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 Creates Its Own Social Network

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the geeting-in-on-the-game dept.

Social Networks 271

An anonymous reader writes "Google has reportedly banned a handful of Anonymous members from Google+ (it's not exactly clear how many accounts were shut down). The hacktivist group likened Google's actions to the stories of activists being banned from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as governments blocking various websites using Internet censorship tools. As a result, Anonymous has decided to create its own social network: Anonplus."

cancel ×

271 comments

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

Anonymous social networking. (5, Funny)

z3alot (1999894) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792444)

Talk about an oxymoron.

Re:Anonymous social networking. (4, Insightful)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792508)

I was thinking the exact same thing.
We're anonymous, let's make a website that keep records of us.

Wait, what?

I did a double-take (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792582)

How does Google know who the members of "Anonymous" are? Aren't they, ummm, anonymous?

Re:I did a double-take (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792826)

I think Google pretty much knows everything that goes on on the internet now.

Re:I did a double-take (3, Interesting)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792846)

The Google-owned "Recaptcha" appearing on every board on 4chan doesn't hurt. It will identify everyone who isn't behind seven proxies.

Re:I did a double-take (1)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792876)

they make it clear on their accounts that they are members of such groups. i would imagine that they have private accounts that google doesn't know about.

most of their recent actions with twitter et al have been a matter of PR - to get the public on board with what they are about. which was exactly the accounts that got banned by google+.

personally i can't believe that google of all organizations would do this. short of pressure from gov entities i suppose. and the creation of a social network that is NOT geared for tracking you seems like a good idea. however, i'm not sure they can afford the bandwidth without either stealing it or finding some source of income for the site.

Re:I did a double-take (-1, Flamebait)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792936)

Congratulations, your our first poster to use: "ummmm. anonymous?" in this anonymous thread, you have won a swift boot to the head!!!! Please meet with our staff to arrange when and where you would like to receive your kick to the head and grats again

(seriously why is there always some dink that thinks "ummmm. anonymous?" is the most clever joke ever on these stories? yea we get it, its not fuckin funny)

Re:I did a double-take (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792970)

nerdrage, however, is definitely the funniest rage.

Re:Anonymous social networking. (5, Insightful)

cjjjer (530715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792974)

Maybe they are creating the first Anti-Social Network

Re:Anonymous social networking. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792818)

Well, it's more of an Antisocial Networking site. Actually, it's just a mirror of 4chan.

Anonymous isn't an activist group (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792452)

They are a cyberterrorism group.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (3, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792482)

'Cloud terrorism' please. They care giving 'cyber' a bad name.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792486)

The NAACP were called "terrorists" by the Southern Republicans too...

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792514)

A terrorist is a freedom fighter that lost the battle.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792566)

No, not really.

A terrorist is someone who attempts to force some form of change in public opinion/behavior by means of random violence.

Many terrorists consider themselves "freedom fighters", but they really aren't. If you're fighting for "freedom" then you restrict yourself to legitimate military targets, and you don't kidnap and ransom people.

Terrorists use the populace as human shields, deliberately hide their weapons and identities, deliberately target civilians, and are just generally subhuman scum.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792600)

If you're fighting for "freedom" then you restrict yourself to legitimate military targets

Once you strip back the national mythology, many supposedly admirable revolutions in history had the underdogs going after targets with only a tangential connection to the military. Much recent scholarship on the American Revolution, for example, has focused on how the revolutionaries terrorized those they considered Loyalists. Homes were burned down and innocent people were hanged simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about independence from Britain.

Perhaps there is a line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter", but it's awfully hard to draw without losing a rosy view of one's own country's history.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1, Interesting)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792686)

Much recent scholarship on the American Revolution, for example, has focused on how the revolutionaries terrorized those they considered Loyalists.

The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.

Homes were burned down and innocent people were hanged simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about independence from Britain.

Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?

These questions matter. If you're not asking them, you don't care about the truth; you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (4, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792804)

The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.

By "recent", I mean after the formation of the American national mythology, and that means works of history from long before America's problems with the Middle East. It's hard to call a 1940s historian's recounting of the burning of Loyalist homes (one Wikipedia citation for the event) as "a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east."

It's tiresome that any attempt to show the full picture of early American history is attacked as sympathy with America's enemies.

Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?

A matter of policy. Look to the tarring and feathering activities of the Sons of Liberty. Many of the men who supported these actions were later Founding Fathers. The Committees of Safety that superseded the Sons of Liberty were even worse.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792812)

Yes, I'm sure the founders had very high ideals of liberty and freedom for the natives of the land they occupied.. "Oh, and by the way, domine domine domine, you're all Catholics now."

...you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.

Two way street if there ever was one... but with only one lane apparently

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793034)

"Oh, and by the way, domine domine domine, you're all Catholics now."

Erm... none of the Founding Fathers were Catholic. They were mostly Deists and Non-Anglican Protestants, who had left Britain specifically because the Anglican Church were being a bunch of dicks about allowing people to worship (or not) as they chose to.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792820)

I'm in Saudi Arabia, head honcho of oppressive fanatics, but you know, it's a lot safer than medium sized cities in the US. I have little chance of being mugged, burgled or robbed.

What you read on US news is there to scare Americans from leaving the US to find out how nice the rest of the world is.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792926)

The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.

It's more than that. There's a line of revisionism which states basically that not only were the US revolutionaries terrorists, but that their complaints against Britain ranged from unfounded to trivial, that the colonists were actually being coddled compared to those back at home, and that the whole revolution was unjustified.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792664)

By your definition the U.S. government can be labelled a terrorist organization. There's plenty of documented cases where they haven't restricted themselves to military targets and have kidnapped people.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792688)

By your definition the U.S. government can be labelled a terrorist organization.

Yes, yes it can. What's your point?

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

joaosantos (1519241) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792816)

It's not kidnapping it's "extraordinary rendition".

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792722)

...deliberately hide their... identities

Ah yes [ibabuzz.com]

...and you don't kidnap... people

of course not [statewatch.org]

... legitimate military targets...
absolutely.. I'm sure these people [tribune.com.pk] are completely innocent

...deliberately target civilians...

moi? jamais! [wordpress.com]

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792770)

The point of the gp (IMO) is not that terrorists don't do these things, but that every 'legitimate' military force on earth does them too. For example, the US has been making drone strikes in pakistan that target civilian populations in the HOPE of MAYBE getting a terrorist too.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (0)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792892)

So they are bombing at random? Well since 2004 72% of all Pakastanis have been terrorists. 92% more recently.

Or maybe the targeting is a bit better than you think.

http://pakistansurvey.org/about/drones [pakistansurvey.org]

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792912)

There is a big difference in striking an area that may contain civilians, because a military target is present as well, and sending someone in to blow up a pizza shop full of innocent civilians just trying to get lunch.

Read the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, the parts covering the terrorist's favorite tactic, human shields [icrc.org] :

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. - Geneva Convention IV, Article 28

So, for example: the fact that Moammar Gadhafi sticks his secret bunker under a "public housing" apartment building does NOT render that building immune to military strikes designated to take the motherfucker out.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792960)

So if the CIA operates out of the WTC, that made it a legitimate target?

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792792)

For one, we're talking about "Disrupting the Internet" vs. "War". Your choice of emotionally charged wording does not change that.

Secondly, define "legitimate military targets." Are not they different for every group? Legitimate depends on your point of view.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792596)

A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.

Imagine some country invaded/occupied the USA, would the rednecks with AR15s be called "terrorists" by the American people? I think not.

I don't think they'd be using the euphemism "Insurgent", either.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792944)

WOLVERIIIIINES!!!!!1!

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793012)

Not always. Most people consider the Taliban to be terrorists, because they use suicide bombings and random shootings to kill Muslims whom they view as insufficiently devout. A while back (before the Pakistani military pushed them out) they outlawed things like dancing or women going out in public. If someone violated those rules, their names would get announced on the radio that night, and they would have maybe twelve hours to get the hell out of dodge, or else their organs would be decorating the town square.

I don't think even the Taliban members thought they were "freedom fighters" in this situation.

It's true that freedom fighters are often labeled terrorists by their opponents. It is not true that all terrorists are freedom fighters.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792680)

While it's true that enemies tend to get labeled terrorists, I'd rather define a terrorist as a fighter who makes the other side win.

Historically, terror acts have been perpetrated with advantage if you have enough diplomatic or raw force to justify it, but if your side is the weaker and oppressed one, just don't bother.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792790)

While it's true that enemies tend to get labeled terrorists

I don't recall even Fox News naming enemy combatants as terrorists. At worst they're called insurgents, redefined to mean "enemy combatants resisting an illegal occupation." The terrorist label is seemingly reserved for hostile acts against the populace, e.g. blowing up a city square.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792904)

I would disagree, and say that "acts of terror" is pretty much a meaningless phrase anyways.

Sure you have "terrorists" killing civilians in a meaningless or near meaningless manner, but the US military does that on a even larger scale and throw in all the torture and it is pretty easy to see which side are the bad guys and who is actually engaged in the the worst acts of terror.

terror is used by everyone to wage war, keep the peace, or just get noticed. It is even a huge part of our judicial system (that is what making an example out of someone means).
But gorilla tactics have been used effectively against larger forces throughout history and at its core gorilla tactics might not rely on terror but they sure can inspire it.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792556)

Relating Anonymous to NAACP is a slap in the face to every individual who every fought for equal rights.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

MichaelKristopeit416 (2018860) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792578)

relating any terrorist to all terrorists is a slap in the face to every terrorist.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792808)

Better get some bandages for that bleeding heart of yours.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793002)

You're right. One fought for the civil rights of only blacks. Anonymous is fighting for the civil and moral rights of everyone.

Relating the NAACP, a racial supremacist group, to actual civil rights activists is just wrong.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792830)

Your ass. George Bush, about ten congresses, and Barrack Obama have thrown that word around, til it's almost meaningless. Throw in all the cops and activist groups who define a misbehaving child as being "terroristic", and the word has lost all value. Some punk kid tells another punk, "I'm gonna tear your head off, and piss down the hole under it!" he is immediately branded a terrorist.

FFS, dicking around with electronic records does NOT constitute terrorism.

Pull your head out of your ass, take a few deep breaths so as to get some oxygen to your poor starved brain, and just TRY to think about what you've said.

Totally
Fucking
Meaningless
Soundbyte
Drivel

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792940)

so... activism == terrorism now eh? nice to know.... ...

short of them causing actual human harm (death etc) they are just activists. pulling stunts that get attention does NOT equal terrorist attacks. its simply good marketing. and YOU ought to be happy that *someone* is standing up for your freedoms. allowing the ability for the government to control your ability to communicate is not a matter which should not be taken lightly.

Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group (1)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793026)

replying to myself FTW...
moreover - of all the things this group might accomplish, hardening the internet from REAL terrorist attacks WILL be one of them. admins are no longer taking the threat lightly; and holes are being closed all over the place. this is a good thing. and at least it is being done someone(s) who doesn't have the aim of causing true damage.

Oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792476)

How can you have a social network while maintaining full anonymity ? It's basically impossible -- how will your "friends" recognise you ? You can have a pseudonym / alias / ID, but then the server will have to authenticate you, so at some level down the stack anonymity will be lost... and your server will be target #1 for police and intelligence agencies.

Re:Oxymoron (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792498)

It doesn't really matter, does it. Let's be honest here, there are, in every walk of life, two kinds of people: Those that count and those that do not. You will quickly spot the ones that do, and you will also easily be able to discriminate a "real" message from them from a fake one. And who cares about the others?

Re:Oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792866)

You really should keep this pseudo-intellectual bullshit to yourself.

Re:Oxymoron (2)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792662)

They all post as Anonymous Coward, all the time. It's like a blindfolded sex party.

Re:Oxymoron (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792690)


They all post as Anonymous Coward, all the time. It's like a blindfolded sex party.

They should call their social site "The Glory Hole".

Re:Oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792962)

So to spin "Cheers" for these guys it is, "I wanna go where nobody knows my name"?

Two anonymous guys walk into a bar...

Re:Oxymoron (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792704)

A pseudonym doesn't preclude anonymity as long as there's no way to link it to a real person.

Re:Oxymoron (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792914)

I'm afraid that with today's setup, there's always a link.. And the authorities aren't really concerned if they get the right guy either [cato.org]

July 12, 1998 - TX

Six police from Houston's anti-gang task raid the home of Pedro Oregon Navarro. Officers storm his bedroom, where Navarro awakes, startled and frightened, and reaches for his gun. Police open fire and shoot Navarro twelve times, killing him. His gun was never fired. Police found no drugs or evidence of drug use or sale in Navarro's home.

Police obtained Navarro's address after pulling over a car of three men, one of whom they arrested for public intoxication. Already on probation, the suspect offered a "tip" on a nearby drug dealer in exchange for his release. Police agreed to the bargain, and obtained Navarro's address from the suspect.

The officers who shot Navarro were fired. Only one was charged. A jury took about an hour to acquit him of misdemeanor criminal trespass. In August of 2005, two of them applied for reinstatement, adding that they'd hoped to be 'vindicated' of the Navarro shooting.

Sources:

Tim Lynch, "Another Drug War Casualty," Cato Daily Commentary, Cato Institute, November 30, 1998.

Steve Brewer, "Officer Cleared in Oregon Case," Houston Chronicle, March 26, 1999.

"2 ex-officers hoping to be 'vindicated'; Pair fired after Oregon shooting seek reinstatement," Houston Chronicle, August 25, 2005, p. B4.

Re:Oxymoron (4, Informative)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792848)

Public key cryptography, of course. To 'friend' someone, you generate a keypair and give them the public key and your user id. They do the same. Wall posts, comments, etc., are encrypted with a symmetric cipher (with a random single-use key), and the symmetric key is encrypted with the public key of each person who you want to make the message available to. Of course, you are vulnerable to an evil friend publishing your posts, but that is an unsolvable problem (see: DRM). In place of stateful authentication, each post is signed with a private key whose counterpart is held by the server.

Do all the crypto client-side (perhaps javascript, or alternate integrated clients, like gwibber and smartphone facebook apps) and all the server has to do is hold the encrypted content and validate signatures. You could even make a generalized protocol out of it, so that the content doesn't have to be on any particular server, i.e. host your own damn social network profile. That would ease the node-to-node bandwidth requirements of a server farm for the service. If you're familiar with it, think Sone on Freenet, but without the distributed hash table and associated latency.

Re:Oxymoron (1)

magloca (1404473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792890)

Well, if it's fully anonymous, it's not a social network, really, but it should be possible to set up a pseudonymous social network, where users go by handles instead of real names. Preferably in I2P or Freenet or Tor or some other darknet so IPs can't be logged. I've actually wondered for quite some time why this hasn't happened (well, I2P has that Twitter-like thing, whatever it's called, but it doesn't see much use).

Alright... (1)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792478)

... all we need to register you is: Your name, address, parent's name, pet's name, birth weight, DNA sample (hair or saliva), and $29.95 for the cranial implant. We can also import information from your MySpace or Facebook. Welcome to Anon+.

Re:Alright... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792982)

That was my thought precisely. I wonder why we should trust the same anonymous that just recently leaked 90k military email accounts to handle the security of the information. Sure, I bet they know how to secure it, I just question whether they'd bother to. Or worse how we'd know that the information was secure.

Nothing to do with activists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792490)

Google had banned fake names. I don't like that policy, but it isn't the same as targeting specific activist groups (though it does collectively harm them).

Re:Nothing to do with activists (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792504)

Erh... DUHHH? What's the point in collecting data about fakes? It poisons your data pool!

Re:Nothing to do with activists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792918)

Because people who log-in using fake names still buy marketed products, Opportunist.

Now back to administering my G+ Darth Vader account.

Site Moderator: FBI? (4, Funny)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792494)

Sounds just like a sting operation to me. If you are anonymous please go over there to hand over your IP address and a chat log of all your activities. Thank you, The Management

Re:Site Moderator: FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792570)

I don't think it will get much uptake. If I wanted to make my self aware to the authorities, I would just send text over the internet that contained words like nuclear, uranium etc. Why would I bother signing up to a site for criminals? (I'd have to remember yet another password...)

Re:Site Moderator: FBI? (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792598)

Sounds just like a sting operation to me. If you are anonymous please go over there to hand over your IP address and a chat log of all your activities. Thank you, The Management

This will only catch the ones that don't know how to use TOR [torproject.org] or something similar.

Re:Site Moderator: FBI? (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792602)

Seriously: Oh, hai! You have won a free TV! Please go to 5245 Public Safety Circle to claim your prize!

How do you find people? (1)

Chrysocolla (2314992) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792500)

When it's anonymous?

Registered members (5, Funny)

$pace6host (865145) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792502)

At the time of writing, the forum already had over 100 registered members.

... and of the 100, 89 of them were CIA, 9 FBI, and 2 Interpol.

Re:Registered members (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792540)

Well of course, they're the designers and testers of this obvious false flag operation. I must go so far as to say obvious trap is obvious.

Re:Registered members (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792572)

While you're at rolling about conspiracy theory, why not make it a double-false flag op? Set up by the "real" anons to trick the FBI into hunting the poor idiots that register there so they keep both groups, the feds and the wannabes, occupied?

Re:Registered members (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792798)

LOL. You ain't right. You ain't even wrong.

Re: Holy duplicity Batman! (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792946)

Or is that triplicity? Either way, I'm stumped by this. I find it hard to believe the FBI would actually expect Anonymous to fall for such an obvious honeypot, and only slightly easier to believe Anon would expect the same of the G-men. Seems like a fishing (or phishing) expedition by someone, hoping to snag something useful. All I know for sure is I'm not going to register an account there.

Re:Registered members (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792638)

At the time of writing, the forum already had over 100 registered members.

... and of the 100, 89 of them were CIA, 9 FBI, and 2 Interpol.

No, 88 were CIA, 8 FBI, 2 Interpol, 1 from the Church of Scientology, and 1 was some random idiot pulled of the street to make the other 99 look legit.

Re:Registered members (2)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792888)

Was there not a claim that during some meetings in the 60s, most of the people in the room was either agents or informers to various government agencies?

Re:Registered members (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792952)

In the years leading up to the Russian revolution, there was a secret society of anti-tsarists that was almost entirely made up of spies. It had only a single real member.

Advice (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792516)

Just be sure to choose a unique password.

Open Source Engine (1)

mikazo (1028930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792518)

Why don't they use one of the many open source social network engines like Elgg or Anahita? Rolling your own engine would require a huge amount of time and support, not to mention security concerns that are hard to avoid and catch without a full support team that you can trust.

Re:Open Source Engine (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792728)

From what I can tell, because they have no idea about what they're talking about. One of the posts by (apparently) a founder talks about the need to use a central authentication server; the concept of PKI seems foreign to him/her.

Re:Open Source Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792762)

you need a central server because decentralized simply doesn't work in practice. These guys aren't doing CS research, they're creating an anonymous social network, so they're going to use tools that work.

Re:Open Source Engine (1)

mikazo (1028930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793020)

Also, I hope they have some knowledge of graph theory

Not the first "Anon" network. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792550)

This isn't new, there was a well known group that spammed the various Chans for many years trying to set-up this kind of thing a few years ago (mostly because the founders kept getting banned from Chans for posting child porn).

The problem being it required giving up anonymity. Even using a fake name isn't in the true spirit of the Chan Anons and will get you labelled as a "tripfag" (trip codes being used as the authentication method for non-Anonymous posting).

No smart (or old) anon would join such a place because it screams "Governments please monitor me!". Anons who want to be involved in activism need to hide their activity in a crowd of unrelated activity, which is what the Chans used to be perfect for. Setting up a dedicated site just makes it easier to monitor.

All social networks can be anonymous (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792560)

You don't have to tell the truth when you fill out your profile.

Nonetheless current social networks are built on a centralized topology, requiring all views and change requests to go through a central location. This is a weakness both from a civil rights perspective and a reliability perspective. A decentralized social network would be awesome. Usenet was pretty much this way, wasn't it? I thought Diaspora could work like this as well.

Re:All social networks can be anonymous (2)

amck (34780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792614)

Agreed.

They basically need a distributed network, so that they can't be blocked by DNS, etc. : with proven good security, and the ability to not need real names.
So why not fix the bugs, missing features in Diaspora, etc. instead?

Absolutely the last thing you need is your own high-profile network. Thats just flagging activities you don't want to be flagged.
You want instead a distributed network where dissidents, etc. can just use it without being spotted (lost in the crowd), with
secure communications, and the ability to go viral with news reports, etc: basically FB or Google+ with privacy.
Picking your own l33t social network such a bad idea.

Forum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792562)

They have a full public forum on the website discussing the implementation. Worth a look. Hosted on Zetaboards.

Who do I ask for an invite? (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792586)

How are they going to keep the undesirables out? Or in? Or wherever it is that they keep the undesirables?

Re:Who do I ask for an invite? (1)

Cable (99315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792896)

Get infected with a software virus or download pirated files. In Soviet Russia AnonPlus invites you. All you have to lose is your identity. Identity theft and social engineering goes hand in hand with AnonPlus social nethacking.

I know (2)

Sniper98G (1078397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792612)

They should just use friendface.

Anonplus (1)

Ardx (954221) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792644)

Now with free rootkit? Seriously, trusting them would be idiotic.

They already lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792654)

It doent matter at all if Anonymous is a government sockpuppet or a "honest" movement. The outcome of their actions is all that will count. They adhere to the same fallacys as everybody, and the rich and mighty of this would could have gotten no bigger present than this bunch of helpless, confused, agressive kids wich fight with their anger. The tiny bit of power they have makes it only better, more laughs for these on top. We, the normal people wont benefit from this ape-circus whatsover.

The hope is that everybody eventually will get really angry against everybody else, rich or poor, leader or slave, jew, christ, moslem, hindu or whoever. War and hate is the requirement for further deepening of the omnipresent slavery. Man is enslaving himself.

If everybody would become aware of his own intolerance and hate, we would have no longer war and poverty.

And make no mistake, the goal wich Anonymous states here, Privacy is ok. The mood in wich this happens is the mistake. To follow the right path, but already with the wrong attitude, and so they are fighting their own goal, and have already lost.

Surely (4, Funny)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792700)

Anonminus would have been more appropriate.

What we want (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792760)

Isn't an anonymous social network just what we've been calling for? If we can overcome the privacy issues and still have it useful then this could be great. I don't see how google can kick anonymous off their network.

Re:What we want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792838)

Google doesn't have anything against the group Anonymous. However, they have a policy that you have to use your real name when signing up for Google+. Obviously, Anonymous isn't going to use their real names, so they're not allowed to use Google+.

Re:What we want (2)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793022)

However, they have a policy that you have to use your real name when signing up for Google+.

No, they don't, this is rumor that keeps getting repeated, here is the G+ name policy [google.com] .

They require you use the name you "commonly go by". "If you use your full name", they suggest it'll help people find you, but really the point is to provide what people would type in the search box to find you.

Re:What we want (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793014)

The issue is that it would be created and maintained by anonymous and we have no way of guaranteeing that it isn't the same anonymous that's been releasing account information of random people without redaction. On top of that we have no way of knowing if they're securing the information rather than just hoarding it for a future release.

All in all, Anonymous can get my info, I'm pretty sure of that, but I'm not going to hand it over directly. That would be pretty dumb and quite frankly anybody that bites on this is probably an informant or agent of some sort. Well, or so stupid that they deserve to be compromised.

Anonplus run by NSA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792768)

I would not be too much surprised, anyone who has actually read "1984" would not be, to learn a few years down the line that Anonplus was secretly run by the NSA

Hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792782)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-- *catches breah* HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, are these guys for real? This is gonna be hilarious, one way or another.

They aren't doing a very good job... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792810)

... of being anonymous if google knew who to ban, are they?

They're using "leet" speak, luckily, I speak it. (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792824)

I thought they already had a social network? Isn't it called IRC?

Anonplus? Anonlulz! (2)

Cable (99315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792870)

Anonymous stays anonymous to avoid getting caught. They use nicknames or handles and not real names. A social network would defeat their purpose unless it is a fake one to capture IP addresses and passwords to hack more sites. It makes as much common sense as fighting cockroaches with Viagra. Most likely this Anonplus was created for the lulz and will fold faster than Google Wave did! :)

What next telnet BBSes and ASCII Art? No SSH pure telnet unencrypted Systems? :)

Re:Anonplus? Anonlulz! (1)

Zorque (894011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36792972)

I doubt it's anything that well-thought-through. Remember that while there are a lot of real hackers and such that call themselves a part of "Anonymous", a lot of 15-year-olds who think image macros are the height of hilarity do too.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bunch of them using their real information on there, even.

Why would they anounce this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793036)

Anonymous announcing they're setting up their own social network will result in the FBI registering in droves...

xkcd gave us a preview [xkcd.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?