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!

Anonymous Denies Sony Claims of Disruption, Credit Info Theft

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the singular-or-plural-dammit dept.

Crime 275

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday, in a letter to Congress, Sony detailed the steps they were taking to resolve the issues that have been plaguing them since the PlayStation Network and SOE online components were hacked, claiming to have found evidence linking the crime to Anonymous. Now, Anonymous has responded."

cancel ×

275 comments

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

No they havent (5, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042600)

Now, Anonymous has responded.

No, one person has responded. As has been touted many many many times by people on Slashdot whenever news organizations do it, there is no central authority, there is no registered list. So yes, while that clique may not have done it, does not mean another clique didn't.

Re:No they havent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042630)

No! I AM Spartacus

Re:No they havent (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042638)

In other words, some part of the infantile emotionally-retarded "collective" didn't penetrate Sony's network, but some other part of the infantile emotionally-retarded "collective" did. But, maybe they were forced to do it while John Travolta held a gun to their head and Halle Berry gave them a blowjob.

Re:No they havent (3, Interesting)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042836)

call them whatever names you want, they've still done a lot of good work bringing to light corruption and lies our governments feed us. The means might not justify the ends but I dare say they do..

Re:No they havent (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043276)

If they did any good it was purely a side effect that occurred while they were getting their lulz.

Re:No they havent (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043476)

Which doesn't detract from the good itself.

One sides lulz (like busting Gary for example) might well be a laugh, but for me it shows a wonderful insight that many more people need to see.

I don't care what the reason is for a good action with a good outcome. The end result is the same.

Re:No they havent (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042882)

Halle Berry gave them a blowjob

Insha'Allah

Re:No they havent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043034)

You do know that she's not a virgin, so can't be One of Seventy-Two?

Re:No they havent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042896)

It wasn't /b/ and it wasn't anonops or whatever, but it could be one of the other hundred or so anon groups out-there. At any rate, we all know whoever did it is currently anonymous because we don't know who did it.

Re:No they havent (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043060)

Laura Lane [imdb.com] gave the BJ iirc. Halle just watched excitedly.

Re:No they havent (0)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043066)

It was your mom, actually, on both counts. But she did ask to be called Halle Berry.

Re:No they havent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043604)

I think you're on to something.The Scientologists did it.
But damn ,calling them infantile emotionally retarded collective is kinda a dead giveaway.
I think you got it backward. Halle berry held a vibrator to their neck as John gave them a blowjob.

Re:No they havent (0)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042740)

Mod parent up! It's stupid some mod tagged it 'Flamebait' while parent poster is correct and makes the most important observation about these 'messages from Anonymous'.

Re:No they havent (5, Interesting)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042762)

This brings up some interesting questions about the Anonymous collective. If some Serbian hacker who wanted credit cards, and does not participate in any of the IRC/BBS/etc that "Anonymous" hangs out in, claims to be Anonymous, is he? Do you need to hold any of the (loosely defined) common values that Anonymous tends to, in order to be properly considered Anonymous?

I understand that the implication in this case, however, is that some members of Anonymous are claiming that this was done by a person or group who would not self-identify as Anonymous; rather, this person or group merely wants to make it look like the loose-collective "Anonymous" performed the hack in order to shift attention away from themselves and towards others who would self-identify as Anonymous.

Re:No they havent (5, Insightful)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042814)

This is a rather predictable consequence of forming a "group" based on anonymity and total absence of central authority. Anyone who claims to be Anonymous is Anonymous. Anyone who says "Anonymous" did something is lying if and only if the thing was NOT ACTUALLY DONE. Wonderful message-spreading platform you've got for yourself, kids.

Re:No they havent (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043422)

it's also amazing plausible deniability.

Re:No they havent (4, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043056)

i'd contend that if nobody shared their intention with others, then there was no acting as a group.

even if "the leader of anonymous" performed this data grab, if they didn't tell anybody there's no way you can say "anonymous did it".

so IRC chat logs, postings on anonops or whatever they call it, etc. it's a trivial matter to look this stuff up if you want to find it.

if there's no sign of these places discussing hacking into PSN and stealing member's details, you can be pretty sure that Anonymous didn't do it.

i believe they've actually stated early on that their DDoS was hurting PSN users, and they didn't want that - they wanted to hurt Sony, but not gamers. so they changed their strategy (or at least, issued a statement saying "if you're DDoSing PSN, plz stop lol kthxbai", which is as much authority as anon can have over its own members).

of course, some internet tough guy might have got in during the anon attacks, who identified as anonymous, and decided to take it upon him/herself to steal shit and leave a calling card on behalf of his group. remember there's a lot of misfits out there.

Re:No they havent (3, Interesting)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043126)

If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series.

With respect to this case, the entire body of evidence linking Anonymous with this intrusion is nothing more than a single file that Sony "claims" to have found on their system. Even "if" this file actually existed, and was found rather than "placed" by Sony employees, it's is analogous to finding a business card on the bank floor after a heist has taken place.

Regardless of who actually penetrated Sony's systems, there is a serious issue that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves. Sony wasn't minding the shop. Independent researchers informed Sony of their vulnerable systems and Sony ignored them. If a very attractive girl decides to strip naked and run around inside a men's prison should the girl not be at least partially responsible for anything that happens to her. Now in the case of Sony it isn't much different, except for them they aren't just opening themselves up for abuse, they are opening up everyone of their customers whom entrusted them with their exploitable financial data.

Re:No they havent (5, Informative)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043110)

Sony alleges that 'Anonymous' did it; that clearly implies the flavor of the group that has become surprisingly centralized for such a decentralized organization. That core group is presumably the one that responded. Within this context, 'Anonymous' must mean the somewhat centrally led version, otherwise the central question ('Did Anonymous do this?') isn't even well posed.

Put another way, if the allegation itself can't even be properly bounded, it doesn't really need to responded to. And if Sony can't do better than 'Anonymous did it', they certainly won't get to issuing subpoenas, asset seizures, or criminal charges anyway, making the point moot anyway.

Basically, put up or shut up, Sony. You need better evidence than 'Kilroy was here'.

Re:No they havent (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043316)

making the point moot anyway.

I see what you did there...

Re:No they havent (2)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043356)

Basically what sony are saying is "[someone] Anonymous did it!". IE: we do not know the name of the person/people that did it.

your still wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043140)

this actually took intelligence , ya know the kind that they dont have. ITS an inside job and SONY dont know who.
HA HA is all i have to say

Deflection (5, Insightful)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042604)

Blame your own incompetence on a well known public entity. A trick as old as the hills.

Re:Deflection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042728)

Blame your own incompetence on a well known public entity. A trick as old as the hills.

fucking hills, they're always in on it.

Re:Deflection (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043072)

the hills have eyes, and they're alive with the sound of music.

Re:Deflection (5, Insightful)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042846)

And made all the easier by Anonymous' nature -- it only takes one member (or one mole) to say "we did it", and even if all the others say "we didn't", the media can still point at that first voice as an authoritative one...

Re:Deflection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043030)

And made all the easier by Anonymous' nature -- it only takes one member (or one mole) to say "we did it", and even if all the others say "we didn't", the media can still point at that first voice as an authoritative one...

More: that first voice would be right.

Re:Deflection (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043190)

In (conspiracy theory) reality, Sony is secretly behind Anonymous. They are just playing a game of cat and mouse with themselves now to confuse everyone. Because really Microsoft secretly owns Sony and is trying to make itself look better by throwing Sony's reputation in the toilet. But then they realized that they can still make tons of money off of Sony products anyways.

Re:Deflection (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043342)

So, Jimmy Hoffa killed John F. Kennedy?

Re:Deflection (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043358)

You know what? That's more plausible than anonymous doing it. I suppose it's because Sony has no credibility with the general public.

Confusion (1)

Toam (1134401) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042608)

I'd like to think that this has come about due to someone at Sony saying that the act was done by "an anonymous hacker" being misunderstood as "an Anonymous hacker".

Re:Confusion (1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042646)

I'd like to think both Sony and Anonymous are unforgivable assholes.

Re:Confusion (2)

Zandamesh (1689334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042900)

I like to see it more as:
Sony: lawful evil
Anonymous: chaotic neutral

Re:Confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043258)

Given those two choices, I'll take the lawful evil. At least they are predictable and can be controlled.

Re:Confusion (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043566)

At least they are predictable and can be controlled

Not when they make the laws (or, at least, can have them cut-to-fit).

Derp (5, Funny)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042624)

People need to research more before assuming anything. Sony explicitly stated they found verifiable evidence it was Anonymous, as the files the hacker had left behind said "We are Anonymous. We are legion." How that can be confused for anything else is beyond me.

Re:Derp (5, Interesting)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042670)

Also, Anonymous is more than a well-known public entity. Many are trolls, whiteknights, immature children, and sophisticated hackers. I know, as I'm one of them. Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground. I don't agree with the hackings, but just because Anonymous officially denies it does not mean their word is to be trusted, or that it wasn't a member doing it independently of the organization.

Re:Derp (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042862)

s/independently of the organization/in keeping with the disorganization

Re:Derp (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042996)

Just because a government officially denies something etc... At the end of the day, it's not organisations who want anonymous destroyed, it's individuals within these organisations. When an individual representative does something indefensible, their organisation will disown them. Under what grounds could anonymous be held to a higher standard in this regard than corporations or government institutions?

Re:Derp (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043002)

If you are one of them, why aren't you posting as AC?

Re:Derp (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043102)

I believe he is responding to a sibling, rather than a parent:

I'd like to think that this has come about due to someone at Sony saying that the act was done by "an anonymous hacker" being misunderstood as "an Anonymous hacker".

Re:Derp (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043116)

Much like I just responded to the wrong post. Apologies. =(

Re:Derp (1)

Etrigoth (1119741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043104)

Although, as you've just posted with your /. handle; you're arguably *not* Anonymous.

I understand what you meant to say; however what you said is different.

Re:Derp (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043138)

Also, Anonymous is more than a well-known public entity. Many are trolls, whiteknights, immature children, and sophisticated hackers. I know, as I'm one of them. Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground. I don't agree with the hackings, but just because Anonymous officially denies it does not mean their word is to be trusted, or that it wasn't a member doing it independently of the organization.

Sure, so you claim. Mr. Anonymous.

We'll take your word that Anonymous can't be trusted, because obviously, you can be trusted. After all, you admit to being the man inside.

Nice try, but you didn't impress anyone here, 'cept the stupid mods who don't know any better.

Re:Derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043260)

WTF organization? It's anonymous.

Re:Derp (3, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043482)

Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground.

Soooo.... you post on 4chan.

Re:Derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042672)

What in the world are you blabbering about? Who is not doing research and getting confused?

Re:Derp (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043130)

I believe that he is responding to a sibling, rather than a parent:

I'd like to think that this has come about due to someone at Sony saying that the act was done by "an anonymous hacker" being misunderstood as "an Anonymous hacker".

Re:Derp (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042684)

$ echo "We are legion" > Anonymous.txt

Should I call the FBI now and get them to investigate an "intrusion perpetrated by Anonymous"?

Seriously, if you think a text file left behind is proof of anything, I hope you never get called into jury duty.

Re:Derp (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042710)

What he said.

Re:Derp (1, Interesting)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042716)

No, but it can't be discredited either. Are you saying we should just take Anonymous at their word simply because they deny it? I'm not saying Sony's response or initial security wasn't pathetic, because it was, fact still remains it was *probably* Anonymous, especially when looking at the timeline of events.

Re:Derp (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042798)

No, but it can't be discredited either. Are you saying we should just take Anonymous at their word simply because they deny it? I'm not saying Sony's response or initial security wasn't pathetic, because it was, fact still remains it was *probably* Anonymous, especially when looking at the timeline of events.

Yes, you should take them at their word. Pretty sure that is the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

Re:Derp (5, Interesting)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042802)

While the DDOS-attack does seem like it was very likely Anonymous, the credit breach doesn't quite seem their style. Anonymous tends to be in it to make Sony look bad - if they had stolen 100 million PSN accounts, I'd expect to see 100 million PSN accounts up on The Pirate Bay pretty quick. I'd expect a statement bragging about how easy it was, how lax Sony's security was. I wouldn't expect for-profit identity theft. Stealing credit card info seems a step or two above "doing it for the lulz."

I could be wrong. It would definitely be wrong to put Anonymous above suspicion; they have a motive and and the ability. It just doesn't seem like their MO.

Re:Derp (1)

bwayne314 (1854406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043376)

But don't you think that stealing all those CC numbers and immediately releasing them into the wild on TPB is much, much, much, much worse than waiting a couple of weeks, let Sony shit their pants, allow time for all the PSN customers to change/chancel their cards and reset their passwords, and THEN after all that data is essentially harmless release everything, you know, for the lulz?

Granted, it still sucks for the guy with a playstation in his living room, unable to play online for a week and then having to go to the trouble of calling Visa(or whatever) to get a new credit card number, while shitting his pants that his identity might get stolen. But then again, maybe it is just a hard-learned lesson that could have been much worse.

Re:Derp (4, Interesting)

mentil (1748130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043616)

It gets stranger. According to their recent updates for the SOE hack, the hackers used 'sophisticated means [...] to cover their tracks'.
Why go to a lot of trouble to cover your tracks, yet purposely leave a file implicating Anonymous? Either the access was done over a period of time, and the tracks were covered to keep continued access (not something I'd imagine Anonymous would care to do), or the evidence was left to divert investigators away from the real source of the hacks.
Leaving behind a calling-card then letting Anonymous make 2 statements (one when the PSN outage first began) that they weren't responsible, without releasing a counter-statement claiming responsibility and acting on behalf of Anonymous, suggests that this person is either so on the fringe of association with Anonymous they have no contact with other members, or they're trying to pass suspicion/investigative efforts/blame to Anonymous.
Any way you look at it, you can't blame the greater body of Anonymous.

Re:Derp (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043172)

Innocent until proven guilty. Just because it is a major corp pointing the finger doesn't make it so and yet people are quick to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Derp (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043706)

The real question is not, why should anyone trust the word of Anonymous, the real question is why should anyone trust the word of Sony any further? Sony has repeatedly shown incompetence on a vast scale, their prosecution of various Playstation hardware hackers and such in the past has show a strong lack of ethics, and their earlier relationship with Anonymous gives Sony a major reason to lie this time. If Sony were anything except a for profit corporation, were Sony a political organization, even if it were an actual government, most people would be giving it less benefit of a doubt than they are as a business. The 80 Megaton elephant in this discussion is "Why are so many people so quick to believe a negative claim about a group like Anon, or a more established or publicly accessible group like ACORN, or even a major nation state, but so slow to begin to doubt a group such as Sony?"

Re:Derp (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043322)

No, but it can't be discredited either. Are you saying we should just take Anonymous at their word simply because they deny it? I'm not saying Sony's response or initial security wasn't pathetic, because it was, fact still remains it was *probably* Anonymous, especially when looking at the timeline of events.

Lysander7, despite showing no evidence to prove it, you and I both agree that we should assume there's a good chance you broke into my house. Sure, there's no proof, but we can't discredit that I claim I found your name on a piece of paper in my house.

Re:Derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043506)

I'd rather take Anon's word than Sony's.

Re:Derp (1)

Etrigoth (1119741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042974)

Hate to use this line, but please; mod parent up.

I'm convinced anyone who's missing parents point is doing so purposefully.

Re:Derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043292)

Thank god the hackers/cracker did not put "Lysander7 was here" because that alone would be proof without a any doubt that you did it. Unfortunately, you are just as gullible and lack the skills to think for yourself as much as the general public.

Just because hollywood uses lights and wires to simulate a bomb doesn't mean it's true. The security theater needs more people like you in the audiance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare [wikipedia.org]

Re:Derp (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043296)

People need to research more before assuming anything. Sony explicitly stated they found verifiable evidence it was Anonymous, as the files the hacker had left behind said "We are Anonymous. We are legion." How that can be confused for anything else is beyond me.

I just searched my trash can and found a piece of paper proving you broke into my house. It said, "I am Lysander7. Derp." I'm not going to produce the paper, but I think I'll point it out in a press release and accuse you of breaking into my house.

Re:Derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043612)

"the files the hacker had left behind said "We are Anonymous. We are legion.""

One file. Did one of Sony's admins place it there? Did Anon place it there 2 months ago, and then someone else broke in this month? If someone writes your name at a murder scene... are you the killer?

There really is not enough data from Sony's evidence to draw any conclusions. I don't think stealing credit cards is the MO of most of Anon's members, but would only take a few going rogue. If I had to place a bet though, would put my money on a small group of hackers using the Sony and Anon dust-up as cover for a heist.

Apparently Sony was running unpatched servers without a firewall. Any script kiddie could probably walk right in.

Re:Derp (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043722)

Police! Arrest Lysander7! He is Anonymous, the proof is in the parent post.

But Anonymous says it isn't top-down organized (3, Informative)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042666)

They're like-minded individuals who coalesce to serve a shared whim at a particular time. If so, then it is indeed difficult to pin any particular action or crime upon its body for prosecution, but at the same time it is equally difficult, if not more so, to unpin any accusations. I think we're seeing here one of the downsides to organizations whose structure of responsibility is nearly flat, where not only does the left hand not know what the right is doing, each hair on each finger doesn't know what the rest are doing. In light of their historic antics, those who align themselves with Anonymous fight an uphill battle to shed themselves of ill-repute whenever any such indictments surface. But they get no remorse from me -- it's a choice they've made and a reality they have to deal with.

Re:But Anonymous says it isn't top-down organized (1)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042750)

oops, i meant they get no sympathy. I knew I shouldn't have been typing that fast :(

Re:But Anonymous says it isn't top-down organized (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042902)

Anonymous is not a noun, it's an adjective. That's the point of the whole exercise: anyone can say they're anon, but unless there's a significant positive reaction (i.e. lulz of some sort..) then anon can simply walk away - it's the audience after the fact that makes something anon, not the people who actually commit the act.

Anon is benign unless you try to fight it. Anon is absolutely its own worst critic. Anyone who tells you something is anon is probably trolling.

I'm tired. Ooh, look, a kitty!

lies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042696)

Sorry, can't have it both ways. You can't accept credit when a loner decides to hack something, then deny credit when someone else attributes their actions to anonymous.

With no central leadership or community registration, any damn fool can do whatever they want and pin it on you guys.

It's the nature of the beast you've created; in any group there will ALWAYS be those in it for ideological reasons as well as those looking to decrease personal culpability.

No Plausible Deniability (3, Insightful)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042700)

I was under the impression that *anyone* can be Anonymous. If that's the case, Anonymous can't prove that Anonymous didn't do it.

Re:No Plausible Deniability (2)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042782)

They have communication channels that they use to co-ordinate. If there was no mention of it on the Anonymous channels, then it's not an Anonymous activity. According to the article linked, they invite journalists into their channels.

Re:No Plausible Deniability (4, Insightful)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042894)

Who says those people make the rules? How does one impose order on an anarchist organization?

Re:No Plausible Deniability (4, Informative)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042930)

Some of them have communication channels that they use to co-ordinate. If there was no mention of it on those Anonymous channels, then it's not activity of that branch of Anonymous. According to the article linked, some of them invite journalists into some of their channels.

FTFY

Re:No Plausible Deniability (1)

pixline (2028580) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042804)

I was under the impression that *anyone* can be Anonymous. If that's the case, Anonymous can't prove that Anonymous didn't do it.

Neither you can prove that Anonymous did it, a txt isn't enough.

Re:No Plausible Deniability (1)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042868)

So by extension, Anonymous are guilty of all unsolved crimes the world over.

Re:No Plausible Deniability (3, Insightful)

exentropy (1822632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042968)

Innocent until proven guilty.

Re:No Plausible Deniability (1)

DreamArcher (1690064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043560)

It's just playground-rules. A few of the strongest egos call the shots, and the mob follows. Anyone can be anon and nobody can be anon both at the same time. No-org is just an attempt to stay out of trouble. It's just semantics and it won't keep the guilty out of trouble.

WHO responded? (5, Insightful)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042706)

If the response was anonymous, how do we know that the people who responded were the same as those who DDOSed? This, in a nutshell, is the idiocy of treating Anonymous as a group of people, however loosely organized. It would be better to call them what they are in this particular instance: Sony customers who are really pissed off.

Re:WHO responded? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042848)

Calling who that?

Was it a pissed-off customer who stole $millions worth of data from Sony to aggravate Sony?

Or was it a thief interested in the $ part of the $millions worth of data, who may or may not also be a member of Anonymous, and wanted to grief them on top of making shekels from their database?

We could probably safely assume, given the scope of DDoS that it would take to wax a major aggregator like Sony, that Anonymous was responsible for that part of it. J. Random Thief would probably not have that big a botnet. Though nobody could rule a lone wolf out. But it's a pretty safe assumption.

And I read Sony's letter. They didn't have conclusive proof that the DDoS was a deliberate smokescreen for the intrusion. Nor, really, did they have proof that there wasn't more than one intrusion.

Frankly, their testimony should consist of "we have nothing conclusive as to who did this or with whom they are affiliated."

And, frankly, nobody "in Anonymous" should be concered either way about being linked to it, if they intend to remain black-hattish. Only the person who did it could say for sure.

Re:WHO responded? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043156)

If the response was anonymous, how do we know that the people who responded were the same as those who DDOSed? This, in a nutshell, is the idiocy of treating Anonymous as a group of people, however loosely organized. It would be better to call them what they are in this particular instance: Sony customers who are really pissed off.

If your DDOSing the server, wouldn't it make it a little hard to hack into that computer? How are you able to hack in the computer when it's being overwhelmed with fake requests?

Re:WHO responded? (1)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043416)

I think the idea is to Ddos after the fact, to cover your tracks and to tie up the resources that would otherwise be responsible for noticing your breach.

Re:WHO responded? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043432)

I think the idea is to Ddos after the fact, to cover your tracks and to tie up the resources that would otherwise be responsible for noticing your breach.

ah, yes, didn't think of that.

thanks.

Re:WHO responded? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043564)

If your DDOSing the server, wouldn't it make it a little hard to hack into that computer? How are you able to hack in the computer when it's being overwhelmed with fake requests?

Usually, a DOS in practice, is used as a smoke screen, you DOS one server on a network while you exploit a hole in another server. The dos shows up in all their fancy IDS software while you break in unnoticed (one warning on another server is easy to miss when you're getting thousands from another).

This gives the attacker a lot more time to work before cleaning up and leaving without anyone ever knowing. At least, until its too late.

You don't DOS the server you're also trying to break into.

CIA FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042764)

Here's a rather wild (or maybe not) speculation I've come up with:

The CIA, already aware of the PSN vulnerability, has a lone hacker take down the network and leave behind a tag which points a finger at Anonymous which they hope causes a social backlash from many of the people that might support (if not participate in) Anonymous' activities. Possibly opening the door of certain types of legal actions concerning the internet. Or maybe China is messing with us again?

Re:CIA FTW (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043022)

No, that's pretty out there. Assuming government involvement introduces several unnecessary logical leaps, along with even more unanswered questions. Also, it presumes that the public at large both know and care about this. (They don't.) Anonymous are basically a gang of hackers. (Civilly-disobedient hackers, if you must, but still.) They break the law; that's kind of their thing. If the FBI wanted to go after them, they would - they already have all of the legal justification they need.

Is this the long-form response? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36042776)

How do we know this is really from Anonymous?

Did they include all of the required information in their identification?

Is there even a check-box on the form for "We are Legion?"

Abrupt change of plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042960)

The way it looked to me, it was if they were planning to spraypaint a buiding when they noticed smoke coming out of it.

Bait for anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042966)

Do you think that, since sony have begun work with security firms and some US govt agencies have become involved they might be trying to draw anonymous out, even though they may not be responsible.

I mean anonymous generally do things for their own ideological reasons, a lot of people will bite when baited on such matters.

Keep your heads down guys! me thinks they are playing wack a mole!

To Paraphrase Christine Keeler... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36042976)

Well, they would, wouldn't they?

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043122)

Couldn't some 15 year-old who was feeling particularly bored written that response?

Re:What? (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043230)

That fifteen-year-old has more chance of being MTF trans than female!

Will the real Anonymous please stand up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043192)

Ignore that other guy. We haz your credit cards.

Re:Will the real Anonymous please stand up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043562)

Ignore that other guy. We haz your credit cards.

If u haz them, post em on TPB. Othrwse, wehre's the fun?

More scape-goating (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043284)

It should be possible to defend onself, without having to point fingers at other people. Anonymous is acting like Sony:

"5. It should be remembered that several federal contractors such as HBGary and Palantir have been caught planning a variety of unethical and potentially criminal conspiracies by which to discredit the enemies of their clients. This is not a theory - this is a fact that has been reported at great length by dozens of journalists with major publications. Insomuch as that our enemies have either engaged in or planned to engage in false flag efforts, it should not be surprising that many of the journalists who have covered us, who know who we are and what motivates us - and who have alternatively seen the monstrous behavior of those large and "respectable" firms that are all too happy to throw aside common decency at the behest of such clients as Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - also have their suspicions that some capable party performed this operation as a means by which to do great damage to Anonymous in the public eye. Those who consider such a prospect to be somehow unlikely are advised to read about what was proposed by Team Themis in their efforts to destroy Wikileaks, and should otherwise take a few minutes to learn about COINTELPRO and other admitted practices by the U.S. intelligence community.

"The fact is that Anonymous has brought a great deal of discomfort to powerful entities such as Booz Allen Hamilton, Palantir, and much of the federal government; the Justice Department in particular is likely unhappy that our efforts revealed that it was they themselves who recommended the now-discredited "law firm" Hunton & Williams to Bank of America in order that the latter might better be able to fight back against Wikileaks. All of this is now public record"

The strongest force is standing up for what is... (0)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043324)

...Right!

Even the US has in its founding document exposing government corruption. It is known as the Declaration of Independence and it even goes into exposing government wrongs and stating its not only the right or the people but their duty to keep their government in line or put it off to create a new government..
There is also the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To really understand the contents of these documents is to have a sword and shield against the growing number of those in government and their business associates committing or verging on acts of treason. There is a reason why these documents came into existence. The Boston Tea party's real meaning of "no taxation without representation" wasn't to have some lying politician getting away with whatever they wanted by claiming they represent you with what ever they do, including creating more taxes. It mean that there was value received in return for the taxes paid, you received some benefit representing the taxes you paid and that doesn't mean a politician speaking for you as that could have been done across the ocean..

Acts of Treason against the founding documents and even the historic event of the Boston Tea party are documented. But these act are not by just some citizen but by citizens that work in government positions including positions of the elected. It is clear in the documents that in order to be charged with treason you have to be a US citizen. So how is it that an elected politician Doesn't know this (J. Lieberman) and how many others in government have put off such documents and even passed bills, laws and amendments counter to the founding documents? I.E. the Declaration of Independence identification of rights and duty of the citizens to keep their government in check vs. the changes, including recent, regarding what qualifies as treason. It is not uncommon to claim another has done wrong in effort to hide the fact the claimer themselves are the guilty party.

NO, they are not allowed to change the Founding Documents!!! Doing so is an act of treason! And who's right and duty is it to straighten it out?

The true face of Anonymous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043414)

When you drive on rural back roads, and see the stop signs full of bullet holes, that was Anonymous.

When you open a school textbook or library book and see penises drawn on everything even resembling an animal, let alone a person, that was Anonymous.

Anonymous is simply everyone who thinks nobody is looking.

The whole thing is made up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043452)

Sounds to me like Sony has made up the whole hacking thing to try and get public support against Anon

Anonymous (2)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36043464)

Anonymous is the ultimate form of democracy. It is the unwashed masses, taking a whim upon themselves, and challenging the remainder of society to vote with (or against) them. They are the power of the masses, and at the same time, they have the mentality of a mob.

Take a look at recent events. American SEALs assassinate OBL despite a 30YO executive order banning such actions. No trial, no jury. Just straight to the execution. The legality of it is worthy of being questioned - but the vast majority of Americans support the action - which grants the senate the impetus to democractically 'make it legal'.

This is the definition of democracy. If you get enough people together, who agree on something, it becomes law. It doesn't have to be moral or just.

Anonymous is simply the mob who agree. They are democracy manifest in all its failings. And characteristic of all democracies, the loudest voice has the appearance of steering the ship. Anyone who claims to speak for Anonymous clearly doesn't understand it. And anyone who speaks against it is in the same boat.

Re:Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043594)

Anonymous is the ultimate form of democracy.

Hahahahaha. Hahaha. Ha.

No, "Anonymous" is a bunch of nerds who hang out on a shitty BBS and occasionally do silly and/or illegal things because they think it's funny. And are in turn hilarious themselves because of their crazy delusions of grandeur.

It is not democracy in any sense -- if nothing else, because democracy is about the people ruling, and Anonymous is not even interested in ruling anything.

Re:Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043702)

It is not democracy in any sense -- if nothing else, because democracy is about the people ruling, and Anonymous is not even interested in ruling anything.

^this

Bait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36043516)

I hope Anonymous stops responding, if indeed they have. This smells of bait to me.
  High profile hack. Blame Anonymous. Wait for denials. Track denial communications to source. Arrest source.
Recent US activity in Pakistan suggests they know how to follow a courier.
Of course, maybe I'm just paranoid...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?