Slashdot Mirror


Angles On Anonymous

A number of readers are sending in links related to Anonymous, the Internet phenomenon — don't call them a group — behind the controversial DDoS attacks on commercial entities that fail to support WikiLeaks. The best insight into Anonymous comes from the Economist's Babbage blogger, who hung out in one of their IRC channels. Reader nk497 points out that UK users looking to join Anonymous's DDoS army should be aware they could face a jail term of up to two years; simply downloading the LOIC software used in the DDoSing could suffice to earn a conviction. One 16-year-old has been arrested in The Netherlands and is charged with participating in the DDoS. Reader ancientribe sends in coverage of a claim by one security outfit that several existing criminal botnets have joined forces with Anonymous's Operation: Payback. And reader Stoobalou notes a Thinq.co.uk story on a manifesto of sorts that purports to come from "ANON OPS," even though Anonymous disclaims any central spokesperson or entity (press release here, PDF).

30 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. The most successful trolls by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most successful part of their trolling is that major news outlets still don't understand the joke. They're anonymous. They're not a group. You could just as easily say "bunches of people who have never met"

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:The most successful trolls by DurendalMac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The second most successful part of their trolling is convincing people that they're actually some kind of hacker group when 99% (at least) are nothing more than skiddies with no empathy and a healthy dose of misogyny.

    2. Re:The most successful trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They have a healthy dose of hating women? Do you mean a health dose of misanthropy? Or maybe Anonymous just hates women, I don't know. I'm too scared to be anonymous.

    3. Re:The most successful trolls by robthebloke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno, I'm getting very tired of the continual 'news' regarding anonymous on the bbc website. It's typically involves some random 'source' who is apparently affiliated with anon, who hasn't been involved with any of anon's activities, doesn't speak for them, but feels compelled to spout some non-newsworthy opinions. It's not news. It's just 15 year olds on 4chan. Enough already.

    4. Re:The most successful trolls by clone52431 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, I’m guessing he did mean misogyny. He apparently hasn’t figured out that it’s mostly for show, just like the racism and hatred of furries.

      I take that back, the hatred of furries is real.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    5. Re:The most successful trolls by clone52431 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not news. It's just 15 year olds on 4chan. Enough already.

      They’re feeding the trolls. It’s hilarious. Laugh.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    6. Re:The most successful trolls by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

      XKCD. They need to watch out who they troll though. It could backfire.

    7. Re:The most successful trolls by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Charisma? Seriously? No. They are all just a bunch of like-minded people. Teens especially have a need to rebel in some way or another. It's all part of creating a sense of identity for themselves and all quite typical. It doesn't take charisma to "convince" a kid to take a firecracker and put it in a mail box. All you have to do is give them a firecracker and say "hey! put it in a mailbox!" Same thing here. Now if the same person said, "hey, firecrackers in mail boxes is wrong, don't do it!" you would probably see even MORE firecrackers in mail boxes. You get what I'm saying?

    8. Re:The most successful trolls by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

      We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I.
      A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy.
      I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand.

      Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
      Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

      We've known each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it
      Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it
      And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see

      Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
      Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

      Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
      Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

      (Ooh, give you up) (Ooh, give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give
      (Give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give (Give you up)

      We've know each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it
      Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it
      I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand

      Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
      Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

      Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
      Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

      Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
      Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    9. Re:The most successful trolls by hesiod · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no infighting for one thing, and those who participate have common, predictable goals and means.

      You really don't understand Anonymous at all if you think that.

    10. Re:The most successful trolls by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is actually a way to do it. It was the subject of a previous Slashdot article.

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    11. Re:The most successful trolls by GoneAwry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A group of people, young as they might be, who willingly download LOIC, willingly give control over to a hive mind, willingly put themselves at risk for arrest, all for combating censorship and governmental corruption that they feel strongly about, and you're saying that this is a group that's 99% children with no empathy? Disregard Payback - what about when they hit affiliates of the RIAA? Or the corruption of Scientology? Hal Turner? Gene Simmons, who suggested that if people downloaded some mp3s, that they should have their livelihoods taken from them? I mean, yeah sure, I'll agree that there's probably a lot of people/kids that go along with it without really understanding the implications (as is shown in a lot of the stupid shit that's undertaken, like trolling various forums or CWC or Habbo), but I'd hazard that a large portion of Anonymous is likely cognizant of what they're doing, and are being driven by personal values and intelligence as well as mass appeal. Your suggestion is biased; I can tell from some of the exaggerations and from having seen quite a few people upset with 4chan in my life.

  2. Seriously Don't Call Them a Group! by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or they'll DDoS you.

    Who laugh? Hmmm? Who was it? Speak up so you can be added to the list. We'll see to it that your internet connection never functions right again.

    I heard that if you post something bad on Slashdot, CmdrTaco hands over your IP address to Anonymous -- where do you think all the GNAA/Goatse trolls went?

    Did somebody just sneeze? That's a DDoS. Who laughed when the witnessed testified that Assange has a smaller than average penis? That's a DDoS. If you're replying to this post? Oh, boy, you better believe that's a DDoS. In fact, if you're reading this right now let's just say there's not a lot you can do to stop from being DDoS'd by Anonymous for trying to find out more information about that particular group %*&#$^#%@#$ no carrier

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Very easy explanation by oic0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bored people looking for a little excitement and a cause. Not a bad cause really, if nothing else it has brought attention to the fact that these companies bent under the governments will and cut off funding to wikileaks even though our government hasn't figured out anything to charge them with yet.

    1. Re:Very easy explanation by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Way to go, idiots!

      Politicians don't need reasons to clamp down on the internet, they are going to do it either way. Just like they have with airline security, it's gotten worse over the years despite nothing happening after 9/11.

      Their antics are at least trying to bring about some change or awareness before the internet gets clamped down. Think about it, some script kiddie in junior high has contributed more to the world situation these past few months than you might ever in your life. If you think they are idiots, why don't you try and stop them for ruining things for you?

  4. We do not hate women. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now, TITS or GTFO.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  5. If no one is in charge by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    then how can you official say no one is in charge?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:If no one is in charge by Rysc · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a fair question and hard to answer in a way that is convincing. I know no one is in charge because I know who anonymous is. Explaining the back story (and thus the joke) takes a lot of ink; you kind of had to be there. All I can say, briefly, is "Trust me," which is not going to be convincing to you.

      There *are* some clueless people who are trying to be "Anonymous the group", which I call captial-A Anonymous because this is what reporters have insisted on saying since the Scientology raid. That was a bad raid, because even though it was funny it brought in too much attention by supporters who were not in on the joke. Ever since then, and just before then with the Fox News piece on "Anonymous", reporters trying to cover this have been saying "Anonymous" like it's an organization or group of some kind. If you were anonymous at the time, even if not participating in the raids, it would have been obvious how silly this was. Actually, a lot of fun was had making fun of this mistake. A lot of fun is still being had.

      Some anonymous are definitely out to be activists and like trying to incite the mob for their personal agendas, but mostly they are not successful. The mob will react when it is interesting to do so.

      By now, thanks to reporting, there are people out there who want to "join" the "Anonymous protest group." I assure you that 99.99% of these people are ineffectual and are not involved in any actual site takedowns. Some who try are like the guy who got arrested. Arrests like that won't stop the DDoSes because they're just picking off the fringe hangers-on.

      The thing to keep in mind is that anonymous is a name, not a plural, or it is a description of a characteristic. Anonymous is no more a group than "Youth" is a group; yes, it's a group in the sense that it's a classification, but in no other way. A bunch of kids in a schoolyard may represent Youth in a certain sense, but they do not speak for Youth. In a similar way many are anonymous and many groups of anonymous exist, but no one speaks for anonymous. More accurately no one speaks *directly* for anonymous; anonymous tends to make his opinions known in the form of memes--not image macros or catch phrases, but ideas that appear without apparent direction in the minds of many different people and spread through word of mouth. You can get a broad sense of what anonymous thinks and feels from the aggregation of a lot of things. These thoughts and feelings are by necessity few and/or general, and they may not be universal to every anonymous. It's just that, on the whole, anonymous tends to agree. Quintessential example: furries are bad.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
  6. Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you have done, on your part, really ? at least, these people are implementing a good idea, with a crappy implementation. that's something there. nothing on your side to show for it yet ?

    1. Re:Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A) It does absolutely nothing to help Wikileaks. It's just a revenge tactic. The decisions have been made.

      it does.

      paypal was at frist blabbering about 'tos violation' regarding wikileaks cut-off. after what anonymous did, they have come up saying that they did it due to political pressure.

      other companies will probably follow suit or take similar routes to unload responsibility. this will put the blame where it lies.

      this, if anything, is much more important in that it will make it clear that censorship is being attempted by politicians.

  7. Who is Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anonymous is everyone you depend on. They're the people who do your laundry and cook your food and serve your dinner. They make your bed. They guard you while you're asleep. They drive the ambulances. They direct your call. They are cooks and taxi drivers and they know everything about you. They process your insurance claims and credit card charges. They control every part of your life. "They are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday they'll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but they won't. And they're just learning this fact."

    1. Re:Who is Anonymous? by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I'm pretty sure 99% are unemployed college students, with the other 1% having dropped out of college to write DDoS scripts.

      In other words, 1% evil, 99% hot gas.

    2. Re:Who is Anonymous? by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anonymous is everyone you depend on. They're the people who do your laundry and cook your food and serve your dinner. They make your bed. They guard you while you're asleep. They drive the ambulances. They direct your call. They are cooks and taxi drivers and they know everything about you. They process your insurance claims and credit card charges. They control every part of your life.

      "They are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday they'll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but they won't. And they're just learning this fact."

      While poetic, that's not very true (I realize you probably know this, but I feel like I should chime in). Yes, I know that's just an interesting quote from Fight Club, but its not accurate for 4chan's anon. 4Chan's anon is mostly just fat teenage boys. And some older people. But mostly fat teenage boys. Although anon is no one in particular, it tends to be the people that have jack shit else to do other than spend time on 4chan. So they don't guard anyone, or drive ambulances, or direct your call. Though they will run your raids in WOW, or x-ray some picture you got off of facebook of a girl you want to see naked.
      I wish it was as poetic as Fight Club, but it's just not.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
  8. Not this s**t again by TideX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am so sick of hearing about /b/. Its not that I'm against wikileaks or julian assange, I'm all for freedom of speech and transparent government. I'm against how everyone misuses the name Anonymous constantly. They are not the only board on 4chan for gods sake. Every time the media focuses on them it makes the rest of us look like idiots. For the record pretty much every other board on 4chan is against this nonsense. Anonymous is not a terrorist organization, its just a name nothing more. Anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask doesn't know the first damn thing about freedom and just follows the trend of his fellow /b/tards and its been this way since project chanology. Conformism and ignorance is the very thing were against. Theres no reason why they do it except maybe for some false sense of righteousness. They disgrace our name and our website. Call them /b/tards, terrorists, idiots, but not Anonymous. That name belongs to us and were sick of being grouped with them.

  9. Re:Unified beliefs by Optali · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What 'dirty little secrets' exactly? That the French prez is a swollen toad ? That there may be or may no be nukes on Dutch territory? One thing I have to admit: Assange is the biggest scammer since Madoff, or maybe even bigger.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  10. Re:Unified beliefs by he-sk · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's one thing to suspect government duplicity, it's another to see it written in black on white.

    As an example, I am sickened how the German authorities caved to US pressure with regards to El-Masri's abduction by the CIA while calling for a "thorough investigation" publicly.

    Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,733860,00.html

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  11. Re:Unified beliefs by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Informative

    -USA taxpayers paid a private defense contractor to buy Afghan cops a boy sex toy. Apparently it's a pre-taliban tradition.
    -Our diplomates were instructed to get the U.N. leader Ban Ki-Moons biometrics, passwords, and encryption keys.
    -We've pushed our own IP laws onto Spain

    But holy cow, you may just want to take your pick of anything on the wiki page. There's plenty there. Most of it is, yeah, stupid things like candid descriptions by diplomats. But some of is examples of people in power abusing said power.

  12. Re:Democracy? by Paracelcus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Democracy" what country are you from?
    In the good `ol USofA we have:
    Sham elections
    Faux news
    The largest prison population in the world
    The highest infant mortality rate in the "developed" world (right up there near the top worldwide)
    The shortest life expectancy in the "developed" world (right down there near the bottom worldwide)
    The worst/most expensive educational system by far (outside of Haiti/Afghanistan)

    "Democracy" Who among us voted for the patriot act? Or enhanced screening, Or Tax free billionaires? Or crumbling roads/bridges? Or the endless farce of the Washington crowd pig fucking us over and over again?

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  13. Re:Download LOIC ? hahahahaha by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You managed to cause 5 requests in the course of about 5 seconds, whereas LOIC can do that tenfold.

    50 requests in the course of about 5 seconds? That's 10 requests a second... a puny (and false) figure.

    Meh, just hold ctrl while clicking the links to those sites as fast as possible.

    Then, click: Bookmarks > Bookmark all tabs.

    Then use the "Open all in tabs" option multiple times. Then right click the tab bar and select: "Reload all Tabs". I can easily use Firefox to generate hundreds of requests per second; This is still very small amount of traffic.

    My hardware can send more than 1 packet per 10 milliseconds, but we'll go with that nice round number.

    A true DDoS attack works by sending spoofed SYN packets to many servers while including the target IP as the spoofed "origin" IP. Then, one machine can cause many hundreds of machines to send the target "syn-ack" packets. One attacker is distributing the denial of service flood attack, hence the name: DDoS.

    When an "ack" packet is not received, the TCP protocol states that multiple "syn-ack" packets should be sent -- one spoofed "syn" and we generate 5 or more "syn-ack" packets. Spoof a hundred TCP syn packets a second and you easily generate 500 or more distributed packets per second. 100 spoofed packets per second to 2000 different IPs in a rolling list, remember, one syn gets you 5 syn-acks from that host, spoof a few syns, move to the next.

    Get a large number of machines to do this type of DDoS attack and it can generate an order of magnitude more traffic than just the network itself can produce... very devastating, much more so than reloading browser pages. 50 machines can produce 25,000 packets per second directed at one IP.

  14. Re:Convicted for "posession" ? by droopus · · Score: 3, Informative

    They can quite easily hit you with a federal conspiracy charge. Your IP on a list of "downloaders of LOIC" is plenty for a search warrant. A creative examination of your hard drive will come up with enough "suspicious material" to convince a grand jury. (Free lunch and $8 per diem is plenty to convince a grand jury.)

    So, ok, you then claim you did nothing. The AUSA says "we do not believe you. We think you are an OP in Anonymous and are charging you with violation of 18 USC 1030 How's twenty years sound, hm?"

    And conspiracy is so tangential, that anyone can be accused of it for pretty much anything. For example, I say to you "Hey dude! How about a free pound of coke!" You jokingly say something like "LOL sure dude, bring a big straw." And we both laugh it off. But you're neighbor overhears and calls the cops/DEA.You just conspired to buy a pound of cocaine. And you'd lose in court, like 97% of fed trial defendants. But I digress. This is the conspiracy section of the federal hacking law: .....
    Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
    (c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is—
    (1)

    (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

    (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; ....

    Now, the AUSA says to you "ok, you have two choices. Go to trial, and I will beat you and you will absolutely do at least fifteen years. Or sign this admission of responsibility, plead guilty to this minor count and do five. Your choice."

    Many people say "I'll fight!!" Almost all of them will reconsider that as they pass year 12 at Fort Dix.

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."