Slashdot Mirror
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.
It's more of an activity. Possibly a culture. It certainly doesn't have anyone who speaks for the group as a whole.
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.
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.
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.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
If your response to a DDOS attack on the a few websites is "a state of intense fear", you need to get out more.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat