Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scotland Yard Has Been After Anonymous For Months

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the summon-sherlock dept.

Privacy 278

jhernik writes "Scotland Yard has confirmed it has been investigating Anonymous since before the WikiLeaks wars broke out. The Metropolitan police has been investigating Internet vigilante group Anonymous, since well before its current online reprisals against companies not supporting WikiLeaks. 'Earlier this year, the Metropolitan police service received a number of allegations of denial of service cyber attacks againat several companies by a group calling itself Anonymous,' a police spokesman told eWEEK Europe UK. 'We are investigating these criminal allegations and our investigation is ongoing.'"

cancel ×

278 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Trust No One! (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572724)

The x-files were right!

Obligatory (5, Interesting)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572732)

If Anonymous is made up of random people who care about the issue of the moment, how do you investigate them over time? I can't see how they would all care about the same things, as it's not like Anonymous hires people to do stuff.

Unless there's some sort of "Anonymous Hacking, LLC" I haven't hear of...

Re:Obligatory (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572778)

Unless there's some sort of "Anonymous Hacking, LLC" I haven't hear of...

There is, actually, more commonly known as "the entire human race".

I'd like to know what kind of budget Scotland Yard is working with that they can investigate everyone on the planet.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573154)

you have discovered the purpose behind the metagovernment [metagovernment.com]

Re:Obligatory (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572808)

If Anonymous is made up of random people who care about the issue of the moment, how do you investigate them over time? I can't see how they would all care about the same things, as it's not like Anonymous hires people to do stuff.

Unless there's some sort of "Anonymous Hacking, LLC" I haven't hear of...

You find anyone that's been involved and pin everything on them then use trumped up charges to lock them up for the rest of their lives. Have you not been paying attention?

Re:Obligatory (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573092)

while that is probably optimal for the police (and in violation of substantial rights worldwide), it's not even realistic - they will only find the dumbest folks who do not use proxies, vpn, etc.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573126)

Well, less than 7 proxies anyway.

Re:Obligatory (3)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572822)

If Anonymous is made up of random people who care about the issue of the moment, how do you investigate them over time? I can't see how they would all care about the same things, as it's not like Anonymous hires people to do stuff.

Unless there's some sort of "Anonymous Hacking, LLC" I haven't hear of...

Knowing Scotland Yard their answer will be to track and investigate everyone.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572854)

The fuzz probably have a hard time understanding anything that doesn't have a top-down hierarchy.

I can see the cops playing around with the /b/tard's LOIC software so they could see exactly what it does, how to quickly identify people using it, etc.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572874)

Even if Anonymous is made up of random people who care about the issue of the moment, you can still investigate people who have committed specific offenses against a specific target. And, as we have seen, the vast majority of Anonymous are script kiddies who don't know how to hide their footprints, so that shouldn't be entirely too difficult.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573112)

aye. Press release done in MS WORD without even bothering to scrub it of basic metadata, anyone?

Re:Obligatory (2)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573368)

Press release done in MS WORD without even bothering to scrub it of basic metadata, anyone?

Jesus called this one 2000 years ago when he said: "Put your (M)S WORD in its place, for all who take the (M)S WORD will perish by the (M)S WORD."

If only Anonymous were proper God-fearing people they'd have heeded the warning!

Re:Obligatory (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572968)

You don't. You bust anyone who is even tangentially connected and charge them with whatever you can. You can't take them down from the top, since there is no top. You can only scare their recruits away.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573132)

Oh there is a top. It isn't a specified, well defined top but there are the big fish and the little fish in Anon just like anyone else.

No I'm not a member, and not part of the group, but if Anon is what it says it is should that matter?

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573484)

Yes you are, unless you're saying that you're not one of the nameless, faceless people that take care of other people without them necessarily knowing your name in some way, shape, form or fashion. Anonymous is not a group. Anonymous is the guy that changes your oil, or the IT guy who keeps the servers running. Anonymous is the girl on the train that you always wished you talked to, and the doctor that diagnosed your friend with cancer.

I am Spartacus.

Doesnt matter (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573012)

Demonizing your enemy in the face of public opinion is an old tactic. If they make the public think this group is responsible for 'less noble' causes, they will erode support. Doesn't need to be true, or even the same group, to be effective.

Re:Doesnt matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573076)

Oh come on, have you BEEN to 4chan? You can't get much lower than that anyway...

England's been after Anonymous since Franlin&P (5, Interesting)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573044)

Worth noting that Anonymous lost England the Colonies in North America, and they've probably been after them ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine [wikipedia.org]
"Thomas Paine has a claim to the title The Father of the American Revolution because of Common Sense, the pro-independence monograph pamphlet he anonymously published on January 10, 1776; signed "Written by an Englishman", the pamphlet became an immediate success."

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_name.html [pbs.org]
"Benevolus — While in England, Franklin penned a number of letters under the name of Benevolus. These letters tried to answer some of the negative assertions made by the British press about the American colonists. These letters were published in London newspapers and journals. "

Perhaps those are the Anonymous guys that England's really still mad at.

Re:England's been after Anonymous since Franlin&am (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573144)

Please just because you use the title "anonymous" doesn't automatically connect you to any and all other anonymous political efforts.

Re:England's been after Anonymous since Franlin&am (4, Interesting)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573646)

By that line of logic, that means there is no group called anonymous.

That is fair enough. There really isn't any point to trying to take down "Anonymous" because everyone is a member. Think about the ending sequence to V for Vendetta. That is really what anonymous is. It is fitting that they chose that mask as their symbol.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573056)

If Anonymous is made up of random people who care about the issue of the moment, how do you investigate them over time? I can't see how they would all care about the same things, as it's not like Anonymous hires people to do stuff.

Of course you can't. Anonymous is a shifting mob of whoever happens to give enough of a damn about something to do something about it at the moment. "Something" (for the white-hats among us) could be as innocuous as posting a link to Fark about some asshat throwing puppies into a river as part of a campaign to get something to go viral. Or (for the stupid and/or criminally-inclined) it could be as assinine and wrong as participating in a DDoS attack. It's the modern-day equivalent ImprovEverywhere's brand of flash mobs surrealist theater.

By giving Anonymous a group identity, authoritarians - who seem incapable of conceiving of anything as loosely-organized as a flash mob - miss the point. They also miss the target. A few of the dumber and/or more criminally-inclined individuals get nabbed, but Anonymous remains unscathed, for it is legion.

Unless there's some sort of "Anonymous Hacking, LLC" I haven't hear of...

No, but The Uplink Corporation [introversion.co.uk] has been hiring for almost ten years. The storyline bears a pretty good resemblance to what's going on right now between Wikileaks, its supporters, and the rest of the world, right down to big buckets of encrypted data containing secrets that change the fate of the world, and The Powers That Be planting bogus arrest warrants on their enemies as they struggle to control it.

Re:Obligatory (3, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573084)

The thing is Anonymous isn't as random as they like to claim. It is basically a group of more or less the same individuals, a large pool if you will. Dis-organised, or unorganized if you prefer, but defiantly not random. It is basically an internet based multi-national political party by another name.

Much of the "You don't understand us. We are x, y and z." stuff is just tiresome hype.

Re:Obligatory (5, Interesting)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573122)

That may be true, but there's bound to be a relatively small core of people who are controlling the botnets. Those people might not be involved in every "Anonymous" attack, but they will likely participate semi-regularly in them. Those are the people they're after. Not joe idiot who downloaded the little flooding app.

Re:Obligatory (2)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573220)

Check your FTP server, they log in there all the time.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573636)

Check your FTP server, they log in there all the time.

+1

Re:Obligatory (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573234)

anonymous is a movement. as such, it follows certain sociological rules. #1: in any movement, there is a small group of core fanatics, and a large group of one-offs and on-and-offs. same with wikipedia, or al qaeda, or drug gangs

now you could take out a portion of the core competency, and nothing will change. but if you tracked and profiled the core competency over time, and took them all out at once, you really would cripple the movement

however, since the "cause" of anonymous is so simplistic, others would quickly fill the void and anonymous would be back in action in no time. again, same with wikipedia or al qaeda or drug gangs

so scotland yard is only partially absurd, not completely absurd

Re:Obligatory (4, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573252)

If Anonymous is made up of random people who care about the issue of the moment, how do you investigate them over time? I can't see how they would all care about the same things, as it's not like Anonymous hires people to do stuff.

You start by collecting log files after each attack and correlating IP addresses. You log the 4chan groups & IRC chats and see if you can identify who is who. You sift through the attacker's IP addresses and see if identify some of the culprits and their ISPs. You install some of the remote control bots on some sample machines and analyse the traffic and its origins. Eventually you have info to go an execute some search warrants and take it from there depending on what you find.

"Anonymous" probably has an inner circle of ring leaders who mostly know what they're doing. A larger circle of volunteers who probably don't and act as proxies / bots for attacks, and then a large number of 1-time / wannabes who get involved on the periphery and then leave. I believe an investigation is bound to identify a lot of people in the outer rings and probably a couple in the centre too. People will rat on each other too for a lesser sentence or a warning.

Proving it is another matter of course, but people who think they're somehow immune from prosecution because they're in a large herd are deluding themselves. At the end of the day if you aided a DDOS attack and it can be proven, you're in deep shit.

Re:Obligatory (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573432)

That's exactly it. Technically, I am part of Anonymous because I empathize with them and surf their various internet presences. I post and comment, I participate.

I am not a criminal (that I know of), I don't participate in their 'attacks'. I support their cause, and appreciate the work they're doing to bring attention to the BS and injustice in the world brought about by closed censoring governments and corporations.

I think they can handle some situations better, but it's near impossible to pin down WHO was responsible for it within their 'loose organization' - especially without any distinct leadership. This is exactly where their strength comes from, and their reason for being as they are.

Just because you participate in their online discussions does not mean you are participating in their criminal endeavors.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573578)

Unless there's some sort of "Anonymous Hacking, LLC" I haven't hear of...

Back in the day it was all EBaum's fault, that's where all the Gaia Online and Habbo Hotel attacks came from!

If you don't know, how do you know? (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573630)

If Anonymous is made up of random people who care about the issue of the moment, how do you investigate them over time?

This question begins with "if", which is to say, an unsupported hypothesis. That implies a complementary"if" hypothesis, "On the other hand, if Anonymous is NOT made up of random people...".

Is there any particular reason to think that "Anonymous" isn't always primarily the same handful of people? Since you don't know who they are, how do you know that they aren't the same?

Re:Obligatory (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573658)

Exactly. It's a completely decentralized group. There's no "leadership," and only discussed common goals of people who are inherently individual. They're chasing wind, and that's really not an over-dramatization.

Are Annoymous' DDoS attacks illegal? (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573674)

All those traditional botnet DDoS attacks are usually done for extortion, which sounds illegal regardless, plus the botnet owner actually controls the action. There are however three seperate activities in an LOIC attack : publishing the call to arms, participating in the LOIC attack, and directing the LOIC traffic on IRC. I'd imagine the third activity is illegal under fairly modern anti-DDoS laws, but the first two might not be. Or how illegal they are depends upon the jurisdiction. It'll be interesting.

Breaking news! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572742)

Police investigate crimes!

Re:Breaking news! (1)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573230)

Police are being seen to investigate crimes!

Fixed that for you.

Phillip.

Re:Breaking news! (1)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573692)

Assuming a crime has been committed - in the UK we are allowed to protest peacefully. I can't think of anything more peaceful than sitting at your computer sipping coffee. Well, I can, but you get my point. Certainly extorting money under threat of DDOS is a crime, as is stealing data. I think Scotland Yard might have a hard time prosecuting these kids who are not in it for personal gain.

Good luck with that (4, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572748)

A source inside Scotland Yard has also confirmed that they are looking to bring Time Magazine's Person of the Year 2006 in for questioning.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572828)

Something tells me Zuckerberg possesses the resources to deal with this investigation effectively and will not spend a night in jail.

Anonymous is basically a loosely affiliated group of politically active trolls. Something like 4chan without all the pedophelia. This is my assumption anyways, I don't believe there is enough of a tangible organziation to call it a group so much as a movement.

So good luck with investigating. I am sure they will come across a random supporter who does not know enough to operate behind a proxy or remove metadata from their documents. I am equally sure there will never be a perp walk where the shadowy leaders of the organziation are marched out in front of a courthouse, because there are no shadowy leaders. There's a Deux ex Machina to the group that stands beyond formal leadership, and governments are going to have a hard time dealing with them.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572840)

Psst - it's not 2006 any more.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572844)

Whoosh!

Re:Good luck with that (1)

chronosan (1109639) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572950)

Double whoosh

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573178)

Unless techsoldaten is actually Zuckerberg. Anonymous Coward approves of talking about yourself in the third person.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573434)

2006 != 2010, see http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20061225,00.html

Re:Good luck with that (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572918)

Me!? Why would they want me?

Ohhh... my username.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573274)

No way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572756)

Anon? Do something illegal? No way.

Excuses (5, Funny)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572766)

They're just using it as an excuse to browse 4chan.

Re:Excuses (1)

mgabrys (14614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573714)

They'll fucking flip when they find Pedobear. UK policetards love child PrOn. Ask Pete Townshend.

Well of course... (1)

absurdist (758409) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572780)

They are Guy Fawkes sympathizers, after all...

I'm quacking in my boots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572782)

Yes, Anonymous Coward is a duck. come and find me Scotland Yard. I can fly, you cannot.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572784)

I am anonymous, come and get me bastards!

I wonder (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572816)

who the group might /b/...

Article has no content, move along (3, Funny)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572830)

"Police interested in Anonymous", is what it boils down to. Shows no sign of a clue that Anonymous isn't an organisation as opposed to the section of the geeky general public who are pissed off with current state of affairs/doing it for the lulz.
TL:DR - Scotland Yard can't Triforce.

Re:Article has no content, move along (1)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573014)

They don't need a clue - this is more for show: Out-of-touch-elderly-British-citizen: "Did you hear the news on the telly? The Anonymous is out to get us!" Scotland-Tard: "Rest easy. We're on the case!"

Re:Article has no content, move along (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573036)

Yo can call it "not an organisation" as much as you want, but Anonymous most certainly does have a seniority hierarchy and a leadership of sorts - there is a degree of organisation there, even if its fluid.

Re:Article has no content, move along (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573102)

Citation needed! I've not seen any evidence of this. The IRC channel for Anon Ops certainly doesn't display any such qualities...

Re:Article has no content, move along (4, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573342)

"Citation needed!" is really becoming the modern version of "liar liar pants on fire"....

The very fact that there is an irc channel indicates organisation, and if you look deeper for long enough you can see the underlying control there as well - there are users who frequent the channel more often than others, and who get listened to more often than others.

If you want an example of how an uncouth mob can still have organisation and planning, take a look at any protest (the recent student protests in London are a prime example). Taken together, the mob is just that, a mob. Look deeper and there are people in the mob that incite the other members, take the first steps to violence and action, make suggestions - these are the ones that get stuck up on wanted posters and pursued by police.

"Anonymous" is no different.

Re:Article has no content, move along (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573392)

I guess in any mob you'll have some individuals who partake more, some who partake less. In Anonymous's case I think it's more that someone thought "an IRC channel? Lulz!" and then it *evolved* from there. I don't think there's much more to it than that.

what the gay? (-1, Troll)

Col. Panic (90528) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572846)

oh god - not the scots. they might remove all anon from ... scotland

Re:what the gay? (1)

Ross D Anderson (1020653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572908)

Scotland Yard is in London, not Scotland. It's the HQ of the Metropolitan Police.

Re:what the gay? (1)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572916)

I thought it was common knowledge that Scotland Yard was NOT in Scotland. It's in London.

Re:what the gay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573174)

Common knowledge in England and Scotland, I would assume. Possibly all of Britain.

The only time we hear about them over here (mainland Europe) is when they are doing something Interpol-like, so I actually thought it was an Interpol-like organisation, and such an organisation could have it's headquarters anywhere. The most logical thing would be that such organisation got the name because of where it has it's headquarters.

Re:what the gay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573288)

No, it's not common knowledge you FOSStard.

Re:what the gay? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573168)

Scotland Yard is in London, England.

Just... don't ask. It's a Brit thing.

Yeah, like New York isn't in Yorkshire. (1)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573442)

Exactly, just like New York not being a new suburb of York, the county town of Yorkshire, England. It's an American thing.

Re:Yeah, like New York isn't in Yorkshire. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573696)

The colonists of the new world named places after those back home, often with a 'new.' Thus why several US states have a city of London. Same is true in Canada.

Wanted (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572848)

Scotland Yard is close to capture the leader of the Anonymous group, someone called John Doe.

Re:Wanted (3, Funny)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572880)

You fail it!

The leader of Anonymous is David Davidson. Clearly everyone knows that. I'm sure you think you're getting away with misleading everyone, but they know better.

Re:Wanted (1)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573260)

Anonymous has no leader, and nobody that can be identified.

--
Alex Tapanaris

Re:Wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572906)

Phew. So long as they don't take down David Davidson or Pedro Bear, we're safe for now.

Re:Wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573016)

Pedro Bear? I didn't know he had a hispanic cousin :)

Re:Wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573108)

LOLQUE?

SO fucking stupid. (4, Interesting)

moxley (895517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572876)

Obviously they just don't get it.

If you say you are a member of "Anonymous," then at that moment you are a member of "Anonymous."

If, several minutes later, you say "I am not a member of "Anonymous," then you are not a member of "Anonymous."

Anybody can be a member, for any amount of time. There are no central lists, no membership rosters.....in many ways the organization doesn't exist, it;s a "dis-organization."

Re:SO fucking stupid. (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573010)

So it's like how the Tea Party doesn't exist because there's no central leadership?

Scotland Yard is probably interested in if someone *was* in Anonymous, which can't be changed on a whim.

Re:SO fucking stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573240)

Just make a post on 4chan, and don't type anything into the Name or E-Mail fields. Congratulations, you *were* in Anonymous.

Hey, does this post make *me* a member of Anonymous?

Re:SO fucking stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573344)

"So it's like how the Tea Party doesn't exist because there's no central leadership?"

Dick Armey.

The Tea Party is the Republican Party with a catchy name, that doesn’t have the stink of George W. Bush on it.

Re:SO fucking stupid. (5, Insightful)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573032)

Anybody can be a member, for any amount of time. There are no central lists, no membership rosters.....in many ways the organization doesn't exist, it;s a "dis-organization."

That never stopped the United States from chasing Al-Qaeda all over the globe. It makes good sport for the hounds, really.

Re:SO fucking stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573228)

It also fixed that "disposable income" problem we had.

Onward, Scotland Yard! Make sure the consequences will never be the same!

Re:SO fucking stupid. (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573364)

Except Al-Qaeda actually has a strong leadership structure. It has ranks, it has chain-of-command, it has membership lists. It may be structured in a way that one department can't identify another, but it's quite possible to identify someone as an al-Qaeda member. Actually, al-Qaeda means "the organization" in Arabic, or so I've been told.

Re:SO fucking stupid. (0)

BondGamer (724662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573264)

If you are part of a gang that commits a crime, you don't get a pass later if you decided to quit. That is all Anonymous has really turned into at this point, a gang attacking websites who they don't like. They are no different than motorcycle gangs of the past.

Re:SO fucking stupid. (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573542)

Except they aren't beating, raping and eventually pimping out women or running drugs or guns.

Re:SO fucking stupid. (5, Interesting)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573360)

One of the better descriptions I've heard:

[Anonymous is] the first internet-based superconsciousness. Anonymous is a group, in the sense that a flock of birds is a group. How do you know they're a group? Because they're travelling in the same direction. At any given moment, more birds could join, leave, peel off in another direction entirely.

From the wikipedia page.

Re:SO fucking stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573548)

It's Britiain we will update the old macarthy trick ' Are you now, have you ever been , or will even think about being a memeber of Anonymous?'
Thought is a crime in Britain.

A good citzen thinks only what Their Corporate masters want them to think.

how (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572942)

how do you find/arrest/whatever a group of random individuals that are only connected through the lulz?

Re:how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573050)

Sush, they just want to pretend to be working on something very important!

Re:how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573080)

how do you find/arrest/whatever a group of random individuals that are only connected through the lulz?

By looking at the IPs currently downloading "[Oneechan Raws] Strike Witches S02E11.mkv" on bittorrent.

Obligatory Spartacus Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572946)

I am Anonymous!

Re:Obligatory Spartacus Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572982)

No you are not! You are too coward!

"Anonymous" (4, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573018)

So a bunch of Dunning-Kruger internet dumbshits download somebody else's half-arsed software to DDoS websites of powerful and well-connected people. And then wonder why they're getting rolled up by the police. Colour me surprised.

For sixteen year olds, this is understandable -- it seems to be the optimum age for thinking you know everything while not actually knowing anything at all. Anybody else, well, you'll be old enough to serve time, which is just as well, because you probably deserve it for being so stupid.

I do respect Anonymous for taking the fight to some very bad, otherwise-untouchable people, like the Scientologists, but at some point, if you don't use your brain and screw up, you have to accept the consequences. And I suspect that the only reason why half of Anonymous do what they do, is because they don't actually appreciate the danger of what they're doing.

First rule of Anonymous is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573046)

you do not talk about Anonymous.

2nd rule is, you do not talk about Anonymous!

Anonymous Isn't Anonymous (4, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573072)

Scotland Yard isn't investigating "Anonymous". They're investigating the people involved in the DDoS attacks. If you're a member of Anonymous but you don't participate in attacks, you're alright because nobody knows who you are, or that you're even a member of Anonymous.

However, the minute you start attacking, you are immediately identifiable.

"lulz yeah but we r anonymus. we r legionz!!!1 omg for the first time in my life i can actually identify with something. cool! are there any lonely girls here???/"
Protip: When you're on the internet, you are NOT anonymous. Most of Anonymous is just a bunch of teen-angst lemmings who will only join the DDoS effort if somebody puts up a Rapidshare link to the LOIC software. None of them have any kind of initiative to do it themselves.

"i'm not gonna get caught. lulz, i'll use a proxy"
Furthermore, because they're all just angsty, lonely, horny teenagers (and even some 20-somethings), they have no foresight. They have no clue that their IP address can and will identify them in most cases. If they use a proxy, they're just creating a bottleneck, slowing the DDoS effort and providing their target with a single IP to block for mitigation.

"hey man, ip address is just a number, man... i'm not a number!"
None of them realize that your IP address can and will be stripped from logs and submitted to RIRs and ISPs, and they will obtain your subscriber details (more likely your parent's details) through the legal system in your country of origin. An IP address is just a number when taken out of context, but when it's put IN context your IP is your identity on the internet, and it CAN be linked back to the real world.

"Amazon kicked WikiLeaks off of their servers because BUSH... i mean, OBAMA... sent an executive order to Amazon telling them that he would personally torture their mothers if they didn't! OMG! Attack Amazon because they're a business that chooses not to do business with certain people!!!"
The last thing humanity needs is a bunch of angsty teenagers throwing a fit because their favorite website has to change providers. WikiLeaks violated their contract with Amazon. It is a BUSINESS matter. Get the fuck over it, pick up your toys and go to school.

Don't like what I'm saying? Then suppress my freedom of speech and DDoS me. My IP is 127.0.0.1. And I'll even turn off my firewall for you.

Re:Anonymous Isn't Anonymous (3, Funny)

lee1026 (876806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573276)

Play fair man. Anytime I send stuff to that ip, I get tons of stuff. Are you retaliating or something?

Re:Anonymous Isn't Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573450)

"However, the minute you start attacking, you are immediately identifiable."

So if someone pwns your box and does their attacks from there, you're immediately a member of Anonymous? Cool!

Re:Anonymous Isn't Anonymous (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573462)

Wikileaks should go distributed. Everyone who would download LOIC should download Freenet instead and cache Wikileaks.

With ICANN hijacking domain names and Sweden going after the top guy, they should just decentralise the whole thing, because the next step is a government hack of Wikileaks servers to kill off the leaked material.

Re:Anonymous Isn't Anonymous (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573474)

Sure, it's not like it's possible to steal wifi or use an internet cafe or any number of options where an IP can't be tracked to you....

They better hurry up and catch these guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573096)

They're almost out of underground tickets and only have a couple bus tickets left!

Sex without a condom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573100)

Did Anonymous have sex in Sweden without a condom as well? If not, I don't see why Interpol would care, since it seems their only prerogative is to probe into the sexual proclivities of consenting adults.

Double Standards Anyone? (3, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573138)

Scotland Yard has been chasing a bunch of tomfooling teenagers for months, but hasn't even bothered to investigate substantiated investigations of wire fraud by the editor of a national newspaper [guardian.co.uk] . It's pretty clear who plays the tunes Scotland Yard dance to.

The sad thing is that Scientology will win (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573140)

Scientology, in their typically thuggish fashion, has been urging governments and the press to declare this group "terrorists" for years. They will no doubt view this as a victory, and probably use it to threaten anyone else in the future who threatens to cross them.

Investigation... (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573242)

So, do they know where Anon's head office is yet?

I'm guessing none of you have watched... (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573502)

Durarara!! It's an anime that touches on the exact issue related to Anonymous. It isn't an organized group and it is. There are a few faggots who are consistently using Anonymous as their own personal army but then every other member is just a random person who takes up whatever cause they feel relates to them. In general, you can't get a bunch of people to do something without having a certain skill of getting people to do something, therefore you have a structure to something even as random as Anonymous. Good luck to any governments who think they can actually stop people from doing anything they want at any time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>