Slashdot: News for Nerds


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!

Anonymous Isn't Anonymous Anymore

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain dept.

Crime 407

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently some small security firm has been able to determine the real identities of several key Anonymous hackers which is resulting in a ton of arrests. From the article: 'An international investigation into cyber-activists who attacked businesses hostile to WikiLeaks is likely to yield arrests of senior members of the group after they left clues to their real identities on Facebook and in other electronic communications, it is claimed.'"

cancel ×


identity's? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119002)

Seriously? Plurals are not denoted by apostrophes. Apostrophes are for possessives and contractions. 3rd grade stuff, that.

Re:identity's? (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119160)

Seriously? Plurals are not denoted by apostrophes. Apostrophes are for possessives and contractions. 3rd grade stuff, that.

Don't you mean apostrophe's? ;-)

Re:identity's? (-1, Troll)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119224)

Thanks for taking care of the obligatory comment bitching about the /. editors. We need at least one per thread.

Re:identity's? (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119420)

Thanks for taking care of the obligatory comment bitching about the /. editors. We need at least one per thread.

Seems a hell of a lot more logical to me to blame that on the "editors" who can't handle elementary-school English, not on the users who point it out. The former is the entirely preventable cause; the latter is the nearly inevitable effect.

Re:identity's? (1)

feder (307335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119272)

Ai konzede [] .

"Identity's"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119008)

I'm pretty sure you mean "identities".

Re:"Identity's"? (2, Informative)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119086)

Anonymous is a concept, not a group. It is an intensional definition of a set, not the set extension.

So is Al Quaeda, Earth First! etc.

Some authorities tend not to get that.

Re:"Identity's"? (4, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119228)

The problem is that anonymous are precisely the same as a totally different group called synonymous. The idea is that anonymous distract attention from synonymous who do the real work, which is identical to that of anonymous. There is currently a large UK secret service project dealing with the issues, codenamed antonymous.

Re:"Identity's"? (2)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119266)

The US is operating a parallel operation, codenamed homonymous.

Re:"Identity's"? (3, Informative)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119314)

No they are groups rallied around a concept.

You can't have a group without a concept but you can have a concept without a group as a concept can be grasped by a single individual.

In any case the authorities only really care about those that break the law/disrupt things so the concept is beside the point, a link only and nothing more.

If you are identified, you aren't Anonymous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119014)

The point at which anyone is identified, they aren't anonymous. For the last time- anonymous is not a group, it is a quality- an adjective.

Re:If you are identified, you aren't Anonymous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119040)

semantics go nowhere with proper nouns
give it up

Re:If you are identified, you aren't Anonymous. (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119308)

The point at which anyone is identified, they aren't anonymous. For the last time- anonymous is not a group, it is a quality- an adjective.

Yeah, and "Yahoo!" isn't a company but an expression of joy, "Apple" isn't a company but a fruit, and "/." isn't a web site but a way to name the root directory.

Re:If you are identified, you aren't Anonymous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119382)

But a "tricorn" is a horse with three horns!

I just hope... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119030)

... some anonymous dude doesn't "leave" any clue about me as I doubt it would matter to law enforcers...

My anonymity is so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119032)

No one will ever know that I, Anonymous Coward, am Howard Flonnkensten!

Senior member of Anonymous? (5, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119038)

Yeah, if that isn't proof that the writer of this article doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, I don't know what is. There are no "senior members" of Anonymous. Someone could claim to be an oldfag, but that's about it. And a co-founder of Anonymous? REALLY? Where are they coming up with this horseshit? They caught some guys who were running a specific group, not "senior members" or "co-founders" of Anonymous.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119080)

You seem to have a very deep understanding of Anonymous. I'm pretty sure this is a clue that you are leaving on your profile...

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0, Flamebait)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119136)

oldfag? really? try to keep your 4chan lingo on 4chan. Its impossible to use that term without sounding like a douche. Get off your dad's slashdot UID.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119168)

"Get off your dad's slashdot UID."

You're equating maturity with age. You're also equating someone's knowledge of a website with lack of maturity. Stop it.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119200)

No, it's all a pretty reasonable conclusion. Sorry, kid. You'll have to grow up just like everyone else, even though there's an Internet now.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119268)

You're incorrect. You'll understand why when you're older.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119216)

u butthurt?

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (2)

Phoshi (1857806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119222)

If we're talking about a group founded out of 4chan using 4chan's ideals and behaviorism, then using 4chan's terminology is appropriate. "Anonymous" as a group are just people who visit 4chan, thus you have to use their words to describe their social structure.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (2)

CokeBear (16811) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119286)

You think his UID is old...

Re: UID dick-waving (5, Funny)

Denny (2963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119362)

Last time I joined in one of these threads, Rob Malda finished it a few comments later.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119318)

Gee, seeing as how we're talking about Anonymous, I think 4chan lingo might just be apropos, don't you?

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119322)

u mad bro?

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119434)

>>35119322 check dem dubs

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119448)

Be quiet child.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119494)

QQ moar retard. What are you, 12, and you're backtalking someone who's been on slashdot for more than a decade? Can you really not figure out what "oldfag" means? If this kind of idiot is the new slashdot, then even the comments on this site won't be worth coming here for.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119156)

What people who identify with Anonymous believe it is, and what it really is, are not necessarily the same thing.

In reality, Anonymous is a movement that involves people. It did not appear out of nowhere -- someone had the idea and a small group of people liked that idea and it grew from there. We can call the person who had the idea a "founder" and the people who are deeply involved with the movement "senior members". These are words that describe real things that exist. Sorry if they offend your mystic ideas about Anonymous being a magical spirit that lives in the internets or something, but some of us are more interested in people and activities than in the propaganda they spread.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119242)

Who the fuck cares what you are interested?

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (5, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119288)

It did not appear out of nowhere -- someone had the idea and a small group of people liked that idea and it grew from there. We can call the person who had the idea a "founder" and the people who are deeply involved with the movement "senior members".

No, really, you're just showing you don't know what you're talking about here. "Anonymous" isn't some "small group of people", and never was. It's a name for posters on 4chan. That's pretty much it. Some of these people do things, sometimes. They use the name "Anonymous" when doing so, sometimes. Sometimes people who don't even post on 4chan use the name. There is no organization, and there is no membership.

Sometimes some people might organize behind the scenes to do something, while using the name "Anonymous". The next week, someone else might also organize something. It might be the same people, or it might not. This doesn't mean they are somehow more representative of "Anonymous" than anyone else on the planet, or any more than you or me.

The name existed long before anyone was actually trying to use it for direct actions. It used to just be a name for people who looked at porn on 4chan. This group of people was not "small". There was no "founder", other than moot and his helpers, and he has absolutely nothing at all to do with what people do under the name "Anonymous" nowadays.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119488)

Here is the trick though. only a small percentage of any given group is actually capable of organizing even part of that group.

After a while it will always be the same 1% of users who are organizing things and guiding the rest into doing something Those are the "founders" while for 4chan's anonymous that group might be a few hundred people over the last 15 years only a dozen or two will be current.

What I find interesting is that idiots who attack with anonymous use facebook. Now that is a contradiction that is perfect for 4chan users.

Probably a bad choice of title... (4, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119196)

Even a completely headless organization does have people who direct the masses. Even the simplest and most spontaneous mobs have their provocateurs - the 'leaders', so to speak. I'm thinking the media simply got all breathless about how they were labelled.

Also, technical skill is not uniformly high across the group (perhaps a ratio of 10k script kiddies for every 20 actual hackers, etc).

It wouldn't be unreasonable to have major organizers being caught (CnC and direction has to come from *somewhere*, after all), or perhaps (but less likely) catching the more technically-minded members.

Even if they didn't catch 'em all, taking out a large percentage of the technical leads* or Command/Control leads* would be sufficient to do some serious damage.

* note that I have zero idea what to actually call them, but the terms should suffice.

Re:Probably a bad choice of title... (2)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119290)

Those aren't leaders, there AREN'T any leaders, and getting rid of them will have no more effect than trying to get rid of a slime mold by digging out its eruptions. They will just come back, often in the exact same way, but sometimes in a new way that makes them harder to find and arrest. It's pretty Darwinian, actually.

Also, there seriously aren't ANY leaders. Any random person can post ideas or instructions for an attack if they want. Any random person can code and distribute a program or whatever, and do it in such a way that it is impossible to find the originator, like trying to find patient zero on a virus that is carried by neutrinos (ie can pass through anything, and as such, there is no barrier to it).

Did I mention there are no leaders?

Re:Probably a bad choice of title... (5, Informative)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119384)

Actually, come to think of it, it's like a bunch of bees that each have their own colony. When one stings, others are likely to follow up, until the victim dies, runs away, or concedes whatever point the original attacker wanted. Or until they get bored. Also, they can sting multiple times, and often do it just for fun. Even if they could easily elucidate the identities of each and every attacker, do you really think anyone has the ability to go out and smash each individual hive? I sure don't. Instead, they try to make an example of a few, as they are doing here, and try to use fear to stop the others. Sometimes it works (more or less, don't mess with football), other times it doesn't.

Re:Probably a bad choice of title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119398)

(defines a "leader") (says there are no "leader"s)

Oh look, I can do it too!

Sure, there might be no permanent leaders, but that random person qualifies as a leader for that attack.

Plus, you don't know how many of them are actually the same person.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (2)

Capt. Skinny (969540) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119238)

...arrests. From the article: 'An international investigation into cyber-activists who attacked businesses hostile to WikiLeaks is likely to yield arrests of senior members of the group'

The senior members who were arrested were not members of anonymous, they were members of the group of cyber-activists. The ./ poster used the term 'anonymous'; the term 'senior members' was quoted from TFA.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119244)

So who uses the irc command to target all those script kiddies with the LOIC?

you need sociology 101 (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119256)

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 much larger group of one-offs and on-and-offs. same with wikipedia, or al qaeda, or drug gangs, or a whole set of other movements

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. yes, you would really cripple anonymous. that they are everyone and no one is mythology, not sociological fact. they are not the borg from start trek

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, etc. but maybe not forever. if law enforcement keeps siphoning off the core fanatics, after 2,3,4x, anonymous will definitely be less influential. if you keep siphoning off the regular crop of persons who can do something with the idea of anonymous. law enforcement can profile, and cripple anonymous, by tracking its core competency, forever, and constantly hamstring it: the core fanatics of anonymous is a well that slowly refills over time. if law enforcement is constantly draining the well, anonymous as a potent force is permanently dimmed

the point is, you don't understand sociology, nor anonymous, if you don't understand that what anonymous is is primarily a core group of fanatics, with a much larger ring of sort-of-interesteds. remove the core, and you at least temporarily cripple the movment. continually remove the core as it tries to grow back, and you have permanently decimated the movement and weakened it to ineffectuality

Re:you need sociology 101 (5, Interesting)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119430)

No, you do not understand Anonymous. I'm not sure if anyone really does, but you're QUITE off the mark. Anonymous has no "core group of fanatics" because at any one time, Anonymous is engaged in fifty different things on different scales, and that "core group of fanatics" is never the same across all of them. Most raids in Anonymous have no "core group". Someone makes a suggestion, gets the snowball rolling downhill, and once it accumulates enough mass, all you can do is watch. This is the case with most Anonymous raids. Sometimes a person or subgroup of Anonymous can try to lead a raid, but they can only do so much as the misanthropic bastards start running amok. In the case of the DDoS attacks here, there were likely a number of these subgroups all jockeying for a piece of the action. There are still no "senior members" of Anonymous and there are no "co-founders" of Anonymous. Moot is the closest thing to a founder, but even he knows that he's somehow created a monster that cannot be controlled.

I think your primary mistake was calling Anonymous a "movement". That is complete crap. They're not a movement. They really have no goals or aspirations other than fucking around on the internet, maybe in IRL if they feel brave. They're a huge, unorganized mass of bored teenagers, for the most part. They don't have a cause. They're not trying to affect social change. They may hop on a cause from time to time (ie, the DDoS raids we've seen or Chanology), but it isn't long before they become bored and move on to something else or internal bickering fractures whatever they're trying to do. You cannot remove the "core fanatics" because there is no single core, assuming Anonymous really has a core to begin with.

Re:you need sociology 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119432)

Except anonymous has no leaders, because they are all anonymous. There may very well be a few leading them, but any anonymous person can attempt to lead. They are kind of go-with-the-flow group, and whatever fancies a number of anonymous you can get at least a small number of them to do something, and in much larger numbers depending on how energized you can get them about it. This usually happens on 4chan. It can happen anywhere else. The point is however, there is no coherency, no common goals, little cohesiveness, and very hard to call a group at all.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119298)

I agree that there are certainly no "founders" of Anonymous, but Anonymous isn't a hive mind. There have to be people who get the ball rolling with the attacks.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119376)

Sure, there are people who get things started, but once it picks up (and 99%+ of all the proposed crap in Anonymous goes nowhere amid cries of "NYPA!"), there really isn't much organization. Some people may try to orchestrate things. A few may even succeed. But these people are in no way leaders of Anonymous. They just happen to be the guys who got a snowball rolling downhill. After that, all anyone can really do is watch to see what happens as more and more people hop on the bandwagon. Someone posts instructions, people pass them around, people modify them, people make their own version, and a chorus of voices chime in with suggestions (among other things). The most you'll usually see are smaller subgroups, but again, these subgroups are often never permanent or even much beyond short-lived and constantly shifting.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119326)

There are no "senior members" of Anonymous. I'm sure there are in fact people who have been there longer and/or are more of an influence than others. That is/was no way of knowing who those people are doesn't change the fact that they have been there longer or affect the discussion more. Sounds like you're drinking the anonymous koolaid: you're still individuals who participate anonymously. Being unidentifiable does not actually make you all the same any more than a klan hood would.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119404)

I hope you realize that they're specifically referring to the not actually so anonymous group Anonymous a subsection of the anonymous posters of a certain imageboard, the ones in particular orchestrating the attacks, so there are in fact senior members that they may have found and they are in fact attention seekers or at least those that claim to speak as representative. Most people with any internet experience seem to understand this already, where do you stand? Also, by the way, you are no longer anonymous.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119462)

Building a fully flat organization with no key members is a very difficult task. I'd bet that there are a few inspired individuals setting the current direction of anonymous, they know a few people and work together and really inspire the key acts of most of the people who do any form of activity under the name of "Anonymous". Arresting these key people may not completely destroy the group and definitely won't destroy the idea, but it may completely transform what is done in the name of "Anonymous" and it may well remove a large proportion of the people who are competent enough to actually run a DDoS attack. I think that would be a pretty good definition of "senior members". Basically, the outsiders would achieve what they really want (change the way Anonymous acts) without having to attack any specific real "leaders".

To be frank the last attack on Visa seemed pretty pathetic but before that Anonymous seems to have really damaged a number of sites. The real question is; what will happen next time. If they are still able to make a serious DDoS attack against the people attacking them then we can see the operation as a failure. If they keep reducing in effectiveness we know the "leaders" have been captured. Beyond that we just get into a silly semantic discussion.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119490)

You seriously still believe that? You seriously believe in some magical collective of ubermensches with ultimately no connection to human nature or human emotion, a mythical race of people who are completely and ultimately loners, entirely unswayable by outside opinion, who can and do act completely of their own will, and yet somehow can all agree on something in a topic full of vehemently dissimilar opinions? You're saying a bunch of leaderless loners can do that without endless bickering and infighting? Seriously?

I'm impressed. You're more a fool than you think the media is. If there seriously was absolutely no concept of a "leader" in this organization, you would either have a situation where nobody could agree on who to attack next, leading to horrible gridlock as a large group of stubborn individuals refuse to follow anyone else, or you would have a group easily led by any organization that wishes to do them in by spamming their communication channels with honeypots. The latter case actually wouldn't be that hard, even despite everyone's seemingly abysmal view of the US Government's technical talents; just put up some fake financial site that claims it hurt WikiLeaks somehow, advertise it, let the frothing mobs walk right into your trap, and start analyzing IPs and trends.

No. What you have is a group with leaders who filter out the noise, run the communication channels, and incite the mobs. You don't have an instant just-add-anger group of Entirely Independent(tm) Freedom(tm) and Truth(tm)-loving VoiceOfThePeoples(tm) willing to incredibly and inhumanly drop any differences they have to Fight The Good Fight(tm) at the drop of a hat. You're deluding yourself if you think that's how human nature works.

Of course Anonymous isn't anonymous. (5, Insightful)

Mister Xiado (1606605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119052)

"Anonymous" as a proper noun defies anonymity, so it's no real wonder that these people failed to cover their tracks.

can't resist it (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119064)

Why is it that hackers can't resist toying with people or leaving riddles or boasting about their deeds on forums? This ALWAYS happens! The ones who don't get caught are the ones who just do things to do them and don't care about respect from others for their "legendary" accomplishments. The whole "I'm so cool, look at me!" hackers attitude isn't real compatible with staying 100% anonymous. I don't think this was pure carelessness in their case either because they're probably smarter than that. I think it's the same old hacker ego stroking that got them caught.
The weird thing is, this isn't what I'd have expected. The Anonymous hackers seemed like the type to just do what they do with complete security and privacy and keep quiet about it because what they did was politically and ethically motivated, not motivated by just their egos. But I guess some of them apparently couldn't resist posting links to other hackers to their Facebook profiles or something equally stupid.

Why? I'll tell you why... apk (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119212)

"Why is it that hackers can't resist toying with people or leaving riddles or boasting about their deeds on forums?" - by ILuvRamen (1026668) on Sunday February 06, @12:56PM (#35119064)

It's because in reality, they are NOT "that good". I say that, because it's is EASY TO BE BOGUS, & destroy/hack, but much harder to make something that's actually useful and good... that's just a fact of life, & these "script kiddies" exemplify it.

Do I "knock them" for it?? Yes, & no: They produce 1 good thing in their antics & that's showing what needs to be secured/strengthened better... but, that's about it.

(I also agree with them on 1 account though: Giving J. Assange a hard time was a STUPID thing to do, by any parties who did so... the guy is doing what the presses do, and that's expose news... GOOD or BAD news!)

Still - they're just using tools others wrote to execute a DDoS/DoS, which doesn't take any brain power or effort really. That's NO "accomplishment".


P.S.=> People, in my estimation at least, who have to "join a gang" or "team" to try to "be somebody"? They're WEAK, & can't "stand on their own", period... & that's what these people in "anonymous" exemplify (weakness)... apk

Re:can't resist it (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119226)

Kids get stupid. Pics at 11.

Re:can't resist it (2)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119474)

Why is it that hackers can't resist toying with people or leaving riddles or boasting about their deeds on forums?

Maybe in every group there are always some idiots? I guess those are the people who tend to get caught most?

Eats, shoots, and leaves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119084)

Identity's of? What does the Identity own?

Striking rise in sales of a certain few compounds (0)

RagingFuryBlack (956453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119088)

I think the prices of Iron Oxide and Aluminum powder just went through the roof. "Anonymous" newfags are going to be doing the delete fucking everything dance for the next few weeks.

Re:Striking rise in sales of a certain few compoun (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119114)

you suggesting tape of magnets?

Re:Striking rise in sales of a certain few compoun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119162)


Re:Striking rise in sales of a certain few compoun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119292)

Don't forget the magnesium ribbon and blowtorch to light it and get thr reaction going...

"ton of arrests"? Bullshit (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119090)

According to TFA "An international investigation into cyberactivists who attacked businesses hostile to WikiLeaks is likely to yield arrests of senior members of the group", so where does the submitter (or samzenpus) get "likely to" to from that to "is resulting in a ton of arrests" ?

Any arrests seem unlikely to me, seeing how hard it would be to prove Facebook posts were really made by the people in question, and that they were unlikely to have done more than hint at involvement. It could only be taken a clue, not evidence.

Arrests != Convictions (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119206)

They did conduct some arrests ('ton' is a very subjective term in this context). The police can and does act without 'hard' proof while an investigation is conducted to either uncover hard proof, a confession, testimony, whatever or give up.

Re:Arrests != Convictions (5, Funny)

brusk (135896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119458)

They did conduct some arrests ('ton' is a very subjective term in this context).

On the contrary, I thought it was quite objective: it indicates that the total mass of the individuals arrested exceeds 1,000 kg.

Re:"ton of arrests"? Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119230)

Except if they supoena Facebook to get the source ips, while it might not reveal the user who posted, if the post comes from a users home, well, thats the same as if the user posted it themselves. And if that IP matches one of the IP's that LOIC gives up rather easily, well, thats evidence...

Anoymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119094)

....or am I???

Say it isn't so. (0)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119098)

You mean the group that uses the image of a theocratic Catholic terrorist, as their symbol of freedom, are really just a bunch of morons? I'm SHOCKED!

Re:Say it isn't so. (0)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119250)

George W. Bush is catholic?

Re:Say it isn't so. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119356)

i am pretty sure they took the mask for the idea, from V, not from the theocratic terrorist.

also, anonymous in this context is mostly a bunch of 4channers, the real group anonymous seems to have some better leadership.

Boasting isn't proof (1)

John3 (85454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119112)

Just because someone boasts they are part of Anonymous or claims responsibility for some act doesn't mean they were actually involved. The investigators will need to connect the dots via IP addresses, seizing and analyzing computers, etc. They won't be able to prove their case just because someone claims they spearheaded the attack on Mastercard.

Plus, I know they didn't get the right people because I'm the founder of Anonymous and I don't know any of those guys they mention in TFA.

Re:Boasting isn't proof (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119198)

I work for PayPal and can attest that we did track all the IPs we received attacks from. Anonymous specifically targeted to block transactions from merchants, not just a website like with Mastercard.

I won't say much beyond that.

Re:Boasting isn't proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119440)

track all the IPs

What does this even mean? Did you magically locate the owners of said ip addresses? What does it mean to "track an ip"? Or did you mean log?

Re:Boasting isn't proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119274)

bullsh, i am the founder of Anonymous!

Re:Boasting isn't proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119324)

Nope! I founded it. In fact, they decided to name it in my honour. You, sir, are an imposter!

Re:Boasting isn't proof (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119332)

I am Spartacus, I mean Anonymous!

More seriously, I would be surprised if most people that claim to be 'Anonymous' have the know-how to accurately cover their tracks as they do things. For example, in this last wave, I think a number of people were trivially linked as originators of traffic generated by the LOIC tool. We aren't talking about an uber-sophisticated secret organization with super powers, we are talking about a group of moderately skilled technical people that are naive in their confidence in their anonymity and/or a misunderstanding of how the legal system works induced by various crime/court drama television shows.

You know what's weird? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119128)

At the bottom of the /. screen for this story there is this line:

In Seattle, Washington, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon that is over six feet in length.

- only now I realize that I have been in violation of that law for the most of my life!

So they got, what 3 people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119172)

Don't they have, like, millions of people to go? I mean, "anonymous", whether they want to admit it or not, is not actually a "group" of hackers. It's a word, which has a pretty clear definition.

Call me sceptial (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119182)

Call me sceptical but I don't believe that any senior member of any group involved in any serious campaign is stupid enough to use Facebook and the like as a communication channel for sensible information regarding their operations. If we consider that this so called anonymous organization is supposed to be proficient with computers, networking and subversive campaigns then this allegation becomes even more unbelievable.

But hey, officials have to show that they work, and nothing like an attention-grabbing headline like this one to convey that image to the clueless masses.

Re:Call me sceptial (1)

joelmax (1445613) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119264)

Never under estimate the stupidity of a user, the "smarter" a user is, the stupider the mistakes they tend to make, with the greater consequences.. but I doubt anyone who is actually serious about being in anonymous posted on fb, most likely script kiddies and the like... you know the "l33t haX0rz" of counterstrike...

Re:Call me sceptial (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119302)

"Anonymous" is neither particularly proficient with anything in particular, nor does it have "senior members".

It's just people doing things, and using the name "Anonymous" while doing so. They could be anybody. There's no actual organization named "Anonymous", it's just a label anybody can use.

apparently? (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119190)

Whole lot of issues the law had better be careful about, starting with whether attempting a DDoS attack should be considered a criminal offense. Is it so hard to tweak the Internet to make DDoS impossible? Seems like all that's needed is a bit of caching. Would the Slashdot Effect be criminal? Is repeatedly hitting F5 a felony [] ?

Re:apparently? (5, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119236)

"Is it so hard to tweak the Internet to make DDoS impossible?"


does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119192)

I thought the whole idea behind a movement like this was that - sure you can capture some - but there are more and you never know how many. If you didn't think it was decentralized then perhaps you should. The more I think about it it reminds me of the whole terrorist thing. How many people are really in al-qaeda? 100? 500? 10,000? New members come in all the time, old members they leave one way or another. Isn't terrorism a symptom, not the cause of the problem? I think its the same thing.

Probably not 4Chan Script Kiddies (at the root) (4, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119202)

But maybe they take advantage of the angst and ego of those Script Kiddies, empowering them to be "real hackers" by doing the tough part and giving them the tools to carry out their operations. Who's to say there is even one "anonymous". Get a group of would be hackers together in secret, let them talk to one other member of a group claiming to be Anonymous, and BAM.. all of a sudden, they are part of Anonymous. It's just a word, a battle cry or flag at this point.

There are people out there with deliberate intentions and incentives to execute these attacks. They are just using the 4chan type to further their goals.

From TFA: "few hundred participants in operations, only about 30 are steadily active, with 10 people who "are the most senior and co-ordinate and manage most of the decisions"

That just about fits this type of hierarchy.

Outside of "terrorism" (if you can call this that), this system is employed time and time again.

1) Person or small group has Political/Economic Agenda that would not benefit Society as a whole, but needs to engineer support.
2) They get a few Champions that back a stance on a cause that is unrelated, but has a large number of supporters (immigration, abortion, same sex marriage, FREEDOM OF SPEECH). It's best when it's a black/white yes/no issue that has a population divided roughly 50/50. That way, the support group is large, but the opposition is as well. Without a viable opposition, you cannot rally together for a cause.
3) Wrap your own agenda into the priorities of this "front" clause. Bam. You've created an army fighting for something they don't care about.

Not sure what my point was here really. Just noticing a pattern. Though I would love to believe in the idea of true "freedom fighters" who genuinely feel they are protecting essential Liberties, I cannot help to think that there has to be a selfish person at the top of it all.

Re:Probably not 4Chan Script Kiddies (at the root) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119390)

You should not make this sound more complicated than it truly is. Coming from someone who's seen it happened several times, I can tell you for a fact that there's no kind of central leadership in the sense of the phrase for these raids. Admittedly, there are several individuals who create "call to arms" images against whatever they feel they are being threatened by at the time (targets have included RIAA, ACSLaw, Gene Simmons, Tumblr, etc) and provide links to DDOS software hosted on Sourceforge as well as IRC channels for more organization, but whatever happens in-between and after is up to the people who decide to assist in the raid. The more experienced people tell the less-experienced where to point the LOIC for firing, and they do so.

Have you noticed that all these people that are being arrested are in, or just a few years out of high school? Doesn't seem characteristic of anyone other than script kiddies.

Anon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119218)


Anonymous responds (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119248)

The following response was promptly issued by Anonymous, with the title "Anonymous Concedes Defeat".


Mr. Barr has successfully broken through our over 9000 proxy field and into our entirely non-public and secret insurgent IRC lair, where he then smashed through our fire labyrinth with vigor, collected all the gold rings on the way, opened a 50 silver key chest to find Anon’s legendary hackers on steroids password.

As Mr. Barr has discovered in spite of our best efforts, Anonymous was founded by Q last Thursday at the guilded Bilderberg Hotel after a tense meeting with one Morrowind mod collection, which itself includes the essential Morrowind Comes Alive 5.2 as well as several retexturing packs, all of which seem to lower one’s FPS unless one has also installed the latest Risc Architecture framework and thus obtained the killer refresh rate that is the right of all world citizens, except for noted heterosexual Tom Cruise.

In addition to the sudden disappearance of Anonymous leader Q, Anonymous co-founder Justin Bieber also disappeared just before his top-secret mission to Eritrea to offer physical succour to the rebels, suggesting that Mubarak is in our base, eating our Cheetos, likely with military support authorized by Hill Dawg. All of this comes at a low point for the Official Anonymous Organization, Inc. and its valued shareholders; several Anons had already lost their Fallout New Vegas saved games in the unwarranted and faggy raids perpetrated by the U.S. federales.

At this point, it is safe to assume that the underground server sites at the North Pole have been compromised as well. Back up all porn drives now, because the super secret P2P centralized distribution server of Backdoor Sluts 9 is presumed to be immediately threatened. Male Anons have been commanded to switch back to traditional tentacle porn while femanons, or “Rei Ayanami wannabes,” continue to be shared among the Echelon Nine Working Group that has since replaced Owen as sky marshall.

However, David Davidson (who might also be the legendary Ceiling Cat, as rumors have it) so far eludes custody, so all is not lost. Mr Davidson skyped the anonymous leaders from his hideout in Philadelphia to remind them that he was “Never gonna give them up, never gonna let them down”. Meanwhile, the board of directors remains little more than a gin-addled menagerie of puppets.

Despite these setbacks, the planned conference in Vienna is not slated for cancellation, although the buffet may be altered to include fewer Cheetos. The scheduled appearence of Boxxy is a subject of much contention within Anonymous ranks, being an event of considerably greater importance than the 4th return of Raptor Jesus, which itself is older than the internet.

We shall note in conclusion that we like the guy and want to believe him, but we still have to ask: Did Aaron Barr shave and murder Alexander Hamilton in 1993? We’re just asking questions here, people. At any rate, the Pink Horse prophecy will soon be fulfilled.

All Hail Xenu,


Equal effort... (1)

cshake (736412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119254)

As as been posted before, I'm sure these small security companies are also being hired to track down the people who were attacking WikiLeaks itself, right? Right?

Fixed (2)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119258)

"Apparently some small security firm has been able to determine the real identity's of several key Anonymous script kiddies which is r...

I think that this "small security firm"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119262)

...just got trolled.

Fair Game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119284)

The "Church" of Scientology is following Ron's doctrine faithfully and this is a text book example of their tactics.

Anonymous, hackers on steroids.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119296)

This whole anonymous (h)activism has become something on its own, forked off the chans. They are hypocritical computer retards using GUI tools and it's not in any way impressive that this security firm has tracked some of them down. They're just a bunch of kids seeking to belong to something not knowing what the hell they are doing.
They just join in with raids without understanding the serious consequences it can have on their life and how easy it will be to track their IPs down when they join in on a DDoS attack with tools like L.O.I.C. which doesn't seem to send spoofed packets for starters.

Beside this they often hang on irc (on their own network) which ofcourse makes it very easy (through getting a warrant to seize/monitor the ircd) to track them down.
As for the part where I call them hypocrits, think about it, they are protesting site takedowns and denial of certain services (paypal, visa, etc) by taking those services down through a poorly managed DDoS. We're talking about the same frustrated people who destroy facebook and youtube whores for the lulz here.

I, as an elitist oldfag, am ashamed of what we have become.

hdrjdtyjty jfthjkfgjkuy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119330)

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by Anonymous who posted them.

"Anonymous" doesn't mean "unidentifiable" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119336)

Being Anonymous isn't about being untraceable. It's about a group that collectively has no face. Identifying individuals doesn't make Anonymous any less anonymous. Anonymous could be anywhere at any time, and that's the point of it all. There is no ideology, no one that speaks for Anonymous, no political statement to be made, no central creed that Anonymous agrees to uphold. It's not hard to understand Anonymous, but you tend to make it fit into a category into which it doesn't belong.

Inconsistency (1)

kbolino (920292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119354)

How does one misspell the word "identities" and then also spell it again, correctly in the same paragraph?

Re:Inconsistency (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119412)

It boggles my mind. What's worse is the use of the possessive apostrophe + s in "identity's". WHAT BELONGS TO THE IDENTITY??? Oh it's just a grammar fail...

Small tech firm does what? (1)

munky99999 (781012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119378)

>Person X does ddos... their public ip is in logs. >Small tech firm does a cat on the log file? >Gives IPs to feds? >feds goto court to get info from ISPs? wtf did this small tech firm do exactly? Why are the feds this incompetent?

It's about time those namefags stopped trollin /b/ (1, Redundant)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119394)

Protip: Leave the name field blank!

Seriously though: How hard could it really be to track down someone on the internet?

0. Ask those sites attacked for IP addresses of the attackers.
1. Open the linux terminal
2. type: "host <ip-address-here>" and press [Enter]
3. Subpoena the ISP that the IP belongs to requesting the name & contact info of the customer who was allocated the IP at the time of the attack.
4. ...
5. Profit?

Eg; Using the IP of a visitor of my site...

host domain name pointer

Ah, that's a Southwestern Bell (AT&T Yahoo) DSL subscriber that hails from Houston, Texas.
GEOIP might even be more accurate.

WTF folks, this is a non-story. LOIC does not spoof IP addresses, therefore it should be trivial to discover who attacked.

IMHO, The real story here is that IP addresses are not being used to link online activities to people.

What if I say online: "Everyone Point your browsers at:" -- Am I now a DDOS perpetrator?
What if I write a program, say a Firefox plugin, that automatically reloads in a new tab, once a day?
What if that plugin updates the website to load from my website, but the USERS of the plugin opt to install the software and download the daily dot-com to reload.
What if the plugin is updated so that it refreshes several times a minute instead of once a day?

The point is: I did not install the plugin to the user's browser, THE USERS DID -- They are the real attackers, NOT ME.
Why are we holding the director, who did not even write the plugin, responsible?
They basically did the equivalent of creating a web page that says: ""

What's next? Are we going to hold security researchers responsible for malware that uses their published exploits and/or proof of concept code? IMHO, If anyone should be arrested, it should be those that actually send syn floods to the websites -- It's not that hard to find out who the actual attackers are!

As long as "leading" a DDOS is as easy as tweeting: "; Refresh=6sec", discovering the "leaders" and arresting them is not going to have any effect. IMHO, arresting everyone who participated would have little effect -- Anyone who says otherwise has never spent any time at 4chan or any other (lowercase a) anonymous forum.

It was a setup (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119486)

In the end, it will turn out that the scineos created wikileaks knowing anonymous would attack and garner the attention of governments...

This is so dumb. (1)

zaiger (1990960) | more than 3 years ago | (#35119496)

"Anonymous co-founder"? Has the writer of this article ever been on the internet before? Maybe someone should link him to Encyclopedia Dramatica so he can do some research before making himself look so uneducated about a topic he is writing about again.

The real crime here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35119498)

is the apostrophe abuse allowed by samzenpussy in the first sentence of TFS. "Identity's?" Really, fucktard? The plural of "identity" is "identities." You've used the possessive form of "identity," even though nothing belongs to the identity in this context. Please return to the second grade. We spend more per capita on education than any country on Earth, and this is the result? Fucking moron.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account