On Anonymous

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Clipclop:

FredTheUndead:

Therumancer:
Well, I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Anonymous isn't quite an organization that anyone can join by claiming to be a member, or even sharing a common ideaology, as far they have one goes. Anonymous is a group one "joins" by the general consensus of the other members making up the core, effectively making them part of the core themselves. Anonymous itself has been very careful to point out that it, and the hordes of /B/ are not the same thing. You even see a divide in 4chan terms between the so called "Oldfags" and the "Newfags" with a clear differance between those who do things, and those who wear Guy Fawkes masks and spout the memes. The big differance is that Anonymous doesn't generally walk around stating who is a member, or part of the core entity, and who is not.

This latest raid on Sony, combined with the recent attention, largeely seemed to panic a bunch of the "Newfags" who are scared of getting "Vanned" because they were playing the role of big-bad hacker, without the skills or protection they professed to have, and are concerned that they were going to be targeted. The whole "Anonymous Civil War" sort of being a sign that the people involved were never part of the Anonymous core on any signifigant level, and all discussion to the contrary, very few people involved probably had anything to do with the actual attacks of did any of the heavy lifting.

One thing about Anonymous, or any hacker group, is that they generally do not DENY doing things. They either take credit, or remain silent and let people wonder. A denial from Anonymous probably means that the person speaking was in no way connected to the actual collective.

If your at all curious, do some reading about the previous generation of big, well known hackers. Groups like "Masters Of Deception" and "Legion Of Doom", along with the war that actually wound up destroying them, assuming it ever really went down like people claim since a lot of people even now say that there never was a great hacker war.

The point being that Anonymous is not really some new phenomena, it's just that with the mainstream getting online, groups like this have become more visible to the mainstream, and due to businesses like Sony being so heavily invested online, they have become increasingly vulnerable, with more people noticing the activities, and more disclosure being forced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people who think they "get" Anonymous, don't really "get" Anonymous. The excuse that it's an idealogy that can't be targeted because anyone can be a member... shades of things like the "Stand Alone Complex" from the Ghost In The Shell Series (ie an event so compelling that it inspired seperate people and groups to be working towards the same goal, to the point of them seeming connected but they actually aren't), is less terrifying than the truth that at the core there are a group of people who are actually doing this, and who society can't deal with... and yes, that pretty much is the case, Anonymous might involve Anonimity and so on, but remember in their real operations real people are actually breaking through this security, it does not occur due to some mass of willpower. The authorities have never been able to deal with hackers very well at all, and really the only reason why MoD and Legion Of Doom ever fell by all accounts was because they went to war with each other (ie it took a hacker group to stop another hacker group) with the police actually being just a tool they used. Independant police actions leading to things like the seizure of the GURPS Cyberpunk book (famously in geek circles) and lots of early "lulz" rather thsan anything tangible. The hackers of that time frame hid behind handles before anyone had each other. The joke being that if the police actually got someone or needed a name to pin responsibility on, with Legion Of Doom they would wind up blaming well known comic book super villains. To this day I don't believe anyone officially knows who Lex Luthor was, is, or if he even existed or was as some have hinted a construct, hiding that Legion Of Doom didn't have an official leader.

I guess the point of my rant is context... I think it's better to try and put Anonymous in line with history and what we know. In the end I think there is some truth to them being a non-organization, where nobody knows who anyone else is, but that does not preclude them from having a membership that actually gets things done. It's just that instead of everyone communicating by say using the names of DC super villains, they all just post anonymously. The people in the core membership probably setting up meeting times and channels, and getting into the core being a matter of simply being let in on when the real business is going down. A lot of these other Anons, well they are also part of Anonymous but largely part of it's disguise, and the fact that they coordinate raids and such as well with mixed results helps add to the whole mystique.

Such are my general thoughts on the subject, in the end we may never know if I'm right. Basically Anonymous manages to be both the collective, and also to have a solid core of membership who do the heavy lifting, and pull off the things that require coordination and detailed knowlege.

More or less what he said. Damn it Shamus, it's blatantly obvious that you go to /v/ from lines in Spoiler Warning Seasons 1 and 2, you shouldn't be playing into this "Anonymous is an actual organization, not some weird protesters borrowing phrases from an image board" thing.

wait wait wait wait WAIT.

wait.

Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.

Yeah 4chan isn't exactly what you seem to think it is. Or what anyone thinks it is.

It's mostly just a place where people talk about anime, comics, film, and video games. This We Are Legion bullshit is just runoff from the /b/ or "Random" board, which the entire rest of the site despises anyway.

Hristo Tzonkov:

Starke:

HankMan:

Okay let's break it down.
First example: Don't recall that, could you provide link. Regardless, when anyone can claim to be a member of an organization, there are bound to be a few dicks.

Someone else may still have the link floating around, but the crux of it was that anon attacked a teenage girl because she refused to expose herself on her webcam when they demanded she do so.

The problem was, this did bring the full weight of anonymous down on her.

HankMan:

Second Example: It's Justin Bieber. Are you accusing Anon of having taste?

So having bad taste is enough to provoke them? Again, aside from being a shitty performer, he didn't do anything to provoke them.

HankMan:
Third Example: Gene Simmons didn't just speak his mind, he openly taunted hackers. I seem to remember a certain pundit making an analogy involving "sticking your dick in a hornet's nest"? Like I told Clipclop: Don't START nuthin, There won't BE nothin. And the last time I checked, Anon didn't exactly put Gene in the poor house.

No. And if you can't remember what Simmons said, please go back and refresh your memory. He didn't say shit about hackers. He was telling the industry what he thought about pirates.

Gene Simmons is in an industry that has shrunk more than 50% in the last decade. That's not random bullshit facts, that's the industry is half the size it was in 2000. You can blame piracy, a shift to a new marketing paradigm, or whatever. When presented with this, Simmons blames piracy.

And in case you've forgotten somehow, piracy is a crime. Flat out, full stop.

He told the industry what they needed to do was get serious about going after direct infringes. "...sue the shit out of them..." He did it with the kind of bravado you'd expect from a (literal) rock star. But at the end of the day he spoke his mind.

There are reasons why the industry doesn't do that right now. I'd explain, but it's not the point at hand.

Anonymous looks at that, says "we support free speech", and attacks him, because they don't support free speech, they support free speech so long as you agree with them.

He wasn't "being an asshole", he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. He was speaking his mind. Anonymous decided they didn't like that, and stomped on him.

Now, you're right, it didn't hurt him, he came back laughing, sneering, and promising revenge, but at the end of the day, it really does take your argument out back, putting a bullet through each of it's knees before finally stabling it in the gut and leaving it to die.

Anon is nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies. They have (I guess you could call it) a little self restraint in that they only go after things they don't like, but they're not predictable about what they will or won't like. And then they hide behind bullshit claims like having no leadership or a belief in freedom of speech.

First off I remember that girl she was 12 and pretending to be 16 smack talking everyone.There was a big viral video of her dad calling out the FBI to arrest the internet.Being bullied for being a bully is the new way of life on the internet.Don't start shit.

Second the industry is built around making money out of other people's talent(or marketing their lack of).I feel no pity for piracy in that industry.Most authors today have said "I'd rather you see my concert and buy some merch than buy my cds" and a lot of them are shifting to a more pirate friendly distribution.Gene Simmons should stick to licking guitars rather than voicing some of his misunderstood ideologies.He yelled out that even a person pirating 1 song should be sued till he doesn't have anything but the shirt on his back.I call that offensive and Anon took measure.

Stop watching Fox News folks.And you've decided the internet of all places to brag about your ideals.Anonymous are lolfreedomfighters and they do it for the lols.The world isn't right and it should change if you have a better idea I'm sure there's someone to listen.

Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.

Clipclop:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.

Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.

Clipclop:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.

So basically what you're saying is that you have a massive hate-on for Anonymous. That's pretty much all you've had to say this whole thread.

Anons have done both good and bad things over the last few years. They're really no worse than any other collection of people, they just have a lot of media attention because they're the first such group on the internet. Really, most of them are nothing more than attention whores, and ranting and raving about how terrible they are just gives them attention. If you want them to stop, ignore them entirely.

Clipclop:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.

If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.

Clipclop:

bombadilillo:

Clipclop:

To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?

Yeah, Hal Turner and Chris Forcand were harrassed.

Good deeds to not exempt someone from bad deeds. Anon engages in far more bad than good, unless you've never actually lurked on a chan and seen their completely unprovoked trolling brigades?

I like how people keep sqauking out the same 5 or 6 good things (and more ironically most of them happened over 4 years ago) they have done, the same names, the same events, and at the same time completely ignore everything else. There is a REASON they are known as the assholes of the internet, or did you forget that to?

So you painting them as all evil and you cant see why others might disagree is fine, but heaven forbid somebody likes/agrees with something they do and doesn't outright condemn them.

I really like The Guardian's technology editor Charles Arthur's description of Anonymous:
It's the internet equivalent of weather.

Clipclop:

HankMan:

Clipclop:

And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?

Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.

To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?

So, so sour about being targeted by anon.

Sure anon may be inconsistent and occasionally wrong, but it is by no stretch as bad as those who are consistently deceptive and fraudulent, like anti-vaccine protesters, homoeopaths, Oprah Winfrey, and other people who spread public misinformation that actively hurts people.
If you want to hate someone, start with Andrew Wakefield. 50+ deaths every year since 2006, and counting.

Hankman, ignore the troll and go back to making ridonkulous puns. Yes, ridonkulous; I have no better word.

Hristo Tzonkov:

Starke:

HankMan:

Okay let's break it down.
First example: Don't recall that, could you provide link. Regardless, when anyone can claim to be a member of an organization, there are bound to be a few dicks.

Someone else may still have the link floating around, but the crux of it was that anon attacked a teenage girl because she refused to expose herself on her webcam when they demanded she do so.

The problem was, this did bring the full weight of anonymous down on her.

HankMan:

Second Example: It's Justin Bieber. Are you accusing Anon of having taste?

So having bad taste is enough to provoke them? Again, aside from being a shitty performer, he didn't do anything to provoke them.

HankMan:
Third Example: Gene Simmons didn't just speak his mind, he openly taunted hackers. I seem to remember a certain pundit making an analogy involving "sticking your dick in a hornet's nest"? Like I told Clipclop: Don't START nuthin, There won't BE nothin. And the last time I checked, Anon didn't exactly put Gene in the poor house.

No. And if you can't remember what Simmons said, please go back and refresh your memory. He didn't say shit about hackers. He was telling the industry what he thought about pirates.

Gene Simmons is in an industry that has shrunk more than 50% in the last decade. That's not random bullshit facts, that's the industry is half the size it was in 2000. You can blame piracy, a shift to a new marketing paradigm, or whatever. When presented with this, Simmons blames piracy.

And in case you've forgotten somehow, piracy is a crime. Flat out, full stop.

He told the industry what they needed to do was get serious about going after direct infringes. "...sue the shit out of them..." He did it with the kind of bravado you'd expect from a (literal) rock star. But at the end of the day he spoke his mind.

There are reasons why the industry doesn't do that right now. I'd explain, but it's not the point at hand.

Anonymous looks at that, says "we support free speech", and attacks him, because they don't support free speech, they support free speech so long as you agree with them.

He wasn't "being an asshole", he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. He was speaking his mind. Anonymous decided they didn't like that, and stomped on him.

Now, you're right, it didn't hurt him, he came back laughing, sneering, and promising revenge, but at the end of the day, it really does take your argument out back, putting a bullet through each of it's knees before finally stabling it in the gut and leaving it to die.

Anon is nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies. They have (I guess you could call it) a little self restraint in that they only go after things they don't like, but they're not predictable about what they will or won't like. And then they hide behind bullshit claims like having no leadership or a belief in freedom of speech.

First off I remember that girl she was 12 and pretending to be 16 smack talking everyone.There was a big viral video of her dad calling out the FBI to arrest the internet.Being bullied for being a bully is the new way of life on the internet.Don't start shit.

Which of course makes it all all right when they told her to take off her shirt, because it's okay if it's a 12 year old, but not if it's a 16 year old. Great, glad we cleared that one up.

Though again, this still sounds more predatory than political.

Hristo Tzonkov:
Second the industry is built around making money out of other people's talent(or marketing their lack of).I feel no pity for piracy in that industry.Most authors today have said "I'd rather you see my concert and buy some merch than buy my cds" and a lot of them are shifting to a more pirate friendly distribution.Gene Simmons should stick to licking guitars rather than voicing some of his misunderstood ideologies.He yelled out that even a person pirating 1 song should be sued till he doesn't have anything but the shirt on his back.I call that offensive and Anon took measure.

Again, the real test of freedom of speech has never been people saying shit you agree with. It's having the maturity to understand that just because someone says something you don't agree with, it doesn't mean you have any moral authority to silence them.

There are a lot of reasons why Gene Simmons was completely off base and insane, but none of them are relevant to this argument. I'd rather he have the ability to spout utterly insane shit so I have the opportunity to point and laugh or at least respond, than letting Anon, or for that matter anyone else, censor him because they don't agree with him.

Hristo Tzonkov:
Stop watching Fox News folks.

I haven't intentionally watched Fox News for more than 30 seconds since 2003. Stop making off base assumptions.

Hristo Tzonkov:
And you've decided the internet of all places to brag about your ideals.Anonymous are lolfreedomfighters and they do it for the lols.The world isn't right and it should change if you have a better idea I'm sure there's someone to listen.

Which is, quite frankly a pretty shitty ideology, especially when they start going off and attacking people for no reason beyond, "hey look it's Justin Bieber."

iDoom46:

Clipclop:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.

If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.

I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the minority. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.

Starke:

HankMan:

snip

Someone else may still have the link floating around, but the crux of it was that anon attacked a teenage girl because she refused to expose herself on her webcam when they demanded she do so.

The problem was, this did bring the full weight of anonymous down on her.

HankMan:

snip

So having bad taste is enough to provoke them? Again, aside from being a shitty performer, he didn't do anything to provoke them.

HankMan:
snip

No. And if you can't remember what Simmons said, please go back and refresh your memory. He didn't say shit about hackers. He was telling the industry what he thought about pirates.

Gene Simmons is in an industry that has shrunk more than 50% in the last decade. That's not random bullshit facts, that's the industry is half the size it was in 2000. You can blame piracy, a shift to a new marketing paradigm, or whatever. When presented with this, Simmons blames piracy.

And in case you've forgotten somehow, piracy is a crime. Flat out, full stop.

He told the industry what they needed to do was get serious about going after direct infringers. "...sue the shit out of them..." He did it with the kind of bravado you'd expect from a (literal) rock star. But at the end of the day he spoke his mind.

There are reasons why the industry doesn't do that right now. I'd explain, but it's not the point at hand.

Anonymous looks at that, says "we support free speech", and attacks him, because they don't support free speech, they support free speech so long as you agree with them.

He wasn't "being an asshole", he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. He was speaking his mind. Anonymous decided they didn't like that, and stomped on him.

Now, you're right, it didn't hurt him, he came back laughing, sneering, and promising revenge, but at the end of the day, it really does take your argument out back, putting a bullet through each of it's knees before finally stabling it in the gut and leaving it to die.

Anon is nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies. They have (I guess you could call it) a little self restraint in that they only go after things they don't like, but they're not predictable about what they will or won't like. And then they hide behind bullshit claims like having no leadership or a belief in freedom of speech.

When exactly did people decide that it was specifically Anonymous who attacked Jessi Slaughter? It's the exact same issue as with the PSN hack, if it was a small splinter group in Anonymous, you can't hold all of Anonymous responsible. In the case of Jessi Slaughter I would sooner primarily blame 4chan, and the few members of /b/ who had the means to actually retrieve information about her.

The Justin Bieber issue was more of a joke then anything, I will be the first to admit it was unnecessary, but in case you forgot most of the members like "teh lulz". I am unaware of any major negative side effects.

Gene Simmons was an idiot. Freedom of speech is one thing, threatening people with law suits and prison rape is a whole other issue.

You're also ignoring the fact that they have done numerous other positive operations and protests. Revealing corruption in the Bank of America, they properly ignored Westboro's threats, they up held their beliefs of freedom of information in the HBGary attack, they helped during the Egyptian revolution by taking down government websites and helping provide internet access, they attacked Tunisian government websites to remove censorship of Wikileaks, and the list goes on.

They absolutely believe in freedom of speech, freedom of information, and de-censorship of the internet and aside from a very select few, they are not a group of bullies.

klasbo:
I really like The Guardian's technology editor Charles Arthur's description of Anonymous:
It's the internet equivalent of weather.

Clipclop:

HankMan:

Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.

To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?

So, so sour about being targeted by anon.

Sure anon may be inconsistent and occasionally wrong, but it is by no stretch as bad as those who are consistently deceptive and fraudulent, like anti-vaccine protesters, homoeopaths, Oprah Winfrey, and other people who spread public misinformation that actively hurts people.
If you want to hate someone, start with Andrew Wakefield. 50+ deaths every year since 2006, and counting.

Hankman, ignore the troll and go back to making ridonkulous puns. Yes, ridonkulous; I have no better word.

I'm a troll because I don't align myself with a bunch of bullies... that doesn't even make any sense. And its not like they guy was even right to begin with, his entire argument was handily broken down and thrown back in his face as complete hypocritical garbage. that's a sad lonely tune your singing there.

FredTheUndead:

Therumancer:
Well, I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Anonymous isn't quite an organization that anyone can join by claiming to be a member, or even sharing a common ideaology, as far they have one goes. Anonymous is a group one "joins" by the general consensus of the other members making up the core, effectively making them part of the core themselves. Anonymous itself has been very careful to point out that it, and the hordes of /B/ are not the same thing. You even see a divide in 4chan terms between the so called "Oldfags" and the "Newfags" with a clear differance between those who do things, and those who wear Guy Fawkes masks and spout the memes. The big differance is that Anonymous doesn't generally walk around stating who is a member, or part of the core entity, and who is not.

This latest raid on Sony, combined with the recent attention, largeely seemed to panic a bunch of the "Newfags" who are scared of getting "Vanned" because they were playing the role of big-bad hacker, without the skills or protection they professed to have, and are concerned that they were going to be targeted. The whole "Anonymous Civil War" sort of being a sign that the people involved were never part of the Anonymous core on any signifigant level, and all discussion to the contrary, very few people involved probably had anything to do with the actual attacks of did any of the heavy lifting.

One thing about Anonymous, or any hacker group, is that they generally do not DENY doing things. They either take credit, or remain silent and let people wonder. A denial from Anonymous probably means that the person speaking was in no way connected to the actual collective.

If your at all curious, do some reading about the previous generation of big, well known hackers. Groups like "Masters Of Deception" and "Legion Of Doom", along with the war that actually wound up destroying them, assuming it ever really went down like people claim since a lot of people even now say that there never was a great hacker war.

The point being that Anonymous is not really some new phenomena, it's just that with the mainstream getting online, groups like this have become more visible to the mainstream, and due to businesses like Sony being so heavily invested online, they have become increasingly vulnerable, with more people noticing the activities, and more disclosure being forced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people who think they "get" Anonymous, don't really "get" Anonymous. The excuse that it's an idealogy that can't be targeted because anyone can be a member... shades of things like the "Stand Alone Complex" from the Ghost In The Shell Series (ie an event so compelling that it inspired seperate people and groups to be working towards the same goal, to the point of them seeming connected but they actually aren't), is less terrifying than the truth that at the core there are a group of people who are actually doing this, and who society can't deal with... and yes, that pretty much is the case, Anonymous might involve Anonimity and so on, but remember in their real operations real people are actually breaking through this security, it does not occur due to some mass of willpower. The authorities have never been able to deal with hackers very well at all, and really the only reason why MoD and Legion Of Doom ever fell by all accounts was because they went to war with each other (ie it took a hacker group to stop another hacker group) with the police actually being just a tool they used. Independant police actions leading to things like the seizure of the GURPS Cyberpunk book (famously in geek circles) and lots of early "lulz" rather thsan anything tangible. The hackers of that time frame hid behind handles before anyone had each other. The joke being that if the police actually got someone or needed a name to pin responsibility on, with Legion Of Doom they would wind up blaming well known comic book super villains. To this day I don't believe anyone officially knows who Lex Luthor was, is, or if he even existed or was as some have hinted a construct, hiding that Legion Of Doom didn't have an official leader.

I guess the point of my rant is context... I think it's better to try and put Anonymous in line with history and what we know. In the end I think there is some truth to them being a non-organization, where nobody knows who anyone else is, but that does not preclude them from having a membership that actually gets things done. It's just that instead of everyone communicating by say using the names of DC super villains, they all just post anonymously. The people in the core membership probably setting up meeting times and channels, and getting into the core being a matter of simply being let in on when the real business is going down. A lot of these other Anons, well they are also part of Anonymous but largely part of it's disguise, and the fact that they coordinate raids and such as well with mixed results helps add to the whole mystique.

Such are my general thoughts on the subject, in the end we may never know if I'm right. Basically Anonymous manages to be both the collective, and also to have a solid core of membership who do the heavy lifting, and pull off the things that require coordination and detailed knowlege.

More or less what he said. Damn it Shamus, it's blatantly obvious that you go to /v/ from lines in Spoiler Warning Seasons 1 and 2, you shouldn't be playing into this "Anonymous is an actual organization, not some weird protesters borrowing phrases from an image board" thing.

[scratches head] I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not from how that reads.

In the end what my basic rant was about is that I think that Anonymous is both an organization and a collective. Basically it's the collective Shamus is talking about built around a core of actual members as part of the camoflauge. Largely because a simple mass idealogy couldn't perform a lot of the more impressive feats Anonymous has been involved in, at the end of the day willpower and shared opinions mean nothing, someone has to do the actual heavy lifting and make things happen.

I was also pointing out that Hackers meeting anonymously and having no idea who each other really are is no new thing, and in the end if your dealing with people you don't know to begin with, does it matter if you use a handle or not?

Just. Drop. It.
Seriously, If you are so right that they would attack anyone, do you think they would have attacked yo by now? You've been downing them for a whole page, bro

EDIT: This was derected to that ClipClap Guy.

Clipclop:
[
wait wait wait wait WAIT.

wait.

Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.

Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.

Therumancer:

Clipclop:
[
wait wait wait wait WAIT.

wait.

Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.

Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.

because like it or not, they are a extension of anonymous. A splintered off horrible chaotic extension, but a extension all the same. People can blame one or the other because at any time "pieces" of anonymous can break off to do something terrible. For anon to sit back and say 'welp it wasn't us." and devolve themselves of all blame is complete insanity.

7777777777444:
Just. Drop. It.
Seriously, If you are so right that they would attack anyone, do you think they would have attacked yo by now? You've been downing them for a whole page, bro

EDIT: This was derected to that ClipClap Guy.

how ironic you stated that, when I already stated above that my forum email was being completely flooded with hate speech. last of all I'm not going to drop anything. You guys have every right to present your side, and i have every right to present my own.

If you don't like the idea of free speech, you might want to join the guy who was slamming my inbox...and who knows what else as this evolves into yet another anonymous attack.

Ohhhhh the IRONY is just... thick as butter. god!

edit: for past tense, mod already nuked him but I'm sure there will be another.

Fine. Fine, Fine, FINE! Have it your way. It just seems that ALMOST everyone agrees... Except you. Perhaps, if you didn't want the so called "hate speech" you might want to consider at least trying to consider OUR side of the story before blaitantly saying "THEY'RE [Insert Derogitory Phrase Here]!"

Clipclop:

7777777777444:
Just. Drop. It.
Seriously, If you are so right that they would attack anyone, do you think they would have attacked yo by now? You've been downing them for a whole page, bro

EDIT: This was derected to that ClipClap Guy.

how ironic you stated that, when I already stated above that my forum email was being completely flooded with hate speech. last of all I'm not going to drop anything. You guys have every right to present your side, and i have every right to present my own.

If you don't like the idea of free speech, you might want to join the guys slamming in inbox.

Ohhhhh the IRONY is just... thick as butter. god!

Point of Order, getting email from the forum is hardly a terrible attack. Where's the army of 21+ year olds stealing your infromation and making your life a living hell?

in general, I don't like Anonymous, but nor do I particularly dislike "them." "They" do some good, some bad, but mostly it's a shield for people who want to stir up trouble. The idea of hating all of Anonymous however seems to be equating random people loosely connected by the internet to an organization with defined ideals and goals, which it patently isn't.

Clipclop:

I know you 3 are in the minority. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

Clipclop:

If you don't like the idea of free speech, you might want to join the guy who was slamming my inbox...and who knows what else as this evolves into yet another anonymous attack.

Funny how you're repeatedly citing this in your argument - something other users can't verify. Racial slurs? How does other users even know your race since you're, er, anonymous here? Who's to say you're not pulling this out of your ass?

klasbo:

Clipclop:

I'm a troll because I don't align myself with a bunch of bullies... that doesn't even make any sense. And its not like they guy was even right to begin with, his entire argument was handily broken down and thrown back in his face as complete hypocritical garbage. that's a sad lonely tune your singing there.

No, you're a troll because you come with artificially inflated, taken-out-of-proportion, uninformed opinions on the subject matter. If you had any intent in informing us, you would verify your claims and structure your arguments.

Also, repeatedly going for the ad hominem as well as the ALL CAPS THEREFORE I MUST BE RIGHT gives you rapidly diminishing credibility.

If you're able to provide an informed opinion in a structured way with no false assumptions and/or logical fallacies, I'll happily apologize for calling you a troll. Though I have my doubts this will ever happen. Prove me wrong.

I just use all caps to illustrate words of importance, not to slam you over the head that I'm right...even through i know I am.

I don't have to prove myself because its a well know fact anonymous is not a "harmless entity" anybody who has been online for a single day could tell you this. last of all, your side is just, if not more biased than mine. How many poeple so far said that girl deserved it? How many have had a completely callous and cavalier attitude towards anons doings?

Raiyan 1.0:

Clipclop:

I know you 3 are in the minority. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

Funny how you're repeatedly citing this in your argument - something other users can't verify. Racial slurs? How does other users even know your race since you're, er, anonymous here? Who's to say you're not pulling this out of your ass?

because any 10 year old can type "nigger." have you ever seen a youtube comment? Its not like he needs to know the race to say the word. Which is another reason i thought it was odd because I'm not even black. There is more to the post, but the slur stands out rather boldly.

7777777777444:
Fine. Fine, Fine, FINE! Have it your way. It just seems that ALMOST everyone agrees... Except you. Perhaps, if you didn't want the so called "hate speech" you might want to consider at least trying to consider OUR side of the story before blaitantly saying "THEY'RE [Insert Derogitory Phrase Here]!"

I admit here and now (as if i actually have to at this point) I hate anonymous. Completely and utterly. I think they are a collection of terrible poeple with insane every changing ideals, i think they are responsible for there splinter groups because they themselves created them. I have a absolute 10 mile high hate boner for anons. And i swing here in your faces.

They probably do more good that I've ever heard of but thats only because i can't hear it over all the bad they do as well. I'm sure the actual group only a tiny percentage actually engage in any of the criminal or hurtful acts. But i don't believe that just "voids" you from responsibility or acknowledgement.

Clipclop:

wait wait wait wait WAIT.
wait.

You're telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.

This is basically to all your posts, but...
Do you know what Anonymous that is know is about? Freedom, an unregulated Internet; they're not being bullies, they're protesting. To rub them the wrong way, you have to go against what they stand for, and, to do so, you have to go against freedom. Or you have to provoke them, but that makes you even more of a prick.

At first I kinda liked Anonymous' ideologies, free speech, free Internet access, freedom of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all. The ugly truth is, someone is going to disagree with you and your ideologies no matter what. Shit like that happens, you have to man up to it, grow some balls, and understand this.

As far as multi-billion dollar companies are concerned, the one's they hack and obsess over, their are people at the low end of those billionm of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all.

Then their is the matter with multi-billion dollar companies they screw around with. The exec's of the company don't really suffer much, it's the grunts of the company that have to deal with the majority of the messes. Besides, doesn't everyone want a ton of cash to do with whatever they want anyway. There are a lot of things I disagree with about multi-billion dollar companies, it has most to do with them getting tax breaks and being treated as more of an individual rather than a collective. BUT, even the slimy exec's, that the people at anonymous have ever met, we can only assume they are slimy and hate filled, had to go through tons of **** to get where they are. Out of college, or however they earned their billions, requires a ****_ton of hard work, but... whatever, these companies deserve our animosity just because they exist, and drive our economy, and provide people with jobs, and give us things that make our lives somewhat more... fulfilling.

There are a lot of bad people in some of these companies that DO deserve to be taken to prison and found guilty of embezzling, fraud, and numerous other crimes. Their actions do need to be brought to the surface into the light of day, but it needs to be done in a more responsible manner.

Finally, I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS!!! I am not a conservative in anyway or anything like that. Most of my viewpoints, when compared to those of our business college at my university, clash.

Oh, and finally, Justin Bieber deserves being trolled because he is Justin Bieber.

EternalFacepalm:

Clipclop:

wait wait wait wait WAIT.
wait.

You're telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.

This is basically to all your posts, but...
Do you know what Anonymous that is know is about? Freedom, an unregulated Internet; they're not being bullies, they're protesting. To rub them the wrong way, you have to go against what they stand for, and, to do so, you have to go against freedom. Or you have to provoke them, but that makes you even more of a prick.

So first you throw that backwards and false ideology of "anonymous" thats been completely beat down in 4 anon related threads here and than you call me a prick. Its good to see your a level headed individual.

Hope you enjoy that incoming warning your about to receive.

Ah, yes more on Anon

This is the point where I have become quite bloody sick of them. Not just the news, but their existence. I could justify them if we lived in a Draconian society, but the thing is, we don't/

In my mind, they are a cult of amoral cyber terrorists and hypocrites. As someone pointed out, they went after Gene Simmons for speaking his mind. He said some things I disagreed with, yes. But I don't want him attacked just for speaking his mind.

And remember Wikileaks? They said that freedom of information was majorly important, and that it was wrong to oppose. However, if Wikileaks had a list of the names and addresses of all Anon members, do you think they would stand by? No, because freedom of information is just a means to an end for them. To me, it is like saying "I want to kill anyone who does not respect the value of human life". It just does not work as an ideal. They demand the powerful are held to account. I agree with that. However, that seems not to apply to them. Which, in my mind, is wrong.

In the end, they are bullies who think might makes right. And there are few things I hate more than that idea.

Clipclop:

So first you throw that backwards and false ideology of "anonymous" thats been completely beat down in 4 anon related threads here and than you call me a prick. Its good to see your a level headed individual.

Hope you enjoy that incoming warning your about to receive.

I didn't call you a prick; I said anyone provoking people on purpose were a prick. And how is the ideology I mentioned false?

Nick_Snyder:
At first I kinda liked Anonymous' ideologies, free speech, free Internet access, freedom of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all. The ugly truth is, someone is going to disagree with you and your ideologies no matter what. Shit like that happens, you have to man up to it, grow some balls, and understand this.

As far as multi-billion dollar companies are concerned, the one's they hack and obsess over, their are people at the low end of those billionm of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all.

Then their is the matter with multi-billion dollar companies they screw around with. The exec's of the company don't really suffer much, it's the grunts of the company that have to deal with the majority of the messes. Besides, doesn't everyone want a ton of cash to do with whatever they want anyway. There are a lot of things I disagree with about multi-billion dollar companies, it has most to do with them getting tax breaks and being treated as more of an individual rather than a collective. BUT, even the slimy exec's, that the people at anonymous have ever met, we can only assume they are slimy and hate filled, had to go through tons of **** to get where they are. Out of college, or however they earned their billions, requires a ****_ton of hard work, but... whatever, these companies deserve our animosity just because they exist, and drive our economy, and provide people with jobs, and give us things that make our lives somewhat more... fulfilling.

There are a lot of bad people in some of these companies that DO deserve to be taken to prison and found guilty of embezzling, fraud, and numerous other crimes. Their actions do need to be brought to the surface into the light of day, but it needs to be done in a more responsible manner.

Finally, I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS!!! I am not a conservative in anyway or anything like that. Most of my viewpoints, when compared to those of our business college at my university, clash.

Oh, and finally, Justin Bieber deserves being trolled because he is Justin Bieber.

They do believe in freedom of speech even in the instances where they don't agree. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, Anonymous refused to attack because they specifically said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Also, tell Aaron Barr that he wasn't affected by the attack on HBGary. This isn't a matter of money, they don't simply attack corporations that are rich, they attack corporations that are corrupt. You cannot simply accuse these corporations or the people who work/run them, you need to bring the information to the surface in order for any accusations to stick.

EternalFacepalm:

Clipclop:

So first you throw that backwards and false ideology of "anonymous" thats been completely beat down in 4 anon related threads here and than you call me a prick. Its good to see your a level headed individual.

Hope you enjoy that incoming warning your about to receive.

I didn't call you a prick; I said anyone provoking people on purpose were a prick. And how is the ideology I mentioned false?

I'm not provoking anybody, I'm not trying to provoke anybody. I'm simply not going to role over and except that ridiculous mindset of anon. Just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean i'm provoking you.

Second of all, there are many a chan with a /i/ board, and you and i both know what that is. I've lurked on plenty of them and know for a fact 80% of the targets on them don't deserve to have hundreds of poeple trying to screw them up. They are bullies, nothing but. Freedom of speech does not extending to dropping dox on somebody because they fucked you over in a online game.

Thats called being a prick.

Hristo Tzonkov:

Clipclop:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.

Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.

No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?

CM156:
Ah, yes more on Anon

This is the point where I have become quite bloody sick of them. Not just the news, but their existence. I could justify them if we lived in a Draconian society, but the thing is, we don't/

In my mind, they are a cult of amoral cyber terrorists and hypocrites. As someone pointed out, they went after Gene Simmons for speaking his mind. He said some things I disagreed with, yes. But I don't want him attacked just for speaking his mind.

And remember Wikileaks? They said that freedom of information was majorly important, and that it was wrong to oppose. However, if Wikileaks had a list of the names and addresses of all Anon members, do you think they would stand by? No, because freedom of information is just a means to an end for them. To me, it is like saying "I want to kill anyone who does not respect the value of human life". It just does not work as an ideal. They demand the powerful are held to account. I agree with that. However, that seems not to apply to them. Which, in my mind, is wrong.

In the end, they are bullies who think might makes right. And there are few things I hate more than that idea.

Uh, in the HBGary attack they openly revealed EVERYTHING Aaron Barr had collected on Anonymous. The huge report that he was going to sell to the FBI, they gave out for free. They would be fine with the same thing happening on Wikileaks.

They are not terroists, they are activists, they are not hypocrites, they are not bullies.

Chatboy 91:

CM156:
Ah, yes more on Anon

This is the point where I have become quite bloody sick of them. Not just the news, but their existence. I could justify them if we lived in a Draconian society, but the thing is, we don't/

In my mind, they are a cult of amoral cyber terrorists and hypocrites. As someone pointed out, they went after Gene Simmons for speaking his mind. He said some things I disagreed with, yes. But I don't want him attacked just for speaking his mind.

And remember Wikileaks? They said that freedom of information was majorly important, and that it was wrong to oppose. However, if Wikileaks had a list of the names and addresses of all Anon members, do you think they would stand by? No, because freedom of information is just a means to an end for them. To me, it is like saying "I want to kill anyone who does not respect the value of human life". It just does not work as an ideal. They demand the powerful are held to account. I agree with that. However, that seems not to apply to them. Which, in my mind, is wrong.

In the end, they are bullies who think might makes right. And there are few things I hate more than that idea.

Uh, in the HBGary attack they openly revealed EVERYTHING Aaron Barr had collected on Anonymous. The huge report that he was going to sell to the FBI, they gave out for free. They would be fine with the same thing happening on Wikileaks.

They are not terroists, they are activists, they are not hypocrites, they are not bullies.

Not all they do is evil, I will admit. But they do enough in my mind to be called bullies. A bully thinks might makes right, that if they can do it, it is somehow justified. That is the same logic train Anon uses

Also, they would have not been fine with the whole Wikileaks hyothetical, because they would not be anonymous, and would actually be forced to account for what they had done. And that is my main problem with them: they have no accountibility. "With great power comes great responsibility". They have the first, but not the second.

Also, by your logic, are the WBC just "activists"?

Chatboy 91:

Nick_Snyder:
At first I kinda liked Anonymous' ideologies, free speech, free Internet access, freedom of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all. The ugly truth is, someone is going to disagree with you and your ideologies no matter what. Shit like that happens, you have to man up to it, grow some balls, and understand this.

As far as multi-billion dollar companies are concerned, the one's they hack and obsess over, their are people at the low end of those billionm of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all.

Then their is the matter with multi-billion dollar companies they screw around with. The exec's of the company don't really suffer much, it's the grunts of the company that have to deal with the majority of the messes. Besides, doesn't everyone want a ton of cash to do with whatever they want anyway. There are a lot of things I disagree with about multi-billion dollar companies, it has most to do with them getting tax breaks and being treated as more of an individual rather than a collective. BUT, even the slimy exec's, that the people at anonymous have ever met, we can only assume they are slimy and hate filled, had to go through tons of **** to get where they are. Out of college, or however they earned their billions, requires a ****_ton of hard work, but... whatever, these companies deserve our animosity just because they exist, and drive our economy, and provide people with jobs, and give us things that make our lives somewhat more... fulfilling.

There are a lot of bad people in some of these companies that DO deserve to be taken to prison and found guilty of embezzling, fraud, and numerous other crimes. Their actions do need to be brought to the surface into the light of day, but it needs to be done in a more responsible manner.

Finally, I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS!!! I am not a conservative in anyway or anything like that. Most of my viewpoints, when compared to those of our business college at my university, clash.

Oh, and finally, Justin Bieber deserves being trolled because he is Justin Bieber.

They do believe in freedom of speech even in the instances where they don't agree. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, Anonymous refused to attack because they specifically said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Also, tell Aaron Barr that he wasn't affected by the attack on HBGary. This isn't a matter of money, they don't simply attack corporations that are rich, they attack corporations that are corrupt. You cannot simply accuse these corporations or the people who work/run them, you need to bring the information to the surface in order for any accusations to stick.

A corporation is a corporation. There are quite a bit of corrupt corporations out there. But there are a lot of those "corrupt" corporations that employ hundreds of people with jobs that have nothing to do with the actions of the company as a whole.

Technical note: decentralization wasn't invented by the internet. Resistance, terrorist and other groups have been using the 'cell' system for ages.

Same for protesters being visible. How do you think the Berlin wall fell?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here