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.
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.
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.
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...
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
We are the Canadian Borg. Resistance would be impolite. Please wait to be assimilated. Pour l'assimilation en francais, veuillez appuyer le "2".
-On the internet, no one cares if you're a dog.-
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.
That's what i think every time there is an election in the US!
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
Pay no attention to the man with the UID and the spelling problems, as he clearly is not anonymous.
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
Well there's also a rule 34: "There is a porn of it."
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.