Anonymous Isn't Anonymous Anymore

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently some small security firm has been able to determine the real identities of several key Anonymous hackers which is resulting in a ton of arrests. From the article: 'An international investigation into cyber-activists who attacked businesses hostile to WikiLeaks is likely to yield arrests of senior members of the group after they left clues to their real identities on Facebook and in other electronic communications, it is claimed.'"

Comments

Senior member of Anonymous?

[DurendalMac]

Yeah, if that isn't proof that the writer of this article doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, I don't know what is. There are no "senior members" of Anonymous. Someone could claim to be an oldfag, but that's about it. And a co-founder of Anonymous? REALLY? Where are they coming up with this horseshit? They caught some guys who were running a specific group, not "senior members" or "co-founders" of Anonymous.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous?

[Anonymous Coward]

What people who identify with Anonymous believe it is, and what it really is, are not necessarily the same thing.

In reality, Anonymous is a movement that involves people. It did not appear out of nowhere -- someone had the idea and a small group of people liked that idea and it grew from there. We can call the person who had the idea a "founder" and the people who are deeply involved with the movement "senior members". These are words that describe real things that exist. Sorry if they offend your mystic ideas about Anonymous being a magical spirit that lives in the internets or something, but some of us are more interested in people and activities than in the propaganda they spread.

Of course Anonymous isn't anonymous.

[Mister Xiado]

"Anonymous" as a proper noun defies anonymity, so it's no real wonder that these people failed to cover their tracks.

Re:apparently?

[dmomo]

"Is it so hard to tweak the Internet to make DDoS impossible?"

Yes.

you need sociology 101

[circletimessquare]

anonymous is a movement. as such, it follows certain sociological rules. #1: in any movement, there is a small group of core fanatics, and a much larger group of one-offs and on-and-offs. same with wikipedia, or al qaeda, or drug gangs, or a whole set of other movements

now you could take out a portion of the core competency, and nothing will change. but if you tracked and profiled the core competency over time, and took them all out at once, you really would cripple the movement. yes, you would really cripple anonymous. that they are everyone and no one is mythology, not sociological fact. they are not the borg from start trek

however, since the "cause" of anonymous is so simplistic, others would quickly fill the void and anonymous would be back in action in no time. again, same with wikipedia or al qaeda or drug gangs, etc. but maybe not forever. if law enforcement keeps siphoning off the core fanatics, after 2,3,4x, anonymous will definitely be less influential. if you keep siphoning off the regular crop of persons who can do something with the idea of anonymous. law enforcement can profile, and cripple anonymous, by tracking its core competency, forever, and constantly hamstring it: the core fanatics of anonymous is a well that slowly refills over time. if law enforcement is constantly draining the well, anonymous as a potent force is permanently dimmed

the point is, you don't understand sociology, nor anonymous, if you don't understand that what anonymous is is primarily a core group of fanatics, with a much larger ring of sort-of-interesteds. remove the core, and you at least temporarily cripple the movment. continually remove the core as it tries to grow back, and you have permanently decimated the movement and weakened it to ineffectuality

Re:you need sociology 101

[Torodung]

It's an interesting case you make, but I seriously doubt that experts in the field properly comprehend the sociological forces (if any) that apply to the Internet, let alone 4chan. They're working on it, and it's going to take one talented and speedy researcher to provide us with information that will remain relevant for very long.

IMHO, 25-50 years from now, if our society isn't in ashes, someone is going to write one hell of a definitive work on how the Internet has no sociology (as we knew it), disables most sociological pressures (like shame), and allows people with truly bizarre ideas to find enough peers to reinforce their fetishes/pechants/whims etc. with lethal force, because they are so completely disconnected from the consequences, and can remain fully socialized in appearance whilst being something quite else behind a keyboard.

I'm just glad that all they can do with the thing right now is launch DDoSes at commerce and disseminate restricted information. At the point where they can kill people, they will, and will think of it as "just for the lulz." Some people, absent significant social restriction, behave that way. They're usually loners. Those people in a group, connected by the Internet, I don't know where that leads.

Don't underestimate this trend by claiming it to be "sociology 101." Sociology 101 doesn't inform us of anything regarding this, because basic sociological assumptions become invalid when the interactions occur on the Internet. This is new bleeding-edge ground, and will not be covered in the survey course. It is a field unto itself.

--
Toro