Anonymous Speaks About Australian Gov't. Attacks

daria42 writes "The loose-knit collective of individuals known as 'Anonymous' has broken its silence about the distributed denial of service attacks on the Australian government. An individual (who insisted he or she is not a spokesperson for the group) said the attacks were more effective at stopping the government's Internet filtering project than signing a petition, and that the attacks could go on for months." The site where some members of Anonymous are said to hang out, 4chan, got a visibility boost yesterday when its founder moot spoke at the TED conference.

Comments

Anonymous isn;t really a group

[91degrees]

It's more of an activity. Possibly a culture. It certainly doesn't have anyone who speaks for the group as a whole.

Re:Impossible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooosh.

There aren't any spokespeople for anonymous, because there isn't any structure to the group. By definition, everyone in it is a "nobody." That's kind of the point.

Re:Impossible!

[shish]

So, basically, a nobody commented.

This is Anonymous -- if they weren't a nobody, then their opinion would be invalid. As it is, they are the most appropriate person to ask.

Anonymous Users vs Anonymous Government

[Herkum01]

It is an appropriate response to a figurehead politician making these rules, because it is a bunch of anonymous peons that are implementing them. The peons hide behind the facade of a government which they don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

Governments love when an individual speaks out, because they can release a bureaucratic horde of government employees to crush them. An individual who cannot be expected to address numerous rules, regulations and pressures a government can bring against them.

So Anonymous vs the government, as far as I am concerned is a fair fight.

Re:Anonymous Users vs Anonymous Government

[silverbax]

That's an interesting take, when I read the section about how the group flooded the emails of politicians and DDoS'd their websites, my first thought was of politicians who don't even know they have a website and don't know how to use email. So basically, an anonymous, faceless group sending massive digital attacks against email boxes that never get checked and websites nobody reads.

It brings into full discussion the group's claim that attacks are more effective than petitions...are they actually more effective? It's an old argument about terrorism, where the organization under attack is forced to do nothing because reacting simply brings more attacks. While I agree that petitions rarely bring change (the Turing case in England being an instance where a petition actually worked), how 'effective' is an all-out digital attack at forcing governments to change policy?

I will say the only effect thus far seems to be creating discussion of the issue (of which I was previously ignorant), but if Slashdot is any indication, people will discuss the idea over an 'Anonymous' spokesperson far more than the merits of their methods or their cause.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism?

[FredFredrickson]

DDOS is civil disobedience. They're just loading a site a bunch of times, making the site useless. It's no scarier than protesters having a sit-in, making the area they occupy useless. In fact, it's very similar.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your response to a DDOS attack on the a few websites is "a state of intense fear", you need to get out more.

from the drek and morass

[circletimessquare]

of the stupidest lamest waste of time on the internet

comes the most effective force for progressive change

the one thing that an idiot has, that a wise man does not seem to have, is freedom to act

when your education acclimates you to acceptance of a lame status quo, then your education is worth less than being an idiot

Re:Inconsistency.

[hoggoth]

The meme called "Anonymous" (it's isn't a "group") can't have a spokesperson because there is no official "group", no "membership", no shared beliefs, no secret-handshake.
Someone gets an idea to do something, and posts the idea on several popular websites. Anyone who agrees the idea is a good one and takes the suggested action is, for that moment, part of "Anonymous". An hour later someone posts a different idea, some different people agree with that one and take some action and for that moment THEY are "Anonymous".

Some people who may or may not have ever joined in on suggested ideas under the banner of "Anonymous" understand that there is strength in the concept of NOT having any set membership or agenda that can be attacked, responded to, or replied to. Although I, myself, have never participated in any actions proposed by anyone under the banner Anonymous, I can see that this can be important especially in this day of increasing surveillance and abusive governments.

The idea of having a spokesperson for an un-group is preposterous.

Re:The most likely long term effect

[T Murphy]

By making attacks like this, they can grab headlines. Any good news reporter tries to get input from both sides, which means anonymous can potentially get their complaints into mainstream newspapers. Obviously, attacking a few websites will not make politicians back down, as they would look weak. Raise enough public interest in the issue, and politicians will listen. Like with most tech-related issues, I do not realistically expect a large public response, but you cant say anonymous isn't trying.

Re:Impossible!

[ae1294]

Many Slashdot readers are also Anonymous members.

I can confirm that this is 100% false. No member of Slashdot is now or has ever been involved with the terrorist organization known as Anonymous.

Re:Not a sit in

[Khyber]

"BZZZZZZZT have you ever used a proxy that wasn't slow as balls? I haven't."

That's what you get for not setting up your own dedicated proxies from a reliable data-hosting center.

"I know that it's possible to DDoS through proxies... but does it work in practice? It does not."

Most DDoS attacks are done via high-bandwidth proxies - IE rootkitted/zombified machines. You simply send one command out (assuming you've got the bandwidth to simultaneously contact every proxy to send the flood command) and away you go.

Don't understand what PROXY means, do you?

Go get a REAL IT job and maybe then you can talk, eh?