Anonymous Denies New Sony Allegations of PSN Involvement

[Regiment]

As much as I hate to add to the idle speculation and advertisement for this group of criminals, somehow this does sound exactly like Anonymous's usual M.O. Sony had the nerve to defend their own interests, so their websites were crashed. Right after they and Hotz settled out of court, their network is taken down. There's evidence that personal data was stolen, but there's no evidence whatsoever that anyone's credit card was stolen. (In fact, is there any evidence that anyone's email, bank account, or other online information was accessed using information stolen here?)

It's right up Anonymous's alley to do something like this. They aren't stealing personal data so they can buy cars from Hong Kong - they're trying to make a point about how Sony's security is breachable. Granted, they're doing it in a fashion not unlike proving that the USA is too dependent on gasoline by blowing up all of the gas stations, but it does make sense.

Honestly, it's the most logical and simplest possibility. (Yes, it's more sensible than the demented notion that Sony crashed their own servers, and slightly more sensible than that Sony would falsify evidence in what's going to be a massive legal brouhaha.)

 

[Realitycrash]

They can still deny that the "central figures" that coordinate operations had anything to do with it. Yes, anyone can claim to be Anonymous, but from what I have gathered, most of those that deal with "Anonymous" follow the "Anonymous" guide-lines posted on the right webforums.

 

[moretimethansense]

Annonymous isn't really an orginization, it's more of a sub-culture, claiming that annonymous did this is somewhat like saying that goths did it, a number of them may have or may not have, but that doesn't mean you can go around acusing everybody wearing black lipstick.

Anon really isn't a sub-culture either, sub-culture to exist needs people who represent it and make it to exist. At least that is the definition of "culture" that I been taught in school - in Finnish.

Anon' is more like a name, I say I am anon' - therefor I am anon' and no one can deny me, because there is no clear definition, who and what is anon'. Like my second name is "Tapani" there are other "Tapani"s around Finland, ex. My brother, Father and few other random people I know, we are all "Tapani" - But there is no definition of what being "Tapani" is. You can be Tapani if you say that that is your name, you can even change your name to "Tapani" if you want to, if you do: that makes you as much as Tapani than any other "tapani"

If I go to a channel and post there as a Anon' then I am Anon' and no one can deny that.

This is a group of terrorist-cultist we are dealing with. The "members" of Anon' still do have free will, they could have done this attack if they are wanted. Any of us could have done it, it could have been the Tech expert who said that there are issues with the security.

While you are largely right, calling it a cult seems... off, a cult is specificaly a religion or a group that share religious beliefs, I'm pretty sure that(unless they've all become Bronies) they have no real centralized beliefs beyond "for teh lulz".

 

[Treblaine]

Stand Alone Complex [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Stand_Alone_Complex]

Reminds me Sooo much of that from Ghost in the Shell, a distributed movement able to execute simultaneous and synchronous attacks to spite no direct communication... just by following "memes".

The very idea of Anonymous "making an announcement" is antithesis of what Anonymous (with a capital A) actually is. They are a swarm, their individual minds are meaningless compared to the minds of the masses in aggregate.

The only word of Anonymous is deed, what they actually do and they have to accept that ANYONE can be part of this movement just by adopting its most commonly accepted creed:

"We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us."

Nothing about "never touch Credit card detail" in there. What that is is a vow to internet vigilantism.
-Anonymous = unaccountable, irresponsible, immune
-Legion = large, powerful and numerous
-Not forgive or forget = clearly indicates retribution
-Expect us = a direct threat that

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

so while Anonymous may not have been involved, it's still quite possible that Anonymous was, well, involved.

Well said. Besides with dozens of governments baring their fangs and waiting for a target i dont think they would even dream of trying to play the tough guys on this one.

 

[RA92]

Claim allegiance to Sony when they conclusively say, "Yeah, Anon did it." Otherwise, please stop jumping the bandwagon of internet idiots with half-baked conspiracy theories.

I do find it a bit funny that people are arguing this when all Sony did was report that they found a file, which to me seems less like an unfair accusation and more like common fucking sense!

Can you imagine the sheer fits of rage if Sony turned round three months later and said "yeah...we had evidence but we had our doubts about it and never told anyone"? Planets would be shat.

Especially considering they were reporting to the Congress. Can you imagine the backlash if they kept something to themselves in that report?

 

[Kenjitsuka]

If a police officer under their own discretion breaks into a house and steals a television, this does not make the police force responsible for theft. Replace that with any organisation of your choosing. Even if it were somebody who also participated in Anonymous' attack who stole the data, it would not necessarily mean "Anonymous did it".

Exactly!
Also, why would Anonymous make a file with it's own name and a slogan they are known to use?
Clearly a decoy that anyone with brains knows means nothing but an obvious decoy.

Sony's own boss said today that "Hackers do their best to cover their trails".
Kind of hard to do that after leaving a big neon sign with your name on it, no?

 

[PlatinumRenegade]

It seems to me that the hackers are trying to frame Anonymous. But the fact that Anon has tried to attack them before is not out of the question.

 

[AbstractStream]

Deny, deny, deny.
But seriously speaking, I'm kinda leaning on the side that Anon actually didn't do it. Or maybe just a few rogues did.

 

[McMullen]

"many of our corporate and government adversaries... have been known to have lied to the public about Anonymous and about their own activities."

Yes, because if there's anything that Sony really needs to do right now, it's to lie to the fucking United States Congress.

Everybody lies to the United States Congress. Lawyers, corporations, their own members, even the heads of the Justice Department and US presidents. It's what Congress is there for.

 

[JasonKaotic]

They are "cyber-terroristic" because they attack websites of institutions that they don't like in order to take them down. WikiLeaks (although I'm glad they attacked it) was hit by Denial-of-Service attacks that shut down their servers, simply because Anon didn't like them. Some people think of them as "web-vigilantes", but even vigilantes are a type of terrorist when you think about it (even Batman.)

On the contrary, Anonymous actually strongly support WikiLeaks and have attacked people that have tried to take it down or arrest people behind the site. I have no idea where you heard that from.

Despite popular belief, Anonymous don't attack websites purely 'foar teh lulz', they do it to do what they see as the right thing, defending free speech and human rights on the internet etc.

OT: Oh, I accidentally deleted what I'd originally written. I said Anonymous have been framed a lot of times in the past, so I believe them.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Id much rather believe Sony, who I buy products from and support, than a group of hackers who do illegal things in the name of "the greater good", most of which I dont support.

You can't choose to be certain of something, 2+2=4 and there's no getting around it. But you can choose to believe.

That's why belief is more a matter of personal preference than truth.

 

[Svenparty]

The more the "group" tries to form some sort of solid identity the more it's ruining the whole point of Anonymous. We need a new Anonymous.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Stand Alone Complex [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Stand_Alone_Complex]

Reminds me Sooo much of that from Ghost in the Shell, a distributed movement able to execute simultaneous and synchronous attacks to spite no direct communication... just by following "memes".

The very idea of Anonymous "making an announcement" is antithesis of what Anonymous (with a capital A) actually is. They are a swarm, their individual minds are meaningless compared to the minds of the masses in aggregate.

The only word of Anonymous is deed, what they actually do and they have to accept that ANYONE can be part of this movement just by adopting its most commonly accepted creed:

"We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us."

Nothing about "never touch Credit card detail" in there. What that is is a vow to internet vigilantism.
-Anonymous = unaccountable, irresponsible, immune
-Legion = large, powerful and numerous
-Not forgive or forget = clearly indicates retribution
-Expect us = a direct threat that

The problem with this of course is that they AREN'T like the standalone agents in Ghost in the Shell. They need to directly communicate with one another to coordinate their attacks. Otherwise Anonymous would just be a name that random people could use and wouldn't be an organization and wouldn't have any power. Anyone who acts alone isn't Anonymous, they're just anonymous.

Anonymous is by necessity a certain conglomerate of individuals who act in concert to achieve some goal, and they aren't just anyone on the internet, they're a specific group of hackers, otherwise no one would have ever started using the name 'Anonymous.' By extending their membership to anyone who wants to claim it, they've made themselves incapable of denying that 'Anonymous' had any part in anything. But despite all of their claims, they are, in fact, an organization. A very loosely organized organization, but still an organization otherwise we would just be talking about hackers in general.

The problem is that they do have an agenda. Otherwise why would they even bother getting together? If this doesn't fit their traditional agenda, they are right to say that Anonymous isn't responsible because Anon is more or less defined by their agenda, it's really the only thing that makes them a coherent group. The question is whether that group is responsible and whether it is a part of their agenda.

 

[beema]

How exactly dose Anonymous make a "press release" anyways?
An unmarked letter to a newspaper or something? How does anyone even know when it comes from their official leaders?

 

[boag]

Otherwise Anonymous would just be a name that random people could use and wouldn't be an organization and wouldn't have any power. Anyone who acts alone isn't Anonymous, they're just anonymous.

That's exactly what they are, every person in the World is Anonymous, the fact of the matter is that one anon paints a target and depending on the Willingness of the mass, they will go off on it like a dog chasing a car made out of bacon.

There isn't an organization outside of an IRC channel that lets people know the semi consensus reached by the majority, or the decision taken by the most skilled person.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Otherwise Anonymous would just be a name that random people could use and wouldn't be an organization and wouldn't have any power. Anyone who acts alone isn't Anonymous, they're just anonymous.

That's exactly what they are, every person in the World is Anonymous, the fact of the matter is that one anon paints a target and depending on the Willingness of the mass, they will go off on it like a dog chasing a car made out of bacon.

There isn't an organization outside of an IRC channel that lets people know the semi consensus reached by the majority, or the decision taken by the most skilled person.

But there's only certain people on the IRC. There has to be a group in order for there to be a consensus. If every person in the world is Anonymous then it's pointless to talk about Anonymous and Anonymous is both responsible for everything and nothing. Even someone who doesn't own a computer is Anonymous. Kim Jong Il is Anonymous. Fascists who wish to control the internet and the freedom of information are Anonymous.

But the fact of the matter is that there is a group of a finite amount of the people on the internet that reach group decisions and make organized efforts to do things, and they are an organization with a name. I get their whole mentality, but no: there is a difference between the group that organizes hacks on things like Sony and HBGary, and the random person surfing the net. You can call them both Anonymous, but you can't change the fact that Anonymous does have a central group of members, amorphous and anonymous though they may be individually.

 

[boag]

But there's only certain people on the IRC. There has to be a group in order for there to be a consensus. If every person in the world is Anonymous then it's pointless to talk about Anonymous and Anonymous is both responsible for everything and nothing.

Now you are getting it.

Even someone who doesn't own a computer is Anonymous. Kim Jong Il is Anonymous. Fascists who wish to control the internet and the freedom of information are Anonymous.

Yes

But the fact of the matter is that there is a group of a finite amount of the people on the internet that reach group decisions and make organized efforts to do things, and they are an organization with a name.

Yes and no, think of it as an open party, where people come in do stuff and then leave, the party keeps going on because there are people in it, but the original group either left a long time ago or dwindled to a couple of people

I get their whole mentality, but no: there is a difference between the group that organizes hacks on things like Sony and HBGary, and the random person surfing the net. You can call them both Anonymous, but you can't change the fact that Anonymous does have a central group of members, amorphous and anonymous though they may be individually.

Again, there is no central group of members, I think you might confusing the people who did the initial attack, with the people that hacked and stole the credit card info.

The latter may have been part of the first group, but that doesnt necessarily mean the first group is wholy responsible for the actions of the rest.

In this case responsibility fall solely on the people did the hacking, which are both anon and not anon at the same time.

I hope this wasnt too confusing.