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.'"
You are over-thinking it. It is simple.
Anyone can be anonymous, but not everyone is Anonymous. An action performed by a member of Anonymous, is not the same as an action by Anonymous. Think of it as a gestalt -it is not, until at some undefined point, it is.
There are leaders within Anonymous. Just because they are not part of a hierarchy does not mean they do not exist. No one appointed them, no one elected them, but others followed them. Leading is not the same as ruling.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
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.
No one appointed them, no one elected them, but others followed them. Leading is not the same as ruling.
+1 Gets It.