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 Under Civil War?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the oroboros-is-hungry dept.

Sony 301

Stoobalou writes "Civil war appears to have broken out in the ranks of headless 'hacktivist' collective Anonymous, with claims that a rogue admin has seized control of two key sites used to coordinate the loose-knit group's online direct action. The news follows speculation that a breakaway group of Anonymous members was responsible for the hacking attacks on Sony's PlayStation Network and Online Entertainment Network, which saw personal information, including credit card details, stolen from as many as 100 million users' accounts."

cancel ×

301 comments

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

Hahahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070806)

This is the perfect way to start the next newfag summer!

Re:Hahahaha (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070934)

> implying /b/ is not a gigantic cluseter of perma-summerfags

Penny (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070826)

Re:Penny (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071152)

It's NOT a "rogue admin"! It's a CIA operation!
This was all officially announced
in a strategy to destroy Anonymous by stirring up shit until they start to fight each other over it. Of course, Anonymous NOT being a group or person, this is a very silly approach that can physically never succeed.
But it's the same thing they used on Wikileaks. Also officially announced. On TV and everything. Which also led to a split.

Re:Penny (3, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071462)

These "Anonymous" people just seem like a bunch of silly drama queens. It's sad that so many people see some sort of revolutionary spirit brewing there. In reality it's all about the LoLz for some and cheap ego glorification for the rest.

Civil war? (4, Insightful)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070840)

I don't know if I'd call that civil war, more like dissension in the ranks, or mutiny or barratry, and a greater than average amount of anarchy.

Now if you wanted to see Anonymous in Civil War, you should hear the Boxxy [knowyourmeme.com] story. She managed to divide the indivisible.

Re:Civil war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070868)

Or cracky-chan. This happens all the time, really.

Re:Civil war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070918)

Call me sick, but I'd rather see Anonymous dog fighting - Assange vs Bin Ladin Raiding German Shepard over in 1 round - would be the best title fight ever and I'd absolutely pay for it on PPV.

Re:Civil war? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070940)

Yea, Civil War is bullshit and the author should be ashamed of himself. It's just the usual Internet drama that happens in every single community at regular intervals.

Re:Civil war? (0, Redundant)

Yeknomaguh (1681980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070994)

This. Wish I had modpoints

Re:Civil war? (2, Insightful)

Bruce McBruce (791094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071030)

Or ponies. This is nothing new, Anonymous turns on itself on an hourly basis if not more frequently.

Re:Civil war? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071170)

The pony thing was hilarious. Even funnier is I decided to watch the show and actually ended up liking it. I'm living in some weird freaky dimension where a little girls' cartoon show is cool...

I NEED TO GET BACK HOME DAMNIT!!

Re:Civil war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071536)

The pony thing was hilarious. Even funnier is I decided to watch the show and actually ended up liking it. I'm living in some weird freaky dimension where a little girls' cartoon show is cool...

Just about everyone I hang with has this same story. Brohoof [youtube.com]

Re:Civil war? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071172)

I don't know if I'd call that civil war, more like dissension in the ranks, or mutiny or barratry, and a greater than average amount of anarchy.

I wouldn't even call it any of those things either. I'd just call it "Anonymous sites getting hacked."

Re:Civil war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071504)

You think Boxxy was a shitstorm?

If you want to make anon lose their shit, try posting ponies [knowyourmeme.com]

It was only a matter of time (0)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070856)

before Anonymous started turning on itself. Maybe they've run out of external targets...

Re:It was only a matter of time (5, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070886)

well.
if ANYONE who uses a pseudo-name online has a disagreement with anyone who has a pseudo-name online, then anonymous are fighting.

stop calling any specific group anonymous. everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone.

My Koan for the day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071228)

everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone.

Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ohhhhmmmmmmmmm

Re:My Koan for the day. (2)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071586)

Don't bother trying that. Resistance is futile.

Re:It was only a matter of time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071240)

'cept for you, namefag

Re:It was only a matter of time (1, Flamebait)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071492)

How the fuck is this informative? This is more inane babble that contradicts reality in favor of stupid bullshit platitudes.

everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone

Sure, if you're a retard. In the real world where presumably you are capable of not being an intentional intellectual midget, you will be able to see that the people refered to as Anonymous are a tangible, real set of people that may change over time, but are definable. Anonymous has a creed, a culture and hang outs, as well as informal leaders. People who frequent certain websites, subscribe to the creed, and are a part of the culture can therefore be called Anonymous and can be classified like you would classify a group. Think "Americans". People don't jump in to every conversation where the word "Americans" was used when not referring to government action, and say "American's aren't a group. Anybody can be an American, all they have to do is live in America and call themselves American, so please stop saying things like 'American's not ready for the electric car.' It shows how you just don't get the melting pot concept."

You could easily say that neo-nazis are under civil war when two groups who are independant begin stabbing each other. There is no centralized structure, anybody can call themselves a neo-nazi. Explain to me how they're different. Oh, they're not. Internet douchebags just like to feel deep.

Re:It was only a matter of time (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070998)

before Anonymous started turning on itself. Maybe they've run out of external targets...

Yep. Anarchy's all fun and games until some anarchists own personal liberty or property is threatened. Then the "That's not fair..." whining starts. Who didn't see this coming?

Re:It was only a matter of time (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071516)

Absolute Freedom is great until someone uses their Absolute freedom to hurt you. When you join an organization there is a false idea that everyone has exactly the same goals in mind or all want the same thing with the same priorities. Criminal Organizations no matter what their original intent is, attracts a lot of the less then honorable people. And shortly there is problems.

Re:It was only a matter of time (4, Insightful)

Yeknomaguh (1681980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071006)

This crap happens ALL THE TIME. Anonymous "turned" on itself years ago. Infighting keeps us strong, routes out the cancer, and confuses the hell out of outside enemies and newbs like you.

Re:It was only a matter of time (1, Offtopic)

jonescb (1888008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071072)

Shouldn't you have posted this as AC? Now /. knows who you are.

Re:It was only a matter of time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071094)

Pseudonyms are almost just as good. As long as they're changed often enough. Bonus points for using one that someone else already used.

Re:It was only a matter of time (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071178)

Posting with your username is the equivalent of being a tripfag. You are not cool for being part of a super sekret hacker klub.

Re:It was only a matter of time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071568)

Keeping "us" strong, is it? What makes you so sure that you aren't the cancer?

If Anonymous is anyone and everyone, how can it have an outside to have enemies in?

Re:It was only a matter of time (3, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071066)

The real fact is there isn't a way to define anonymous, and blaming all of anonymous for the actions of one group is ridiculous. Sony calling anon evil for the actions of this group is more or less no different then calling all Christians evil for the actions of Westboro baptist church, anyone can be a christian, and even take some portions of the christian beliefs out of context, yet you don't see the media or anyone hounding Christians as a whole for the actions of one group that claims to be Christians. All Anonymous means is one who dosn't give their identity, and by that logic most bankrobbers, murderers, serial killers have been anonymous since long before the internet was ever born.

Re:It was only a matter of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071302)

Actually, that happens a lot. You hear a lot about how Christians are ruining the country because they want religion (especially origin of life stuff) taught in schools. It's easier to blame the whole rather than point out the part that is actually stirring things up, and it's a better tool for the press to sensationalize everything. The people that understand this get along just fine and attempt to educate those that don't. The people that don't understand this are slack-jawed buffoons.

Re:It was only a matter of time (1)

BoogeyOfTheMan (1256002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071378)

Or hating all of Sony for the SonyBMG rootkit fiasco, SCEx getting hacked, etc. SonyBMG (music label), SCEx (SCEA, SCEJ and whatever the European one is, SCEE?) (game console), SOE (software), and whatever the name of the Sony hardware division is. They may all be called Sony, but they are all different divisions that dont have any say/control/knowledge what the others do. SonyBMG used to be pissed about the hardware division creating mp3 players around 2000, as they saw anything that played mp3's as a piracy enabler.

So basically hate Sony for whatever reason you want, just make sure you are hating the correct part of Sony. Untill the removal of otherOS, I always thought it was stupid when people would whine like little girls about the whole rootkit thing, SCEx had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it, so not buying a Playstation because SonyBMG messed up your computer always seemed to me like hating your neighbors friendly spouse because your neighbor stole your newspaper.

Anyway, it just gets me that people who understand that Anonymous is a collective of a bunch of different cliques that sometimes share goals and all use the same banner dont get that many massive corporations are basically separate companies that all share the same name.

Re:It was only a matter of time (2)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071544)

Wrong, you are redefining terms. When somebody speaks, you don't get to tell them what they meant. Are you denying any such movement called Anonymous? Because it would seem to me that there is such a movement and they do real things. When people identify them (which is easy because they leave pretty significant clues to what cultural slice of the internet they come from) as Anonymous you can't say "anonymous is just everybody who doesn't give their name", because that's not what the speaker meant. Everybody outside the group gets this. You can refer to a group of people as neo-nazis and generalize them, even though distinct groups may go about things different ways and nobody owns the trademark on the name. Anonymous is no different, they just like to feel different. You're not clever people.

Bad vigilante? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070860)

I'm sorry. Did I just hear someone say "I told you so?" Sounded like a Sony exec...

1 - 0 for big companies (1)

cmiu007 (1376719) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070862)

It seems that the multinational companies started to work against this movement. I'm hoping that this is just a maneuver to decrease the credibility of the group.

Re:1 - 0 for big companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071350)

It seems that the multinational companies started to work against this movement.
I'm hoping that this is just a maneuver to decrease the credibility of the group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNEWx_X_PB0

Re:1 - 0 for big companies (1)

cmiu007 (1376719) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071406)

Indeed, Companies like Palantir, HBGary and Co have a different activity object.

Lolz (1)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070864)

Sounds like someone's having some lolz. I like the idea of Anonymous, keeping companies like HB Gary 'honest', I just don't see it working over a long period of time. Everybody has a different set of ideals (lolz aside) so, in the flat hierarchy, they're all going to pull in a slightly different direction and this kind of stuff will happen.

Stealing IP addresses? (1)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070866)

Really, how many of these kids STILL don't use a proxy when going to Anon's sites after so many of their friends have been busted?

Re:Stealing IP addresses? (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071180)

Anon's sites arn't actually illegal to view, so no need for a proxy unless you're bragging about your 1337 ski115. When it comes to the DoS, Anonymous relies on hideing in numbers. When you've got 10,000 script kiddies attacking, plus a couple of skilled attackers with botnets, then it's just not practical to track down and charge even a small fraction of those IP addresses. Expensive, time-consuming, and by the time it's gone through the legal system Anonymous will be on to a new target anyway.

uhhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070880)

A hacker collective? That's like spiders suddenly becoming social animals.

Re:uhhh... (4, Funny)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070958)

A hacker collective? That's like spiders suddenly becoming social animals.

well to be fair, they did invent the web :)... they are social, just among themselves ... no facebook though

Re:uhhh... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071272)

Spiders are extremely social. For a given definition of social. Not their fault if eating your neighbor is considered bad manners where you come from. For spiders it's just a friendly hello.

There was never one anonymous (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070884)

Just like there is no true scotsman, there will always be someone up to good and use someone elses name as the blame, Just like how a buddist symbol was hijacked for Godwinite purposes, there will be a lot of anti sony users pretending to be anonymous.

Newsflash! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070892)

In response to accusations from Sony, Anonymous denies the allegations and blames everything on Anonymous... uh the other Anonymous.

Re:Newsflash! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071234)

I laughed so hard I almost lost my milk.

Re:Newsflash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071558)

My anonymous sources report it was actually ebaumsworld!

Were there lulz involved in hacking Sony? (2, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070906)

Given how much it has cost them in terms of PR, and how many "gamefags" are pissed off about not getting their PSN fix, the answer is probably "yes".

Therefore some of the less "moralfag" anons may well have had a hand in it. A bit like the schism over scientology protests and all the other things. Anonymous has a limited attention span due to any activity becoming "totally gay" after a while.

I find the whole thing hilarious.

Re:please curtail the homophobia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071594)

There are many queer people on the internet, and a lot of other words you could use to get your point across with out being offensive. thanks!

Not News (5, Insightful)

Yeknomaguh (1681980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070922)

This happens literally all the time. Its not even remotely news. Some part of "Anonymous" is always attacking some other part. Someone gets their feelings hurt and takes down a website or two. They get their name dropped and they fall off the radar. It isn't "civil war"; it's actually just the way Anonymous works.

How'd have thought... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070926)

...that you can't trust a bunch of anarchist computer network destroyers to be the champions of law and justice?

Re:How'd have thought... (4, Insightful)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071054)

Law is only loosely related to justice. Laws can be used to persecute people, and justice can be obtained by going outside of the law. The suffragettes also used civil disobedience, and also had internal warfare from women that believed a woman's place was in the kitchen and out of politics. They still managed to get the vote for women, and in retrospect we now see society as a better place for it.

Not that Anonymous are the suffragettes any more than they are a bunch of anarchist computer network destroyers.

Phillip.

Re:How'd have thought... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071296)

Anonymous never claimed to be a force of law and justice. Think more along the lines of "chaos" and "revenge".

Re:How'd have thought... (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071326)

Who'd = who would.

Scary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36070930)

If you can't even trust complete strangers on the Internet anymore, who can you trust?

How is this possible? (2)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070932)

Seriously, how can a hacker get into a computer system run by someone who KNOWS that hackers are after them? Hacks of major sites can be explained by the fact that major organizations (like Sony, etc) have many individual members and tons of bureaucratic incompetence. But you read about the hackers that exchanged stolen credit cards on various forums hacking EACH OTHER's websites, deleting all userdata #@#!, and thus forcing all the members of the site onto a competing site.

So, one would expect that Anonymous would make sure their own servers were hack-proof. Couldn't you trivially make something hack proof by running the server in a VM, and using a hardware authentication system for accessing the server that runs the VMs? How are hackers going to get past a measure like that? The server that deals with the outside world is sandboxed, and they can't crack your password to the management system because it changes every minute.

Re:How is this possible? (3, Informative)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071122)

Couldn't you trivially make something hack proof by running the server in a VM, and using a hardware authentication system for accessing the server that runs the VMs?

No.

How are hackers going to get past a measure like that?

Well, VM software isn't free of exploits. Nor are the other hardware and software used in your proposed solution. Plus, the infrastructure required to use RSA-style dongles isn't cheap.

Making it hard to break into isn't the same as making it impossible to break into.

Re:How is this possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071130)

"So, one would expect that Anonymous would make sure their own servers were hack-proof."

You're making the mistake that many people on this story have pointed out already, that Anon is not a cohesive group. It's a very loose collection of sometime-similarly minded individuals, mostly 4chan-ers. Similarly, you are assuming that their servers/services are maintained by computer-skilled individuals. Anonymous is proving that 'hacking' can be a social-network as well.. and I guarantee that a portion of the people that do 'anonymous' activities are no more computer literate that then average facebook user.

Re:How is this possible? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071278)

This. Only a small minority of any Anon operation are highly skilled, and they aren't always the ones doing the important stuff. A few are script kiddies and the majority are just average computer users who manage to follow the instructions.

Re:How is this possible? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071154)

Just because your authentication system is perfect, doesn't mean there are no bugs on the system to escalate privileges.

I'm definitely no expert, but it's naive to think that it's "trivial" to stop crackers getting into your system, especially if you're being targeted by a guy who knows his stuff and can discover his own exploits, rather than just trying to stop opportunist script kiddies who are relying on published exploits.

Re:How is this possible? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071204)

(I suppose to escalate privileges, you first need a valid account, but I don't think it's too stupid to assume that if you can get code to run on the remote system, you will be able to gain root privileges somehow, unless by some fluke chance, or serious perseverance, there are absolutely no exploitable bugs on the remote system).

You also have to take into account that someone could simply bug your keyboard for username/password, steal your hardware token, etc. You'd have to be really committed to do that kind of thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if some guys on 4chan really were that crazy.

Re:How is this possible? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071160)

Anonymous is a bunch of script kiddies, not "hackers" and certainly not hackers.

Re:How is this possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071162)

Gee... Which hardware authentication [pcworld.com] are you talking about?

Re:How is this possible? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071212)

It's a safe practice ground. It would go against what amounts to the Anonymous social code to ever get the law involved in hacking matters, so the script kiddies can test their tools and hone their skills into becoming more capable without the risk of having the police come around to arrest them. Such an anti-authoritarian group would see legal action as betraying their princibles. Hack them and they'll hack back, but they won't call in the lawyers.

Re:How is this possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071216)

You can't make anything hack-proof. You can only add layers of security. And every layer involves cost, in convenience if nothing else.

It's reasonable to say that when you know hackers are after you as a high-profile target, it's worth the tradeoff to add layers of security.

From the new tone of these hacks, my guess is this new faction is not in it for the lulz.

Re:How is this possible? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071252)

How are hackers going to get past a measure like that?

The exact same way that they would if it were running on a regular PC? Your VM & hardware auth only helps protect against physical access (which is a losing game, physical access generally equals game over). It does nothing against remote exploits. To guard against those you want to run server processes as non-root users wherever possible and use something like SELinux or AppArmor (SELinux is better for serious security, even if it is a huge PITA), and of course the obvious stuff like disabling unneeded services, setting up a firewall and keeping up with updates.

Re:How is this possible? (1)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071306)

You can make anything hack-proof. Just take it offline - this is what Sony has done. If you're online, you're providing a service. That service needs provide access to resources to users. If the attackers are after the resources vital to providing the service, the service has to be secure and have strong autnenticaiton/authorization systems.

Basically, they could have the most secure servers in the world, 100% hack proof servers as long as they're not running PSN, and the servers can't do anything that isn't vital to running PSN. But if the vulnerability is in PSN, once they start serving PSN they're no longer secure.

VMs can add boundaries to some infrastructure, PSN could possibly use better boundaries in its design, but VMs wont provide it.

Re:How is this possible? (1)

Domint (1111399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071316)

Nothing is 100% 'Hackproof'. Even your example outlined, exploits have been found that allow execution of privileged code on the host system from within the VM.

Re:How is this possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071542)

It makes perfect sense, they're in that branch because of their ability to destroy or disrupt, not because they know or understand security. If it were that simple then demolition companies would be construction companies as well.

Re:How is this possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071574)

Couldn't you trivially make something hack proof...

No.

When you think you have a solution (never mind a trivial solution) to making a internet service "hack-proof", it's a sure sign you have misunderstood basic concepts of infosec.

Re:How is this possible? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071584)

You are under the false assumption that hackers are smart. Most of them are just smart enough to find some good keywords and search them on Google or wherever and download the tool and do the hack. They often have very little idea on how they are hacking in, just that they are and they are a "Big Man" because of it. The danger from hackers is that they are so many of them, most of them failing until you got one who got in then they share the info with the rest then they all break in.

Yes it is (1, Interesting)

Addict7 (2024042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070944)

http://message.anonops.in/ [anonops.in] So yes, it's a civil war :D

Re:Yes it is (2)

Yeknomaguh (1681980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070978)

You have no idea how big anon is. One rogue hacker and a couple of stolen domains is par for the course.

Dissension always points to government invovlement (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070952)

Anytime a civil war breaks out in a Latin American country, one side is always funded and instigated by the U.S. government. Instigating dissension as a means of disrupting an organization is an age-old government technique that J. Edgar Hoover turned into an artform. Looks like our government boys have finally taken an interest in Anon, and the discrediting campaign is in full swing now.

Re:Dissension always points to government invovlem (1)

Yeknomaguh (1681980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071036)

Paranoia much? This crap happens all the time in anon, always has, always will. Just butthurt script kiddies, not government involvement.

Re:Dissension always points to government invovlem (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071290)

Do you really think that a hack to steal credit card numbers and personal info sounds like a typical move for Anon members?

Re:Dissension always points to government invovlem (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071660)

I think that a hack to steal credit card numbers and personal info sounds like a typical move for professional credit card number and personal info thieves. Inciting a horde of witless script kiddies to declare that they are SPARTACUS FOR THE LULZ is just a smart twist.

Re:Dissension always points to government invovlem (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071312)

There are pro-government patriotic black hats like The Jester and ichsun ("skill of 1000 hackers") who have done things in the interest of their governments. But they could actually be government-backed while pretending to be independent.

Re:Dissension always points to government invovlem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071532)

Paranoia much? This crap happens all the time in anon, always has, always will. Just butthurt script kiddies, not government involvement.

You could be right, but then, even paranoids have enemies, don't they?

Re:Dissension always points to government invovlem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071050)

time 4 your meds, yo.

Re:Dissension always points to government invovlem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071242)

So... Japanese government is behind this? lol

Is it really civial war? (4, Insightful)

realsilly (186931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36070954)

It sounds to me that there are individuals who don't follow the same ideology as a majority of the group called Anonymous. But since the word Anonymous is the generic word for "The concept of many online community users generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known" (from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)) [wikipedia.org] , how can you discern on sect from another.

If you are Anonymous in the collective term, then where one goes, you all go. It is part of the concept of Anonymous. True that only a small sub-group has made the decision to perpetrate a company and steal information, but their actions reflect on all those who associate themselves with Anonymous. If Anonymous as a whole disagrees with what some members do, punishment will be within and will likely be pretty swift.

This to me is not Civil war, but punishment for breaking of the ranks.

Re:Is it really civial war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071310)

It's not really a Civil War. That just generates pageviews. This group is Anonymous, but this group is also not Anonymous. If this group splits, both groups are still Anonymous, but neither is Anonymous. The problem people are having is viewing Anonymous as any kind of cohesive social unit with defined leaders or structure.

What? (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071008)

Oh fucking please. Anonymous was a cohesive group that is now in "civil war"?

Anonymous is /b/ on 4chan and a bunch of other chans. There is no "leadership" - there is more or less "consensus" for varying values of "consensus" when it comes to a protest or a network attack. Anonymous is about as cohesive as a fist full of jelly.

>Ryan

Ryan is extremely angry because a small group of Anonymous rescued all the old data from Encyclopedia Dramatica by getting it from archive.org before Ryan could get it deleted and then put up their own mirror of the old ED wiki. That's what this is about. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Here's the rebuilt ED wiki, hosted in Switzerland:

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page [encyclopediadramatica.ch]

That Ryan is raging buttmad over what "Teh Internets" has done "to him" is delicious irony.

--
BMO

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071150)

There's a fallacy in your thinking: that any group, bearing any label, can proceed without some sort of organization. Even a mob takes its cues form certain charismatic/ loud/ exemplary actors. Anonymous is not immune from this observation. But this doesn't stop dreamers and mythologizers from thinking about anonymous in dreamy ways that may be romantic and inspiring, but simply isn't real.

Anonymous has a structure, and that structure is simply its most active members, coordinating with each other. You can kill this rudimentary structure, and hurt anonymous. Yes, you can do that. 90% of what anonymous does is dome by 10% of its "members". If you were to profile who that 10% were, and take them all out at once, (not one-by-one, there is an organic retirement/ replacement continuum at work here) you would destroy anonymous.

It would of course reconstitute itself, but if you continued this "observe most active members, and then take them all out at once" tactic at a regular tempo, you would kill anonymous, dry the well, poison it, and prevent it from refilling.

Most assuredly, you can kill anonymous, all romantic dreamy notions of what anonymous is to the contrary.

"Anonymous is about as cohesive as a fist full of jelly."

Yes, that's an accurate metaphor. Please note that jelly actually has some cohesion.

You can kill Al Qaeda. You can kill the borg. You can kill anonymous. It takes effort and a longstanding commitment, and the most effective longterm methodology is to neutralize what motivates its organic membership. But for all the romanticizing dreamy anarchists out there: you just don't understand the intrinsic nature of human social organization. We self-organize, and this is a strength we reply on subconsciously, and a weakness to exploit.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071446)

>Most assuredly, you can kill anonymous

No you can't. As soon as anyone does something mischievous online and claims to be anonymous, there it is. All this talk of anon being a group is balls - those who claim to lead or direct it are self-nominated, and are no more representative that those idiot thirteen-year-olds in V masks that keep cropping up on YouTube.

Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

Re:What? (0, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071514)

Wow, who was talking about "killing" until you rolled up? What a curious ejaculation of violent imagery. Come on man, are you NSA or CIA?

what (4, Insightful)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071018)

Rebellion: Resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.

Mutiny: Revolt or rebellion against constituted authority.

How can you rebel when there's no leadership to rebel against?

This is, at best, a schism, and anon has survived schisms before- see Boxxy or the Scientology protests.

Re:what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071080)

see Boxxy

WHO RULES THE SKY?

Total Annihilation of Anonymous? (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071056)

What began as a conflict over the transfer of Anonymous from DDoS to identity theft has escalated into a war which has decimated a million scriptkiddies. The Hacktivists and the Rogues have all but exhausted the resources of 4chan in their struggle for domination. Both sides now moronic beyond compare, the remnants of their fad continues to harass Sony, their idiocy fueled by over four thousand years of inbreeding. This is a fight until their mothers tell them to get off the computer. For each side, the only acceptable outcome in the complete elimination of the ROFLs.

Re:Total Annihilation of Anonymous? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071208)

People still talk about that game? Now this brings back memories...

Not a civil war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071106)

...since there is no state, no sovereignty there. More like a kind of mitosis. Let's just hope it continues to multiply and speciate until the offspring are too numerous and heterogenous to target.

Welcome to everything Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071142)

Anonymous isn't one huge collective hivemind, WHO KNEW?!

Anonymous is made up of thousands of people who hold similar INTERESTS, doesn't mean they like each other.
These people range for fairly decent hackers to simple voluntary bots that tend to be recruited on imageboards.

There is in-fighting all the damn time. Hell, look at 4chan. They regularly raid each others boards with the content of their respective board just because.
This is exactly how the Anonymous movement behave in general.
They'll kick and punch each other, but a cause great enough to unite them in collective idiocy happens every so often and they join hands.

Questions: (1)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071262)

How is this any different than usual?

This sort of emo food fight has been happening in internet groups for decades (literally. I've watched it on usenet in the 80s).

How can you have an insurrection in a self proclaimed anarchy? It's sort of a contradiction in terms.

Anonymous is rock and roll (5, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071288)

I grew up in a conservative Christian household so I got the full scare story on the ebils of rock and roll before I dipped my toe in the other side. From the Christian POV, rock is monolithic. There's the titular head represented by Satan who is coordinating everything in a top-down hierarchical fashion from AC/DC, Ozzy, and Alice Cooper on down to the Beatles and Pat Boone. Even the most banal, lite rock-friendly artist is promoting Satan's message of substance abuse, loose morals, easy sex and enjoyment of life. Drug messages are backmasked into the music. Sex permeates the videos. Album jackets and psychedelic posters all have their hidden symbols and meanings; it's fun to take a trip, put acid in your veins. (supernaut!)

Then you look at it from the other side and shit, it's just a business. Rebellion is popular so you package it, commoditize it and sell it. Satan has nothing to do with it unless that's just a personal nickname for soulless assholes in suits. You really think it takes a prince of darkness to sell people on the idea of having fun and getting laid? Puhleeeeeeeeaze. Some rocker can declare he's doing something in the name of rock and roll, critics can argue about what rock is, how it should be, but they're all just tossing ideas into the collective memetic cess pool. There's no ecumenical councils trying to establish rock orthodoxy, no pope of rock to excommunicate you if you aren't doing it right.

It's the same thing with Anonymous. There's a vague, poorly expressed ideal with everyone supporting their own irreconcilable interpretation of it. You can't really have a civil war amongst people who were never unified to begin with. That's making the fundamental mistake of assuming Anonymous is top-down, hierarchical, and organized. Organized anarchy? That's as oxymoronic as Christian rock.

Re:Anonymous is rock and roll (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071604)

Awesome. Nice metaphor, shame I have no mod points.

rofl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071336)

there is no group called Anonymous.

you are all being trolled.

anonymous.txt (1)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071414)

"We are legion!" (_!_)

Re:anonymous.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36071556)

I'm not

A False Flag Operation (4, Insightful)

SplicerNYC (1782242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071442)

This "rogue" group stinks of HB Gary.

For those more interested (1, Flamebait)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36071488)

Here is a video [youtube.com] that explains Anonymous, its structure, and its political goals.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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