Anonymous Denies New Sony Allegations of PSN Involvement
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
After everything I'm learning about PSN in the last few weeks Im surprised this didnt happen earlier, not to mention that it doesnt seem like an Anonymous-caliber "hacker" would even be needed to pull this shit off. Servers running outdated versions of Apache? outdated Linux, no firewall protection? customer/client information stored as unencrypted plain txt files? Jesus Christ...
Okay okay... Waiting for it, waiting for it...
C'mon, c'mon... Homeland Security VS Anonymous. I can see it coming. Prove me right here, people.
(Not that that's a good thing. I'm just finding it grossly inevitable.)
C'mon, c'mon... Homeland Security VS Anonymous. I can see it coming. Prove me right here, people.
(Not that that's a good thing. I'm just finding it grossly inevitable.)
I'd pay attention to the fact that they wrote 'leadership', not leadership.DaHero said:
There is definately a tension here though about just what the heck Anonymous is.
However, since there appears to be no official leadership, the only consistency that could apply some form of definition is the ideals they have fought for so far. Before now, I've not been aware of theft on behalf of Anonymous, so it is certainly out of character, if a character can be gathered at all from their actions.
The paradox that anyone who claims they are Anonymous is Anonymous, and thus Anonymous means whatever the person appropriating them at the time wants it to, falls short I believe because the person who stole that information is going to benefit (or suffer) individually for their crime. The typical act on behalf of Anonymous results in no individual benefit for the agent, besides the joy of committing whatever acts they did. The fact that this crime directly benefits an individual, or set of individuals, severs them from the mass noun, which Anonymous is supposed to be.
So, I'd summarise by saying that this action is not only out of character for Anonymous, it actually makes no sense as an anonymous act. If the whole idea is that one's individuality is submerged into this nebulous group, then theft for oneself automatically disqualifies one from acting on behalf of Anonymous.
TL;DR? Anonymous' fragile, if not almost non-existent, identity rests on their actions being anonymous. If one person, or one group, is benefitting directly from an act, it seems like it can't technically be Anonymous at all.
Let's assume for a sec that members of Anonymous DID do this. It doesn't mean Anonymous sanctioned it. You can't hold the state of Florida responsible for all of the identity theft that is committed by the illegal immigrants over there. So why could you hold Anonymous responsible for the identity theft that is committed by random people who happen to associate themselves with Anonymous?
Lots of people fancy themselves members of Anonymous. But nobody can really say for sure who is and who isn't. You can just slip in at any moment and they'd have no way of knowing if you were already. They're "Anonymous" for a reason. They don't even know each other most of the time. If Anonymous did not collectively decide to carry out this attack, they are not responsible for it. Even if some people claiming to be members committed the act, it doesn't mean Anonymous sanctioned it.
Do I think members of Anonymous did it? No. These days lots of people fancy themselves to be a part of Anonymous just because they hide their identity and hack things for their own misguided sense of justice. A lot of the threatening messages on youtube supposedly released by Anonymous cannot be trusted. Just because you play ominous music and have Microsoft Sam deliver all your lines for you does not suddenly make you an Anonymous spokesperson.
Lots of people fancy themselves members of Anonymous. But nobody can really say for sure who is and who isn't. You can just slip in at any moment and they'd have no way of knowing if you were already. They're "Anonymous" for a reason. They don't even know each other most of the time. If Anonymous did not collectively decide to carry out this attack, they are not responsible for it. Even if some people claiming to be members committed the act, it doesn't mean Anonymous sanctioned it.
Do I think members of Anonymous did it? No. These days lots of people fancy themselves to be a part of Anonymous just because they hide their identity and hack things for their own misguided sense of justice. A lot of the threatening messages on youtube supposedly released by Anonymous cannot be trusted. Just because you play ominous music and have Microsoft Sam deliver all your lines for you does not suddenly make you an Anonymous spokesperson.
Of course anonymous did it. Perhaps not the same branch of anonymous that the "Leader" claims it is against their principles hails from. Though it is anonymous nonetheless. When a leader calls on anonymous for an attack on Sony, then this happens, how can they not take responsibility for their actions? Whether or not they condone this is purely ideological to the particular branch, and not a necessary subscription requirement for any who join anonymous.
To say that anonymous did this is also saying that anonymous was involved in the numerous hacks and attempted hacks all across the US as well as other places that have all been taking place fairly recently. Many banks have had this happen as well as other important places. Anonymous is good, but not that good. I highly doubt the recent increase in hacks is all coincidental and I even more doubt that anonymous is behind it.
Xhu said:
Still...if a police officer breaks into a house and steals some several million televisions on the other hand, it does beg the question of how in the hell that police force couldn't have known about it; or at least who did it and how. But I happen to like police officers more than hackers, so I guess I'm biased. Bwahaha.
While it's true that Anon is a ghost of an organization anyone would be fooling themselves to think that there isn't a core group making these statements. They have a vocal group of them somewhere.
I'm kind of on the side of AnonOps on this. Yes, it sounds like something Anonymous members would do, but not AnonOps. They may be giant jerks, but only to those who they see fit to deserve it, and the members of PSN and SOE don't fit into that category.
You sir or madam, are my new hero. You took the words right out of my mouth.Echo136 said:
OT- I heard an interesting statement in another thread that I think is appropriate. It went something to the effect of.... Annon is not an actual organization of any kind so Annon can't say what it has not done, because frankly they don't know. They can only confirm what they have done because they are the ones who actually did it.
(Back to me) This could have been a branch of Annon or a random hacker that used this to cover his/her/their tracks, but in the end they are all hackers. I hate all hackers.