Anonymous Members Hint at Unofficial Involvement in PSN Attack

[Yvl9921]

Guys, stop treating Anonymous as some sort of official group. Any "official" statement is bull, because they don't have any sort of organization whatsoever. Someone who's been on the site for a couple hours could have posted that just as easily as seasoned hacker.

so basically they did it. wonder if they gonna get pwned by any formal charges or if the whole thing will blow over

You cannot charge anon with formal charges. They don't have any sort of identity. That's why they're called Anonymous.

So we shut down 4Chan.

They don't even always organize there. They're not really a threat to society the way the media makes them out to be, anyway. They're harmless at best, a scapegoat at worst (like now.)

And Christ guys, have none of you even read the article? Or know what "Unoffical" means?

How can a group that claims no leadership or anything else make something "unofficial?" So what if it wasn't sanctioned by a group in an organization which apparently isn't an organization. The idiots who shared the info won't hold the hacker(s) accountable, won't throw them to the wolves to save themselves, so what is "official" to them?

That's not really how it works. The burden of proof isn't on them to prove that they didn't sanction it. Just because one of their members might have done it doesn't mean they're to blame.

You're all jumping to conclusions, and I'm guessing the lot of you don't even have a vague understanding of how they operate to begin with. You don't "sign up" for anonymous, so saying they have "members" is a bit far fetched to begin with. There are no names, either, hence the moniker. So there is no way to keep track of who posts on their forums, which is what the anon in the article was trying to say.

Hell, hacking isn't even necessarily the activity they gather for. It's just something they do to feel powerful.

You claim "membership" to an organization, oh wait it's technically not an organization. Hahaha, how silly of me. Let me think of another way to say what I said a few posts up. If you're going to lay down with pigs, don't get offended when told you smell like shit. If you lack (or refuse) a structure of leadership/organization/being a dumbass or whatever, how can you claim something to be official? Just because Tom, Dick and Harry didn't like the idea it's unofficial? Oh wait, they don't have names... hahahah, how silly of me. Round them all up, then watch them eat each other to escape responsibility.

Lemme put it this way: What makes you think they're to blame for the PSN attack?

 

[RA92]

So Anonymous did it?

Good job narrowing down the search guys! I'm sure you'll nail the perpetrators, just like the FBI did during the whole HBGary hacking fiasco! Oh wait...

 

[Asehujiko]

Whoever attacked Sony, I hope they get caught.

Would it be too much to hope for a public execution?

Do do realize that lawsuits regarding online activities have a 70% chance of being aimed at the wrong person, right?

 

[Casual Shinji]

So now that Anonymous has done something "actually" immoral, they're no longer an organisation because they're anonymous? I didn't hear them spouting this crap when they took down PSN before, or when they hacked other so-called bad corporations. Then they were all "We're Anonymous, we kick ass".

I thought they were a "legion", which seems to imply they're a unit. But now that they're being called on their shit, all of a sudden they're anonymous without a capital A.

 

[alexhj]

Question: How many members of Anonymous does it take to change a light bulb???

Answer: It doesn't matter how many members there are. They will never be able to change the light bulb.

Why?

Because ANONYMOUS CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING!!!

 

[Wrds]

so basically they did it. wonder if they gonna get pwned by any formal charges or if the whole thing will blow over

Or the person is lying to get attention. How do you know he's Anonymous? What's to stop you from sending an email to a news organization claiming to be Anonymous?

Exactly, what if he's a Sony employee working to try and validate Sony's claims. I'm not a cospiracist, but that sounds just as likely to me.

 

[Zukhramm]

You said they don't have a "membership." So again I ask; if there's no organization, no membership and all that stuff you tards love preaching... how do you make something official as opposed to unofficial?

That's the point. Nothing is official, nothing is unofficial. There's no such thing as "Anonymous says they didn't do it". That's just not how it works.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Whoever attacked Sony, I hope they get caught.

Agreed, they must be caught and punished. Should be made an example.

 

[Jou]

Wow a lot of you make me sick. "Round them all up, who cares if it is only one." I have heard that before. Guilty by common thread is what leads to all of the stupidity in the world today. Here, for those of you who want to reread all of this crap and put it into perspective that you can understand, replace anonymous with a muslim. Then you will see how far your logic fails. A group of people who visit a site anonymously should not be punished for another anonymous person who happens to follow the same belief, just as a muslim who commits a terrible act is not reason to wipe out all muslims.

 

[Yvl9921]

Lemme put it this way: What makes you think they're to blame for the PSN attack?

Well they already attacked PSN once before and claimed that more is on its way. Yes they did say they'll target Sony and leave PSN alone. But there was also talk of keeping the pressure on and taking PSN down will be required and being told to reinvest in social skills that we probably lost while playing online. I found that last part laughable, internet tough guys telling others to go outside and meet people because there's more to life then computers and the internet. Setting that aside, if the hackers intent was to steal credit card information and what-not they probably would've stopped by now. They got what they went in for leave a mess to distract Sony and disappear, why are they still messing with Sony? They also apparently released a bunch of information (old, but still) to the public as if to taunt Sony.

Circumstantial evidence, yeah. But the great things about circumstance is the more they pile up the more it points to them. I even left out the supposed "Anonymous, We are Legion" thing that Sony found in their servers because that could've been left there by anyone.

So answer me this, what makes you believe it wasn't them?

You said they don't have a "membership." So again I ask; if there's no organization, no membership and all that stuff you tards love preaching... how do you make something official as opposed to unofficial?

Consensus. If there's a post on their sites that says "I'm going to hack PSN and take everyone's personal information" then a whole lot of people are going to see it, and chances are a good number of them are gonna be honest about it because they have no reason not to be.

 

[Yvl9921]

Consensus. If there's a post on their sites that says "I'm going to hack PSN and take everyone's personal information" then a whole lot of people are going to see it, and chances are a good number of them are gonna be honest about it because they have no reason not to be.

Everyone gets together and decides on a mutual goal, sounds nice. Now when someone else takes that information they collect and share, who do you blame? Yes they could be acting independently from the larger group, but they got the information from the group and just decided to take it one step further. So who do we blame? They're not going to sell anyone out, despite not being the ones who did it so who do we blame?

You blame the guy(s) who did it. Who may or may not have been a "member" of Anonymous. Something else to understand about Anonymous - they're flippin' enormous. We're talking tens of thousands (maybe more?) of users here. One or a few people who act outside of their parameters cannot leave the whole group responsible. Of course they aren't going to sell the guy out, because they don't know who he is. It'd make about as much sense blaming the entire city the guy(s) live(s) in. Or as Jou said, everyone in a person's religion.

 

[Yvl9921]

Consensus. If there's a post on their sites that says "I'm going to hack PSN and take everyone's personal information" then a whole lot of people are going to see it, and chances are a good number of them are gonna be honest about it because they have no reason not to be.

Everyone gets together and decides on a mutual goal, sounds nice. Now when someone else takes that information they collect and share, who do you blame? Yes they could be acting independently from the larger group, but they got the information from the group and just decided to take it one step further. So who do we blame? They're not going to sell anyone out, despite not being the ones who did it so who do we blame?

You blame the guy(s) who did it. Who may or may not have been a "member" of Anonymous. Something else to understand about Anonymous - they're flippin' enormous. We're talking tens of thousands (maybe more?) of users here. One or a few people who act outside of their parameters cannot leave the whole group responsible. Of course they aren't going to sell the guy out, because they don't know who he is. It'd make about as much sense blaming the entire city the guy(s) live(s) in. Or as Jou said, everyone in a person's religion.

So don't blame the people who collected the information and spread it around, just the one who did the attack? Why would you want to do that? You leave the more dangerous ones alone while punishing a few reckless and stupid ones, that doesn't make any sense. Anon doesn't have a membership from what everyone keeps saying and as I said before, if you plan to wear the tag you should be prepared for what others will do under its name. When a group claims no membership/organization/etc, they should realize they're at risk by anyone who wants to take up the name. Just because a part of the asshat collective didn't want it done, doesn't mean the attack wasn't carried out by others in the asshat collective. If you think they'll be protected by their part of the collective not sanctioning it, you're delusional.

I may be missing something here: It's confirmed they're spreading the information?

 

[spectrenihlus]

Whoever attacked Sony, I hope they get caught.

Would it be too much to hope for a public execution?

Do do realize that lawsuits regarding online activities have a 70% chance of being aimed at the wrong person, right?

I'm only joking.

 

[geizr]

Rather than engage in a point-by-point response to the textual interpretation of Anonymous's causeries, I want to respond to the more general issue at hand. I assume you already know that Anonymous's Ponzi schemes are worthy of a good flush down the toilet so let me begin this post by remarking that Anonymous pompously claims that lying is morally justifiable as long as it's referred to as "strategic deception". That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. While I insist that Anonymous has every right to its slovenly opinions, to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of oligophrenic individuals it has to be repeated at least fifty times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following fifty times, but its pals resist seeing that contentious gauleiters don't think like you and me. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to win the culture war and save this country.

Anonymous has so frequently lied about how out-of-touch malefactors are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that if Anonymous had done its homework, it'd know that its apologias fail to convince me that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Anonymous itself). Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Anonymous finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that it try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Anonymous.

It may seem at first that there is a certain Burkean prudence that animates people like me to operate on today's real?not tomorrow's ideal?political terrain. When we descend to details, however, we see that knowledge and wisdom are its enemies. Anonymous understands that by limiting education and enlightenment, it can fool more people into believing that everyone and everything discriminates against it?including the writing on the bathroom stalls. Sadly, those with the least education are those who would benefit most from the knowledge that Anonymous says that alarmism is the key to world peace. But then it turns around and says that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. You know, you can't have it both ways, Anonymous. This post has gone on far too long in my opinion and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that in a larger context, Anonymous's shrewish, ill-natured prevarications remind us that acts of totalitarianism continue in our midst.

I think your message would reach more people if you didn't use so much pomposity and just stated more concisely that Anonymous is just full of shit and their morality just boils down to unprincipled, 5-year-old-child ego-centric selfishness(i.e. "give me what I want, let me do what I want, and then shut up and leave me alone").