Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Under Civil War?
Stoobalou writes "Civil war appears to have broken out in the ranks of headless 'hacktivist' collective Anonymous, with claims that a rogue admin has seized control of two key sites used to coordinate the loose-knit group's online direct action. The news follows speculation that a breakaway group of Anonymous members was responsible for the hacking attacks on Sony's PlayStation Network and Online Entertainment Network, which saw personal information, including credit card details, stolen from as many as 100 million users' accounts."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/
I don't know if I'd call that civil war, more like dissension in the ranks, or mutiny or barratry, and a greater than average amount of anarchy.
Now if you wanted to see Anonymous in Civil War, you should hear the Boxxy story. She managed to divide the indivisible.
before Anonymous started turning on itself. Maybe they've run out of external targets...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I'm sorry. Did I just hear someone say "I told you so?" Sounded like a Sony exec...
It seems that the multinational companies started to work against this movement. I'm hoping that this is just a maneuver to decrease the credibility of the group.
Sounds like someone's having some lolz. I like the idea of Anonymous, keeping companies like HB Gary 'honest', I just don't see it working over a long period of time. Everybody has a different set of ideals (lolz aside) so, in the flat hierarchy, they're all going to pull in a slightly different direction and this kind of stuff will happen.
Really, how many of these kids STILL don't use a proxy when going to Anon's sites after so many of their friends have been busted?
A hacker collective? That's like spiders suddenly becoming social animals.
Just like there is no true scotsman, there will always be someone up to good and use someone elses name as the blame, Just like how a buddist symbol was hijacked for Godwinite purposes, there will be a lot of anti sony users pretending to be anonymous.
In response to accusations from Sony, Anonymous denies the allegations and blames everything on Anonymous... uh the other Anonymous.
Given how much it has cost them in terms of PR, and how many "gamefags" are pissed off about not getting their PSN fix, the answer is probably "yes".
Therefore some of the less "moralfag" anons may well have had a hand in it. A bit like the schism over scientology protests and all the other things. Anonymous has a limited attention span due to any activity becoming "totally gay" after a while.
I find the whole thing hilarious.
This happens literally all the time. Its not even remotely news. Some part of "Anonymous" is always attacking some other part. Someone gets their feelings hurt and takes down a website or two. They get their name dropped and they fall off the radar. It isn't "civil war"; it's actually just the way Anonymous works.
...that you can't trust a bunch of anarchist computer network destroyers to be the champions of law and justice?
If you can't even trust complete strangers on the Internet anymore, who can you trust?
Seriously, how can a hacker get into a computer system run by someone who KNOWS that hackers are after them? Hacks of major sites can be explained by the fact that major organizations (like Sony, etc) have many individual members and tons of bureaucratic incompetence. But you read about the hackers that exchanged stolen credit cards on various forums hacking EACH OTHER's websites, deleting all userdata #@#!, and thus forcing all the members of the site onto a competing site.
So, one would expect that Anonymous would make sure their own servers were hack-proof. Couldn't you trivially make something hack proof by running the server in a VM, and using a hardware authentication system for accessing the server that runs the VMs? How are hackers going to get past a measure like that? The server that deals with the outside world is sandboxed, and they can't crack your password to the management system because it changes every minute.
http://message.anonops.in/ So yes, it's a civil war :D
Anytime a civil war breaks out in a Latin American country, one side is always funded and instigated by the U.S. government. Instigating dissension as a means of disrupting an organization is an age-old government technique that J. Edgar Hoover turned into an artform. Looks like our government boys have finally taken an interest in Anon, and the discrediting campaign is in full swing now.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It sounds to me that there are individuals who don't follow the same ideology as a majority of the group called Anonymous. But since the word Anonymous is the generic word for "The concept of many online community users generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known" (from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)), how can you discern on sect from another.
If you are Anonymous in the collective term, then where one goes, you all go. It is part of the concept of Anonymous. True that only a small sub-group has made the decision to perpetrate a company and steal information, but their actions reflect on all those who associate themselves with Anonymous. If Anonymous as a whole disagrees with what some members do, punishment will be within and will likely be pretty swift.
This to me is not Civil war, but punishment for breaking of the ranks.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Oh fucking please. Anonymous was a cohesive group that is now in "civil war"?
Anonymous is /b/ on 4chan and a bunch of other chans. There is no "leadership" - there is more or less "consensus" for varying values of "consensus" when it comes to a protest or a network attack. Anonymous is about as cohesive as a fist full of jelly.
>Ryan
Ryan is extremely angry because a small group of Anonymous rescued all the old data from Encyclopedia Dramatica by getting it from archive.org before Ryan could get it deleted and then put up their own mirror of the old ED wiki. That's what this is about. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Here's the rebuilt ED wiki, hosted in Switzerland:
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page
That Ryan is raging buttmad over what "Teh Internets" has done "to him" is delicious irony.
--
BMO
Rebellion: Resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
Mutiny: Revolt or rebellion against constituted authority.
How can you rebel when there's no leadership to rebel against?
This is, at best, a schism, and anon has survived schisms before- see Boxxy or the Scientology protests.
Sent from my CR-48
Paranoia much? This crap happens all the time in anon, always has, always will. Just butthurt script kiddies, not government involvement.
time 4 your meds, yo.
What began as a conflict over the transfer of Anonymous from DDoS to identity theft has escalated into a war which has decimated a million scriptkiddies. The Hacktivists and the Rogues have all but exhausted the resources of 4chan in their struggle for domination. Both sides now moronic beyond compare, the remnants of their fad continues to harass Sony, their idiocy fueled by over four thousand years of inbreeding. This is a fight until their mothers tell them to get off the computer. For each side, the only acceptable outcome in the complete elimination of the ROFLs.
...since there is no state, no sovereignty there. More like a kind of mitosis. Let's just hope it continues to multiply and speciate until the offspring are too numerous and heterogenous to target.
Anonymous isn't one huge collective hivemind, WHO KNEW?!
Anonymous is made up of thousands of people who hold similar INTERESTS, doesn't mean they like each other.
These people range for fairly decent hackers to simple voluntary bots that tend to be recruited on imageboards.
There is in-fighting all the damn time. Hell, look at 4chan. They regularly raid each others boards with the content of their respective board just because.
This is exactly how the Anonymous movement behave in general.
They'll kick and punch each other, but a cause great enough to unite them in collective idiocy happens every so often and they join hands.
everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone.
Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ohhhhmmmmmmmmm
So... Japanese government is behind this? lol
How is this any different than usual?
This sort of emo food fight has been happening in internet groups for decades (literally. I've watched it on usenet in the 80s).
How can you have an insurrection in a self proclaimed anarchy? It's sort of a contradiction in terms.
I grew up in a conservative Christian household so I got the full scare story on the ebils of rock and roll before I dipped my toe in the other side. From the Christian POV, rock is monolithic. There's the titular head represented by Satan who is coordinating everything in a top-down hierarchical fashion from AC/DC, Ozzy, and Alice Cooper on down to the Beatles and Pat Boone. Even the most banal, lite rock-friendly artist is promoting Satan's message of substance abuse, loose morals, easy sex and enjoyment of life. Drug messages are backmasked into the music. Sex permeates the videos. Album jackets and psychedelic posters all have their hidden symbols and meanings; it's fun to take a trip, put acid in your veins. (supernaut!)
Then you look at it from the other side and shit, it's just a business. Rebellion is popular so you package it, commoditize it and sell it. Satan has nothing to do with it unless that's just a personal nickname for soulless assholes in suits. You really think it takes a prince of darkness to sell people on the idea of having fun and getting laid? Puhleeeeeeeeaze. Some rocker can declare he's doing something in the name of rock and roll, critics can argue about what rock is, how it should be, but they're all just tossing ideas into the collective memetic cess pool. There's no ecumenical councils trying to establish rock orthodoxy, no pope of rock to excommunicate you if you aren't doing it right.
It's the same thing with Anonymous. There's a vague, poorly expressed ideal with everyone supporting their own irreconcilable interpretation of it. You can't really have a civil war amongst people who were never unified to begin with. That's making the fundamental mistake of assuming Anonymous is top-down, hierarchical, and organized. Organized anarchy? That's as oxymoronic as Christian rock.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Do you really think that a hack to steal credit card numbers and personal info sounds like a typical move for Anon members?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There are pro-government patriotic black hats like The Jester and ichsun ("skill of 1000 hackers") who have done things in the interest of their governments. But they could actually be government-backed while pretending to be independent.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
there is no group called Anonymous.
you are all being trolled.
"We are legion!" (_!_)
This "rogue" group stinks of HB Gary.
Here is a video that explains Anonymous, its structure, and its political goals.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Paranoia much? This crap happens all the time in anon, always has, always will. Just butthurt script kiddies, not government involvement.
You could be right, but then, even paranoids have enemies, don't they?
I think that a hack to steal credit card numbers and personal info sounds like a typical move for professional credit card number and personal info thieves. Inciting a horde of witless script kiddies to declare that they are SPARTACUS FOR THE LULZ is just a smart twist.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
the usa has an agenda, like any other country. like any other group of citizens within a country. when the agenda of a group within a country at civil war lines up with the agenda of a foreign country, then funding follows. this was also true for the ussr in the cold war in latin america, but i don't see you talking about that, interestingly enough. its also still true today, around the world, for the usa, china, russia, india, etc.: countries mess with each other's internal affairs. even, and especially, within latin america. always has been true, is still true, always will be true. yet you only wish to focus on the usa doing this?
so in the end, your thinking points to two cognitive failures on your part:
1. the inability to see that there are other countries in the world that mess around with the internal affairs of others
its not the exclusive domain of the usa to do these things. it reveals you have a grudge, an obsession, not a valid global point of view or valid set of principles. maybe you think you have a set of principles, but currently your words boil down to "i don't like the usa." actually, it's fine not to like the usa, the usa has done plenty of things to dislike. however, you need to admit to yourself that you aren't motivated by justice or morality, you are only motivated by typical, story-as-old-as-time tribal chest thumping turf wars. because you won't condemn the other players in the world on the basis of your self-stated principles, you will only condemn the usa. you don't have to pick sides you know. it is actually logically coherent to condemn the usa AND europe AND iran AND china, all at the same time, for example. in fact, if you are motivated by principles and not empty tribal chest thumping, condemning all countries is in fact your only logically coherent line of thought
2. the inability to see that a country at war with itself is composed of organic citizens of that country that actually believe in a point of view that is the organic creation of those people
in other words, if the usa never existed in the first place, then those people fighting for their point of view (that the usa happens to, secondarily, support), they would still exist. by saying that these people wouldn't exist without the existence of the usa is very patronizing and condescending of you: that people outside the usa can't have their own motivations, their own self-realized ideas. to you, they can only be robotic puppets of some imaginary american overlord. for example: al qaeda. the usa gave it funding once. therefore, so goes the moron's reasoning, everything bad al qaeda does is the usa's fault. nevermind that al qaeda is motivated by things that has nothing to do with the usa, but has to do with their twisted view of islam and recreating the medieval caliphate. and that al qaeda has more enemies of this bizarre goal other than the usa, and if the usa never existed, al qaeda would be fighting those other enemies (and in fact, are fighting other enemies besides the usa). and nevermind that the usa was only a temporary ally in the cold war fight against the ussr. no, to you, only the usa can be a source of motivating ideas. everyone else in the world is a derivative reflection of what the usa thinks, for or against, never human beings with their own original thoughts and ideas. how fucking retarded and, frankly, racist of you
pure intellectual and logical fail on your part: you don't understand the world as a set of three dimensional players, you understand the world as only one player: the usa, and everyone else, friend and foe, only act because the usa caused them to do something. in your worldview, only the usa is a responsible player, everyone else, friend and foe, is just reacting. what a dimwitted, condescending way to view your fellow human beings. your anti-americanism has infected and destroyed your ability to perceive human beings and the world at large, your dimwitted mind only see shades of americanism and anti-americanism. you're a hyper-obsessed moron. that's not a baseless insult. that's an objective appraisal of your reasoning abilities
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's an anon thing. You obviously don't understand.
Remember when the Bush White House found that one "bad apple" who was responsible for all the corruption of the Bush regime?
These are called "fall guys." Anonymous did this hack, and when they weren't greeted as heroes they got scared. Why? Cuz they're wimps.
When a member of Anonymous is arrested, does Anonymous stand behind him? No. Cuz they're wimps.
I don't know if I'd call that civil war, more like dissension in the ranks, or mutiny or barratry, and a greater than average amount of anarchy.
Now if you wanted to see Anonymous in Civil War, you should hear the Boxxy story. She managed to divide the indivisible.
That's the problem with anarchists. They don't think they should have to play by the rules, are even opposed to playing by the rules. But let one of their own spread anarchy amongst their own group and then they tout a different ideology.
Either Anonymous has no leadership or this entire article is false.
I find being offended by me offensive.
anon is very concerned about being non offensive and has taken your request to the highest channels for immediate review and correction. Thank you and have a good day Mr. nude male-on-male magic moving picture box watcher.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So... Japanese government is behind this? lol
I would have thought that the giant robots smashing the opposing server farms would have given that away...
Three words, folks:
HERD.
OF.
CATS.
That's not homophobia. Or at least it's not homophobia from me, I'm merely the observer/reporter here. Notice the quotation marks around those words - Oddly enough those are actually quotations from what I've seen at /b/ and other places.
Apart from the quotations around "yes", they were totally unnecessary....
I'm afraid that's the lingo used in these places though. I'm not sure it's meant to be offensive to people who are actually gay (see the South Park episode about the changing meaning of the word fags), though it may well be. It's probably meant to be offensive to as many people as possible.
The suffix "-fag" is used extensively for anyone you don't like. And sometimes people you do like, or even yourself.
Is it to be encouraged? Probably not. What are you going to do to stop it though?
It is not the many that form the one collective. We are not the Borg. It is the many that form the few, and the few that voice the many.
Does this soil the name of Anonymous or help it?
Does it matter either way?
No.
Kind of sounds like a good way to try to clear your name, blame some kind of rogue inside group... take 'swift action' on them (which can't be verified of course), then assure everyone that Anonymous is back to its moral, just ways.
the lulz just keep on coming
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
That's like spiders suddenly becoming social animals.
Spiders can be social. See for example http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14094404 about groups of spiders working together to build massive webs.See also http://www.pnas.org/content/105/31/10843.full for a take on some of the relevant science.
Is it to be encouraged? Probably not. What are you going to do to stop it though?
Laugh at them and not take them at all seriously?
Unlike the rest of the internet, who, for some reason, really thinks that they are clever and somehow meaningful to the grand scheme of things.
The best reaction to have when encountering /b/-ese is to think "look a 14 year old boy escape from his chatroom and thinks he has something to say, how cute; now run along until you grow up and have something to say little boy", and then ignore them.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Gaining control of Melchior and Balthazar means that the regular group can still reprogram Caspar to take back control at the last second.
This is a deliberate result of divisive interference - covertly engaged upon by the US Air Force Cyber Command.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
There are many queer people on the internet, and a lot of other words you could use to get your point across with out being offensive. thanks!
Yes, there are a lot of other words the GP could have used. But there's a lot of other words that the 4chan kiddies DON'T use, and exactly one (with derivatives) they DO use. That's the point. The GP was using an example.
Anonymous isn't an organization, it's a disorganization. Mst of the time it idles in pure chaos, every once in a while a large majority act in the same direction at the same time and something happens. There are no membership requirements or registries (except the sex offender registry). Anyone has just as much right to act in the name of anonymous as anyone else.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Well good luck with that, they don't seem to come to slashdot to consult the wiser, older people on use of language.
Anonymous has good press coverage here for some reason. I have no idea why. I've worked on a network they were on and I can tell you they're completely useless.
They start shit and try to get your network techs to bail them out when it goes south. Every couple weeks they've find some new, inane way to try to stir up problems or talk you into letting them do some shady network BS to hide what they're doing.
Let's be really specific here: This is the evolution of the script kiddie. Nothing more. Congrats, they figured out how to make press releases. They're still nothing but a waste of time. The world doesn't need fake freedom fighters. There are more than enough real ones out there.
Splitters!
Nope. But it doesn't sound like the work of a government either. It's a very typical move for your average internet criminal. Either one of the "members" of anon is an identity thief on the side and decided to steal some info unilaterally, or another for-profit hacker decided to take advantage of anon's attack. Either way, this has nothing to do with the government and little to do with Anonymous as a group.
Omnominous?
Anonymous isn't even a group. Any stutid dunkass who goes on 4chan can call himself "Anonymous." Every time I read an article about Anonymous this, Anonymous that, it's pretty irritating. It's like thinkinghttp://slashdot.org/story/11/05/09/1236227/Anonymous-Under-Civil-War# that the entire human population can make group decisions. They can't.
anonymous_dude0: I need to get on psn or i'll loose my standing in the ladder.
anonymous_dude1: Oh Shit! sorry dude0. I've already pwnd it. The beotchez were wide open.
anonymous_dude0: @$^@^_dude1! you'll die for this!
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Think this is a news "soical" hack, just to get an alibi. The Sony case have got out of hand, and maybe got so serious, the legal issues for the ones responsible within ANON is enormous. So they created "Ryan" is just a fictive person to get the blame. These persons could be smart, and creates logs etc. so if they was cought, the person Rayon would have been the leader of a group responsible a person or a group that never could be found.
Many of the homosexuals I know take offense to the word queer, why are you trying to offend them while correcting others?
In all seriousness, though, both words have been used to offend, why latch on to one and disregard the other? In either case you completely fail to take into account that the post you are complaining about meant that as a quote.