Slashdot Mirror
Mainstream Media Looks At Anonymous
ScuttleMonkey writes "In an uncharacteristically accurate writeup of Anonymous, the Guardian has published a look at the assembled mob behind the mask. A great place to send those unfamiliar with who or what Anonymous really is. From the article: 'This collective identity belongs to no one in particular, but is at the disposal of anyone who knows its rules and knows how to apply them. Anonymous, the collective identity, is older than Anonymous, the hacktivist group – more to the point, I propose that the hacktivist group can be understood as an application of Anonymous, the collective identity.'"
Sounds like the sort of person who can give a good report on this issue.
Palm trees and 8
Somehow I expected it to be posted Anonymously...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
But not to anyone else, is that the story? So much glorification of such a flimsy premise...
Caveat Utilitor
The Scientologists would have already sued them into oblivion. Their disorganization is their strength.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." .. seems oddly apt, but possibly a little late for the mainstream news.
Just read Lord of the Flies. Or any of the studies of how people behave when they feel like they are anonymous. And you can stop calling them anything or you declare them a gang of bullies and identity thieves that will attack those that say things they do not agree with.
If they are just a random blob of people with out structure you can call them nothing but a population.
If they are not then they have attacked people for as harmless as a teenage boy that started a website that encouraged kids to not use profanity and have stolen identity information from the Sony website.
You can not both hold them Anonymous faultless for acts that was done by the group and give them credit of things that the group have been done by the group.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
In regards to the Sony hack which Anonymous supposedly denies, if Anonymous is leaderless, isn't it pretty much impossible to say whether or not they did something? Can't anybody claim to be Anonymous and do what ever they want? I assume for anything Anonymous does there are some people who consider themselves members who disagree, so does that mean Anonymous didn't do it?
This isn't meant as a critique of Anonymous, but without leaders or hierarchy it's pretty much impossible to define what it is or what it does.
Guy Fawkes was no more a terrorist than Samuel Adams. The only difference is Fawkes lost.
Informed and literate? You're probably a terrorist.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Well, if you listened to some Englishmen, our first President was a terrorist.
Seems like Guy Fawkes was just trying to put a little god into government. And you'd think so too if you loved Baby Jeesus.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Another difference you're overlooking is that Samuel Adams had no intention of setting up a theocracy worse than what he was fighting...
"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile."
Anonymous is like a one time pad in cryptography. Even if you manage to find a key that decodes the message into something legible, you will never know if you have the right key because in theory, any given message can be reproduced. Anonymous is like that. The minute you think you have it pinned down you realize that in fact it was something else - because it is not an "organization". Rather it is a "disorganization".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Want to have some fun with the media? Tell them about "anonymous" ftp two decades ago, then tell them about the "anonymous" FTP over email services circa 1991, that'll confuse the heck out of them.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
It's a mob. Bound by no principals except what they happen believe at the moment.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There's a paragraph or two in the article about the symbolism of the mask and relating it to the culture (wrongly assuming that you cannot use a username) of 4chan. Can someone point the author to a knowyourmeme or similar article about the history of epic fail guy?
I dont think its right to say anonymous is not organized, it seems extremely democratic to me, especially the dos attacks.
If you suggest a course of action and it resonates then it is anonymous, if it gets no support then its just you.
Regarding sony I would wager what happened was during the anonymous dos attack someone peeked at the defenses and went holy crap its wide open,
and went back alone.
IE the initial anonymous attack probably did uncover the vulnerable network but the hack was not by anonymous.
Seems like Guy Fawkes was just trying to put a little god into government.
From what I know, he planned on doing it by blowing said government to kingdom come.
You should have used the word "principles" there.
Yet another is that Samuel Adams has never used "It'll Fawkes you up!" in one of its beer commercials.
Bark less. Wag more.
Anonymous is like the "take a penny, leave a penny" tray at the checkout at the mini mart.
That's right, bloody goddamn communist.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There being no hope for peaceful change, it's not a bad selection.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
dude, don't do that to me.
I just checked http://spaceweather.com/ and http://www.syzygyjob.com/ and we're in the clear for now.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
We are anonymouse. We ar- wait shit!
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Terrorist ?
Just because he was a man with explosives does not make him a terrorist. He intended to blow up the House of Lords, a very specific political target. He would have been a political assassin, not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald.
Terrorists, as the title suggests, spread terror by attacking random citizens. The whole point of terrorism is to instill wide-spread panic by implying that anyone could be the next target, man/woman/child of any status.
I can relate to the idea of challenging/attacking a nation's leaders. We entrust those people with the power to run the country on our behalf, and if they abuse that power and turn it against us, they should expect retribution. In that sense, I think Guy Fawkes is the ideal mascot for the Anonymous movement.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"Mainstream Media Looks At Anonymous, Confirms The Media Still Has Its Head Up Its Collective Ass"!
A religious coup.
How is that any different from what the U.S. military has been doing to the middle east ?
Is the U.S. government then a terrorist organisation ? They blow up foreign governments to install their own brand of culture.
At least Fawkes wanted to blow up his own government. That is far more noble and democratic than today's racially-charged wars and mercantile marauding.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"In an uncharacteristically accurate writeup of Anonymous
If by "uncharacteristically accurate", you mean they took whatever claims those punk kids make at face value, then I'll agree.
Actually the mask has nothing to do with that Guy Fawkes; it's the mask of the Guy Fawkes from Alan Moores comic "V for Vendetta".
He wanted to blow up the government in enact a theocracy.
I don't really find either act very honorable. And even if your blowing up a "legitimate" target, if your intention is to cause terror, fear, or disruption; your a terrorist. If they just would have attacked the Pentagon, and not the WTC on 9/11, it still would have been an act of terrorism. If we were occupying their country, and they attacked a military base, or a patrol, it would be a legitimate action, and not terrorism.
I can relate to the idea of challenging/attacking a nation's leaders. We entrust those people with the power to run the country on our behalf, and if they abuse that power and turn it against us, they should expect retribution.
Yep... the government doesn't do what I want it to do, so I'm going to go murder people. Makes sense. And in Fawkes case, the government isn't doing what I want it to do, so I'm going to blow it up in hopes that we can replace it with the Pope ruling us.
Notice the "I" and "us" terms, since they aren't equivalent. The government shouldn't do what you or I want it to do, it should do what "we" want it to do, in the case of democracies and republics. This is what pisses me off about modern politics... Somehow the government should only look out for me and my best interests or petty desires... Everyone else be damned.
Its especially absurd when people think not getting their way is somehow justification of murder. Its like being ruled by two year olds.
Also... retribution, as our country is set up, means "voting". If you don't think your government is doing its job, within your personal opinion of such matters, then DON'T VOTE FOR THE OFFENSIVE PEOPLE. It is really simple. If more people vote for the people, tough shit. People disagree with you. You disagree with people. Wonderful. You aren't special. Your opinions aren't special. They aren't magically objective fact just because you believe them. Government also represents those of us whose opinions are different than yours. Government, further, exists to protect us from people who think their opinion is such that they should be able to enforce it on others. Extremists, in other words... People who think that the ends (murder) justify the means (you personal pet ideal for governance).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Oops, V was his psuedonym not Guy Fawkes.
Terrorist ?
Just because he was a man with explosives does not make him a terrorist. He intended to blow up the House of Lords, a very specific political target. He would have been a political assassin, not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald.
Lee Harvey Oswald didn't try to blow up an entire building at a time when it would be full of hundreds of people. many of them innocent and uninvolved in the political process. I'd say that makes a difference.
I'm not saying I condone mass murder, I'm saying sometimes the ones in power can be hard of hearing (read: fascist). In such cases, a coup is often the only remaining recourse.
If you still believe the vote has any power or meaning, well I'm afraid I am wasting my words on you.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
TL;DR: join Anonymous to understand.
Long post:
Why couldn't she just join a channel? There aren't any lack of lurkers in Anonymous channels, plenty of journalists, verified spooks (usually easy to backtrace), trolls, enemies, and curious onlookers in the channels. Or maybe she doesn't know how to avoid being flooded by server messages? XD
Then she should spend some time there without posing as anything but a person, without asking all sorts of nosy questions. Lurk for a few days at least, put some effort in it. Use a VPN if she thinks it's "dangerous" and "scary" or just don't bother.
Unless she's dense as a brick she should get a picture of what is and what is not over time (she might well be dense though; her article was academical twaddle without relevance: she just wanted to grow her e-penis :P).
She should know the tools after a few hours (and please no not just LOIC and other DDOS tools but the knowledge and use of all the free resources that typically take place in active ops), she should understand the significance of having the tools and the source of the tools and the knowledge of their existence if she knows anything at all about modern reality (bet she doesn't), if she happens upon a live operation and partakes she would also come to realize what makes it all work: the diverse knowledge and resources of the individuals who chose to collaborate at that moment in time.
And yes it should be obvious that some bring more to the table than others (but that everyone can help a lot if they want to). Perhaps not as equally obvious that there are extremely resourceful people who rarely say anything at all and never anything that truly reveals their position, and no they are not leaders or rulers: they simply act in their own interest just as everyone else does. If one uses ones head one knows they must be there (and it's also publicly corroborated but I'm not going to provide how and where, it doesn't serve Anonymous or them or me).
And unlike countless retards perhaps she might also understand enough to differentiate between channel and server owners and Anonymous itself, just in same the way as it ought to be obvious that one should differentiate between providers of software and web services and Anonymous itself. Most importantly the same applies to whatever anyone brings: it's their action.
Everyone is born their own leader, everyone always have choices, everyone does as they please, everyone can give and take advice and those with any sense at all thinks about what they're doing and don't act without sufficient support.
And we got no class. We can't even think of a word that rhymes!
A person studying Theater, Film and Media is indeed the most qualified to talk, because the concept is older than written history and perhaps older than the concept of mask itself:
1. In Ancient Greek Theater, especially Tragedy (also in classical theater of other cultures), Anonymous is personified on stage by the Chorus, representing a very elaborate hybrid of the author's opinion and the Public Opinion. The chorus wore masks, to make the distinction between a person and a collective explicit.
2. In Film, although actors are eponymous, the person depicted on the screen is Anonymous, playing a role that is still eponymous. Naive theories of Film claim that this is done to offer each spectator the opportunity to identify with or distance themselves from the role and the person via empathy. Proper theories try to uncover and elaborate the 'psychanalytics' through which the spectator himself loses his own identity, being torn between the person and the role, the lights and the shadows on the silver screen.
3. The Media, as originally conceived by the concept of the newspaper, attempted to reinstate the concept of the chorus by publishing heavyweight unsigned "editorial" pieces, which expressed the paper's opinions in first-plural anonymous terms: "what should we do? who are we to believe? should we condemn them or not?".
Unfortunately, these days, Theater (who is the actor, who is the agent and who is the victim), Film (who is watching whom) and Media (what is real and what is not) serve the you-know-who (a famous expression to depict the not-so-anonymous) to exercise power, control, oppression and distortion of reality.
Personally, I prefer to remain a Nobody (Outis in ancient Greek), best defined by Oedipus when he said: “Cyclops, you asked what I am called, and promised me a gift, so I shall tell you what my name is. I am Nobody. Nobody is what I’m known as by my father, mother, friends and all.”
When the name is revealed, mystery, and Life itself, simply vanish in thin ashes.
What surprises me a bit about Guy Fawkes masks as symbol of freedom, is that Guy Fawkes fought on the side of an oppressive government against a rebellious upstart Republic that wanted autonomy and freedom of religion. Fawkes was a religious extremist, and had no interest whatsoever in real freedom.
But I admit I've never seen V for Vendetta. Apparently that movie trumps historic fact.
if you were to analyze anonymous's larger domain of overlapping grievances, you would characterize what anonymous is about. and you would also describe the motivation that brings people together under the banner of anonymous. this list of grievances can accurately described as internet freedoms
so, for example, anonymous has nothing to do with islamic militant fundamentalism, which, like anonymous, is also largely organic in nature and self-organizing around a set of grievances. now let's say, just for the cachet, some islamic militants started calling themselves anonymous. would you agree that that was still anonymous? of course it isn't the same anonymous: islamic fundamentalism, ANY religious fundamentalism, is no friend of internet freedoms
therefore, the definition of anonymous as put forth in this article is wrong. it is not true that anyone can call themselves anonymous. only those working within the larger agenda of internet freedom. for scattershot, random short term purposes, yes, but you have to be motivated by the idea of internet freedoms to claim the true mantle of anonymous
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Puddi. Puddi puddi puddi.
I'm saying sometimes the ones in power can be hard of hearing (read: fascist). In such cases, a coup is often the only remaining recourse.
Sadly the policies and ideology of many of the people advocating coups and violence ("second amendment solutions") are as abhorrent as the current policies and ideologies of the current government to me. That is one of the problems I have, to be motivated enough to advocate a coup you must have a very strong ideological stake. People with very strong ideological stakes are generally tyrants in training, who find issue with competing ideologies.
If I managed to overthrow the government and instilled one that was more in line with my ideology, you'd probably hate it (I'm more in favor of European style light socialism than Slashdotty Libertarianism). If the Fungelicals managed a coup, everyone but Fungelicals would hate it. If the Tea Parties managed to overthrow the government pretty much everyone would hate it outside of the Tea Partiers. If Libertarians won, everyone would hate it but... you get the idea.
If we were in a truly repressive regime, Like Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya (or the other current hotspots) I would be hooting a different horn, obviously. Our government isn't doing so well, but we have leagues to go before we actually hit the point where we might need to pick up arms. There still remain non-violent "legitimate" solutions to our problems.
The other problem is practical. Its the "what now?" problem. Most coups might start with very noble goals (actually most coups are started by would-be despots who want a bigger slice of the pie, but thats neither here nor there), but after the offending government is removed things collapse. Coups that end better than the old regime for the public are very rare.
If you still believe the vote has any power or meaning, well I'm afraid I am wasting my words on you.
It would be more meaningful if people actually did it. It would be more meaningful if the American people stopped being ignorant, ill-informed, and apathetic. That is the largest problem we face politically, the American people. We, like all ill democracies (or other governments founded on those principles) have the government we, collectively, deserve. Hell, a large step forward would be people voting for their own interests, and not the interests fed to them by politicos and the media.
Another big step forward would be adopting rational, informed, debate on a national scale; and burying the current rapid, dogmatic, partisanship in a shallow grave. The day a "Tea Party" type can sit down with a "Socialist" and have a decent conversation on ideals without resorting to slurs, insults, and calls to ideological purity, is the day America starts turning around (its a small step, but a good one). Also the day we realize that things aren't about "me and my benefit and ideals" and are instead about "us Americans in general".
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The Scientology connection to Anonymous was something I predicted in a scientology lawsuit deposition clear back in 1996.
:-)
Henson: well it comes off the recreation budget. [He is making fun of this expensive lawyer, and it's getting Lieberman's goat.] This is training for the big action, Henson says. Lieberman takes the bait: What's that?
Henson: when some major government finally decides to really sit down hard on free speech on the net.
Lieberman spends a few minutes in a halfhearted attempt to get Henson to say something seditious, but gives up quickly. Perhaps it occurs to him that he is being trolled.
Lieberman: so you welcome this [lawsuit] as a training exercise?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.org.eff.talk/msg/33112ae138985240?hl=en%E8%85%98ae138985240&
Anonymous ("the net") certainly used scientology as a training exercise starting in early 2008 that later figured into their defense of Wikileaks and their support for the various rebellions in the Islamic world.
That first Anon picket of scientology really impressed me when 9,000 people turned out. That was 100 times larger than any previous picket against the cult. I think it was instructive to Anon as well to see just how many would take part in something relatively risky. A number of people have been subjected to scn's legal attacks.
Keith Henson
PS Excellent article even if it does read somewhat like a PhD thesis.
End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain