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.'"
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.
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.
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.
Why, would you prefer it to be "Social Media Expert" or some other weasel words?
The author actually does a pretty good job, though I'd disagree with some of her points.
But then, I'd yet to find one to say "I really know what Anonymous is!" and not break out his not-sufficiently-humble opinion on the subject - /. experts on Anonymous included.
On a side note, all those writing Anonymous with capital A make me puke. Is it just or does anyone else feel it whores out the concept of anonymity and anonymous?
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.
I'm Synonymous. Exactly the same as Anonymous, just a different name.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.