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!

Mainstream Media Looks At Anonymous

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

Security 118

ScuttleMonkey writes "In an uncharacteristically accurate writeup of Anonymous, the Guardian has published a look at the assembled mob behind the mask. A great place to send those unfamiliar with who or what Anonymous really is. From the article: 'This collective identity belongs to no one in particular, but is at the disposal of anyone who knows its rules and knows how to apply them. Anonymous, the collective identity, is older than Anonymous, the hacktivist group – more to the point, I propose that the hacktivist group can be understood as an application of Anonymous, the collective identity.'"

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

First post (-1, Offtopic)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098644)

Expect it.

Re:First post (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098762)

Expect it.

Somehow I expected it to be posted Anonymously...

Re:First post (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099122)

Informed and literate? You're probably a terrorist.

"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098754)

Sounds like the sort of person who can give a good report on this issue.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (3, Insightful)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099636)

Why, would you prefer it to be "Social Media Expert" or some other weasel words?

The author actually does a pretty good job, though I'd disagree with some of her points.

But then, I'd yet to find one to say "I really know what Anonymous is!" and not break out his not-sufficiently-humble opinion on the subject - /. experts on Anonymous included.

On a side note, all those writing Anonymous with capital A make me puke. Is it just or does anyone else feel it whores out the concept of anonymity and anonymous?

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099806)

That's largely the point! The capital A is effectively an icon. The individuals may be nameless but the movement and its actions are not.

It seems like such a simple and self-evident concept. It is not any one particular group, yet it unites those who identify with the movement. In a data-driven world where anonymity had been practically forgotten, the movement is a reminder that social change does not require one dictatorial leader, but merely a group of nobodies acting in concert.

For example, the rebels in Libya used their available knowledge and technology to bring like-minded people together and put up a damn good fight. That is the spirit of Anonymous.

Think of it as a bunch of people chanting "This is bullshit!" in unison.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099992)

"A group of nobodies acting in concert" does not equate "Anonymous". All mass uprisings were "groups of nobodies acting in concert".

That's why I say "whoring out" - Anonymous is the one who thinks big, important thoughts and stands up for the greater justice, and others are just petty script kiddy cowards hiding behind the mask and clearly has nothing to do with We, The Anonymous, The Forece For The Greater Good.

Disgusting, really.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36100194)

And mob rule always works out so well.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (1)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100082)

I'm cool with capilisation. "Anonymous" is an adjective so to use it in a sentance the way most news reporters do, you need to make it a proper noun, IE: capitalise it.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (4, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100464)

I'm Synonymous. Exactly the same as Anonymous, just a different name.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36102438)

You idiot, do you have any idea what you have done?

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100122)

To be fair it seems to be a very well written article if using slightly more flowery language than required.
It even seems to have actually been decently researched.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (-1, Flamebait)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100384)

You are an idiot.

The article was full of trolling crap, placed there by anon, a long time ago.

Even "the rules of the internet" are a trolling POS, co-opted and modified from a gaiafag.

But the good thing is that faggots like you will be easliy spotted when you attempt to join the secret anonymous.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36100662)

What a fuckin' retard...... ani-moose? douche.

Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101328)

Sounds like the sort of person who can give a good report on this issue.

The internet is media. Someone who studies Anonymous is necessarily engaging in "media studies". Are you saying someone whose academic focus is media studies isn't qualified to engage in media studies? Who would you suggest, then? A biologist?

Guy Fawkes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36098798)

I'd feel less animosity towards Anonymous if they didn't insist on using the face of a terrorist.

Re:Guy Fawkes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36098942)

He didn't look like wut duh mask lookks liek retard.

Re:Guy Fawkes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36098980)

Guy Fawkes was no more a terrorist than Samuel Adams. The only difference is Fawkes lost.

Re:Guy Fawkes (2)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099142)

Another difference you're overlooking is that Samuel Adams had no intention of setting up a theocracy worse than what he was fighting...

Re:Guy Fawkes (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099618)

Yet another is that Samuel Adams [samueladams.com] has never used "It'll Fawkes you up!" in one of its beer commercials.

Re:Guy Fawkes (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101356)

Actually the mask has nothing to do with that Guy Fawkes; it's the mask of the Guy Fawkes from Alan Moores comic "V for Vendetta".

Re:Guy Fawkes (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101426)

Oops, V was his psuedonym not Guy Fawkes.

Re:Guy Fawkes (2)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099136)

Well, if you listened to some Englishmen, our first President was a terrorist.

Seems like Guy Fawkes was just trying to put a little god into government. And you'd think so too if you loved Baby Jeesus.

Re:Guy Fawkes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099384)

Seems like Guy Fawkes was just trying to put a little god into government.

From what I know, he planned on doing it by blowing said government to kingdom come.

Re:Guy Fawkes (0)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099976)

A religious coup.

How is that any different from what the U.S. military has been doing to the middle east ?

Is the U.S. government then a terrorist organisation ? They blow up foreign governments to install their own brand of culture.

At least Fawkes wanted to blow up his own government. That is far more noble and democratic than today's racially-charged wars and mercantile marauding.

Re:Guy Fawkes (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099774)

There being no hope for peaceful change, it's not a bad selection.

Re:Guy Fawkes (3, Informative)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099944)

Terrorist ?

Just because he was a man with explosives does not make him a terrorist. He intended to blow up the House of Lords, a very specific political target. He would have been a political assassin, not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald.

Terrorists, as the title suggests, spread terror by attacking random citizens. The whole point of terrorism is to instill wide-spread panic by implying that anyone could be the next target, man/woman/child of any status.

I can relate to the idea of challenging/attacking a nation's leaders. We entrust those people with the power to run the country on our behalf, and if they abuse that power and turn it against us, they should expect retribution. In that sense, I think Guy Fawkes is the ideal mascot for the Anonymous movement.

Re:Guy Fawkes (2)

Omestes (471991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101382)

He wanted to blow up the government in enact a theocracy.

I don't really find either act very honorable. And even if your blowing up a "legitimate" target, if your intention is to cause terror, fear, or disruption; your a terrorist. If they just would have attacked the Pentagon, and not the WTC on 9/11, it still would have been an act of terrorism. If we were occupying their country, and they attacked a military base, or a patrol, it would be a legitimate action, and not terrorism.

I can relate to the idea of challenging/attacking a nation's leaders. We entrust those people with the power to run the country on our behalf, and if they abuse that power and turn it against us, they should expect retribution.

Yep... the government doesn't do what I want it to do, so I'm going to go murder people. Makes sense. And in Fawkes case, the government isn't doing what I want it to do, so I'm going to blow it up in hopes that we can replace it with the Pope ruling us.

Notice the "I" and "us" terms, since they aren't equivalent. The government shouldn't do what you or I want it to do, it should do what "we" want it to do, in the case of democracies and republics. This is what pisses me off about modern politics... Somehow the government should only look out for me and my best interests or petty desires... Everyone else be damned.

Its especially absurd when people think not getting their way is somehow justification of murder. Its like being ruled by two year olds.

Also... retribution, as our country is set up, means "voting". If you don't think your government is doing its job, within your personal opinion of such matters, then DON'T VOTE FOR THE OFFENSIVE PEOPLE. It is really simple. If more people vote for the people, tough shit. People disagree with you. You disagree with people. Wonderful. You aren't special. Your opinions aren't special. They aren't magically objective fact just because you believe them. Government also represents those of us whose opinions are different than yours. Government, further, exists to protect us from people who think their opinion is such that they should be able to enforce it on others. Extremists, in other words... People who think that the ends (murder) justify the means (you personal pet ideal for governance).

Re:Guy Fawkes (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36102362)

I'm not saying I condone mass murder, I'm saying sometimes the ones in power can be hard of hearing (read: fascist). In such cases, a coup is often the only remaining recourse.

If you still believe the vote has any power or meaning, well I'm afraid I am wasting my words on you.

Re:Guy Fawkes (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36102034)

Terrorist ?

Just because he was a man with explosives does not make him a terrorist. He intended to blow up the House of Lords, a very specific political target. He would have been a political assassin, not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald.

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't try to blow up an entire building at a time when it would be full of hundreds of people. many of them innocent and uninvolved in the political process. I'd say that makes a difference.

There is no "knowledg e barrier" (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098804)

From TFS:

From the article: 'This collective identity belongs to no one in particular, but is at the disposal of anyone who knows its rules and knows how to apply them.

But not to anyone else, is that the story? So much glorification of such a flimsy premise...

Re:There is no "knowledg e barrier" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099126)

Really only 1 rule I am aware of; "Tits or GTFO"

my explaination (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099688)

Anonymous is like the "take a penny, leave a penny" tray at the checkout at the mini mart.
That's right, bloody goddamn communist.

Re:There is no "knowledg e barrier" (2)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101836)

Well there's also a rule 34: "There is a porn of it."

Re:There is no "knowledg e barrier" (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101258)

But not to anyone else, is that the story?

You could, perhaps, actually read the story to find out what the story is. Silly idea, I know... so much easier to just go off on one particular sentence from the summary...

Re:There is no "knowledg e barrier" (1)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101714)

I think you're mistaking what is meant by rules, and maybe that's because of poor writing. Maybe a more descriptive way would be "but it at the disposal of anyone able to sway a significant number of the members and direct them towards a goal." (I'm not sure members is an appropriate word, though, because the number of participants is larger than the "membership.") How this is accomplished is by following unwritten rules of how members interact and rules that apply to any human behavior.

If it were possible to really identify Anon... (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098810)

The Scientologists would have already sued them into oblivion. Their disorganization is their strength.

Re:If it were possible to really identify Anon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36098830)

If it were possible to really identify a single Anon...

There, fixed that for you.

Re:If it were possible to really identify Anon... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098948)

Wikileaks [xkcd.com] : is there anything it can't do?

Nietzsche says (2)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098904)

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." .. seems oddly apt, but possibly a little late for the mainstream news.

Re:Nietzsche says (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099222)

Yes, Nietzsche is a 'little late' for the mainstream news. Also a little much. We're talking Ronald McDonald here.

Simple way to understand. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098912)

Just read Lord of the Flies. Or any of the studies of how people behave when they feel like they are anonymous. And you can stop calling them anything or you declare them a gang of bullies and identity thieves that will attack those that say things they do not agree with.
If they are just a random blob of people with out structure you can call them nothing but a population.
If they are not then they have attacked people for as harmless as a teenage boy that started a website that encouraged kids to not use profanity and have stolen identity information from the Sony website.
You can not both hold them Anonymous faultless for acts that was done by the group and give them credit of things that the group have been done by the group.

Re:Simple way to understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099036)

a gang of bullies and identity thieves... have stolen identity information from the Sony website.

[Citation needed]

Re:Simple way to understand. (1)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099042)

Anonymous is a Unix permission granted to unknown entities on the larger network known as the Internet.

Re:Simple way to understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099718)

Anonymous is a Unix permission granted to unknown entities on the larger network known as the Internet.

That would be "nobody" - which oddly enough is exactly what many individuals participating in Anonymous are.

Re:Simple way to understand. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099096)

You are confusing things truly done in a decentralized way by a group of activist individuals with an ideological goal in mind, and things BLAMED on a decentralized group of activist individuals because they are a convenient scapegoat.

The fact that you cant tell the difference precludes your opinions from having merit, friendo.

Re:Simple way to understand. (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099246)

It's all fun and games until someone sticks a pig's head on a pole and general nastiness ensues.

Re:Simple way to understand. (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101332)

2,768 people and webmistressrachel liked this post. Be the first of your friends to Like this post!

Sony Hack (4, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098926)

In regards to the Sony hack which Anonymous supposedly denies, if Anonymous is leaderless, isn't it pretty much impossible to say whether or not they did something? Can't anybody claim to be Anonymous and do what ever they want? I assume for anything Anonymous does there are some people who consider themselves members who disagree, so does that mean Anonymous didn't do it?

This isn't meant as a critique of Anonymous, but without leaders or hierarchy it's pretty much impossible to define what it is or what it does.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

lazorz (1544583) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099022)

Yes, exactly right. I am tired of seeing articles claiming "the Anonymous" did one thing or another. Anyone unidentified is by definition "anonymous" and trying to pin this name onto a specific group of people is an insult to intelligence.

Re:Sony Hack (2)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100078)

but of course it was anonymous

"Do we know who did it?"
"no"
"so the perpetrators are anonymous"
"uhhhh"
"Anonymous did it!"

Of course that lone wolf "Somebody" seems to have done even more dastardly deeds.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099030)

In regards to the Sony hack which Anonymous supposedly denies, if Anonymous is leaderless, isn't it pretty much impossible to say whether or not they did something? Can't anybody claim to be Anonymous and do what ever they want? I assume for anything Anonymous does there are some people who consider themselves members who disagree, so does that mean Anonymous didn't do it?

Either "Anonymous" is useful to the powers that be (i.e. it's a CIA/NSA/whatever plot) or soon we'll see someone arrested for terrorism or kiddie porn who identifies as "Anonymous", followed by a witch hunt. Or maybe both.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099048)

Nonsense, I can define what anonymous does in two words: nothing noteworthy.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099068)

Way to completely ignore history.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099052)

This isn't meant as a critique of Anonymous, but without leaders or hierarchy it's pretty much impossible to define what it is or what it does.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Anonymous the hacktivist group wouldn't steal credit cards. It's not in their interests. Anyone who would identify with Anonymous' activism has no reason or motivation to steal personal information. However, such an organization provides the perfect scapegoat, as is shown with the Sony hack and a supposed text file with "We are legion", an Anonymous phrase, being left on one of the servers.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36100756)

Anonymouse the hacktivist group wouldn't steal credit cards, but Anonymous doing it for the lulz might, as well as Anonymous closed the pool due to AIDS.

Re:Sony Hack (5, Interesting)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099102)

You are over-thinking it. It is simple.

Anyone can be anonymous, but not everyone is Anonymous. An action performed by a member of Anonymous, is not the same as an action by Anonymous. Think of it as a gestalt -it is not, until at some undefined point, it is.

There are leaders within Anonymous. Just because they are not part of a hierarchy does not mean they do not exist. No one appointed them, no one elected them, but others followed them. Leading is not the same as ruling.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

PlasmaEye (1128377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099380)

If you have seen the Anime Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex, that description is almost a word-for-word description of the Laughing Man. An interesting show, that. Delves into the subject of a cyber identity. Plus, like any other Anime, it has a lead woman in a tight outfit.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36102556)

If you have seen the Anime Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex, that description is almost a word-for-word description of the Laughing Man.

except that Anonymous is not a standalone complex, standalone complexes do not make statements confirming or denying their involvement in particular actions, unlike Anonymous or al-Qaeda.

Re:Sony Hack (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099408)

No one appointed them, no one elected them, but others followed them. Leading is not the same as ruling.

+1 Gets It.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099452)

You are a complete buffoon.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099482)

Or, in other words, Anonymous is a big bad nebulous mysterious entity that is undefinable, omnipresent, and unstructured, until someone starts using the name for something they themselves don't agree with, then they magically grow exactly enough structure to deny responsibility and somehow identify those "other" Anonymice as "wrong". All the power and fear of a badly-written comic book Mysterious Council, with none of the accountability or actual real-world political connections or sociological experience!

And they expect everyone to keep believing it, too! THAT'S the hilarious part!

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099500)

You expect the populous to understand 'gestalt'? To be able to separate the actions of individuals acting under the banner of Anonymous from either those individuals or from the group as whole? Might as well tell them they are all Anonymous if they want to be.

And leading verse ruling? Might as well talk about the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The only ones who will understand include art students and feminists; and most will think it's violent leftist code words.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36101632)

Actually, we expect the populus to be able to differentiate between "populus" and "populous" -- if they never attended grammar school, they won't know what "we are legion" means either, and they won't get our hilarious in-joke about legionnaires with no organizational structure, either.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099994)

Think of this as a model for what the parent just said in that the blue dots are people, and the red dots are Anonymous.

http://www.molleindustria.org/kosmosis/kosmosis.html

Re:Sony Hack (1)

ThinkDrink (2102340) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100092)

This. Perfect description imo.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36102022)

An even simpler way to put it:

Anonymous IS Schrödinger's cat.

It goes to show why there are so many different interpretations of "Anonymous". Granted, there is only one CORRECT interpretation, but we won't know which is the correct interpretation of Anonymous until we know more about quantum mechanics.

This also just so happens to explain their obsession with felines.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

SixGame (1565287) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099138)

I think it's a function of any collective that requires no membership; it merely requires someone to self-identify as part of it. I could claim to be muslim and commit horrible acts, but I'm simply a microcosm of the overall collective. Even condemning the individual through some unofficial hierarchy isn't a powerful enough message to separate the self-identifying member from the collective. A loose collective's behavior/perspective then is only in context as a whole, and is not reliant on single individual or relative small group sample size.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099184)

Anyone can claim to be a member of Anonymous, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are. Even though Anonymous doesn't have a defined leader, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have specific membership. If someone is not in contact with the preexisting members of Anonymous and claims to be acting on their behalf, then the person claiming to be Anon is just appropriating the name.

That is a different situation than if an existing member does something that runs contrary to the will of the group. That seems to be what is happening with the current AnonOps [ft.com] situation. If I had to guess at which category the Sony breach falls into, I'd guess the first. Anonymous' activities are consistently more on the "hacktivism" side of the computer crimes spectrum than the "for-profit crime" side. If Anon had been the ones to break into Sony (even if it was a subfaction of the larger group), I'm sure we would have seen PSN user lists and/or credit card numbers (maybe sanitized, maybe not) released. They were very vocal about their actions when they went after HBGary and they promptly released the data they acquired. The Sony breach far more closely matches the Eastern European or Chinese organized crime MO than the Anonymous MO.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099780)

How do you define "membership in Anonymous"? Where can I apply to get my member card?

What are those "Anonymous' activities" that are consistently on hacktivism side?

Do you equate some AnonOps or 4chan or whatever else with Anonymous and "Anonymous' activities"?

I've seen anonymous willingly go raiding social nets and brute-force hacking accounts on dating sites, were those "Anonymous' activities", and were they on the "hacktivism" side of the computer crimes spectrum than the "for-profit crime" side?

You're just the other side of the coin with mass-media and all those "Anonymous!" and "hacktivist group!".

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099224)

The actual reports were that AnonOps claimed they were not responsible. AnonOps was the main hub for organizing attacks, invasions and operations and they claimed to have not coordinated the attack and there were no public IRC channels dedicated to it. Because AnonOps was the primary means for Anonymous to organize, people misunderstood that to mean that Anonymous denied responsibility. It's obvious the attack was anonymous. No one knows who did it.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099876)

That's the fun on all the matters involving anonymous.

Re:Sony Hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36100108)

Anon can make the correct claim that Anon did not organize the attack to the best of their own knowledge. The sony takedown was not orchestrated through the standard attack channels. It is possible an individual or small group within anonymous did it, but it wasn't a major coordinated action.

Re:Sony Hack (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101562)

Anonymous began by revendicating crimes it did not commit (the 'attack' of the scientology servers that DDoSed themselves by hosting a video of Tom Cruise saying how awesome the church was). When will people understand that anything that Anonymous "says" can not be taken seriously ? That is the core of the concept !

Re:Sony Hack (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#36102074)

Terrorists do just fine with limited to no leadership...

The collective? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099146)

"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile."

Re:The collective? (5, Funny)

Swampwulf (875465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099314)

We are the Canadian Borg. Resistance would be impolite. Please wait to be assimilated. Pour l'assimilation en francais, veuillez appuyer le "2".

What is anonymous (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099296)

Anonymous is like a one time pad in cryptography. Even if you manage to find a key that decodes the message into something legible, you will never know if you have the right key because in theory, any given message can be reproduced. Anonymous is like that. The minute you think you have it pinned down you realize that in fact it was something else - because it is not an "organization". Rather it is a "disorganization".

Re:What is anonymous (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100236)

Anonymous is like a one time pad in cryptography.

In other words, without the secret decoder ring, it's nothing but a sequence of random gibberish into which anyone can read any message or ideology they want.

And you can never know if you have the secret decoder ring or not.

How exactly is this going to achieve... well, anything?

Re:What is anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36100670)

Anonymous isn't out to achieve anything. Anonymous does it for the lulz.

Re:What is anonymous (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#36102088)

so, Anonymous is like a hipster? Once you've figured it out, it's too late!

Re:What is anonymous (0)

eriks (31863) | more than 3 years ago | (#36102380)

Are We Not Men? We Are Devo!

Anonymous FTP (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099300)

Want to have some fun with the media? Tell them about "anonymous" ftp two decades ago, then tell them about the "anonymous" FTP over email services circa 1991, that'll confuse the heck out of them.

What's to Know? (1, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099304)

It's a mob. Bound by no principals except what they happen believe at the moment.

Ahem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099394)

You should have used the word "principles" there.

Re:Ahem... (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100168)

Well, yes. But I'm sure they didn't have any Principals either.

Re:What's to Know? (2)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099524)

That's what i think every time there is an election in the US!

Re:What's to Know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099818)

It's a mob. Bound by no principals except what they happen believe at the moment.

What's to know? Are you kidding? It gets pretty interesting as soon as you try to define "mob", and even more interesting when you start trying to understand how and why the principles themselves are bounded (and they clearly are) and what the "critical mass" factors are that trigger a responsive action from the collective.

It's worth thinking about too, considering that there's no question that the mob can do things, and can change things. Just like a story going viral on the Internet, if Anonymous's attention happens to fall on an individual (say, because they poisoned a cat or something) or on a company (say, because it threatened legal action against an individual or something) the result may not be just like any other day for that individual or company.

Masks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099340)

There's a paragraph or two in the article about the symbolism of the mask and relating it to the culture (wrongly assuming that you cannot use a username) of 4chan. Can someone point the author to a knowyourmeme or similar article about the history of epic fail guy?

a guess at the sony thing.. (3, Interesting)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099346)

I dont think its right to say anonymous is not organized, it seems extremely democratic to me, especially the dos attacks.
If you suggest a course of action and it resonates then it is anonymous, if it gets no support then its just you.

Regarding sony I would wager what happened was during the anonymous dos attack someone peeked at the defenses and went holy crap its wide open,
and went back alone.
IE the initial anonymous attack probably did uncover the vulnerable network but the hack was not by anonymous.

Re:a guess at the sony thing.. (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099544)

it seems extremely democratic to me

what exactly is democratic here? I don't see it. please elaborate.

Re:a guess at the sony thing.. (2)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099714)

Well, as I understand, the dos attacks are done by individuals targeting the LOIC program at the proposed target.
The strength of the attack then is directly proportional to the number of "votes" it gets.

Re:a guess at the sony thing.. (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099786)

that's just a critical mass. If there were a group named Anonymous with a democratic structure, then there would be a leader that facilitates discussions, proposals for actions, and yea or nay votes on the proposals. none of these are the case. Sucinctly: "democratic" != "mob mentality"

Re:a guess at the sony thing.. (2)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099904)

there is a form of leadership etc. in irc channels, but I dont think that concerns the democratic aspect.
Its not mob mentality because whoever chooses to participate is anonymous to other participants aswell as the target.

zeus canon misfires again, s. hillary evacuates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099492)

followup; Zeus canon being fired down under southern hillary (Score:mynutswon, photonic harmonics)
by Anonymous infants on Wednesday
never a better time to disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy
with after all?
you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.
world wide disarmament is taking place based on the pure intentions of the
majority of the planet's chosen to be depopulated, population. as the
biblical fiction based chosen ones have only one ability, which is
destruction for personal gain, they just don't fit in with all the new
life extending stuff that we're being advised/warned to avoid/ignore. life
likes to continue, advance etc... deception & death appear to have similar
ambitions.
also, there's just enough time left to investigate the genuine native elders
social & political leadership initiative, which includes genuine history
as put forth in the teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words
in their language to describe the events following their 'discovery' by
us, way back when. they do advise that it's happening again.
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair,
please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID,
which are always changing, you butthead
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
retrollted by the diaper leaks group world wide

Re:zeus canon misfires again, s. hillary evacuates (0)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099784)

dude, don't do that to me.
I just checked http://spaceweather.com/ [spaceweather.com] and http://www.syzygyjob.com/ [syzygyjob.com] and we're in the clear for now.

We are anonymous (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099832)

We are anonymouse. We ar- wait shit!

Re:We are anonymous (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36100248)

Pay no attention to the man with the UID and the spelling problems, as he clearly is not anonymous.

Headline Correction! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36099950)

"Mainstream Media Looks At Anonymous, Confirms The Media Still Has Its Head Up Its Collective Ass"!

"uncharacteristically accurate" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36100044)

"In an uncharacteristically accurate writeup of Anonymous

If by "uncharacteristically accurate", you mean they took whatever claims those punk kids make at face value, then I'll agree.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?