Slashdot Mirror


Member Claims Anonymous "Might Well Be the Most Powerful Organization On Earth"

wasimkadak writes in with an interview with Anonymous member "Commander X" in which he talks about how the hacktivists are the most powerful group on the planet. "Christopher Doyon, a.k.a. Commander X, sits atop a hillside in an undisclosed location in Canada, watching a reporter and photographer make their way along a narrow path to join him, away from the prying eyes of law enforcement. It's been a few weeks of encrypted emails back and forth, working out the security protocol to follow for interviewing Doyon, one of the brains behind Anonymous, now a fugitive from the FBI. Doyon, who readily admits taking part in some of the highest-profile hacktivist attacks on websites last year — from Tunisia to Orlando, Sony to PayPal — was arrested in September for a comparatively minor assault on the county website of Santa Cruz, Calif., where he was living, in retaliation for the town forcibly removing a homeless encampment on the courthouse steps. The 'virtual sit-in' lasted half an hour. For that, Doyon is facing 15 years in jail."

241 comments

  1. Most powerful? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Most powerful? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also less powerful than Amazon's cloud hosting or Lolita City which survived Anonymous' best efforts (sadly).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Most powerful? by ddd0004 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, not counting those guys, because getting beheaded is the ultimate DOS attack.

    3. Re:Most powerful? by niftydude · · Score: 4, Funny

      Commander X is dreaming, I'm the most powerful organism on earth, who has the most powerful orgasms on earth, due to the fact that I have the most powerful organs on earth, and every so often I pop over to Utah to play the most powerful pipe organ on earth, and why the HELL am I reading an interview with a megalomaniacal fugitive, and also, how can a fugitive still have delusions of megalomania?

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    4. Re:Most powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course they are powerful, look at all the laws Anonymous has passed.

    5. Re:Most powerful? by ormico · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahahahahaha! Thats just too much.

    6. Re:Most powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I checked Wikipedia: they were going to release information on Zeta only because they had kidnapped an anonymous member. Los Zetas actually released their member, that's why they rescinded on OpCartel:

      On 6 October 2011 a man identified himself as a member of Anonymous posted a video on the Internet (YouTube) under the account MrAnonymousguyfawkes stating that Los Zetas had kidnapped one of their group members and demanded Los Zetas Cartel release the individual.

      ...Meanwhile, a retired head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Puerto Rico, Mike Vigil, warned that "Los Zetas should take Anonymous seriously."...

      ...On 4 November 2011, Anonymous posted on the Iberoamerican Blog that the kidnapped member had been released and that they had confirmed his identity. They also stated that they would not be moving forward with releasing the information they had of several cartel members.

    7. Re:Most powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lolita City? Who's the mayor, Pedobear?

    8. Re:Most powerful? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is funny how people who seem to get a little power, think they are the most powerful person in the world. I see this with Middle managers who think they are Hot stuff, because they are high enough for the CEO to pay attention to him, or have a team with some control. They just get mad with power. When you go and start thinking how powerful you are, that usually means you have lost your way, and you are in too much of a power kick to get any real work done.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Most powerful? by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Out of every bond movie, has Bond ever had to sneak into Canada to go after a big bad guy? He could have at least had a meeting at some high stakes Casino.

    10. Re:Most powerful? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Just wait until more UAVs are in use. Propellers make good weapons.

    11. Re:Most powerful? by nomel · · Score: 2

      In other news, in a Slashdot interview with Slashdot user "anonymous coward", "anonymous coward" claims to be the most powerful and intelligent user, in the world.

    12. Re:Most powerful? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

      Used to be. Princess Molestia took over in 2011.

    13. Re:Most powerful? by blofeld42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Generally speaking, the leaders of the most powerful organization in the world don't have to arrange interviews in remote locations in order to avoid being arrested and thrown into prison.

    14. Re:Most powerful? by spintriae · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fact that they even attempted to DDoS EC2 shows they are nothing more than script kiddies. EC2 is not a PIII in Amazon's broom closest. It's a large scale server infrastructure designed by some of the smartest hackers in the world explicitly to withstand incredibly high traffic. Any legitimate hacker could have explained that to them, but they managed to get well passed the planning stage of their little DDoS with not a single one of them mentioning it?

    15. Re:Most powerful? by miltonw · · Score: 2

      If he is a member of the "most powerful organization on Earth", why is he in hiding? What a dork!

    16. Re:Most powerful? by Pope · · Score: 1

      Because the weed is just that good!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    17. Re:Most powerful? by N_Piper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you expand "Anonymous" to mean technically savvy individuals who share one or more cause in common with Anonymous who are willing to put forward work towards their own pet peeve, then yes they could be the most powerful group in the internet, with potential sleeper agents in every group in the world.

      However that's like calling socially active citizens the most powerful group in any given country, any group active enough to destabilize the status quo is broken up and a silent majority dislikes the chosen tactics of the vocal minority fracturing it and leading fewer to join the larger cause.
      But that's just my two cents

      On a related topic is a DDoS the new Picket Line?

    18. Re:Most powerful? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      . When you go and start thinking how powerful you are, that usually means you have lost your way, and you are in too much of a power kick to get any real work done.

      But how can you be prudent with that power if you do not think seriously about it ? I would correct your statement by replacing thinking with proselytizing or proclaiming.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    19. Re:Most powerful? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Well keep in mind, they're an angry mob and aren't incredibly well-organized.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re:Most powerful? by Dan541 · · Score: 2

      The most powerful organisation on Earth, has failed to make any significant difference.

      The most powerful organisations in all of human history are the copyright groups. Never in history has anyone had such a vast global reach as do the copyright owners. Its to the point where you don't have to commit any crime in order to be locked up. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O'Dwyer

      Anonymous has a long way to go. Becoming something more than petty thugs would be a good start.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    21. Re:Most powerful? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      With 'Anonymous' it will always be bound to the cause and to the tactics employed. Obviously the Scientology protests had nothing at all to do with the various DDos attacks and in the whole people involved in one had nothing or very little to do with the other.

      As an activism meme, it is purely people's individual choice when they wish to donate time and effort to a particular cause in the name of 'Anonymous' and what actions as individuals they decide to take. So a school of little fish that coalesce together to take on big fish, disperse and reform into new schools to take on other big fish.

      So not really a single organisation at all but just individuals. Consider the FBI promoted and drove the idea of 'Anonymous' for many months, not only participating in but leading the most publicity generated acts in that period, without doubt those FBI agents were unwitting members of 'Anonymous', doing 'Anonymous's' work in 'Anonymous's' name and did a great deal to promote the idea of 'Anonymous'. So how powerful is 'Anonymous', powerful enough to suck the FBI into doing it's dirty work for it, oh my ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:Most powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that they even attempted to DDoS EC2 shows they are nothing more than script kiddies. EC2 is not a PIII in Amazon's broom closest. It's a large scale server infrastructure designed by some of the smartest hackers in the world explicitly to withstand incredibly high traffic.

      Yes, but... what if they host a bunch of dynamic servers on EC2 and then use those to DDoS other servers on EC2? Huh? Huh? Aha!

    23. Re:Most powerful? by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 1

      Of course they are powerful, look at all the laws Anonymous has passed.

      By 2010, 65 laws existed.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
  2. Oh yea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The new issue of Internet Tough Guy Magazine is out already?

    1. Re:Oh yea? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's right. In this month's issue:

      Walking the Tightrope: How much physical threatening is too much?

      Dealing with NDT "we're dealing with a badass" image macros

      Metal album covers as avatars: the Internet equivalent of a Tapout shirt

      Skill of 1000 hackers: Interview with Ichsun

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Oh yea? by Mordermi · · Score: 1

      Metal album covers as avatars: the Internet equivalent of a Tapout shirt

      Nice.

  3. So wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Being able to interrupt poorly-secured websites for a matter of minutes makes you "the most powerful organization on earth"?

    1. Re:So wait... by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is why, from 1996 to approximately 1999, Slashdot, with its feared cyberterror weapon "the Slashdotting", was widely considered the most powerful organization on earth.

    2. Re:So wait... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to Barnes & Noble, if you can use basic script kiddie tools you're basically the bad guy from Die Hard 4.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:So wait... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I'll have a reply to that in a minute, but right now I'm busy downloading the entire US financial system into my laptop from the backup mainframe. It will be a few minutes, tops.

    4. Re:So wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In related news, Microsoft claims that Windows is the best OS ever and Apple says their iProducts are made using pixie dust.

    5. Re:So wait... by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      Absolutely the most powerful. I don't know what they're waiting for. They should just go ahead and hold the world ransom.

      ONE HUNDRED. BILLION. DOLLARS!!

      sounds about right.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    6. Re:So wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly this was a case of "you only hurt the website you love".

    7. Re:So wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree they wouldn't even make the top 1000 "most powerful organizations on Earth" but... Doesn't matter if they succeed to take down a website for a minute or a year, or even if they succeed at all. What matters is that it gets the online community talking about the issue. That's where the power comes from. Is it the right kind of power or the wrong kind? That's up to each individual to decide.

    8. Re:So wait... by bws111 · · Score: 2

      What exactly is 'the issue'? Also, getting the online community to talk does not require power. On the other hand, getting the online community to shut up would demonstrate real power.

    9. Re:So wait... by Hentes · · Score: 3, Funny

      It would be awesome if we could Slashdot this article, thus putting these n00bz in their place. Come on guys, just a few refreshes...

    10. Re:So wait... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/908/

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    11. Re:So wait... by tqk · · Score: 1

      ... but right now I'm busy downloading the entire US financial system into my laptop from the backup mainframe.

      What? That's how it was done last century! Leave it there, forward copies to der Spiegel and Reuters, and just get on with rummaging around looking for the juicy dirt. Stop wasting time! If it's already on a drive accessible from the network, it's where you want it to be, yes?

      Think like Linus. Make the world do your archiving for you. Sheesh, I gotta do *everybody's* thinking these days?!?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:So wait... by hazah · · Score: 4, Funny

      What exactly is 'the issue'?

      Same issue as ever, Pinky. People trying to take over the world.

    13. Re:So wait... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't try to frighten us with your nerd's ways. Your sad devotion to that ancient DDOS has not helped you conjure up the censored pr0n, or given you clairvoyance enough to find Cmdr Taco's hidden fortressNO CARRIER

    14. Re:So wait... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      They need a moon base first.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    15. Re:So wait... by greg.sanders · · Score: 1

      There is no wrong kind of power. Just wrong reasons for applying it.

    16. Re:So wait... by tqk · · Score: 1

      What exactly is 'the issue'?

      The same as it's always been; the !@#$heads "in power" shouldn't be. From corrupted politicians trying to buy themselves another term, to Scientology, to Gadaffi, to the MafiAA, to the dog's breakfast of TLAs and LEOs, to the old money corporations propped up via regulatory capture, ... This is how "Hope and Change" happens when too many people perceive themselves to have been lied to or victimized. Think 1776, and the Boston Tea Party. They dressed up like Native Americans. Anon just tries to stay anonymous.

      I mean, come on! There's a kid in Toronto who's been in jail for the past year for tweeting about security fencing. His wife's divorcing him. You send out riot police to confront kids throwing snowballs?!? Bradley Manning is a traitor and an enemy of the state for whistleblowing?!?

      Sic semper tyrannus. Mwa, ha, haaa! Popcorn time!

      Okay, Scientology never was "power", but they deserve the torment, and I imagine it's likely entertaining for some (no, not me).

      On the other hand, getting the online community to shut up would demonstrate real power.

      Isn't that what DoS is?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:So wait... by hazah · · Score: 1

      Heh, I thought it was sad :).

    18. Re:So wait... by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      Where do I sign up to work on the Alan Parsons Project?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    19. Re:So wait... by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 2

      This is why, from 1996 to approximately 1999, Slashdot, with its feared cyberterror weapon "the Slashdotting", was widely considered the most powerful organization on earth.

      "RELEASE THE SLASHDOT!!"

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    20. Re:So wait... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      At a recent get together a friends new boyfriend(it was a short romance) was telling us all how realistic and close to the truth all of the hacking information in Die Hard 4 was and that they must have had some 31337(sic) hackers helping scriptwise.
      He painted himself as some sort of elite hacker that the world secretly feared. We had to read between the obvious lines in the conversation to realise his awesomeness as he wasn't going to just tell us straight out that he was the bomb.
      Later that night I got him to agree that the newly invented ALU(An Oracle product) was going to put all of the GPU manufacturers out of business due to its rip snortin' floating point optimisations.
      It was very funny and much caffeinated product was sprayed around the loungeroom. Probably sounds boring but if you had been there we had a lot of fun at the poor guy's expense.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  4. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...he got hit by them, and clearly only the world's best can do that.

  5. Powerful in their own minds, maybe by finlandia1869 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People running around and doing the equivalent of tearing down billboards and defacing storefronts. Big whoops. Last I checked, the major players in the global financial network have actual power. And most central/federal governments, too. This guy needs a cold beer and a sense of proportion. Ok, maybe not the latter; we know that's the one thing that no one in the universe can afford to have. Make it two beers, then.

    1. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was actually going with: The first rule of anonymous: BE ANONYMOUS. The second rule of anonymous: BE ANONYMOUS. The third rule of anonymous: Execute anyone claiming to be anonymous, since they obviously aren't.

    2. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by jimbolauski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Delusion is the most power weapon they have in their arsenal, they realized their "power" when they attacked Scientology, and whipped it off the map. I would compare anonymous to a kid with a stick it's great for poking things bigger then you when there is a cage between you (anonymity), but as soon as there is no cage they have no real power as was shown with the Mexican cartel. If they truly want to see how powerless they are they can go ahead and release the classified data they claim they have and watch how many members are rounded up for treason. They think governments fear them but truly governments don't see them as a threat and as soon as that changes they're in for a sobering realization.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    3. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      15 years.

      powerful in judges minds too. if that's real power or not is a wholly another matter..

      thing with "anonymous" is though that potentially everyone is part of it. usually most "members" (probably like me and you) never do anything except maybe complain on forums about unjust sentences. this is pretty much also why most reporting on the issue is seriously fucked up. should just call them online flash mobs, that's what they are anyways.

      (really, I guess he should have been out raping instead of flooding- hell, you could cause a real by blowing up a dam and claiming insanity and probably get off with less).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wanted to meet you. You've been making your investigative films for what, twenty years now? I wanted to ask: Have you changed anything? You've been uncovering disturbing things all over the world for twenty years now. Have you changed anything? You've worked very hard. Most people have no idea of the kind of work you've done. Intellectuals, critics, and activists follow your films closely, but culturally you're almost invisible, Mr. Pillinger. Have you changed anything?"
      — Tony Stark to John Pillinger, an investigative journalist trying to nail Stark Enterprises for the damages their weapons have done

    5. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by davegravy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're best known for DOS attacks, but Doyon claims in the interview that they do much more than this. For example, the article mentions gaining access to sensitive email databases. He claims they often don't even need to hack to obtain these, that they're being provided by people in governments/corporations.

      Whether it's true or not, I don't know. All I'm saying is that the claim to power is based on more than website defacing that they're best known for.

    6. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't just defacing storefronts.
      It is walking in, distracting them while you steal things and sell it to others.

      Stop thinking Anonymous is 15 year old /b/tards who DDoS.
      Anonymous is a parent set of hundreds of subsets, all from white hat to black hat and the varying grays in between.
      Said 15 year olds are simply a distraction for most.
      They in-fight, they recruit, they attack their own ways. Some of them actually know their shit and regularly browse seclists or in some cases even contribute.
      That alone is a dangerous thing since it elevates them from script-kiddie to actual exploiter using possibly zero-day exploits.

    7. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by honestmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Their *four*...no... *Amongst* their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    8. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When luzsec went on its little run, everyone said they were unstoppable too. Now they're all caught and in jail.

    9. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they got that county government for having the temerity to not let their courthouse steps be turned into a campsite for bums. Good for them.

    10. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by DrXym · · Score: 1
      That's because lulzsec got caught up in their own hype. They really thought they were anonymous super elite hackers. Most of them were nothing of the sort and it only took one slip up for the authorities to arrest someone. Then that was coerced into cooperating and bringing down the others.

      Same will happen to anonymous. The idiots who run LOIC are easy enough to catch. I'm sure security and police agencies have already penetrated far deeper than that and have a few ringleaders in their sights.

    11. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You and they would be dismayed to learn how many have been identified by someone. If they are skilled, and the need is great enough, they'll be arrested and turned. Setting up a case good enough to convince them to turn is man-power intensive; we can't just "go get'm"- it has to be for a reason: a particularly egregious hack, or the need to roll up a branch to use against someone.

    12. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Doyon seems like a wannabe not an important member of Anonymous ...

      No-one can prove they are a member, for the same reason that it is so hard to go after them, there is no leadership, no organisation, it is just an ad-hoc collection of people where the active members drift in and out depending on what is going on currently and if they agree with it today

      Some (many) are I suspect script kiddies, and have no real knowledge, and these will be the ones that the anti-hacker brigade will catch most easily ... a few actually have the detailed knowledge to do real damage beyond DDoS attacks

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    13. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by tqk · · Score: 1

      The third rule of anonymous: Execute anyone claiming to be anonymous, since they obviously aren't.

      Execute, no. Ridicule, yes. No, I don't speak for them, but I do enjoy the show.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by BinarySolo · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this excellent scene from Game of Thrones.

    15. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People running around and doing the equivalent of tearing down billboards and defacing storefronts. Big whoops. Last I checked, the major players in the global financial network have actual power. And most central/federal governments, too. This guy needs a cold beer and a sense of proportion. Ok, maybe not the latter; we know that's the one thing that no one in the universe can afford to have. Make it two beers, then.

      Marchers getting attacked by dogs and water hoses while attempting to cross a bridge may not have seemed powerful, but in the end they turned out to be far more powerful than the establishment that attacked them... so much so that they changed that establishment despite over 100 years of entrenched custom. The acts Anonymous has committed are not what make it powerful, its the ideas it represents.

      According to the article, it represents that the people may have access to a back door way of combatting the elements of the establishment that afflict them. What is interesting is that governments know and have always known the importance of controlling information. Every war a nation commits itself to is normally served with a healthy dose of propaganda... but what if the information machine got out of the hands of its masters? History has shown that when the information monster breaks its leash, it can easily turn upon and devour its former masters.

      Anonymous becomes most formidable when it because enabling in the minds of others.

    16. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      I would compare anonymous to a kid with a stick it's great for poking things bigger then you when there is a cage between you (anonymity)

      Um. Yes. Hence the name "Anonymous."

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    17. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should watch Game of thrones and listen to the bald ball-less guy. I'm loosely paraphrasing here : Power is an illusion, you only retain power over people as long as they believe you do.

        Which is why by the way religion is such a great tool to acquire and keep power. All the "greatest leaders" have seen and said it over and over again throughout history.

        So yeah they don't have power because nobody believes they do, but their claim isn't much more senseless then anyone else's.

    18. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by srussia · · Score: 2

      hell, you could cause a real by blowing up a dam and claiming insanity and probably get off with less

      Probably even less if you claim you accidentally that real!

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    19. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, there's no group Anonymous. The rest of the story is irrelevant. Unless the point of the story is that the anonymous masses are the most powerful group, which is of course true.

    20. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      hell, you could cause a real by blowing up a dam and claiming insanity and probably get off with less

      Probably even less if you claim you accidentally that real!

      I claim it was not a typo but a super sentient government organization messing with my tcp/ip - or the anonymous - or worse, both!

      (I think incident was the word to deposit there..)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    21. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's no group Anonymous. The rest of the story is irrelevant. Unless the point of the story is that the anonymous masses are the most powerful group, which is of course true.

      Depends on the size of the masses.

    22. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oddly... I'd agree with him despite the wanky sounding article. Anonymous may be the most powerful organisation on the planet - because it isn't an organisation. It's an idea. You can attack an organisation, but ideas are bullet proof... yeah... blah blah v for vendetta... but it is true.

      Anonymous is a something that could never have existed before the internet - and the only way to kill it is to kill "unacceptable ideas" with mass surviellance. It has no head, no guiding principles and no fixed membership and it spans the world... and it's very infectious.

      So yes... it's an extremely powerful idea. I don't think people realise just how powerful yet.

    23. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just your run of the mill previous IRC lurker here but I think I recognize the person.

      Giving it some thought I'm not convinced this article is what people including the reporters etc. think it is. My intuitive ixtl says "covert broadcast backchannel" and "keepalive ping". I don't think it's a trigger but it could be *shrug* there never is and never will be any way of telling.

      I hope Anonymous continues to be underestimated by the right groups of people and this claim will likely (perhaps intentionally) do its part in keeping it that way.

      SCARLET

    24. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be mindful of your own delusions as well.

      Are you fighting people or are you fighting a natural consequence?

      Doxing is a parlour game.

    25. Re:Powerful in their own minds, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One problem here: If government isn't frightened of them, then why are they spending so much money and resources trying to catch them?
      If you read up on how much effort was required to catch (and gather enough evidence to charge) some of the Anonymous arrestees, you might think twice about claiming the government doesn't fear them. Every police force in the US and Europe is apparently dedicating absolutely phenomenal amounts of money to catching these guys.

      Food for thought: Aaron Barr made fun of them in the Financial Times and made a cague claim to having identified some of them.
      His entire business was utterly trashed in retaliation, he ended up having to leave the company, numerous and scandalous shady corporate practices were uncovered, and Barr himself ended up becomng so obsessed with Anonymous that he was later fired for spending too much time at work trying to battle them.

      They may exaggerate sometimes, but if you dismiss them and claim that you DON'T need to fear them, you've just played right into their hands. Expect them.

  6. Hmmm.... by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    I expect this organisation would be quaking in its boots if certain other organisations were given free reign to eliminate them. Think FSB, Mossad, the US secrete service, or MI5

    1. Re:Hmmm.... by nman64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      the US secrete service

      Yes, those secretions are to be avoided at all costs.

    2. Re:Hmmm.... by sideslash · · Score: 4, Funny

      the US secrete service

      The sewer authority? I never knew.

    3. Re:Hmmm.... by cheaphomemadeacid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thats what she said

    4. Re:Hmmm.... by Chrisq · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      the US secrete service

      Yes, those secretions are to be avoided at all costs.

      Oh shit!

    5. Re:Hmmm.... by nman64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed.

    6. Re:Hmmm.... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Think FSB, Mossad, the US secret service, or MI5

      One of these does not really belong. For one thing, out of all of those you listed, the Secret Service is not an intelligence/national security apparatus. The Secret Service is tasked with 2 main things: protective services, and criminal investigations related to financial crimes (such as fraud). The more correct choice would have been the CIA, but even then, as an American, I'd rather take on the CIA and MI5 than the Mossad or FSB.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Hmmm.... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I expect this organisation would be quaking in its boots if certain other organisations were given free reign to eliminate them.

      The expression is "free rein." It comes from horseback riding.

    9. Re:Hmmm.... by jimbolauski · · Score: 3, Funny

      the US secrete service

      The sewer authority? I never knew.

      80% of the US is on a sewer system, they can rain down a shit storm of epic proportions.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    10. Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you for making my day!

    11. Re:Hmmm.... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      the US secrete service

      Yes, those secretions are to be avoided at all costs.

      They really dropped the ball during the Clinton administration.

    12. Re:Hmmm.... by tqk · · Score: 1

      Think FSB, Mossad, the US secret service, or MI5

      One of these does not really belong. For one thing, out of all of those you listed, the Secret Service is not an intelligence/national security apparatus.

      Isn't Imports & Customs Enforcement (ICE) part of the SS? Aren't they stealing net domains (with sealed indictments), charging foreigners with conspiracies, impounding privately held assets, etc., etc?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Hmmm.... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Isn't Imports & Customs Enforcement (ICE) part of the SS? Aren't they stealing net domains (with sealed indictments), charging foreigners with conspiracies, impounding privately held assets, etc., etc?

      ICE is part of DHS. Secret Service is, I believe, still under the Treasury.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    14. Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      March 1, 2003 SS -> DHS. You could have checked Wikipedia in under thirty seconds.

    15. Re:Hmmm.... by pjt33 · · Score: 2

      The list is even more confused than you point out. The FSB and MI5 are domestic counter-intelligence organisations, so their US counterpart would be the FBI; however, Mossad is a foreign intelligence agency, and counterpart to the CIA.

  7. Really? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So how many guns and tanks does Anonymous control?

    And yes, I realize this is like Stalin asking how many divisions the Pope has, but hey, at least I didn't Godwin it!

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Really? by mevets · · Score: 2

      |So how many guns and tanks does Anonymous control?

      Maybe all of them?

    2. Re:Really? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      |So how many guns and tanks does Anonymous control?

      Maybe all of them?

      Just the ones that are networked.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Really? by Xphile101361 · · Score: 1

      Only if they aren't ran on the Amazon cloud

    4. Re:Really? by SlippyToad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just the ones that are networked.

      Maybe that Adama fellow is right after all.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    5. Re:Really? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      |So how many guns and tanks does Anonymous control?

      Maybe all of them?

      Never mind the tanks, it's the drones you need to be worried about. Fall out of the sky, dump payload on take-off, land safely in Iran, swap red for blue, just self destruct in mid-air... These things are flown over networks run by nerds, using code written by nerds, on hardware built by nerds. It's nerds all the way down.

      This guy might have a point.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/guns and tanks/drones/ and have a shiver sent down your spine.

    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So unless anonymous invests in some powerful radio transmitters that it puts into global hot zones their chance of penetrating a drone is roughly 0%.
      Literally the network the drones command infrastructure is connected to does not cross into the outside world or can be accessed from the outside world at any point.

    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These things are flown over networks run by nerds, using code written by nerds, on hardware built by nerds. It's nerds all the way down.

      This guy might have a point.

      Nerds are the new turtles.

    9. Re:Really? by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Comon mods, give the points to the person who made the funny- not to TheJokeExplainer

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    10. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the ones that are networked.

      People are networked thus all of them are.

  8. Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So far there are only two types of 'powerful organizations':

    1. Governments, funded by tax payer money, using force (police, armed forces, etc.)
    2. Corporations, funded by consumers and banks, using economic power

    These two have a bit of a love-hate relationship, so their interactions are a fragile balance (how/how much to tax them, incentives, what they can get away with) and often work closely together (ACTA, TPP).

    Having a new, unaligned powerhouse will of course upset that balance. The thing is the old adage 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' will also apply to Anonymous.

    1. Re:Power by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You forgot the criminal equivalents to each category. There are probably drug lords, pirates, etc. in certain parts of the world with economic and/or military power similar to that of a small nation, funded mostly or entirely by the proceeds of their crimes.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Power by Corbets · · Score: 2

      You forgot the criminal equivalents to each category.

      Which, of course, is exactly what Anonymous is. The criminal equivalent to a bunch of bored web surfers.

    3. Re:Power by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      I think the OP was leaning more towards something like the drug cartels - which put Anonymous in its place when they poked the wrong beehive.

    4. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is only one type. Governments are just the enforcement arm of the corporation. It is the corporation (so to speak) that sets up and installs the government.

  9. Vandals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wait, a bunch of douchebag vandals (with a little attempt at extortion thrown in now and then for good measure) think they're the most powerful organization on earth? Oh, that is is good one!

    Remind me again exactly what they have ever accomplished?

    1. Re:Vandals by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      Is it me, or are there others that see the irony in calling Anonymous "douchebag vandals" but only posting as ACs?

      I think Anonymous, by this interview, may have a self-inflated view of themselves, but no more than many others. WikiLeaks, IMHO, has done more change for good. But if nothing else, they've sold billions in new security infrastructure... that probably won't work.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Vandals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being anonymous doesn't make you part of Anonymous, unless you say you are.

    3. Re:Vandals by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Quite the opposite, I believe, but in a different vector.

      Anonymous Cowards perhaps may fear retribution. I don't doubt that Geeknet's user db would crack like an egg, given the right resources, and perhaps already has been breached, but I have no knowledge of this.... just a guess.

      So it's easy to say bad stuff about Big Bad Anonymous if you're an AC, is my point.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:Vandals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know why I post (when I post, and it seldomly happens) as AC ?

      Five main reasons:
      1) Because there is no real reason to post as logged in, apart from not having to type the captcha.
      2) Because I don't even remember my account name. I guess it's mXan or similar, but who cares ?
      3) Because I probably lost the password, unless it's the same I was using many years ago (ye, I know, bad practice)
      4) Because I don't care enough about slashdot to login
      5) Because I don't care enough about slashdot to find a fifth reason.

      But of course, some behavior different from the "Average-Slashdot-User" (tm) is certainly the sign of some big conspiracy somewhere, an hidden agenda or something.

    5. Re:Vandals by Wovel · · Score: 1

      They are a bunch of douche bags, they are not doing change for good. They are soley seeking profit (See the Sony incident).

      Matt

    6. Re:Vandals by tqk · · Score: 1

      Is it me, or are there others that see the irony in calling Anonymous "douchebag vandals" but only posting as ACs?

      You're not alone.

      It's almost as funny as watching an AC complain about the moderation.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  10. And don't forget it! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    "Most powerful on the planet!"

    "We're still not having sex, nerd."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:And don't forget it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most powerful on the planet!"

      "We're still not having sex, nerd."

      So they ARE the most powerful on the planet.

      They're capable of being responsible for human extinction!

  11. 15 years too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they spend one taxpayer dollar housing and feeding him, it's a waste. If I were the judge I'd give him a year of probation without internet as a condition.

    WTF, this is the USA. We're not supposed to have political pris1581-340 8NO CARRIER.

  12. Just lame, dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't members of Anonymous supposed to be, well, anonymous? It's sort of against the entire point of Anon to be going around giving interviews like you're some sort of "leader" of Anonymous or even saying you're a "member"? It's supposed to be a decentralized hivemind; if they do it any other way then they become weak. It's easier to defeat a threat with a face. This dude's a joke.

    1. Re:Just lame, dude by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

      Right, this is almost like a False Flag. (Guy identified by both his full name and Anonymous Handle) at an "undisclosed location"?

      So won't two calls to your friends at the agencies connect the dots? ("Hello Motor Vehicles Dept, where does this guy live and what does he drive?")

      Someone is building a figurative version of that ring they use to stop forest fires around Anonymous, of which this guy is a part.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Just lame, dude by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

      You should probably at least RTFS. He's been indicted of a crime in the US and has fled to Canada. If you can't figure out from that why his handle and real name are being posted together, there's not much hope for you.

    3. Re:Just lame, dude by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      And I think you missed my point.

      The concept of Anonymous is that whether it has a spokesman at all is dubious, but if they were going to talk to a "Commander X", why then give his full name? Why is that somehow important to the credentials to make sure the interview is good?

      "Hi my name is X and I am in Anonymous. Here's a list of another 100 people by name and handle, and they are Anonymous too."

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    4. Re:Just lame, dude by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1
      Except that he didn't name anyone else. Don't pull hyperbole out of your ass. From TFA:

      Thanks to his indictment, Doyon is one of the few Anonymous members whose real name is now publicly known.

      His identity is relevant in that he is notable as the Anonymous member who is actively fleeing to another country to avoid prosecution. The article reveals nothing about his identity that was not already known. To omit his name would be poor journalism, plain and simple.

  13. HAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHAHAH

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    *gasps air*

    HAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAH

  14. Leaders of Powerful Organizations are in the open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure the leaders of the most Powerful Organizations don't have to hide in "undisclosed locations" in Canada.

    "Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls."

  15. Ok, yeah, sure... by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Anonymous first defines itself as being the collective voice of everybody (with a disproportionate representation of 4chan), then claims it's the most powerful organization in the world. Good for you, guys, really... Now you can take on the Tautology Club.

    Unfortunately, I've just formed my own organization, called "Irresponsible", and everybody who doesn't know they're a part of Irresponsible is also a part of it! Because they're irresponsible in knowing what groups they're a part of, see? Since geological processes also don't take responsibility for their actions, they're also part of the organization. Who's the most powerful now, huh?

    Now, Irresponsible! Scream at a wall! Tear down posters! Show how mad you are at everything that doesn't appease you by inconveniencing others!

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Ok, yeah, sure... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Silly, Sarten-X - the Slashdot collective is the most powerful organization in the world. Um ... just look at how much influence alpha geeks have!

      Somebody push this comment to the front page, m'kay?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Ok, yeah, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again one could claim it's not directly Anonymous fault if humans are irresponsible ;-)

  16. Poseurs by roothog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's funny how if a group is *actually* powerful, you never see them making claims that they're powerful. Their actions say more than words.

    Anonymous are just poseurs. Not only are they poseurs on world-scale power, they're poseurs on computer hacking, all they know how to do is run DoS attacks. They're an embarrassment.

    1. Re:Poseurs by bws111 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. It seems to me that in order to be considered 'powerful' you must be capable of making others bend to your will. Exactly what has this so-called 'powerful' organization done other than annoy people?

    2. Re:Poseurs by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      ...like the best way for determining a guy is involved in a criminal enterprise is when he claims to be "a legitimate businessman".

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    3. Re:Poseurs by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      all they know how to do is run DoS attacks

      They've done a few e-mail archive thefts too. Some informative ones at that.

      Just using the collective pronoun hurts, though.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Poseurs by fatphil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Margaret Thatcher: Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    5. Re:Poseurs by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      The people who the media have interviewed who claim to be high up in a non-hierarchical organisation are boastful poseurs .... ...meanwhile the members of Anonymous you really need to worry about are the ones you have never heard of ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  17. Anonymous Member says... by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

    Anonymous member says something stupid. News at 11.

    Sure to be followed up by doing something stupid.

  18. You too can be a hacker! Just download this tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bunch of delusional 15-year-olds with too much time on their hands doing DDoS attacks? Yawn. Wake me up when they do something useful.

  19. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does crap like this hit the frontpage?

  20. Murderers get less time in jail by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    The old people that run the USA seem to be major technophobe. I'm surprised they don't arrest people for knowing how to program computers.

    I bet he would have gotten less than 2 years if her used a paintball gun to deface the court house instead of the web site.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:Murderers get less time in jail by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can we stop with this stupid meme already? 15 years is the MAXIMUM sentence he COULD receive if convicted on all counts. Do you know what the maximum sentence is for murder? Life in prison without possibility of parole, or death, depending on where you are.

    2. Re:Murderers get less time in jail by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Here's a Clue: the technology you live with and take for granted every day was invented by old people who are smarter than you will ever even dream of being.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kilby

      Now get off my lawn.

  21. Online graffiti bigger than H-Bombs and money by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Sure sure. Of COURSE it is.....

  22. The Most Powerful... by mlauzon · · Score: 1

    Organisation on Earth is the Illuminati and the other ultra-secret societies that are either branches of, off-shoots of, or are just associated with the Illuminati!

    1. Re:The Most Powerful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good point, but what is the difference between the Illuminati and the Bilderberg group?

      Are they both secret organisations? or are they one and the same?

    2. Re:The Most Powerful... by mlauzon · · Score: 1

      Did you somehow miss the following: ...branches of, off-shoots of, or are just associated with...

    3. Re:The Most Powerful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, no, we the Illuminati are nothing much today except a bunch of middle-aged, science-savvy people who post as AC on Slashdot, sometimes.

  23. IPO by Sperbels · · Score: 3, Funny

    Quick! Do an IPO before people realize how stupid this assessment is!

  24. Um... no. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Unless Anon can call in an airstrike, or single-handedly cripple a first-world nation's financial system, they don't know what "power" is.

    Big talk from a guy in hiding.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Um... no. by doston · · Score: 1

      Unless Anon can call in an airstrike, or single-handedly cripple a first-world nation's financial system, they don't know what "power" is. Big talk from a guy in hiding.

      Yeah the only thing that can cripple a first world financial system is a first world financial system.

  25. Most Annoying Maybe by Xphile101361 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else wish these Jesters got the media attention they deserve.... in other words, none?

  26. Of course it's silly, BUT... by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anonymous is another (clearly not the first) example of what I'll for lack of a better term, call a "virtual nation".

    It's obvious that the internet allows rapid worldwide communication. It's also obvious that it allows new aggregations of people to sort themselves out - that you can draw together like-minded people from all over the globe.
    What's less-than-obvious is to call these aggregates "virtual nations".

    But take a look at it from a slightly different perspective. People whose primary news source is Fox news live in the Unites States of America, and are quite proud of the fact. People whose primary news source is NPR also live in the United States of America, and are also quite proud of that fact. But when you ask the two groups of people what they thing the United States of America really is, beyond simple geographic attributes, you get two very different answers, two very different sets of allegiances. It's almost like they live in different nations. Perhaps in some sort of virtual way, they do.

    But perhaps the best and worst example of a virtual nation is Al Qaeda. There is a group of people whose allegiance has little to do with physical boarders. Their sense of belonging, their cause, their peers transcend the mere physical. (Note that interesting characteristics don't make it good, and in this case, far from it.)

    Anonymous is a less mature, less cohesive, less dangerous version.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Of course it's silly, BUT... by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      You're describing what used to be recognized as "obreption" and "subreption", two crimes under American Common Law. The terms come from the Latin "reptis" (as in "reptile") and refer to crawling towards one thing, or away from another. The crimes have to do with gradual, deliberate efforts to migrate away from the tenets of an established government, and toward another, not-yet-established political system, through the use of social networking. When deliberate, this is likely a form of treason. It's interesting that today most people are unaware of these crimes - only a few historians, and the Vatican, seem to remember them as crimes. The Vatican certainly ought to; it was how they made their initial inroads into the pagan communities when they spread across medieval Europe popping up Gothic cathedrals like McDonald's franchises.

      Anonymous is a less mature, less cohesive, less dangerous version.

      What makes Anonymous dangerous - and I hesitate to use those two words together, because many of them would take it as an ego-boost - is the ignorance of much of the public. When most people today don't have an understanding of the rights and values that founded the Union, let alone how they work, a group of script kiddies with a quasi-anarchic approach is going to seem like a valid thing to join up with. It even has an air of mystique to it, combined with a heady rush that comes with convincing people that they're "doing something meaningful" and "smashing the system".

      News flash: Twelve years of Bush smashed our system. Reagonomics smashed our system. The Kennedy assassination really smashed our system. Want to "do something meaningful"? Make it work again. Learn your rights and how the law actually works, not what the status quo has tried to tell you. Assert your rights, and those of others, using the very structure that was built and put into place to uphold those rights. Gather others together with healthy, unifying philosophies that they can all buy into and support, and which lead to upholding a structure of law and rights that a country needs to have in order to function. The current basis of the system doesn't work for you? Gather people together and patch the system - but make sure you know you and others know what you're doing, and why you're doing it. Make sure your revisions are well-documented so that others may clearly understand them. This is basic coding standards, applied to revising our system. Because to be honest, if the system were code-based, Anonymous would be less a group of script kiddies and more a loose collection of people releasing borked code and malware, and calling it good.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    2. Re:Of course it's silly, BUT... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Assert your rights, and those of others, using the very structure that was built and put into place to uphold those rights. Gather others together with healthy, unifying philosophies that they can all buy into and support, and which lead to upholding a structure of law and rights that a country needs to have in order to function. The current basis of the system doesn't work for you? Gather people together and patch the system - but make sure you know you and others know what you're doing, and why you're doing it.

      These are all noble sentiments and I have participated and conducted such activities myself because I want to be free, not the illusion of free. History has shown, however, that these are the first people that are rounded up and disappeared when the shift in power occurs. I think the thing that people don't recognise is that anon is changing the landscape of information availability and that many of the things we know are being hidden from us can be made available. That because the vectors for this information availability exist some people are awoken to the possibility the they can be educated by this hidden knowledge and knowing is the prerequisite to the statement you have made, your call to action.

      The tactics of asymmetric warfare doesn't just apply to bullets. Asymmetric *information* warfare is a new construct, what makes it novel is that it's shape is now amorphous, even if anonymous don't know it. Our entire society is controlled by information control, it's why apathy exists, because people are either too afraid or not informed enough to act. As our society begins to wake to this I suspect that more of what you propose will become probable because it becomes more possible.

      Many will call their claims bluster, script kiddies etc, so what, they are doing something, it is their expression of democracy. I have no problem with *any* expression of democracy even if it is an idea that is still maturing. I hope it does and I wish them every success.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  27. Occupy Anonymous by tpstigers · · Score: 1, Funny

    Idiot.

    1. Re:Occupy Anonymous by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Oh, man, I am SO putting that subject line on a T-shirt. Now all I need is an appropriate illustration that can go in 1-color silkscreen!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Occupy Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heh'd.

  28. Anyone can be a part of Anonymous by Stonent1 · · Score: 2

    It seems like any hacker can do something and claim to be part of Anonymous. Just like any middle eastern group can claim to be part of Al Qaeda or Hamas. Osama Bin Laden actually wrote that he was concerned that so many groups claiming to be tied to Al Qaeda was confusing and diluting their message and also they didn't like getting credit for shoddy or failed operations.

    1. Re:Anyone can be a part of Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hacker? Any kid who downloads a script can be (actually and just claim to be) part of Anonymous.

      Hey! Look at me! I'm part of Anonymous! Fear my mighty wrath!

      *pew pew*

    2. Re:Anyone can be a part of Anonymous by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      *pew pew*

      LOL!

  29. no Homers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who controls the British crown?
    Who keeps the metric system down?
    We do! We do.

    Who leaves the Atlantis off the maps?
    Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
    We do! We do.

    Who holds back the electric car?
    Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
    We do! We do.

    Who robs cave fish of their sight?
    Who rigs every Oscar night?
    We do! We do.

  30. If they are that powerful, why is he on the run? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, a member of the most powerful organization on earth and he's driven from his home and hiding out on hilltops in Canada?

  31. Nobody suspects the Belgians by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

    Lets face it, the power of the Belgians is NOT the stuff of legend... the only hint you ever really had was the brief appearance of Jean-Claude Van Damme when he decided to dabble in acting.

    Anonymous has NOTHING on the Belgians, or maybe they are the Belgians...?

    1. Re:Nobody suspects the Belgians by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Acting? I think you'll find it's the *dancing* that he's really notorious for!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VxtEGsssxE
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD1Usk0DYc0
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIUlVAjsIFw

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    2. Re:Nobody suspects the Belgians by Shirogitsune · · Score: 1

      I thought it was all about the waffles.

    3. Re:Nobody suspects the Belgians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous has NOTHING on the Belgians, or maybe they are the Belgians...?

      So what you're saying is that Anonymous doesn't exist!?

    4. Re:Nobody suspects the Belgians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah and yanks mistook it for acting, hired him and gave him money and toyboys.

  32. Very well... by DarkIye · · Score: 1

    It appears it has become time to abandon the Slashdot comments section.

  33. Hacking vs. Zerging by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

    DDoS = Zerging = not interesting/powerful/intimidating to anyone but a web admin.

    1. Re:Hacking vs. Zerging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DDoS = Zerging = not interesting/powerful/intimidating to anyone but a poorly-equipped webadmin with no understanding of and/or budgeting for basic network defense.

      FTFY

  34. 15 years??? by Wahakalaka · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong DDOSing a courthouse is pretty dumb, but 15 years?

    --
    The truth is somewhere in the middle.
  35. HEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys have a heart

    These people are fighting the good fight

  36. some monty python is called for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

  37. The people by lwriemen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last I checked, the major players in the global financial network have actual power. And most central/federal governments, too.

    Only the people have the actual power. Financiers, governments, crackers, drug cartels, religions, etc. exist solely at the will of the people.

    1. Re:The people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ^ mod this up

    2. Re:The people by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last I checked, the major players in the global financial network have actual power. And most central/federal governments, too.

      Only the people have the actual power. Financiers, governments, crackers, drug cartels, religions, etc. exist solely at the will of the people.

      Have you taken a good look around lately? The people got cut out of the loop decades ago. Time to wake up and smell the napalm.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:The people by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      I talk of freedom, you talk of the flag
      I talk of revolution, but you'd much rather brag

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:The people by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yes, please tell us how we live in a dystopian society, all is woe, and woe is me, and you, and everyone who looks like you. The little bunny world you imagine never existed, so suck it up and stop acting like a teenager whose father doesn't understand that the use of the car is central to your well-being connectedness with your life's path....blah, blah, woe, alas, blah,...

    5. Re:The people by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the major players in the global financial network have actual power. And most central/federal governments, too.

      Only the people have the actual power. Financiers, governments, crackers, drug cartels, religions, etc. exist solely at the will of the people.

      The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
      --Noam Chomsky

      The will of the people is irrelevant when that will can be shaped through effective propaganda.

      The only way to get our power back now is to fight for a free and open internet. The powers that be know this, and will continue to fight against us under the guise of "anti piracy". Do not be fooled, these people are not stupid. They are quite aware that lost sales through piracy is negligible to their bottom line. The real loss to them is the total control over the distribution channels, and thus, control over the national dialog of opinion.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    6. Re:The people by lwriemen · · Score: 1

      People only get cut out of the loop by their own (in)actions. In the USA, the people have happily traded jobs for consumerism, (a false sense of) security for liberty, etc. Now the stupidity has become obvious, and they are starting to wake up.

    7. Re:The people by wrook · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the major players in the global financial network have actual power. And most central/federal governments, too.

      Only the people have the actual power. Financiers, governments, crackers, drug cartels, religions, etc. exist solely at the will of the people.

      Have you taken a good look around lately? The people got cut out of the loop decades ago. Time to wake up and smell the napalm.

      Large masses of people do have power over the few at the top, the issue is whether or not they choose to exercise that power. The success of the few at the top comes from convincing the many that they are better off with the status quo. It is trivial to take down a bank. Just convince enough people to withdraw their money from the bank. Or alternatively (in countries where the peons have no savings like the US) convince them to stop paying their loans. Do it to enough banks and you collapse the entire economy. Or convince everyone to stop showing up for work. That will do it too.

      The power of the people at the top over the broad base of people is illusory. But that does not mean that the power they have over individuals is illusory. As long as they can convince everyone to continue with the status quo, they can do whatever they like to an individual (or several individuals).

      It is important for people to realize that the privaledge of the few is a choice of the many. We allow the few power because we believe that the current situation is better than the alternative. If that belief changes, the power dissolves.

    8. Re:The people by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I talk of freedom, you talk of the flag
      I talk of revolution, but you'd much rather brag

      Well it leaves me quite erect!
      Great song, was very happy to see them perform it in their prime while crowd-surfing. Appropriate, hilariously sardonic, but I think the reference is lost on most of the /. audience.
      look where all this talking got us baby!!!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:The people by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the major players in the global financial network have actual power. And most central/federal governments, too.

      Only the people have the actual power. Financiers, governments, crackers, drug cartels, religions, etc. exist solely at the apathy of the people.

      FTFY

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    10. Re:The people by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The will of the people is irrelevant when that will can be shaped through effective propaganda.

      The only way to get our power back now is to fight for a free and open internet. The powers that be know this, and will continue to fight against us under the guise of "anti piracy". Do not be fooled, these people are not stupid. They are quite aware that lost sales through piracy is negligible to their bottom line. The real loss to them is the total control over the distribution channels, and thus, control over the national dialog of opinion.

      Indeed, Insightful++. Few people have the actual energy to type or formulate an opinion formed in *gasp* thinking. Which means it's even less likely that these people would even write to a politician in their own language expressing their will. These quotes spring to mind that resonant over today's society;

      "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler
      "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion." - Joseph Goebbels
      "Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction." - Adolf Hitler

      This is the world we live in. The tools made to educate and free us are being subverted to brainwash and enslave us.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  38. "Commander X" by SlippyToad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The most powerful organization on the planet doesn't give interviews from an undisclosed location.

    I like what Anonymous represents, and much of the hacking that they've engaged in has had a populist appeal, but they are self-limited by their anonymity, and obviously they're no more the drivers of our social change than OBL was . . . he also gave his interviews from an undisclosed location.

    If I were Anonymous or a member thereof, I'd be looking for a wealthy socially-conscious sponsor to legitimize what I was doing . . . and take the conversation they are trying to have out in the open, where it can't be dismissed.

    Until they do that, they're just going to be treated like cyber-terrorists. I suspect that the need that Anonymous is attempting to fill will be met by someone else, wiser and cleverer.

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    1. Re:"Commander X" by Tom · · Score: 1

      If I were Anonymous or a member thereof, I'd be looking for a wealthy socially-conscious sponsor to legitimize what I was doing . . . and take the conversation they are trying to have out in the open, where it can't be dismissed.

      But that would be accepting the rules of the game, when what they are doing is challenging them.

      Ghandi didn't play by the rules, and neither did Rosa Park. Neither did the Unabomber. Where on the scale inbetween those extremes Anonymous lies I leave to you, but the point is that challenging the rules means breaking those you disagree with.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:"Commander X" by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Well, it is fitting that you chose those three examples, because they do perfectly illustrate the situation.

      Ghandi and Rosa Parks (and other civil rights leaders) were not anonymous. You knew who they were. They did not hide out like cowards. They were willing to undergo much personal sacrifice for what they believed in. And perhaps most importantly, you knew exactly what they were unhappy with, and you knew exactly what changes they wanted to remedy the situation. The situations they put themselves in shined a light on the problems, and a public who hadn't given these issues much thought could see how unfair the situations were. The public could see that the changes demanded would either positively affect them directly, or at the very least would correct some injustices without having too negative an impact on their lives.

      The Unabomber on the other hand was anonymous. Nobody knew who he was or what he wanted, only that he was out to cause harm. When he finally did get his manifesto published the public could see that this was just some nut who basically hated everything about modern society. There was no specific grievance that could be addressed. He had zero support from the public, and all his actions accomplished was getting him locked up.

      Anonymous (and Occupy, for that matter) are far closer to the Unabomber than the first two. Nobody knows who they are, there is no face to associate with the 'movement'. Nobody knows what it is that they want (which seems to change with the wind), only that they seem to hate everything and everyone. They have zero public support, and are unlikely to ever gain any using the tactics they have chosen. They are in no way 'game-changers', they are simple nuisances to be dealt with.

    3. Re:"Commander X" by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well, it is fitting that you chose those three examples, because they do perfectly illustrate the situation.

      Ghandi and Rosa Parks (and other civil rights leaders) were not anonymous. You knew who they were. They did not hide out like cowards.

      I'd be curious to your reaction if you faced 15 years jail time for protesting the rights of homeless people. Unless you can qualify your statements with the overt actions you've performed to defend democracy I don't think you've earned the right to call this guy a coward. It's fairly obvious he is not stupid.

      Anonymous (and Occupy, for that matter) are far closer to the Unabomber than the first two.

      Trial by jury is optional perhaps?

      Nobody knows who they are, there is no face to associate with the 'movement'.

      Whooosh...

      They have zero public support, and are unlikely to ever gain any using the tactics they have chosen. They are in no way 'game-changers', they are simple nuisances to be dealt with.

      and how would you deal with these nuisances, please feel free to express yourself honestly and in graphic detail.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:"Commander X" by Tom · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      One Occupy (Wall St.) protester put it very well: "The media wants soundbites, but the issues are too complex for soundbites."

      Take some time to become familiar with the movement and you'll realize that while there is no "manifesto", there is a common ground and many of the protesters know what they want. It just can't be summed up in a headline.

      And while Anonymous is, well anonymous obviously, the Occupy protesters aren't. They are not Ghandi, but they are like the followers of Ghandi. They don't hide their faces, they are right out there showing them.

      Anonymous isn't Occupy. They are two results of the same geo-political and social developments.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:"Commander X" by bws111 · · Score: 1

      "The issues are too complex" is a complete cop-out. All that means is "we can't articulate what we want, you figure it out".

      Occupy is like a crying baby. If you are the child's parents you will try to figure out what the baby wants to make it happy. That is your job. If you are a bad parent, you will just try to get the child to shut up by any means necessary. If you are a neighbor of the child you just want it to stop crying, but will not take any action because there is really nothing you can do. However, eventually that baby will grow up and be able to say what it wants/needs. At that point the neighbors can get involved. If the child comes and says 'I need to raise some money to support my Little League team', you can decide whether that is something you want to support or not.

      When Occupy grows up and learns to use it's words then maybe the neighbors will get involved. Until then, just shut up already.

    6. Re:"Commander X" by danaris · · Score: 1

      "The issues are too complex" is a complete cop-out. All that means is "we can't articulate what we want, you figure it out".

      And saying this is more of a cop-out, because that's not what he said.

      What he said, and what the Occupy protesters have been saying, is not "what we want is to complex to describe" or "too complex for you to understand." They've been saying "it's too complex for a headline or soundbite." Which is true.

      What they want includes various things, such as: tax reform to ensure that corporations pay their fair share and people making less than the median income aren't overly burdened (as they are now), stronger regulation of the financial sector to ensure that the conditions that caused the meltdown in 2008 can't happen again (as they could, currently, since the rules haven't materially changed since then), stronger regulation of executive pay to ensure that it can't be so absurdly out of line with both line-worker pay and actual executive performance...

      All of these are things that can be, and have been, clearly articulated, but don't make easy soundbites (like "votes for women," or "equal rights now"), and are difficult to achieve precisely because they are aimed at reducing the power of those who currently have and hoard the power in this country. Congress won't take up issues like these unless they're forced to, because many of them explicitly espouse political platforms that seek the exact opposite of these, and even most of the rest are either directly in the pay of, or deeply afraid of the influence of, the people and entities whose bank accounts would grow by fewer billions each year because of the changes that are wanted here.

      So don't try to dismiss the Occupy movement with a disingenuous, "they're like a crying baby," "they can't figure out what they want," just because you demand a simplistic soundbite so you don't have to actually expend any effort to comprehend their desires.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    7. Re:"Commander X" by Tom · · Score: 1

      "The issues are too complex" is a complete cop-out. All that means is "we can't articulate what we want, you figure it out".

      You are ripping the quote out of context. They are too complex to be put into a nice media soundbite. They require discussion and dialog and the solutions won't be one-liners.

      Occupy is like a crying baby.

      When you pick an unsuitable metaphor, what you do with it only shows how bad your choice was, nothing more.

      A crying baby is one entity, Occupy isn't. That is what has politicians et al so confused (and what it shares with Anonymous): There is no central figure, no leader, no point of attack.

      But that is also what its strength is. You see, over the past decades, politics has changed a lot. It is now a business and the quarterly target is to stay in power. Politicians have learnt to defang grassroots movements by addressing their main issue in a pseudo-solution way. It's a bit of mental judo - they take the force out of the movement by seemingly taking up the issue and then letting it die in committees, implementation details, long-term plans that constantly change and so on.

      Occupy refuses to be reduced to a one-liner and correctly so. The issues that Occupy complains about are complex, and require more than a new law or two, they require fundamental changes to our society and our economic system.

      Example: The financial gambling that triggered (but not caused) the financial crisis needs to be addressed. Simply making it illegal doesn't work because it serves a purpose (liquidity), but ignoring it doesn't work either, because it has grown from a useful part of the market to a dominant and destructive force. More than 10 years ago, when I worked at the stock market for a while, we already knew that about 90% of all trading done is pure speculation with no intent of ever interfacing with the real economy. Today, that number is probably 99%. But the exchange was never intended to be a gambling hall, and speculation served the purpose of facilitating trade and providing liquidity.

      Basically, the dogs have taken over the sheep farm. You need some of them, but when the whole farm is full of them, you have a problem. You need to curb it back, not wipe it out. How to do that is a non-trivial question and very likely contains many sub-parts.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  39. FBI by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    Yet the "most powerful organization on Earth" needs to skip borders to run away from the FBI.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  40. Meh. by dskoll · · Score: 2

    Anonymous are loud-mouthed vandals and computer criminals. I give a big cheer whenever law-enforcement officials catch some of them.

    They give hackers a bad name.

    1. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then again anonymous is anyone who wants it to be. it's not an organization per say (contrarily to what TFA believes)
      Meaning good people can cover behind anonymous as well as bad people.

      'Hackers' have and will always have a bad name. You're talking of the kind of hackers who break into people's systems. As leet as it sounds it's never going to be a completely good thing.

    2. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just be glad SOMEONE is shaking things up. I dont generally condone their shit but, i condone the status quo MUCH less...we are REALLY fucked given the powers that be

  41. Bahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just reading the title caused me to spit up my fruit loops.

  42. not that powerful (yet) by DynamoJoe · · Score: 1

    If you can't deploy nuclear weapons, you're not the most powerful organization on earth. Then again, if they have root at a Chinese missle silo, I may be wrong.

    --
    bah.
  43. Ruthless efficiency? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am afraid that Commander X would seem to have been introduced neither to the FSB nor to Mossad. We know that because he hasn't yet had either a polonium milkshake or a Semtex phone.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  44. Re:Leaders of Powerful Organizations are in the op by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    As Nixon once said, "Once you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  45. tsk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They aren't at least until they can hack Castle Greyskull's servers

  46. Powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess hiding on a Canadian hilltop makes you powerful.

  47. Most powerful? by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    If Anonymous is so powerful, then why is one of its major "leaders" hiding in Canada?

  48. No Times frontpage yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until there is a Guy Fawkes mask on the cower of the Times magazine, I'm the most powerful organization on the planet.

  49. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read that prostitutes don't mind them much, if the price is high enough.

  50. Why didn't he just put his iPod ... by Dragged+Down+by+the · · Score: 1

    in the hole in his ear?

  51. Delusions of relevancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A powerful organization is an entity that matters. Anonymous is the equivalent of a bunch of taggers - nothing they do will be remembered next week.

  52. We're gonna pout! by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Warning! If the world does not admit that Anonymous is the most powerful organization on the planet, we're going to pout.

    And deface some websites.

    And run some script-kiddie tools.

    But most dangerous of all: we'll put out another robotic-voice video of someone in a Guy Fawkes mask!

    You have been warned!

    Love, Anonymous

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  53. Re:Leaders of Powerful Organizations are in the op by wmbetts · · Score: 1

    Depends on what they have to lose and how strong the belief in what their doing is.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
  54. At first I was sceptical... by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

    ... But then I realized just how many billions of dollars are being spent and the justification is to protect against 'cyber terrorists' like Anonymous.

    They might have a case as the most dangerous organization on Earth! Because certainly our politicians and businesses wouldn't just use them as a convenient scapegoat as a method to get funding and appropriations, right? Right?

  55. There is no leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You ever think that all these stupid twits claiming to be the leader of an organisation that by definition is not an organistaion, are part of a massive false flag operation designed to ensure that the common man doesn't attempt any direct action of his own?

    It's losers on the internet engaging in free association to spread mayhem and chaos because there's nothing better to do and we've got no future. That is all.

  56. Iraqi Information Minister? Is that you?!? by Cigarra · · Score: 1

    It certainly sounds like you!

    --
    I don't have a sig.
  57. operation dildostorm?! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    80% of the US is on a sewer system, they can rain down a shit storm of epic proportions.

    Theodore Sturgeon would like a word with you...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  58. What's taking so long? by J4 · · Score: 1

    So when can we expect Utopia to be completed? I mean, they're _hackers_; If they can't do it nobody can!
    Sarcasm, eh?

  59. Video clips of the interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I found some video from the interview they did. It looks legit..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJA30w1TAXc

  60. Forgive me for wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But if they're so all powerful, then why is this tosser known by the authorities (FBI) and on the run from them. Shouldn't he be impervious to their feeble attempts?

    If they want, they'll find him pretty quickly, especially as the reporters movements are probably ridiculously easy to trace.

  61. My organization is larger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel the same way about Oprah's book club...and YES, I am a member!

  62. BS by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    As Anonymous isn't an organization at all, anyone can call him/herself "anonymous", there is no real group with that name, it's all just groups of hackers and scriptkiddies..

  63. Freedom of speech by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    Just like where there's a lack of freedom of speech, noone is complaining about it.

  64. for the lulz! by IsoRashi · · Score: 1

    I can only imagine that's why they made this statement...

    --
    This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
  65. Clealy this is an effort to place a person where.. by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ...it has been being avoided in doing so.... because TPTB need a person to shoot down to take down the whole.
    For whoever this guy was or is , is of no consequence to the idea, whose time has come.

    And the power is with the people, the tax payers and they need to tell government where to spend the taxes they pay, me regarding mine and you regarding yours.

    This core change really is quite simple and its true to the original Hackers Ethic, Mistrust authority — promote decentralization.

    And that means this guy is NOT going to be anyone's centralization.... Because we know their only purpose is to be used by the powers that be, to take down the whole. And for that he is nothing.

  66. Re:Clealy this is an effort to place a person wher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, see your doctor and get the dosage adjusted before it's too late.

  67. Most Powerful but by wganz · · Score: 1

    Ironic that they claim to have so much power but are afraid of a flat foot cop on the beat with a pair of handcuffs.

  68. oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am Anonymous

  69. fake or troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this guy (Doney) for real? If he really just said all that, and actually experienced that, and has that information, every agency on the planet is hot on his heels right now. So either hes stupid, or amazingly intelligent and somehow managed to avoid all the surveillance cameras on those places.

    Imho, most of what hes saying is bull in order to cause a storm of government activity (on a completely cold trail). If he has any brains at all, the descriptions he gave them were completely random and he just pulled off a massive troll. FOR TEH LULZ!!!1

  70. 15 years? by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He defaced a non-critical local government website. It did not cause any disruption of important services, he did not benefit fiancially or in any other tangible way, and the attack only lasted 30 minutes.
    For that he gets a penalty similar to what he'd get if he'd committed murder one. wow.
    Not that I condone the crime, but any system that far out of touch with reality deserves to be taken down.

    1. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He defaced a non-critical local government website. It did not cause any disruption of important services, he did not benefit fiancially or in any other tangible way, and the attack only lasted 30 minutes.
      For that he gets a penalty similar to what he'd get if he'd committed murder one. wow.
      Not that I condone the crime, but any system that far out of touch with reality deserves to be taken down.

      It does seem to be a rather severe punishment for that particular crime, however 15 years in prison seems a bit lax for murdering a human being.

  71. MUAHAHAHAHA by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I checked Wikipedia: they were going to release information on Zeta only because they had kidnapped an anonymous member. Los Zetas actually released their member, that's why they rescinded on OpCartel:

    On 6 October 2011 a man identified himself as a member of Anonymous posted a video on the Internet (YouTube) under the account MrAnonymousguyfawkes stating that Los Zetas had kidnapped one of their group members and demanded Los Zetas Cartel release the individual.

    ...Meanwhile, a retired head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Puerto Rico, Mike Vigil, warned that "Los Zetas should take Anonymous seriously."...

    ...On 4 November 2011, Anonymous posted on the Iberoamerican Blog that the kidnapped member had been released and that they had confirmed his identity. They also stated that they would not be moving forward with releasing the information they had of several cartel members.

    And you believed it? Here, I have a bridge to sell.

    1. Re:MUAHAHAHAHA by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      And you believed it? Here, I have a bridge to sell.

      There is always hope that a violent man will not be violent. There is no hope for a coward.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  72. Just Lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always post as AC because I am too lazy to create a username or log in.

  73. WTF? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    More powerful than the banking cartels that have basically strip minded the US Treasury for TRILLIONS of dollars? I don't think so.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More powerful than the banking cartels that have basically strip minded the US Treasury for TRILLIONS of dollars? I don't think so.

      think all the social security money. ALL of it. and the bankers still have to show up to work every now and then!

  74. With apologies to Gandhi by Torodung · · Score: 1

    Corollary to:

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    In the event that you make a ridiculous, delusional statement that demands laughter as an appropriate and natural response, you are not on step 2 and therefore destined to win. It is only a reasonable response, and will be followed by an immediate return to step 1. You must strip yourself of your misconceptions before Gandhi's theorem applies.

  75. Re:Clealy this is an effort to place a person wher by 3seas · · Score: 1

    grow some balls and apply your rights and do your duty and tell the government where they are going to spend your taxes.

  76. objectivity please by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    I agree they wouldn't even make the top 1000 "most powerful organizations on Earth" but... Doesn't matter if they succeed to take down a website for a minute or a year, or even if they succeed at all. What matters is that it gets the online community talking

    So do the the Kardashians.

    about the issue.

    What issue?

    That's where the power comes from.

    By that measure the Kardashians are a nuclear-armed superpower or something to that nature.

    Is it the right kind of power or the wrong kind?

    There is no power there. Stop reading too much into this rhetorical, make-believe shit.

    That's up to each individual to decide.

    People deciding that stupid shit is important (exhibit A: the Kardashians) does not necessarily imply that it is important.

  77. Your lending support as am I just posting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To this story.
    One day you will be imprisoned for it, If you do not act now.
    Wake up it is a million time worse than you think it is.
    If your FBI most wanted is your so called script kiddies.

  78. In other news by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot poster claims Internetuser1248 "might be the best lover, and also the coolest person in the known universe"

  79. Organization ? Anonymous is just a name by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    To be part of anonymous, you just have to call yourself anonymous.
    For example, I can deface a website, write "we are legion never forgive never forget blah blah" and it becomes yet another action of anonymous. The anonymous that DDOS MasterCard and the one that hunt down child porn may be completely different groups that don't even know each other.

    Saying that anonymous is a powerful organization is as stupid as saying that the opensource community is a powerful organization. They are certainly powerful, have similar ideas and often work together but they are not an organization.

  80. Of course they are by KingTank · · Score: 1

    Because anybody can be a memeber. It's sort of like saying the human race is the most powerful race. Pretty much trite and meaningless when you think about it.

  81. Actually the "kid" (40) in Toronto is not in jail by tlambert · · Score: 1
  82. Re:Actually the "kid" (40) in Toronto is not in ja by tqk · · Score: 1

    For tweeting about security fences and being into model rocketry.

    He did do a year in lockup waiting for his case to get to court, last I read. Thanks for the link. "Welcome to Canada, kid. Bend over."

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  83. Most Powerful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the Zeta's might have something to say about who holds more power as an organization.

  84. Most powerful quote by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

  85. In theory, I support Anonymous.. but.. by Druegan · · Score: 1

    .. They just seem to hit low-value targets. I mean, yeah, potentially Anonymous could be very, very strong... but Commander X facing 15 years in prison for a 30 minute virtual sit-in on some county level govt website?

    If you're going to risk prison, especially in this police state nation, then I'd say go after something worth the risk. When I see Goldman Sachs actual trading links to the NYSE disrupted.. hell, I don't care if it's just for 15 seconds.. then I'll give them some acknowledgement as being "powerful". But websites? Meh..