, complete with digitized voice spreading their manifesto. Mmmm... Cyberpunkish.

[Misiok]

So lets compare our governments trying to censor the internet, to Anon killing off child porn sites as censorship as well.

[Moe]

Ok who here actually understands what Anon does?

I see a lot of talk about justice and policing the police but at the end of the day they're mostly script kiddies. There have been a few actual hacks, but those ended up hurting people, not the corporations that were ostensibly targeted, by leaking personal information on the web. The other "hacks" are merely DDOS attacks, and all they do is bring a website down for a few hours or days.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning here. The whitehouse.gov website being down for a couple of hours doesn't really *do* much. At best it's a form of protest, and one that maybe should be legitimized. But Anon's releases, and the fanboi circlejerk that invariably follows on various forums, make it sound like they just torched the Lincoln bedroom, when in fact all they did is temporarily tear down a poster.

[titlams]

No, misiok, I'm saying, when you start acting on your own interests to block other people access it is censorship. Child Porn is that exception? Because it is illegal or because it is wrong? Drugs are illegal and incomprehensible wrong to many people, if they took down pro-drug sites then what? Pro-guns the same issue. You can't go a round shouting about how the internet should have no censors then censor things you don't like.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Moe, I might be inclined to agree with you, but also bear in mind that what's important so much what they do as how it is perceived. More specifically, how much news value it is perceived to have. Excepting special cases like taking down Paypal for a day in the middle of the Christmas rush, DDoS-attacks, especially brief ones, are probably just a nuisance for the hosts, yes. However, because the media find it worth reporting on, it is also an incredibly efficient way of getting attention. A bunch of synchronised ten man protests in a bunch of cities across the world will barely make the local newspaper, but by pooling their efforts together online they seem able to get the attention of most of the global media.

Also keep in mind that even if the physical (virtual?) consequences of the actual attack are rather tame, punishment can be fairly severe, especially if you're 17 years old and don't get enough allowance in a year to pay off the fine if you're caught and convicted. DDoS-attacks aren't just a way of showing off your LOIC-network, but also symbolise the fact that Anon are willing to put themselves at the risk (though it might be small) of prosecution in order to protect what they believe in. Unlike tearing down posters, that can be a very powerful message.

Edit: Oh, and lets not forget that DDoS-attacks aren't actually their only method of attack. They are basically the warning shot across the bow, or the warcry before the charge. If y'all will recall, Anon had a pretty big hand in outing Scientology as a pyramid scheme. Before Anons little tussle with the church, its ridicule was mostly limited to people who watch South Park, but after Anon got involved, the church had its dirty laundry aired on international news. Also there was that secret plot against Wikileaks they revealed (and probably prevented) when they hacked those e-mail accounts.

[Mirage Knight]

Anon is nothing more that a group of anarchist, self-righteous, self-serving, immature low-lifes with little respect - if any - for authority. Their actions are motivated purely by their own warped sense of ethics and morality, the desire for attention, and the need to prove themselves. "Hey - look at us! With our l33t skills, we hacked (insert name here) because we think their bad...and you should think they're bad too!" That's what it boils down to. In addition, they do what they do because they feel they can get away with it and not suffer any repercussions for their actions.

If you honestly think they serve a higher calling or the public's best interests, then you're sadly mistaken. Anything "good" they might do in the public's eyes is merely coincidental - and giving them kudos for that gives them credit that is ill-deserved, especially considering everything else they've done.

I for one can't wait to see the rest of these miscreants rounded up and thrown in prison.

[Mantaray]

i'd also like to raise a hand and say that i have no problem with the censorship of sites that involve FUCKING THE BRAINS OUT OF CHILDREN WITH NO SAY IN THE MATTER
welcome to my sensationalist post. the words above may well be a -little- provocative. but taking the above as an example of -only agreeing with censorship you like- is sickest and most perverse use of third person analysis i can think of, i'd probably put that next to genocide. [removed. sorry]

[edit] my post didn't have much discussion value. so i'd like to add that i acknowledged everything Moe is saying. we all know anon is a bunch of script kiddies and that DDOS attacks are pretty feeble. but this is also why i dont have much problem with it. its a statement rather then an actual harm-doing.

[Misiok]

So, child porn is okay because censoring it is against free speech. Okay.

You people should know that nothing is black and white. Really.

[Starblade]

get out.

This is a discussion forum, not 4chan, and you're not a moderator. You don't get to say who does and who does not get to post.

[titlams]

I'm not saying you do or anyone does. But the hypocrisy seemed better pointed out with the extreme example. How about the Scientology church? Pyramid scheme, everyone already knew what they did, it is not Anons choice if people want to fall for it. That is policing the internet. Westbros church? It is policing the internet.

[Vintage]

@Mirage Knight,

How can it be a desire for attention when the whole point is being anonymous, i.e. not knowing who the hell they are. Isn't the point of getting attention to be recognized? If a random hacker pulls some hacking stunt and claims the title Anonymous, then he gets no attention, a faceless "organization" does. A faceless organization which can be any hacker in the world who decides to claim they are Anonymous.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment. As much as I might come across as a free speech fundamentalist, child porn is like the one exception pretty much everyone is willing to make. Barring crimes on the scale of genocide (which are largely irrelevant to free speech legislation), the rape and exploitation of children is pretty much the most heinous act a human could possibly commit, and nobody in their right mind would equate it to drug- or gun-liberalism. This is apparent from the fact that child porn is such an effective subject with "wedge legislation". That is, laws designed to make exceptions most people will agree are legitimate, in order to pave a slippery slope to more controversial legislation, whereas drugs and guns very rarely - if ever - play this role.

Edit: Okay, so I got ninja'd by a few posts, but I assume most of you gather I'm talking about child porn.

Edit2:

How about the Scientology church? Pyramid scheme, everyone already knew what they did, it is not Anons choice if people want to fall for it.

The problem with Scientology wasn't so much that it's a pyramid scheme, as the fact that they persecute and silence critics (with copyright law) and murder apostates. The fact that it is a pyramid scheme was useful in exposing them as a cult, but it wasn't the reason Anonymous went after them.

[-Str!ker-]

While their individual identities are not credited, most of the people in Anon probably greatly identify with the organizations' persona and they feel the accomplishments and actions are as their own since it is a group of like minded individuals. They do not need to be known individually to still enjoy the attention, mostly anger and frustration that is directed at Anon. It's almost like the current generation of "U mad Bro?" crap taken to another level. Most people cannot retaliate so the misdirected attention to the group (which they also just probably enjoy) just ends being a way to have "power" over others.

[Mirage Knight]

Nice post there Str!ker - well put.

i'd also like to raise a hand and say that i have no problem with the censorship of sites that involve FUCKING THE BRAINS OUT OF CHILDREN WITH NO SAY IN THE MATTER

At least the FBI and Interpol do a bit more than just DDOS / block child porn sites - they find their physical locations, arrest the sick bastards connected with them and confiscate their equipment, shutting them down indefinitely if not permanently. They do actually do this sort of thing. Last year I believe, a huge child porn network that was headquartered in the Netherlands was raided and its operators arrested. The arrests and confiscation of computer equipment lead to the names and locations of other members who were subsequently arrested as well. So whose doing the better job here at protecting the web? The law enforcement and government agencies removing the infection as opposed to the internet vigilantes who merely treat the symptoms they don't like.

On that note, let's give proper and grateful credit to law enforcement authorities where they do good for the betterment of society, shall we?

[Mantaray]

well theres an interesting point there. if someone does something in the name of anon and then tells his mates that it was 'him' to gain personal clout. is he still a member of anon? surely not. you cant be anon if someone knows that its 'you'
its a small irony granted that's probably lost on the amateur http-warriors but still worth a small chuckle.

[-Str!ker-]

well theres an interesting point there. if someone does something in the name of anon and then tells his mates that it was 'him' to gain personal clout. is he still a member of anon? surely not. you cant be anon if someone knows that its 'you'
its a small irony granted that's probably lost on the amateur http-warriors but still worth a small chuckle.

That seems like a good idea for a small web comic or something. What happens in Anon stays in Anon...lol

[LoCo]

Anon is nothing more that a group of anarchist, self-righteous, self-serving, immature low-lifes with little respect - if any - for authority. Their actions are motivated purely by their own warped sense of ethics and morality, the desire for attention, and the need to prove themselves. "Hey - look at us! With our l33t skills, we hacked (insert name here) because we think their bad...and you should think they're bad too!" That's what it boils down to. In addition, they do what they do because they feel they can get away with it and not suffer any repercussions for their actions.

Unless you have proof that every member of Anon is like that, then I can say much the same about you and your post.

So please, provide some facts and not just your interpretations of things otherwise you are much of what you claim them to be. Do you do what you do for any other reason than because you can get away with it and not suffer any repercussions that you can't handle? "Hey look at me! I can talk trash about people I don't know because I've formed an opinion based on rumour and hearsay! You should hold the same opinion as me!"

Your points are invalid. Your post is meaningless except as a troll since you can back exactly none of it up.

Now we look at the end results. Your post achieved nothing. Anon's 'protests' have achieved much good. Which one should we assign more worth to?

let's give proper and grateful credit to law enforcement authorities where they do good for the betterment of society, shall we?

But lets not give proper and grateful credit to Anon where they do good for the betterment of society, just because we think their aims are selfish, shall we?

Law enforcement authorities have a job. They do it, they get paid. Anon doesn't get paid but you want to not give them credit while heaping praise on law enforcement.

Do you suppose you have an unreasonable bias against Anon for whatever reason?

[Aron_DeTomado]

On that note, let's give proper and grateful credit to law enforcement authorities where they do good for the betterment of society, shall we?

We already do. With the taxmoney that funds their pay checks, the monopoly on violence, and the considerable authority and mandate they can secure through due process (read: warrants). Anon, on the other hand, has no money, no part in states' monopoly of violence, no warrants, and work on the outskirts of the law. Gee, I wander why one is more effective than the other.

[-Str!ker-]

In my personal opinion, when I read the twitter comments and other various posts that get linked on the web it all comes off in a bad way, almost like this is just a form of entertainment or a game for them. If Anon wants to keep doing what they are doing and do some good, they will have to have some figure that is not anonymous. Sure that defeats their purpose but right now people like me wont place any trust in them or their methods without some sort of collateral to show that they are standing for something. For me someone who stands up for a cause despite consequences gets much more thought, sympathy and legitimacy then a group of unknowns who posts "TANGO DOWN" and lists some websites they interrupted. Right now Anon is very volatile as anyone can commit any action, good or evil and claim it was on behalf of Anon. A public face would help stop this and help explain to people why what Anon is doing is needed. Right now, it's to easy for them to come off as the description that Mirage Knight gave.

[Misiok]

Anon doesn't really care if the odd Joe trusts them or not. They're doing what they must because they can. They're doing it for themselves and for what they believe Internet should be/look like.

[Mirage Knight]

Anon's 'protests' have achieved much good.

Unless you can absolutely prove that beyond a shadow of doubt that that is indeed fact, your opinion is as meaningless as mine - by your reasoning mind you.

Your points are invalid. Your post is meaningless except as a troll since you can back exactly none of it up.

Your argument is null and void seeing as you've decided to commit the logical fallacy of attacking me rather than my point, because I have a point of view you don't like. As such, I refuse to debate with you as I have better things to do with my time.

Do you suppose you have an unreasonable bias against Anon for whatever reason?

Wrong. My problem with them is the fact they operate above the law to inflict their own warped sense of morality and justice on everyone else - regardless of whether their actions are welcome or not. I'd say those are reasonable justifications for my disdain for Anon.

[FriendlyFire]

I find it amusing that people refer to Anonymous as an organisation and not merely a loosely tied band of teenagers and crackers with too much time on their hands. You can't say Anon is either good or bad because Anon is not a homogenous entity; it'd be like trying to argue whether humanity as a whole is good or bad.

That some subsections of Anon happen to fall in line with your own agenda does not necessarily mean the existence of Anon is a good thing. I see it as having a ton of people in an arena with rabid panthers roaming around. Sure, the panthers might attack some people you hate, but does that mean the concept is good?

[Aron_DeTomado]

Nobody in this thread has referred to Anonymous as an organisation.

[Danustar]

Yeah, I'm not a fan either. Don't go kidding yourself that the actual anonymity is some gallant gesture of humility while they enforce their ethics on the world with no accountability.
They don't want to be identified because they don't want to get locked up.

Seems child porn and pedophilia are Godwin's Law for the 21st century eh.

[FriendlyFire]

@Aron: I'm seeing people tagging Anon as being this or that all the time (hypocritical, pro-freedom, whatever). You plain can't do that, really. That's what I meant by "organisation", an organised association of members which all work in a certain direction. Anon doesn't work that way.

[Mac_Bug]

who says child porn is illegal in every country? why should someone living in the north pole conform to your 'child porn is bad must be shutdown' rule?

[Moe]

Mkay, it's time for everyone to take a large chill pill and to bring it down a notch. Remember kids, someone else having a different opinion from yours doesn't make them evil, or an idiot (unless of course they're disagreeing with me :P )

Someone brought up scientology as an example. Anon ran their ops against them, brought down their website for a little while and leaked a bunch of documents. Scientology still seems to be doing fine, in fact they're now running TV commercials. Apart from a brief flurry of hate against scientology - which really isn't all that new - I'm not sure what they accomplished. This starkly contrasts with their grandiose announcements. So maybe if those of you who feel that Anon has accomplished much could use this or another example to illustrate just what effect they've had, we could move past calling each other doodieheads.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Wikipedia has a rather neat timeline, detailing the history of Anonymous. And before anyone asks: Yes, I think the Habboraids were incredibly immature and rather inappropriate, and raiding that epilepsy forum was obviously deplorable. They seem to have grown up since then though. (And yes, FriendlyFire, this does somewhat reinforce the point you were trying to make).

Anyway, some neat stuff they've done:

Anonymous, together with The Pirate Bay and various Iranian hackers, launched an Iranian Green Movement Support site called Anonymous Iran.[45] The site has drawn over 22,000 supporters world wide and allows for information exchange between the world and Iran, despite attempts by the Iranian government to censor news about the riots on the internet. The site provides resources and support to Iranians who are protesting.

Anonymous's role in the DDoS attacks on the Tunisian government's websites have led to an upsurge of internet activism among Tunisians against the government.[93] A figure associated with Anonymous released an online message denouncing the government clampdown on recent protests and posted it on the Tunisian government website.

Anonymous also released the names and passwords of the email addresses of Middle Eastern governmental officials, in support of the Arab Spring.[100] Countries targeted included officials from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco.[101]

Anonymous also went on to take control of the company's [HBGary Federal] e-mail, dumping 68,000 e-mails from the system, erasing files, and taking down their phone system.[104] The leaked emails revealed the reports and company presentations of other companies in computer security such as Endgame systems who promise high quality offensive software, advertising "subscriptions of $2,500,000 per year for access to 0day exploits"

Among the documents exposed was a PowerPoint presentation entitled "The Wikileaks Threat", put together by HBGary Federal along with two other data intelligence firms for Bank of America in December.[106] Within the report, these firms created a list of important contributors to WikiLeaks; they further developed a strategic plan of attack against the site. As TechHerald explains, "the plan included pressing a journalist in order to disrupt his support of the organization, cyber attacks, disinformation, and other potential proactive tactics." The report specifically claims that Glenn Greenwald's support was key to WikiLeaks' ongoing survival.

On March 14, 2011, the group Anonymous began releasing emails it said were obtained from Bank of America. According to the group, the files show evidence of "corruption and fraud", and relate to the issue of improper foreclosures. They say that a former employee from Balboa Insurance, a firm which used to be owned by BofA.

In August 2011, in response to Bay Area Rapid Transit's shutdown of cell phone service in an attempt to disconnect protesters from assembling non-violently in response to a police shooting, Anonymous sent out a mass email/fax bomb to BART personnel and organized multiple mass physical protests at the network's Civic Center station.

There is more, but you get the idea.

[mlai]

What's the point of impotently hating on Anon, when there are much much bigger fish (such as Rupert Murdoch and his 1000 cronies) for you to impotently hate on?

When the game Syndicate Wars came out in 1996, I distinctly remember thinking, as a teenager, "LOL this game's premise is so silly."
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child..." I Cor. xiii. 11.

Edit: Oh, and I'm with Aron. And saying Anony is hateable because, as an example, some of its members attacked child porn sites (to whatever degree of effectiveness)... that's just... I don't know how the discussion managed to devolve to that.

[Akranadas]

What about their idea of releasing Personal information of police officers to the general public? Doesn't that strike you as reckless and of them not thinking of the consequences that could happen to the officers involved and of their families? I mean, the officers in these instances are nothing more than citizens with a job in enforcement, they don't call the shots when it comes to what to enforce, they're just regular people trying to make a living, yet Anon has made them a target and exposed their private information to the masses to do with it, what ever they wish.

Yes, I understand they are doing it to stop crooked cops, but do you really believe that when they release all that info that all those officers are bad? Come on.

@mlai, I don't hate Anon. I dislike their methods. They are ineffective and more than not, innocent people suffer more than the guilty.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Okay, so there are two issues at hand with the OpBART incident: Whether the attack was really by anonymous, and whether it was justified.

First off, I don't consider "they were only following orders" a valid defence. However, considering how many officers had their personal details released, there were probably some innocents caught in there. The hackers could of course have gone over the list to see who was culpable of what, but it is probably a reasonable assumption to say they didn't. In other words, innocents got screwed. This I obviously have a problem with. To put it more categorically, I don't think it is okay go after people in bulk without being sure to avoid collateral damage.

Then we have the issue of who did what. The fact that @AnonyOps basically disowned the whole affair would indicate that this was not a coordinated event, but rather that "some random joe" or a splinter group was behind it and tried to get other Anons behind them as a fait accompli. It could, on the other hand, also mean that @AnonyOps is an account controlled by a minority which was against this particular attack. Until I see press releases endorsing the attack or a source citing some discussion where a large portion of Anons actually support the attack, I'm inclined to believe that this event didn't involve enough Anons to be considered an Anon operation. Except then there is the whole physical protest thing. So yeah, I could probably go in circles like this all night without getting anywhere. I guess I'm ambivalent on this matter for now.

[Mantaray]

i'd like to point out that anon isn't an organisation, and referring to them or their acts is pointless. they arguably have a member count of zero and any statement of intent is pretty much null and void because there is no accountability. im not denying that occasionally a few anonymous people get together in an irc and go 'hey, i found <url>nasty link</url> lets bomb it'

no-one can prove or disprove the size of anon, or if it genuinely exists.

@Akranadas, this is from the article you posted

"Some random Joe joined a channel and released the data to the press," the tweet noted. Another tweet noted that the leak of BART police data "could be the work sanctioned by those who truly support anonymous, or agent provocateurs. Stay skeptical."

because anyone can claim anonymous status, we'll never be able to attribute ANYTHING to it as a group or trust it.
all we can have here is opinions that it is IMPOSSIBLE to back up. therefore, its a train of discussion that.. i cant really counterpoint.

[Akranadas]

The thing is Aron, if someone does something under Anons name that makes them look bad, someone else denounces it. So how do we really know what Anon really stands up for when they can denounce their own actions and people such as yourself simply go: okay. Isn't a bit strange that when one of their actions gets flak from the public that someone comes out on one of their many "official" twitter feeds to denounce it?

[Aron_DeTomado]

Up to this point, this actually hasn't really been a problem for me. When discussing Anonymous I've usually been able to separate stuff like the Habbo-raids from aiding resistance movements in dictatorships by categorising them as "old" and "new". In the few cases I haven't, there have usually been indicators of a black flag operation, but this case is obviously different. I guess it highlights the novelty of Anonymous as a phenomenon: It is quite literally unprecedented in history, so our vocabulary is largely unequipped to describe it. We haven't called them an organisation (at least not in this thread), but I don't think we've really referred to them as anything else, either. I mean, I don't agree with the sentiment that they don't exist - they clearly do - we're just not sure what they are. And yes, this does obviously cause problems when parts of Anon can just disown operations that were handled badly.

I don't feel I can really proceed from here before we work out some common terminology, because I don't think we can really have a productive discussion on the matter before we actually know what every one else is talking about. It occurs to me that while Anonymous itself is unprecedented, it is not without historical parallels. For instance, no historian can with certitude say who, exactly, the Huns were. We have vague idea about a tribe of horsemen from the east, but it is remarkably unclear which individuals these actually encompassed. Infact, it is not certain that even the Romans and Goths (their contemporaries) were any more sure than we are. Maybe even the Huns themselves weren't in complete agreement over who exactly was entailed by their tribe. See the similarity? Well, both Romans and Goths at the time, as well as histories today, are still able to talk about "the Huns" doing X, or just "Huns" behaving Y, if it was clearly only a fraction of them doing something. Perhaps that starts to approach how we should conceptualise Anonymous? As a sort of... cybertribe?

[Langy]

I think 'Anonymous' is closest to being a 'movement' - it's a bunch of unrelated people, quite a few of which probably don't even know anyone else in the 'movement'. They're identified primarily by their stupid masks and by self-identification, but anyone can wear a stupid mask and self-identify as part of the movement. Pretty much anyone can help perform one of their 'hacks', and all it takes to do so is to say 'hey, I want to attack target 'x', so I'll do so and then claim it was part of this 'movement''. Since there is no membership, no leadership, and no real guiding 'rules' as to what Anonymous does, if any one person successfully 'hacks' a website and claims it as being an action of Anonymous, then it was an action of Anonymous.

It's not a group, but a fad.

[Vintage]

That's what I was saying earlier when people were claiming Anon is a group of attention whores. If I was a hacker I could go hack a website that appears to be on the Anon agenda, claim to be Anonymous, and any possible credit I could have gotten is dissipated into something that no one may truly be a part of. Seems to be the opposite someone wanting attention would do.

The recent youtube video of Anon declaring war on the US and two other governments for internet censorship could have been just a single guy who put it up in the hopes that any like minded individuals would jump on the bandwagon and initiate attacks. It would be an interesting experiment to put up a video under the Anon flag in various places on the internet (such as 4chan, piratebay, and endoftheinter.net), declaring war on <insert target here> for <arguably justifiable reasons>. I wonder if any attacks would then take place under the Anon name.

I find the similarities to the Laughing Man from GiTS: Stand Alone Complex very interesting. Could Anon be the very first stand alone complex?

In the original anime, the Stand Alone Complex emerges in the form of the Laughing Man, a mythical figure under whose banner a large variety of disparate groups and individuals launch attacks against corporations and governments, with a common unifying theme of speaking truth to power. But there was no centralized organization, nor was there even an original who set out to launch such a crusade; the concept evolved spontaneously across the Internet, led by no one person but shaped by hundreds of independent ones.

From Wikipedia:

In the series itself, it [Stand Alone Complex] usually refers to events surrounding the Laughing Man case, and to some extents, the teamwork observed in Public Security Section 9. It is presented as an emergent phenomenon catalyzed by parallelization of the human psyche through the cyberbrain networks.[2] A key point is that due to the electronic communications network that is increasingly permeating society, more and more people are being exposed to the same information and stimuli, making the overall psyche and responses of large groups of people increasingly similar, the result being that the potential increases exponentially for copycat behavior that forms a Standalone Complex. There is no original Laughing Man, no leader. Everyone is acting on his own, yet a coherent whole emerges. There are people who employed the copycat behavior before others, but what started the coherent whole is indefinitive.

[OpelFalcon]

In other news, the Irish government has once again shown their incompetence and ignorance and are currently trying to introduce their own version of SOPA. Here's a Blogpost about the whole thing. And here's a link to The Journal with some more information.

[GeoffS]

The nebulous nature of "Anon" and the lack of any organisation or structure is one issue I have with supporting vigilante actions taken by people claiming to be members of "Anon". The bigger problem that comes from the lack of a coherent organisation or structure is that there is no accountability for any actions taken. If "Anon" decides to take down a website, or hack and release a company's emails or documents, there is no appeal process against them, and no checks and balances to ensure that the actions are fair and reasonable.

In my real job I have the authority to issue fines of up to $AUD10K to people for breaking the laws that I can enforce, and I can also start prosecution actions that could result in fines in the millions of dollars or jail time for people found guilty. In return for that responsibility and authority, I am rightly subject to scrutiny and checking to ensure my actions are fair and reasonable. People who I issue fines to have the right to appeal for an internal review of the decision at no cost to them, if they are still not satisfied with the result they can ask for an external review, again at no cost to them, and they still have the right to elect to have the matter heard in court if they wish. Ultimately, the review and appeal process could go all the way to the High Court of Australia. At any stage of that review and appeal process, if I was found to have either negligently or criminally misused my powers I could be charged with a criminal offence and face jail. That's accountability, and it is something that "Anon" and other vigilantes don't have. That's why vigilante justice is never a good thing, even if it occasionally achieves what people think are good outcomes.

And saying Anony is hateable because, as an example, some of its members attacked child porn sites (to whatever degree of effectiveness)... that's just... I don't know how the discussion managed to devolve to that.

The discussion didn't devolve to that at all, since nobody said anything like that. You are the first one to drag the discussion down to that level.

[Mac_Bug]

Nobody's defending child porn sites, but how do you know said child porn site is illegal in whatever country it is hosted in? If someone hosted a porn site in Swaziland, where there are no laws against it, doesn't this mean anonymous just went against their own argument about how the US government is evil by forcing their will upon other countries? Why should megaupload block child porn via hashes when a user in Swaziland could legitimately backup his collection legally? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[edit]

source

http://chartsbin.com/view/q4y