Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Denies Targeting Westboro Baptist Church

lenwood writes "Last week we discussed news that the hacking group Anonymous was staging an attack against Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church. It turns out that this was a publicity stunt staged by WBC themselves. Anonymous issued a press release disassociating themselves from this."

141 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Makes sense by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was a bit perplexed when I heard they were bothering with the WBC, and figured it was somebody's publicity stunt. There are much better targets in the world than a bunch of loons and their opportunist leader...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Makes sense by exomondo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that's the thing Westboro members could be Anonymous too, it's interesting how this "non-group" can denounce a release as not representative of Anonymous.

    2. Re:Makes sense by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      For that matter, WBC may not be involved at all. Those knuckle-draggers inventing a fight with anonymous to get attention seems far too complex and subtle for WBC to have thought up. The group stands outside of funerals with signs: they don't strike me as genius viral marketers. Maybe anonymous is just effectively trolling itself publicly?

    3. Re:Makes sense by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      anonymous always trolls itself.

      if the WBC have access to fox news, they could have thought this up.

      i'm not sure about opening their ports to harvest IPs. their ports are probably open because they don't know how to close them.

    4. Re:Makes sense by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      And it may well be that Anonymous isn't one group but several groups using the same name/cover.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:Makes sense by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Isn't it illegal to frame someone for attacking you? If you do it to engage law enforcement, then you're wasting public money. If you do it to sue, obviously it's illegal set-up. And if you frame someone for defamation, that's defamation. There's a difference between simple outright nutcases, and deliberate criminality. WBC seems to be at the Venn diagram intersection of religious nut and con artist.

    6. Re:Makes sense by fractoid · · Score: 1

      But that's the thing Westboro members could be Anonymous too, it's interesting how this "non-group" can denounce a release as not representative of Anonymous.

      What I find fascinating (not to mention hilarious!) is that some person claiming to represent Anonymous (!) has more credibility than WBC.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    7. Re:Makes sense by fractoid · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing is that, in a sense, the person claiming to be Anonymous is correct too. O.o

      Except in the obvious trivial sense if they provide an identity, of course.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  2. Don't worry, they've been sacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

    1. Re:Don't worry, they've been sacked by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      whoosh... sounds like you need to watch the opening credits for Holy Grail again... :)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SII-jhEd-a0

  3. Way to... by spyder-implee · · Score: 2

    Way to get yourself on anon's shit list. Not something I'd be eager to do.

    --
    Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    1. Re:Way to... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With religiously inappropriate content

      That describes their signs, what they're saying, and pretty much what they're all about, so I think anonymous have to dig -really- deep to find something offensive to them. Like as in "that which offends anonymous won't phase WBC."

      Honestly I think faxing them bible quotes would annoy them more. That whole "Love thy neighbor" thing is either crossed out in their bibles, or is pretty narrowly defined. "Do unto others etc" must annoy the shit out of them.

    2. Re:Way to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do not challenge /b/-tards to come up with offensive content. We're talking about a place where nipples shaped like penises ejaculating feces is considered cliche.

    3. Re:Way to... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I know, but the target we're talking about are cut from the same cloth of people who stand outside abortion clinics with pictures of aborted fetuses. If you send them pictures of that, they'll take it as further proof they're on the right side.

    4. Re:Way to... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Do not challenge /b/-tards to come up with offensive content. We're talking about a place where nipples shaped like penises ejaculating feces is considered cliche.

      Shitting dick nipples are not offensive, they're disgusting. There's a difference. That's why I was kinda disappointed with AMV Hell 0 -series, for example.

      WBC, on the other hand, is offensive to pretty much every other Christian or really anyone - which, of course, is why Phelps found it: he got kicked out from all other churches. Even Ku Klux Klan refuses to have anything to do with him (which made for an awesome page picture for "Even Evil Has Standards" -page of tvtropes for a while).

      Still, it's a good thing that Anonymous are letting Phelps be. The price of freedom is that even assholes have freedom. You can't silence the likes of Phelps yet demand freedom of speech on the Internet.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Written by WBC? by exomondo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was probably written by Westboro themselves to get some publicity.

    1. Re:Written by WBC? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      ffs...why don't italics tags work anymore?!

    2. Re:Written by WBC? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But since anyone can act as Anonymous then the WBC claim was legit. I can put up a server, make myself a part of Anonymous, attempt to hack my server, leave Anonymous, then claim Anonymous tried to hack my server.

      In fact, how do we know who issued the Anonymous press release? On the anonnews website it says, "Anyone can post to the site, and moderators will approve relevant posts. No censorship takes place!"

      Maybe Anonymous should look into LifeLock...

    3. Re:Written by WBC? by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      But since anyone can act as Anonymous then the WBC claim was legit. I can put up a server, make myself a part of Anonymous, attempt to hack my server, leave Anonymous, then claim Anonymous tried to hack my server.

      Technically you're correct, but in practice this is wilfully pedantic, unhelpful and not the interpretation any reasonable person would put on it. So, typical Slashdot then :-)

      In all seriousness, while one can argue that the "membership" of Anonymous is open to the point of meaninglessness, I don't think you could say that "Anonymous" attacked WBC if they attacked themselves.

      Oh, and I'd like to say that WBC are a bunch of attention whores... but then, that's not news.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:Written by WBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently some muckity-muck standards writers decided that "em" was a better tag for italics than "i", because people use italics when they want to "emphasize" something. Slashdot's latest update incorporated this change. Sorry all for the off-topic post.

    5. Re:Written by WBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I'd like to say that WBC are a bunch of attention whores... but then, that's not news.

      They're just the other side of the coin in which Anonymous is minted.

    6. Re:Written by WBC? by Anachragnome · · Score: 4, Informative

      "ffs...why don't italics tags work anymore?!"

      Did they ever work? In the 5-6 years I have been coming to /. it hasn't worked for me once. I gave up long ago and just use caps for emphasis. That doesn't work for properly displaying titles, latin, etc., though.

      What REALLY bothers me is that now, since the format change, every few posts into a discussion something breaks and every subsequent post is double-spaced and the moderation tag is missing. Moderation tags are also missing from posts in the comments section of my account page (my posts, as well as all others).

      The double-spacing really sucks...it turns every post into a wall of text and effectively doubles the scroll length of every discussion. If it was consistent, I might get used to it, but it seems completely random and sticks out as something "broken" each time I encounter it.

    7. Re:Written by WBC? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I'd like to say that WBC are a bunch of attention whores... but then, that's not news.

      They're just the other side of the coin in which Anonymous is minted.

      A coin that Jullian Assange has tried to cash.

    8. Re:Written by WBC? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I see the double-space thing too ... but it goes away if you open the parent comment.

    9. Re:Written by WBC? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      As long as were spreading out into complaining about slashdot's formatting, I really hate how the comments' widths are determined:

      It looks like they're dynamically adjusted by some javascript code when you resize the browser window*, and said code also has a minimum width that is in the high 700s. This guarantees that comments not only have way more than the recommended 70ish characters, but that I cannot resize the column to a more appropriate size. Also, if I don't want to have to side-scroll, I have to use 2/3s of my screen real estate for the column (on my laptop), when I really only want to use maybe 1/3 and have some other stuff on the rest of the screen.

      *Even worse, It looks like it walks the DOM and adjusts the min-width of every comment on the page, to account for nesting. Rather than the far more reasonable action of using CSS styles and letting the nested comments take care of themselves.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Written by WBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they don't work in comments they shouldn't work in preview.

    11. Re:Written by WBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Technically you're correct, but in practice this is wilfully pedantic, unhelpful and not the interpretation any reasonable person would put on it. So, typical Slashdot then :-)

      No, that's the definition of Anonymous. It doesn't make sense, but there you go.

    12. Re:Written by WBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have an hour to kill, this documentary by Louis Theroux, in which he lives with the cult for a few weeks, is a good documentary about those nutbars.

    13. Re:Written by WBC? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      What if I want to cite a book by using italics. Does slashdot support cite?

    14. Re:Written by WBC? by drawfour · · Score: 1

      ffs...why don't italics tags work anymore?!

      They do. At least the preview shows it working.

    15. Re:Written by WBC? by Anachragnome · · Score: 2

      "... but it goes away if you open the parent comment."

      Which kind of defeats the purpose of hidden comments.

    16. Re:Written by WBC? by jack2000 · · Score: 1
      lets try:
      cite
      bookquote

      quote

    17. Re:Written by WBC? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Not only tried but succeeded. His goals are tangential enough to the general goals of people who value anonymity on the internet.

    18. Re:Written by WBC? by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      Italics have always worked for me.

      Perhaps you're doing it wrong.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    19. Re:Written by WBC? by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 5, Funny

      "ffs...why don't italics tags work anymore?!"

      because God hates tags

    20. Re:Written by WBC? by Kernel+Krumpit · · Score: 1

      are you sure italicized emphases aren't workin'

      --
      May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
    21. Re:Written by WBC? by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      If I had modpoints today, you'd have one of them.

      Well played, sir.

    22. Re:Written by WBC? by Ancantus · · Score: 1

      Anyone know why the Mod tags keep disappearing? That is what bugs me the most, I can never tell who is moded what.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
    23. Re:Written by WBC? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, wouldn't it have been /smart/ of Taco to have put up a public beta server for a while before just dumping this new discussion system on us?

      I seem to recall that's what they did way back when the old-new discussion system was introduced, even.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    24. Re:Written by WBC? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yeah, wouldn't it have been /smart/ of Taco to have put up a public beta server for a while before just dumping this new discussion system on us?

      But then the people might chose between the old and new systems rather than just get used to the new system deemed superior by the Slashmins.

      And my ISP doesn't carry newsgroups, so I can't use the actually superior system. DAMN!

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    25. Re:Written by WBC? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      You used the tag for the cite. The previous poster was complaining that had been dropped in favor of .

    26. Re:Written by WBC? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      You used the tag for the cite. The previous poster was complaining that had been dropped in favor of .

      Reading your comment with the "quote parent" button makes much more sense.

    27. Re:Written by WBC? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't edit my posts as I'm typing white on white here. I meant to say that the the person above used an iytalics tag which the person above him said had been replaced by the emphasis tag.

    28. Re:Written by WBC? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      If you have that problem you should try the grease monkey script i made: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/96005
      It also fixes margins. Yeah i sort of gathered what you meant.

    29. Re:Written by WBC? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I can see clearly now, the rain is gone . . . Thanks!

  5. I feel like I should be surprised by magsol · · Score: 1

    But somehow I'm not surprised at all.

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
  6. Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the opposite side of the coin to all the claims of "there is no organization to Anonymous?" If there is no structure, then anyone could do something on behalf of Anonymous, and you couldn't deny it was done by them.

  7. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?

    1. Re:How? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      You join CommanderX's newsletter.

    2. Re:How? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?

      Because Anonymous has central control ever since people started taking control and the stupid teenage white knight let's all save the world teenagers started flocking to them to be a part of something. There are people that like to act like they're in charge of things so they speak for the "group". What was once "Anonymous" has completely changed and is now totally different from what it was 5 years ago.

    3. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?

      Hey, good point. You should report the guys that did this to their higher-ups and have their membership formally revoked for a gross breach of the rules.

    4. Re:How? by johanatan · · Score: 2

      Disputes could merely indicate some internal conflict within Anonymous. So, as Anonymous membership grows, it essentially becomes a microcosm of society itself!

    5. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's the funny part. There's all this, "there are no members of Anonymous"... but then they issue blanket statements as if there was a full census of members. It doesn't make any sense.

    6. Re:How? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      If I didn't do it, and I were to deny doing anonymously, would that count?

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    7. Re:How? by dostick · · Score: 1

      There's no "Anonymous" organization. Anyone can claim being member of anonymous and make any kind of statements. Whole news story is absurd.

    8. Re:How? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What was once "Anonymous" has completely changed and is now totally different from what it was 5 years ago.

      And yet it still fulfills the original function, possibly without any input from the original people-who-got-shit-done, who are now free to do other things. Win!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... then anyone could do something on behalf of Anonymous, and you couldn't deny it was done by them.

    Or maybe that's just what they want you to think ...

    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  9. Apparently... by quantumhuman · · Score: 1

    Apparently no one involved with any media outlet, anywhere on the planet, has a clue what Anonymous is or what's going on here. It's actually kind of sad.

    1. Re:Apparently... by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      How are they going to verify what Anonymous did? Call Aaron Barr and ask for their phone number?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Apparently... by Rysc · · Score: 1

      It's actually kind of funny.

      There, fixed it for ya.

      Seriously though, I'm wondering how long it will take before someone in the media gets a clue and publishes something meaningful on this topic. There's a good chance that it's already too late and this "anonymous is a group of vigilante hackers" meme has taken hold. It seems like a lot of anonymous believe it themselves, somehow, which is even funnier. At what point will it be impossible for a reporter to find any kind of truth by asking? If many of the people who might get asked don't even know what's real any more it's damned difficult. There's a better than even chance that, given the chance to disambiguate, a self respecting anonymous would troll harder instead.

      It's funny until it becomes scary. It's not scary yet, but one day it probably will be.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    3. Re:Apparently... by Caraig · · Score: 1

      There's all sorts of interesting correlations to Simlacra and Simulation here.

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
  10. But... by Mishotaki · · Score: 4, Interesting

    it was anonymous from an anonymous group did an attack anonymously... just not the same anonymous guy from the same anonymous group doing an anonymous attack...

    1. Re:But... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Except if the WBC is claiming responsibility, then they're no longer anonymous, they're just jerks.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:But... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      Except if the WBC is claiming responsibility, then they're no longer anonymous, they're just jerks.

      Yes they are. But to be fair, they were jerks long before this.

    3. Re:But... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      Your post would carry more weight if it was posted anonymously...

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    4. Re:But... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well, there's the trick—since the people who did it have announced that they belong to the WBC, they're jerks :)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  11. Well, it's working. by dmomo · · Score: 2

    Here we are talking about it. How about we all just make a mental note to forget the name of the barber shop that did this, close the thread and carry on?

  12. How does this end up on slashdot by makubesu · · Score: 2

    From TFA: The church sent out its own open letter, telling the online hacktivist group to “bring it.” “A puddle of pimple-faced nerds organised under the cowardly banner of ‘Anonymous’ claim they plan to hack Westboro's websites Bad miscalculation, girls!” said the letter. “Let us tell you how this will go: rebels will build a full head of steam based on false hope; the media will predictably do much breathless anticipating while giving another tsunami of coverage to Westboro's message; God will defeat your council; your efforts will fail.” This is obviously BS. You're getting trolled slashdot.

    1. Re:How does this end up on slashdot by JumperCable · · Score: 1

      From TFA: The church sent out its own open letter, telling the online hacktivist group to “bring it.”

      As ridiculous as that statement from WBC sounds, it actually came from their website. I've seen it and so have many others. The retards really do talk that way.

    2. Re:How does this end up on slashdot by zwede · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please use the correct terminology when referring to WBC. They are fucktards, not retards.

  13. Not a defined group by DanTheManMS · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anonymous isn't a defined group of people. That's kinda the point. It's very possible that some of them, or even a single person, has severe enough of a problem with the WBC to try to attempt such a stunt. I suspect however that the vast majority have the good sense not to get involved with something so senseless.

    Similarly, Anonymous can't "issue a statement" that represents the entire group. This AnonNews website, whoever they are, have no more say in the doings and actions of Anonymous than any other member of the group. Can the SlashDot staff make claims on behalf of every nerd who happens to visit the site for technology-related news, especially on things in which the SlashDot community is deeply divided? Of course not. Same thing here.

    This whole thing is freaking ridiculous. You've got two groups of trolls trying to figure out who's attempting to troll whom, and if said trolling is a threat to their own trolling efforts. Why exactly this is considered news is beyond me.

    1. Re:Not a defined group by Mysteray · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've got two groups of trolls trying to figure out who's attempting to troll whom, and if said trolling is a threat to their own trolling efforts. Why exactly this is considered news is beyond me.

      I think it's delightfully surreal. A postmodern civil war in cyberspace. Now being disclaimed by one side!

      These groups were simply made for each other, for our entertainment. Certainly a better use of packets than streaming sitcom television anyway.

    2. Re:Not a defined group by Tau+Neutrino · · Score: 1

      These groups were simply made for each other, for our entertainment. Certainly a better use of packets than streaming sitcom television anyway.

      Huzzah! Those with mod points, heed this voice!

      --
      Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
    3. Re:Not a defined group by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Similarly, Anonymous can't "issue a statement" that represents the entire group.

      Yes they can. Anyone can. What matters is, whose ideas take root within the Anon community and are converted into action. It may be that some Anons saw the original declaration and thought "cool, they're a bunch of jerks that I hate, I'll DDOS them", and then when they saw the "we stand for freedom of speech, even if we dislike that speech" denouncement, I expect that most of them would realise that, yes, this isn't the sort of thing that Anon should be doing.

  14. why waste time on this? by swschrad · · Score: 1, Insightful

    this is the nutcase church of the inbred Phelpses, after all. if we all ignore these coocoos, they will go away to whatever fire and brimstone meets them for not loving their enemy, and their neighbor, as thyself.

    hopefully, that would also apply to the MRs in the domain registry routers, as well ;)

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:why waste time on this? by CompMD · · Score: 1

      "if we all ignore these coocoos, they will go away to whatever fire and brimstone meets them for not loving their enemy, and their neighbor, as thyself" ...but it would be really nice to hasten that meeting.

  15. Wait a minute by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time an article comes on here about Anon everybody bashes the news organizations for saying Anonymous has a hierarchy with 'senior' members, leaders, and so forth.

    So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Parent is correct.

      We need another press release by Anonymous to confirm this is from Anonymous.

    2. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".

      There are no leaders of Anonymous, so if you happen to be Anonymous, you've gotta figure out what to believe for yourself.

      In this case, the hypothesis that Anonymous has better things to do with its time makes more sense than the original idea of attacking WBC. And because the text in WBC's "come at us bro" had patterns that identified its author as the same one as in the initial "hai guyz lets raid WBC".

      Anonymous is right: There's nothing Anonymous could do to WBC to make WBC any more funny than it already is. WBC is a troll; if you do not feed the troll, the troll will starve to death - maybe its death throes could inspire some lulz. An invite to DDOS is often a trap. Anons who do not step into the trap can remain Anonymous.

      An analysis of the text is consistent with the hypothesis that WBC appears to have invited Anonymous to a DDOS party of WBC for reasons unknown. It's a troll, it's a trap, and it wouldn't have even been particularly funny.

      Wake me when over 9000 people show up for something like the awesome counterprotest at Comic-Con.

    3. Re:Wait a minute by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      In other words, if the westboro baptist church says they are Anonymous, they are, as long as they don't tell anyone their name. They are as much as anyone else is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Wait a minute by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't members of the WBC who claimed this as anonymous BE a part of anonymous? That's what people claim- that you just have to say you're part of it.

    5. Re:Wait a minute by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

      This seems like something the discordians would do -- well, if it werent so coherently and poorly organized.

    6. Re:Wait a minute by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Every time an article comes on here about Anon everybody bashes the news organizations for saying Anonymous has a hierarchy with 'senior' members, leaders, and so forth.

      While the news orgs assume that there is some old guy with a title running things, and that's probably wrong, there is going to be a hierarchy. At some point, they're making decisions, and some members will more often defer to others on the groups' overall direction. This is probably a fairly informal hierarchy, and may even shift from one project to another, but it's going to be there. The division of labor is a natural phenomenon that happens even if you don't plan on it.

      So why are you so quick to accept this? How can this press release saying 'Its not really us' carry any more weight then one saying "It's us".

      If this is fake claim by WBC, it fits with WBC's modus operandi of preemptive victimhood. If it is a legit claim by WBC, it doesn't fit with Anonymous's pattern of attacking "big fish," that is, banks, the US government, etc. They find a big, respectable, trusted name and make them look incompetent. Really, what could they possibly do to WBC to make them look worse?

    7. Re:Wait a minute by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Yes, they can. They can be a part of Anonymous legitimately.

    8. Re:Wait a minute by raorajesh · · Score: 1

      and then another one confirming that and so on. Aristotle will be pleased.

  16. Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... then anyone could do something on behalf of Anonymous, and you couldn't deny it was done by them.

    Or maybe that's just what they want you to think ...

    But you've given everything away! I know where the poison is, and I choose... What in the world could THAT be?

  17. anonymous... by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    This is the problem with having a group like anonymous. Anyone can claim to be "it". Frankly it's starting to seem pretty silly to me, and nothing I would even take seriously at this point.

    1. Re:anonymous... by enoz · · Score: 1

      I cringe every time I hear someone describe Anonymous as a 'group'. This loose collection of individuals clearly have no hierarchy, rules or membership.

      Anonymous may be a gathering of sorts, but the best description I have seen is a Stand Alone Complex.

  18. Re:Who's anonymous? by gknoy · · Score: 1

    I see very little overlap in the world views and professed agendas of WBC and Anonymous. I would be very surprised if any WBC members were also part of Anonymous.

  19. Re:Bullshit by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    Anon also can't claim to do anything, or have any type of message either, because of this same reason. It's incoherent.

  20. Topic for #opwestboro is: by miruku · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not DDoS WestBoro Our riposte - http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=494 >>What to actually do: http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=492 >>> READ: http://goo.gl/fwaLG

    --
    MilkMiruku
  21. Who speaks for Anonymous? by initialE · · Score: 2

    Anyone could claim they spoke for anonymous. How do you verify it? Thing is, someone threw out the idea of targeting WBC, and a lot of people agreed that they were being enough of a dick to warrant becoming their next target. Anonymous must have some trouble filtering the real messages from random spam out there.

    --
    Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    1. Re:Who speaks for Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No seriously bro, we're not going after them.

  22. In other news by Fuzzums · · Score: 3, Funny

    I heard they have scientific proof that god exists. it's on their website. Somewhere. I'm sure. If we all look for it for about 5 or 10 minutes I'm sure we'll find it.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:In other news by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I've seen it, it's hidden right behind the stacks of gay porn, er "research materials."

  23. Future Action by godel_56 · · Score: 2

    Anonymous state they're too busy now to bother with these clowns, but I wouldn't be surprised if something nasty happened to the individuals behind the WBC in the future.

    It's the same principle as the HBGary story -- you don't poke a wasp's nest with a stick.

    1. Re:Future Action by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Anonymous It's the same principle as the HBGary story -- you don't poke a wasp's nest with a stick.

      Of course not. Wait for a cold day, and carry the pretty nest home.

  24. Trolls trolling trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More than likely the first letter was sent by a single /b/tard hoping to start a shitstorm, and then the rest of the mob saw this as an opportunity to troll WBC by pretending that WBC sent the letter themselves to look for attention instead.

  25. Anonymous - personality disorder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Last week: We have no leadership, we do whatever floats our boat whenever we want! You can never catch us bitches!
    This week: Our leadership has declared that we will not attack WBC...

    Result? Of course there is a "leadership" in Anonymous. Of course there are more respected members who have a greater say in the group's dynamics, perhaps even control of a large portion of the group's decision making.

    Anonymous may be composed of many transient, do-it-on-a-whim, disillusioned "internet children"... but they are being manipulated by a small group of members pushing a consistent agenda. Not much different than a typical political organization. Except Anonymous blatantly ignores and violates International laws (as opposed to the political organizations that secretly do so or the few that abide by the laws.)

    1. Re:Anonymous - personality disorder? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Last week: We have no leadership...
      This week: Our leadership has declared ...

      Result? Of course there is a "leadership" in Anonymous

      You've been trolled.

      There were about 100 threads on 4chan's /b/ alone stating "Don't Feed Teh WBC Trolls".
      Pretty much everyone but "newfags" saw those WBC articles and thought: "Pffft. Trolls."
      Then, a wise sage, seeking to keep the noobs from getting trolled makes up the "Protip: WBC are successful trolls" advisory.

      Common consensus amongst like minded individuals does not a leader make -- This constitutes a multi-headed hivemind (which some heed, and others don't; Hence: WBC DDOS ops that small groups of individuals separately participated in since they were actually being trolled).

      TL;DR: Some inexperienced Anonymous noobs got trolled by WBC, but most of the more experienced ones recognised the trolls and advised the noobs they were being trolled. The "Don't feed WBC Trolls" message got loud enough that a few (or one?) Anonymous posted a "formal" sounding message with proof that WBC are pro trolls.

      "Some go this way, most go that way" doesn't sound like follow the leader to me.

  26. Nevermind westover, landover is the real problem by magarity · · Score: 3, Funny

    The people at Westover are just loudmouth jerks. It's the seriously fringe nutcases at Landover Baptist who worry me.

  27. Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    "We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears"

    Beatrice Hall, who you just named, is "anonymous"?

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

  28. Can they ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    How can anonymous deny anything ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  29. Not exactly how it works by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But since anyone can act as Anonymous then the WBC claim was legit. I can put up a server, make myself a part of Anonymous, attempt to hack my server, leave Anonymous, then claim Anonymous tried to hack my server.

    Well, yes and no.

    Yes, you could do all of the above. And yes, you could make those claims. And yes, the press would probably pick up the story and run with it as written.

    But No, it would not be Anonymous proper. And they would know it. And you would be in some serious deep shit. Anonymous is a community. Like any community, if you're in it, you know who else is in it. The two guys at the party who know the secret handshake.

    WBC just tried this and it didn't work. So No, they will not get a horde of newfags bombing their server so they can countersue and make money and continue their nonsense that way.

    But something tasty will happen - rest assured of that. Something will happen. It will require a measure of elegance that the mob cannot deliver. Because that's what they want. No. It will be something subtle and untraceable, done with the skill of a surgeon and the quiet stealth of a butterfly.

    The most brilliant pranksters on the planet Earth have now been aroused. Remember WBC, when it happens, you DID ask for it.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Not exactly how it works by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anonymous claims they're not an organization. They're just a bunch of random people that get together to do something. Each time they get together, they're a different group of people. Anyone and Everyone is Anonymous because all you need is two or more people to get together and say you're doing something as Anonymous.

      Anonymous may also be a community, and since there is no membership requirement, anyone that shows up is, by default, part of the community. Part of the community can claim that other part isn't really part of their part, but then the other part can say the same about the other part.

      Either Anonymous *IS* an organized group, with a command and control structure, and someone pulling the strings. Or it's not. You can't have it both ways.

    2. Re:Not exactly how it works by Rysc · · Score: 1

      First of all, you can and do have it both ways.

      Secondly, anonymous isn't a group. Anonymous is an *individual*. One person. It's a name.

      If everyone were named Bob then any action taken by Bob could be attributed to anyone. With me so far? If I sign a letter "Bob" and send it to another Bob, did he receive a letter from himself? No, but he did receive a letter from Bob. If I am Bob and you are Bob and a death threat is written in graffiti and swears that Bob must die, were you or I targeted? There's no way to know which Bob wrote it or which Bob was the target.

      Similarly, a man named Bob can write a press release about the intentions of Bob, but that doesn't mean all Bobs everywhere agreed to it, recognize it, know about it or care.

      Anonymous is exactly like this with a couple of additional points: First, all anonymous tend to share some personality traits (viz. being a monster). Second, anonymous sometimes does things with anonymous. Third, sometimes when anonymous and anonymous (and anonymous, etc) do something together it it sometimes for a purpose on which they all agree, or for multiple purposes on which they each individually agree. Fourth, sometimes one anonymous will 'trick' another anonymous into performing some action by making him think it is funny or otherwise a good idea. If this happens a lot it is "someone pulling the strings." But, anonymous won't know who pulled his strings (or rather, he'll know it was anonymous but what good does that do?) and he may not know that his strings were pulled--or may not care.

      String pulling happens sometimes. Always? It's hard to judge, but from experience I think it's less than half the time. Your guess may vary, but I don't think anyone is in a position to make an authoritative guess.

      Somewhere there may be anonymous who is in charge of several other anonymous who work as an organized group and receive orders and report back and so forth. Maybe. I can't rule it out just like I can't know which Bob graffiti'd a death threat, because I don't know everyone. But, because my name is Bob and I am not involved, and because your name is Bob and you are not involved, I can say for sure that there is no command and control structure that covers the entire set of all anonymous.

      I hope this has been clear.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    3. Re:Not exactly how it works by Minwee · · Score: 1

      I hope this has been clear.

      And if it hasn't, then try mixing Red Bull with Vodka for a while. Eventually it will all make sense.

    4. Re:Not exactly how it works by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      Oh, such drama. Quite the characterization of a bunch (kids, /b/tards, immature adults) who are happy to do the bidding of others because they think it's funny.

      As for "brilliant pranksters", neither word applies to scripted ddos attacks. You want brilliant pranks? Check out http://improveverywhere.com/

      And butterflies aren't stealthy...quiet, yes, but have you seen how they fly? You could never sneak up on anyone if you walked in a similar pattern.

  30. WBC are *very* professional trolls by billstewart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you think they're not genius viral marketers, you haven't been paying attention to how you heard of them or why you know what they claim to stand for or why TV covers them when they're standing out there with signs. They're not just dumb bigots, they're a sociopathic family of lawyers, who go out and make themselves as publicly offensive as they can, so that people will attack them and towns will ban them and they can make money by sueing them. They're also happy to get donations from actual knuckle-draggers and from right-wing politicians who profit from the Culture Wars, but it's really about the lawsuits and the publicity.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:WBC are *very* professional trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly this. Some years back these asshats announced their intention to come to my (then) town to protest a military funeral. The family attorney, which is to say a family member who is an attorney, did some research on their MO and came to exactly this conclusion. They are a family who profit by basically entrapping otherwise-reasonable people into violating their civil rights. They're the type of people who'd stand around MLKJ's grave screaming "nigger" over and over while pulling their hair and carrying signs about how God hates darkies, all so they can sue when some otherwise kind black guy finally has enough and just kicks one of their asses.

      To put a rather fine point on it: they profit on the essential protections the Framers imagined in order to give people the right to be an asshole. It's like the arbitrage of liberty or something.

    2. Re:WBC are *very* professional trolls by curio_city · · Score: 1

      I do not know of their success in previous cases, but it seems (at least, I hope) arguments could be made painting these actions as speech that passes the bounds of established protections, i.e. fighting words etc.... Though thinking about the outcome of Texas v. Johnson, protecting the memory of a dead person and protecting mourners from being offended may not pass the standards that justify curtailing speech. Would parent's scenario be ruled as fighting words?

    3. Re:WBC are *very* professional trolls by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      The 'Fighting Words' doctrine has been almost entirely repudiated by the Supreme court. For-real-and-for-true, Google 'motherfucker trilogy'. Seriously.

      <a href="http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1999/1999ATX.html">More Info here.</a>

    4. Re:WBC are *very* professional trolls by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      all so they can sue when some otherwise kind black guy finally has enough and just kicks one of their asses.

      To put a rather fine point on it: they profit on the essential protections the Framers imagined in order to give people the right to be an asshole. It's like the arbitrage of liberty or something.

      All depends on how much he kicked their asses. Dead people don't tend to sue.

    5. Re:WBC are *very* professional trolls by haruchai · · Score: 1

      With the number of laws both at the state and federal level prohibiting protests within 500 ft of a funeral, they'll be inciting the cops. For the Phelps' sake, I hope God hates Tasers, too

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    6. Re:WBC are *very* professional trolls by gnapster · · Score: 1

      Obligatory XKCD: Marketing Interview

    7. Re:WBC are *very* professional trolls by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Wow. My original working hypothesis is that they were a gang of Satanists who were doing everything in their power to slander Christianity, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's all about making money entrapping decent people into doing something they can sue them for.

      To quote someone they're going to have to face some day, "Behold, they have their reward."

  31. Elegant by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    It was probably written by Westboro themselves to get some publicity.

    So one group of attention whores used another group of attention whores. There's an Apple-like simplicity and elegance to the whole scheme.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Elegant by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Oooh you better be careful there, some Anonymous fan will come whining about how Anonymous is not a group but its a concept or something along those lines ;)

    2. Re:Elegant by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is the set of all people who are choosing to remain anonymous at any given time. To be a group it would have to have a combination operation and satisfy axioms of associativity, closure, identity and invertibility. Without a group operation Anonymous is not a group.
      So you're wrong. You got a math geek instead of an Anonymous fan.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    3. Re:Elegant by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is the set of all people who are choosing to remain anonymous at any given time.

      Wrong, just because you are anonymous does not mean you have anything to do with Anonymous. Note capitalisation.

      To be a group it would have to have a combination operation and satisfy axioms of associativity, closure, identity and invertibility.

      Only if you only accept that there is only one definition of 'group' and that is the mathematical one, which is false.

      So you're wrong.

      No i'm not.

      You got a math geek instead of an Anonymous fan.

      And an ignorant one at that.

    4. Re:Elegant by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Oooh you better be careful there, some Anonymous fan will come whining about how Anonymous is not a group but its a concept or something along those lines ;)

      "Anonymous" is the set of users of the set of Web sites known as "image boards". Since any two members of Anynymous can't be combined to form a third member, or in general any entity, Anonymous is not a group. Q.E.D.

      What Anonymous is, is a bunch of nerds with unwarranted self-importance. But then again, they provide entertainment and drama on the Internet, so who cares :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Elegant by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That didn't take long.

  32. Haven't Seen Proof WBC did the Anon Press Release by JumperCable · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not like AnonNews announced they traced the IP address of the poster back to the WBC. Sure. It could have been them. It could also have been just about anyone who has a beef with the WBC. Many people are chomping at the bit to take them down and have tried to recruit 'Anonymous' to do this. But they haven't been successful in the past. For all we know it was the folks from HBGary trying to pick a fight between the two groups to provide ground cover. But again, that is still nothing more than idle speculation.

    I don't think Anons will ever do anything against the WBC just because they have no power. WBC may be annoying assholes. But at the end of the day that is all they are. They can pretty much only offend people who allow themselves to be offended.

  33. Re:Haven't Seen Proof WBC did the Anon Press Relea by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    Exactly. The WBC is like a lone mosquito buzzing about. Very annoying and might cause you some minor irritation, but in the long run nothing to put a ton of effort into catching. There are other groups out there that are much larger threats.

    That said, there are times when the WBC makes it very hard to be a defender of Freedom of Speech.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  34. Shhhhh!!! by Guido69 · · Score: 2

    These "Anonymous" folks are all over this thread!

    p.s.... Just want to ensure Anonymous knows it was Taco, not us, that labeled you Cowards!

    --
    - If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
  35. Re:They should have chosen a more distinctive name by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    missed the big "A" on "Anonymous". makes it a noun, you see.

    also, i was very impressed that they attributed that quote to Beatrice Hall and not Voltaire, who that quote usually is attributed to. it seems anon has good command of google and wikipedia.

  36. Its quite easy... by Tmack · · Score: 1

    ..How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?

    Once you upgrade to a 4chan Gold account it becomes really clear. Thats how you meet up with other anons and connect to the hive mind. I havent paid my dues in quite a while tho...

    Tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  37. Bogus claim of free speech by bonch · · Score: 1

    “When Anonymous says we support free speech, we mean it. We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ "

    What the hell? How does DDOSing credit card services and trying to bring down Amazon not contradict this belief? If they believe so much in freedom of speech, then they would support the actions of companies who chose not to support Wikileaks.

    1. Re:Bogus claim of free speech by Hydian · · Score: 1

      If they believe so much in freedom of speech, then they would support the actions of companies who chose not to support Wikileaks.

      The credit card services and Amazon took action to help stop Wikileaks from exercising their free speech. There is no free speech issue on their side. Even if there was, you can't claim to be exercising your rights in the process of trying to prevent someone else from exercising theirs. Your rights end where my rights begin and all that.

      Now, you can feel free to support them for various other reasons (business decision, you feel it was the right thing to do, or whatever) but to try to claim Amazon was exercising their freedom of speech is just silly.

    2. Re:Bogus claim of free speech by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!

      It hit the bullseye.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  38. Re:Haven't Seen Proof WBC did the Anon Press Relea by jack2000 · · Score: 1

    Nothing stops you from pulling over a truck loaded with amplifiers and a concert grade sound system and blasting WBC's eardrums at their next protest.
    You could do them one better you can turn the volume up so much that the only thing being heard is you rebutting them point by point.

  39. Re:In Soviet Westboro, church baptizes you! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Baptist church, Westboro accidentally itself and everybody spends the entire Slashdot article concerning it arguing about whether Anonymous does, in fact, have leadership. Also, Microsoft sucks, religion is for losers, and we all run Beowulf clusters of Linux installed on dead badgers while complaining about lawyers and DRM.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  40. Re:Biggest IRL Trolls by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    they respect their rights to be giant obnoxious d-bags

    Why then does Anonymous have a problem with Scientology?

  41. I used to stir mudpuddles w/ 200 hp Evinrude... by rts008 · · Score: 2

    That is exactly what I thought at first.
    At second thought, it was 'why would Anonymous even bother with replying to an obvious troll?'
    Third thought was to suspect some third party as the instigator in this.
    I don't know, by nature[theoretically] Anonymous is, well, anonymous, and has nothing to fear from WBC, thus should have no interest in any opinion that WBC has to offer, but there is the 'street cred/e-peen' POV to consider for Anonymous.

    The more I think about it, the more I'm torn between taking sides with Anonymous, and a third-party 'stirring the mud-puddle'.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  42. Movie Plot by Nishi-no-wan · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the plot to Pacific Heights. I didn't really like that movie just because it sounded too plausible, like too many people would run out and try it.

  43. For the record - they are an independant church by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    They can call themselves whatever they want, but Westboro Baptist Church is completely independant, and not associated with any known Baptist associations, and their actions and views are not shared or endorsed by any Baptist association or church. And as they promote certain political views from the pulpit, technically they cannot qualify for tax exemptions for being a church.

    In response to the article, quite frankly, I am actually surprised no one ever has DDoSed the site.

    In fact, I cannot even access their page from work at a government subcontractor - the site is categorized as being Violent and Hate Speech

  44. Re:In Soviet Westboro, church baptizes you! by GlennC · · Score: 1

    and only old people use email in South Korea...with hot grits, and Natalie Portman naked and petrified.

    Also, what brand of crack are you smoking?

    --
    Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
  45. Let's Lie for the Lord by hduff · · Score: 1

    FTA ". . . this was a publicity stunt staged by WBC themselves."

    "You did WHAT in my name?" -- Jesus

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  46. Yeah, but... by Hydian · · Score: 1

    Who's on first?

  47. How vulnerable would WBC really be, anyway by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    An attack by Anonymous never made much sense to begin with. It's not like WBC has this huge network of computer assets to attack - they're, what, about 5 people? I doubt that shutting down their multi-function printer/scanner/fax machine would really faze them much.

    I doubt any individuals or really small groups have much to fear from Anonymous, as the results Anonymous could obtain would be pretty meager compared to the amount of effort required.

  48. So that is what they are doing... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    The government is trying to tarnish this groups rep any way they can....even going so far as to declare such attacks against groups that have no real value for Anonymous, nice one there gov.....next we will hear that Anonymous attacked an old lady, ran off with her purse just to make a statement!