Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

[nightwolf667]

No one is complaining about being harassed by the FBI. Instead anons are taking practical steps to deal with this.

I choose to answer you with yourself.

Aaron Barr childishly released personal information of supposed anonymous leaders who are now being harassed by the FBI and others. All of this to gain attention and bring in more money for his company. I don't condone these phone calls to Aaron Barr but I don't sympathize with him.

Though for the record, Aaron Barr never got to release that information. Anonymous stole it from him first, then they released it on Pirate Bay for the world to see. If they're getting persecuted (which they're not) over that then it's their own goddamn fault.

 

[Gindil]

I never said they were a centralized organization, but you seem to be mistaking the definition of leadership the same way Anon is. I understand that Anon has no "recognizable" leaders, they have no one they shove to the forefront and say "this is who we're fighting for, our figurehead!" Oh wait, there is Julian Assange. Now, I don't mean to say Assange is their leader, he's not, but there are people who will certainly blame him for ALL of Anonymous's actions.

Now, what I meant about leadership is simply this: in any organization, whatever the kind, there are those who rise to certain prominence due to influence, ability, etc. Their position may not be official, but there always must be someone to help corral the wayward, answer questions, and collect the votes. It's simply human nature. It's like that rumor I heard from a guy who worked for PostFinance, who said that in the middle of Anonymous's DDoS attack after the server admin left, they stopped pressing fire, wandered off and started DDoSing Justin Bieber's website. I accept it as likely since it fits with what I've come to expect from Anon. Do they have a structured leadership? No. Is it like the United States Government (lol) or the CEO of Bank of America (who is not going to be held responsible for everything the company does)? Certainly not. Can they claim protections as an organization under the law? Probably not. But someone's or many someones' fingers are loosely on the reins here.

I agree partially. But they are influenced by certain factors such as how the Pirate Party asked them to step down on attacking the FBI (or whatever it was) before.

In my many conversations with h264 over the past few days, he has gone from saying there is no leadership to identifying "AnonOps Command", from saying there are no official press releases, to admitting that "everyone" (I suppose everyone who is there at the time) decides what goes into them. He says Anonymous doesn't brag and fails to understand what bragging means, especially since many Anons (him included) brag all the time. He and the other drones may not be able to identify the leaders (especially since they define leadership in such a narrow way) but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in one form or another. Most likely the IRC server admins that the Feds searched and seized. (Meaning they have all those lovely IRC conversations.) Or those that Anonymous identifies as "staff".

I think here ya kinda lost or misunderstood what's happening. After reading about how Anon trolled Scientology back in the day (mainly for the lulz), it's clear that it's more a mob rule than really structured. Yeah, they latch onto ideas and everyone has a part to play but think about if the Anon "leaders" were captured. What would that prove?

All that means is Anon picks up newer members, who keep to the same MO. In a way, it's kinda like the FBI vs a dozen Rorschachs or something. And from the looks of it, even though the FBI went to take on a few of Anon, that's just made their cause more prevalent and (unbeknownst to the FBI, who don't think that far ahead...) make others more likely to join their cause.

Face it, Anon is the largest pack of trolls out there. To get attention, they do these things and the opposition gives them validity. I wouldn't doubt there's a few in that are naturally gifted on logistics and such, but really, how hard is it to control 10 people using an LOIC?

 

[AnonOperations]

No one is complaining about being harassed by the FBI. Instead anons are taking practical steps to deal with this.

I choose to answer you with yourself.

Aaron Barr childishly released personal information of supposed anonymous leaders who are now being harassed by the FBI and others. All of this to gain attention and bring in more money for his company. I don't condone these phone calls to Aaron Barr but I don't sympathize with him.

Though for the record, Aaron Barr never got to release that information. Anonymous stole it from him first, then they released it on Pirate Bay for the world to see. If they're getting persecuted (which they're not) over that then it's their own goddamn fault.

Since when is stating a relevant fact complaining? You stated that Aaron Barr was being harassed, I reminded you that Aaron's actions led anons to be harassed. I'm not complaining here.

Since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001, privacy laws in the US have gradually eroded. Critical aspects of the investigation conducted by HBGary would simply be illegal in most countries. Quote from here [http://memeburn.com/2011/02/online-security-firm-feels-the-wrath-of-anonymous/]

Obama said he would demolish the patriot act yet now defends it and there is more spying and wire tapping ever.

 

[Starke]

In my many conversations with h264 over the past few days, he has gone from saying there is no leadership to identifying "AnonOps Command", from saying there are no official press releases, to admitting that "everyone" (I suppose everyone who is there at the time) decides what goes into them. He says Anonymous doesn't brag and fails to understand what bragging means, especially since many Anons (him included) brag all the time. He and the other drones may not be able to identify the leaders (especially since they define leadership in such a narrow way) but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in one form or another. Most likely the IRC server admins that the Feds searched and seized. (Meaning they have all those lovely IRC conversations.) Or those that Anonymous identifies as "staff".

I think here ya kinda lost or misunderstood what's happening.

No, his stance has shifted... somewhat erratically.

After reading about how Anon trolled Scientology back in the day (mainly for the lulz), it's clear that it's more a mob rule than really structured. Yeah, they latch onto ideas and everyone has a part to play but think about if the Anon "leaders" were captured. What would that prove?

Actually, the Scientology attacks actually demonstrated behavior consistent with a more coherent command and control structure than the current rounds. Anonymous members walked a very fine line of trolling Scientology without actually crossing any thresholds that could get them arrested. In comparison today, they seem to actually be less organized, such as the attack on Justin Bieber.

All that means is Anon picks up newer members, who keep to the same MO. In a way, it's kinda like the FBI vs a dozen Rorschachs or something.

Except Rorschach was a dangerous and wanted fugitive, and, and this is critical, fictional. In practice they've patterned themselves off a different Alan Moore creation, but that's neither here nor there.

And from the looks of it, even though the FBI went to take on a few of Anon, that's just made their cause more prevalent and (unbeknownst to the FBI, who don't think that far ahead...) make others more likely to join their cause.

Again, I keep hearing this, and the source is pretty apparent. Anonymous likes to claim they're like the mythical hydra, cut one head off and two more will grow back in it's place. Now, ignoring how awkward that's would make it in the dating scene, it also isn't true.

You can gauge the factors necessary for a movement to retain momentum in the face of... let's call it "oppression" for convenience sake. General public satisfaction has to be really low for people to be willing to engage in an activity that carries this kind of risk, and getting people to engage in anything politically is like trying to call cats, it ain't fucking happening.

Now, Anon likes to think there's a secret groundswell of support waiting to carry them on, but in point of fact we're talking about maybe four dozen staffers supported by five hundred to a thousand members. And when convictions start coming down, those thousand members are going to look at each other, say "this isn't the lolz I signed up for" and make a bee-line for the door. And that, is how anon will end.

Face it, Anon is the largest pack of trolls out there. To get attention, they do these things and the opposition gives them validity. I wouldn't doubt there's a few in that are naturally gifted on logistics and such, but really, how hard is it to control 10 people using an LOIC?

If it is only ten people there's going to be thirty sitting with them unjustly, which will be tragic, but it will, "kill the idea." The point is, you're right, they're trolls. Trolls are known for many things on the internet, including perseverance, but brevity is not one of them.

 

[Danpascooch]

I was wondering what the bank was up to, considering Julian Assange had already shown his intent on releasing damaging evidence of Bank of American. Well, there you go, I guess.

I'm really interested in seeing how people are going to defend the bank and badmouth AnoOps and Wikileaks this time around.

EDIT: <url=http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns>Here's Glenn Greenwald's response, in case you're interested.

This is crazy shit.

It's just sad really.

 

[Danpascooch]

old
we did not attack amazon.com

we attacked egyptian government sites last month as well to join the newly succesful Egyptian revolt.

We're moving on to Iran

Official Press release below.

MOST RESPECTABLE AND HONORABLE CITIZENS OF IRAN,

YOU ARE SPEAKING OUT- AND WE ARE LISTENING

We have not forgotten.

The protesters who are imprisoned and beaten, the bloggers who are censored, the citizens who are executed for speaking against the regime, you are the ones truly loyal to your country.

A new dawn is nearing that will set you and your great country free from the shackles of oppression, tyranny and torture. It will let you exhale, and finally take the first breath that will fill your lungs with strength, wisdom and freedom.

Anonymous will support and stand by your side all the way to the liberation of the body and mind for all Iranian citizens.

You and I who are anonymous are fearless of the discriminating regime. They already know of us, but can do nothing to stop us. They already fear us, but stand helpless to what will be unleashed upon them.
But most of all they fear you, which is why they have kept you in shackles for so long.
This is your time, you can now seize it and pave the way for your own future.

The government of Iran deliberately confuses dissent with disloyalty. It unjustly makes examples out of those who speak against its actions, hoping that it can scare others from doing the same by delivering harsh punishments. The government needs to be held accountable for its crimes against you, its citizens.

People of Iran, you will not be denied your right to free speech and free press; your right to freedom of assembly, uncensored information and unlimited access to the Internet; your right to a life without oppression and fear.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.

Anonymous doesn't always do the right thing, but shit like this? I can get behind.

 

[Starke]

Anonymous doesn't always do the right thing, but shit like this? I can get behind.

Antagonizing a government that came to power by overthrowing an oppressive American backed regime and is currently holding some of our citizens prisoner? With the very real possibility that they (Anonymous) will get said prisoners executed for espionage by pissing all over the country... so you're in favor of the execution of Americans or just antagonizing states that fought their way free of American backed dictatorships?

 

[FluxCapacitor]

a polite reply

Ah, but you're missing my point - in this case it's not necessarily the FBI doing their own dirty work, it's a private company acting on their behalf (HBGary Federal) that's breaking the law by carrying out illegal surveillance on Anon members. If the boys in blue wanna pick up anyone they can get a legitimate warrant on, then the suspect can have their day in court. But if they can only do so because someone, direct federal employee or not, has provably and systematically broken the law on their behalf, then all evidence is inadmissible ("fruit of a poison tree") and they've been violating the suspect's civil rights. They need to do this stuff the legal way, or they're no better than anyone they pursue, and they simply haven't been - instead, they've been hiring outside contractors so if it all ends badly the FBI has plausible deniability. No dice, as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm pretty damn sure that the reason that the U.S. impeached Nixon was because he was shown to be subverting the democratic process by arranging the break-in at the Watergate, and then by covering it up because he thought he could get away with it. You cannot simply handwave away Tricky Dick's illegal acts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[Starke]

an escaped lizard

Ah, but you're missing my point - in this case it's not necessarily the FBI doing their own dirty work, it's a private company (HBGary Federal) breaking the law by carrying out illegal surveillance on Anon members.

Except, the illegal activity alluded to, at least in media, on the part of HB Gary Federal had more to do with the fabrication of data, and offensive smear campaigns against the unwitting, not surveillance. So, either the company was engaged in surveillance operations on behalf of the federal government (which I recall reading someplace, but cannot find at the moment), or they were free agents. If they were working on behalf of the FBI, then they are bound by the same restrictions as federal investigators, and would be subject to criminal prosecution in connection with any crimes they may have committed during the course of their investigation, or they were free agents, subject to the criminal laws which bind us all, but are much more lenient because the founding fathers (understandably) lacked a fear of corporate entities.

If the boys in blue wanna pick up anyone they can get a legitimate warrant on, then the suspect can have their day in court. But if they can only do so because someone, direct federal employee or not, has provably and systematically broken the law on their behalf, then all evidence is inadmissible ("fruit of a poison tree") and they've been violating the suspect's civil rights.

Except here we get to a really fun little problem that Anon has created for itself. If the investigation against it's members was illegal, as they claim, then you'd be right the evidence would be illegally obtained, but, after having stolen it themselves they then proceeded to publish it freely. Now, because it had been stolen it wouldn't be admissible against HB Gary Federal, nor would it have been admissible against Anonymous members... except, they are now the ones publishing this information freely and openly. And it could be used as evidence against them in their theft. At this point the admissibility of the evidence would rest on the judge (in the US), however, that raises another issue...

This is all predicated on the idea that the information itself was illegal, which it would have been in the EU, unfortunately California's request to join the EU is sadly non-existent.

Now, the US may deserve a bad rap for the poor state of it's privacy laws, but it is the law at present time. This could result in some reform on that subject (though I seriously doubt it), but it will not affect the state of the law which the Anonymous members are tried under.

Today, at this moment what HB Gary Federal is alleged to have done (surveillance wise) is in fact, not illegal.

They need to do this stuff the legal way, or they're no better than anyone they pursue, and they simply haven't been - instead, they've been hiring outside contractors so if it all ends badly the FBI has plausible deniability. No dice, as far as I'm concerned.

There is no plausible deniability in the chain of evidence, at least not really, as you've already pointed out. Now, without digging through public documents for the actual warrant applications, there is little reason to believe that the HB Gary Federal research is behind the warrants themselves. Particularly given that the FBI appears to have based the 40 warrants in January off the server warrants in December. This would suggest that there are two separate chains of evidence, one that HB Gary Federal cultivated, and a separate one that was part of the actual federal investigation.

And I'm pretty damn sure that the reason that the U.S. impeached Nixon was because he was shown to be subverting the democratic process by arranging the break-in at the Watergate, and then by covering it up. You cannot simply handwave away Tricky Dick's illegal acts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

No, Watergate is what got him impeached, because it was illegal, and he did get caught with his pants in the door, but it wasn't why the public hated him, that had started years earlier.

EDIT: I should probably comment on FBI psychology for a second. If we're talking thirty or forty years ago, the FBI did run a very loose ship. They hired people to break in for them, or simply did it themselves and claimed the evidence of the "black bag job" as coming from an anonymous tip. They were thugs with badges and a lot of authority with a tendency to do whatever they had to to get the job done. This included behavior that borders on what HB Gary has been alleged to have planned, such as individual smear campaigns.

That is not the FBI today, or indeed in either of our lifetimes. The FBI emerged from the Nixon resignation a wreck, and they've spent the last 38 years cleaning up their act monumentally. The image of the FBI as a professional law enforcement agency that lives up to their PR is a very recent development (politically speaking), and their willingness to even engage with external firms like HB Gery Federal tends to be on more uneven footing than actual contract work.

 

[roflmecopter]

I find it funny when people refer to anon as a single group or even a single person. Anon is a community with different sections and what not you can't arrest anon because of ddos. Why? The same reason you can't arest Iraq or whatever for 9/11 or whatever you should get the point that its more than one person and more than one group.

Basicly

Anon= internet
Internet= Unable to be arrested
you= anon

 

[AnonOperations]

If the investigation against it's members was illegal, as they claim, then you'd be right the evidence would be illegally obtained, but, after having stolen it themselves they then proceeded to publish it freely.

As stated in the email from Aaron Barr. He made the anonymous investigation open source. Anons are not the ones saying its illegal, the quote stating that "critical aspects of the investigation would be illegal" is from a news article.

 

[Gindil]

In my many conversations with h264 over the past few days, he has gone from saying there is no leadership to identifying "AnonOps Command", from saying there are no official press releases, to admitting that "everyone" (I suppose everyone who is there at the time) decides what goes into them. He says Anonymous doesn't brag and fails to understand what bragging means, especially since many Anons (him included) brag all the time. He and the other drones may not be able to identify the leaders (especially since they define leadership in such a narrow way) but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in one form or another. Most likely the IRC server admins that the Feds searched and seized. (Meaning they have all those lovely IRC conversations.) Or those that Anonymous identifies as "staff".

I think here ya kinda lost or misunderstood what's happening.

No, his stance has shifted... somewhat erratically.

Not sure if you're referring to h264 or nightwolf...

After reading about how Anon trolled Scientology back in the day (mainly for the lulz), it's clear that it's more a mob rule than really structured. Yeah, they latch onto ideas and everyone has a part to play but think about if the Anon "leaders" were captured. What would that prove?

Actually, the Scientology attacks actually demonstrated behavior consistent with a more coherent command and control structure than the current rounds. Anonymous members walked a very fine line of trolling Scientology without actually crossing any thresholds that could get them arrested. In comparison today, they seem to actually be less organized, such as the attack on Justin Bieber.

They did a LOT to Scientology though... Debates in city hall, the pubic hair and vaseline thing... For a cheap price there were a lot of laughs to get out of it. And Scientology learned a very expensive lesson about trolls. I just think the attack on Justin Bieber shows that some of the newest members are kinda young.

All that means is Anon picks up newer members, who keep to the same MO. In a way, it's kinda like the FBI vs a dozen Rorschachs or something.

Except Rorschach was a dangerous and wanted fugitive, and, and this is critical, fictional. In practice they've patterned themselves off a different Alan Moore creation, but that's neither here nor there.

Well aware about Rorschach being fictional. Point about bringing him in is his motto of "No compromise" similar to what every one is saying about Anon right now...

And Alan Moore is Rasputin levels of creepy...

And from the looks of it, even though the FBI went to take on a few of Anon, that's just made their cause more prevalent and (unbeknownst to the FBI, who don't think that far ahead...) make others more likely to join their cause.

Again, I keep hearing this, and the source is pretty apparent. Anonymous likes to claim they're like the mythical hydra, cut one head off and two more will grow back in it's place. Now, ignoring how awkward that's would make it in the dating scene, it also isn't true.

You can gauge the factors necessary for a movement to retain momentum in the face of... let's call it "oppression" for convenience sake. General public satisfaction has to be really low for people to be willing to engage in an activity that carries this kind of risk, and getting people to engage in anything politically is like trying to call cats, it ain't fucking happening.

True...

Now, Anon likes to think there's a secret groundswell of support waiting to carry them on, but in point of fact we're talking about maybe four dozen staffers supported by five hundred to a thousand members. And when convictions start coming down, those thousand members are going to look at each other, say "this isn't the lolz I signed up for" and make a bee-line for the door. And that, is how anon will end.

Or they go back to the depths of 4chan. Main point is, that if the FBI want to defeat Anon, stop giving them ammo. All they want is for someone to pay attention to them. Other thing is, if they could stop censoring the net, that's gravy too.

Face it, Anon is the largest pack of trolls out there. To get attention, they do these things and the opposition gives them validity. I wouldn't doubt there's a few in that are naturally gifted on logistics and such, but really, how hard is it to control 10 people using an LOIC?

If it is only ten people there's going to be thirty sitting with them unjustly, which will be tragic, but it will, "kill the idea." The point is, you're right, they're trolls. Trolls are known for many things on the internet, including perseverance, but brevity is not one of them.

Not sure about that... There are other causes that may support similar ideals and goals such as anti-censorship. Right now, Anon does it without actual violence. I would think the idea would transform as newer members come to the fore. Still, I think we both can agree that no matter the circumstances, it will be the centralized government (in this case the FBI) that give rise to Anon being more famous. BoA is still focused on fighting Wikileaks as if they can crucify Julian Assange and co and suddenly Wikileaks will disappear.

 

[Slick Samurai]

Hitler tried to stop smoking, but just because he did one good thing, doesn't make him the slightest good.

Ya feeling me?

 

[FluxCapacitor]

First off, Slick Samurai loses on a Godwin rule.

Secondly, I see the point you're making, Starke, and I understand that the FBI has really tried to clean up its image, but when they are involved with these sort of corporations that image is dragged through the mud. As far as I can see, paying a third-party IT security firm for the information gained through shady means (ie. legal in the US, but illegal where the suspect lives) isn't so far away from the 'old school' way of doing things. This is even more true when you consider that HBGary were planning to do a cyber-'black bag job' on the Wikileaks servers in the bunker, as well as 'lean on' reporters to keep it hushed up.

And these are the folks your FBI are hiring as consultants. If the FBI want to keep their reputations clean, they have to avoid disreputable mobs like this. They haven't, so they're tarred with the same brush, just like the Govt lumps AnonOps in with the /b/tards that cause pranks. The only difference is that the AnonOps guys are individuals who are afforded a civil right to privacy, whereas the FBI is a large federally funded organisation that should be above reproach because oversight (no privacy) is supposed to prevent this sort of legal fudging. The fact that they aren't above reproach is the FBI's fault, but congress is also responsible for allowing the Patriot Act to grow the US intel sector while stripping away accountability.

EDIT: As Starke has correctly pointed out, the proposed attacks on servers in the bunker are Wikileaks servers, not Anon. Edited for this correction, and to add some flowery prose...

 

[The Youth Counselor]

My father worked for Bank of America for 26 years. He absolutely hated his job, but as an immigrant with three children, he thought he couldn't do better. Every day he came home angry, and took it out on us. In 2004 he was laid off with the rest of his department and replaced by Indian robots.

The month he lost his job was the happiest I ever saw him.

 

[Starke]

If the investigation against it's members was illegal, as they claim, then you'd be right the evidence would be illegally obtained, but, after having stolen it themselves they then proceeded to publish it freely.

As stated in the email from Aaron Barr. He made the anonymous investigation open source. Anons are not the ones saying its illegal, the quote stating that "critical aspects of the investigation would be illegal" is from a news article.

...abstracting the contents of Anonymous' published comments on the torrent. But, anyway.

In my many conversations with h264 over the past few days, he has gone from saying there is no leadership to identifying "AnonOps Command", from saying there are no official press releases, to admitting that "everyone" (I suppose everyone who is there at the time) decides what goes into them. He says Anonymous doesn't brag and fails to understand what bragging means, especially since many Anons (him included) brag all the time. He and the other drones may not be able to identify the leaders (especially since they define leadership in such a narrow way) but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in one form or another. Most likely the IRC server admins that the Feds searched and seized. (Meaning they have all those lovely IRC conversations.) Or those that Anonymous identifies as "staff".

I think here ya kinda lost or misunderstood what's happening.

No, his stance has shifted... somewhat erratically.

Not sure if you're referring to h264 or nightwolf...

h264. Though, I'll admit, I haven't been stalking him, so I can't say for certain there wasn't a logical transition between these points, just a rather massive shift in the arguments he's making.

After reading about how Anon trolled Scientology back in the day (mainly for the lulz), it's clear that it's more a mob rule than really structured. Yeah, they latch onto ideas and everyone has a part to play but think about if the Anon "leaders" were captured. What would that prove?

Actually, the Scientology attacks actually demonstrated behavior consistent with a more coherent command and control structure than the current rounds. Anonymous members walked a very fine line of trolling Scientology without actually crossing any thresholds that could get them arrested. In comparison today, they seem to actually be less organized, such as the attack on Justin Bieber.

They did a LOT to Scientology though... Debates in city hall, the pubic hair and vaseline thing... For a cheap price there were a lot of laughs to get out of it. And Scientology learned a very expensive lesson about trolls. I just think the attack on Justin Bieber shows that some of the newest members are kinda young.

Yeah, but the fact remains that the Scientology protest didn't seem to have any blowback on the group. I'm not aware of any arrests stemming from it, which demonstrates a certain degree of legal understanding in avoiding criminal violations that members could be charged with.

All that means is Anon picks up newer members, who keep to the same MO. In a way, it's kinda like the FBI vs a dozen Rorschachs or something.

Except Rorschach was a dangerous and wanted fugitive, and, and this is critical, fictional. In practice they've patterned themselves off a different Alan Moore creation, but that's neither here nor there.

Well aware about Rorschach being fictional. Point about bringing him in is his motto of "No compromise" similar to what every one is saying about Anon right now...

Yeah, the problem with "no compromise" even when faced with apocalypse is pretty well documented in the character's arc. Rorschach dies for his conviction because that's what that ideology demands from him. For that matter so does V. I seriously doubt that the Anonymous members have that kind of conviction. They may like to claim they do, but like those guys you see in bars who claim to be ex-SF these people are untested and untried. Once a trial gets underway we'll start getting a good picture of their mettle.

And Alan Moore is Rasputin levels of creepy...

That's only because he had Rasputin's beard surgically grafted onto his face.

And from the looks of it, even though the FBI went to take on a few of Anon, that's just made their cause more prevalent and (unbeknownst to the FBI, who don't think that far ahead...) make others more likely to join their cause.

Again, I keep hearing this, and the source is pretty apparent. Anonymous likes to claim they're like the mythical hydra, cut one head off and two more will grow back in it's place. Now, ignoring how awkward that's would make it in the dating scene, it also isn't true.

You can gauge the factors necessary for a movement to retain momentum in the face of... let's call it "oppression" for convenience sake. General public satisfaction has to be really low for people to be willing to engage in an activity that carries this kind of risk, and getting people to engage in anything politically is like trying to call cats, it ain't fucking happening.

True...

Now, Anon likes to think there's a secret groundswell of support waiting to carry them on, but in point of fact we're talking about maybe four dozen staffers supported by five hundred to a thousand members. And when convictions start coming down, those thousand members are going to look at each other, say "this isn't the lolz I signed up for" and make a bee-line for the door. And that, is how anon will end.

Or they go back to the depths of 4chan. Main point is, that if the FBI want to defeat Anon, stop giving them ammo. All they want is for someone to pay attention to them. Other thing is, if they could stop censoring the net, that's gravy too.

Oh god, if I could swing that big a stick, I wouldn't be here, I'd be out "making a difference" myself. My analysis doesn't fuel them. Maybe it burns time I shouldn't, on a subject that isn't worth the energy, but the fact remains, that basically no one knows who they are.

I don't mean the members, I mean the public don't know they exist. The New York Times article doesn't even use the term Anonymous until about the fifteenth paragraph, buried so far down in the article almost no one will read it. The Tea Party movement is still running around 11% of the population not knowing who they are, and they just ran in an election. Anonymous isn't anything more than a blip on the mainstream news.

In fact, there's a very legitimate risk that Anonymous will actually provoke more censorship online. They represent a security risk to the US, they've violated laws and hidden behind anonymity, and they've attacked foreign governments. Which is on that list in big letters of things you do not do if you don't want the government to kick down your door. On the other hand in other countries like Tunisia and Egypt, their claims that they are the champions of the hour could lead other countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran to enact stricter laws, to say nothing of Europe.

Face it, Anon is the largest pack of trolls out there. To get attention, they do these things and the opposition gives them validity. I wouldn't doubt there's a few in that are naturally gifted on logistics and such, but really, how hard is it to control 10 people using an LOIC?

If it is only ten people there's going to be thirty sitting with them unjustly, which will be tragic, but it will, "kill the idea." The point is, you're right, they're trolls. Trolls are known for many things on the internet, including perseverance, but brevity is not one of them.

Not sure about that... There are other causes that may support similar ideals and goals such as anti-censorship. Right now, Anon does it without actual violence. I would think the idea would transform as newer members come to the fore. Still, I think we both can agree that no matter the circumstances, it will be the centralized government (in this case the FBI) that give rise to Anon being more famous. BoA is still focused on fighting Wikileaks as if they can crucify Julian Assange and co and suddenly Wikileaks will disappear.

I'm not sure it will. Make them more famous I mean. Again, Anon hasn't gotten real mainstream media attention since the Scientology era. The FBI will execute trials against 40 or so people, the local news might carry the occasional bit of news on the subject, but who reads local papers from cities in other states? It'll get a bit of coverage when the trial concludes, and unless Anonymous does something monumentally stupid, that will be the end of it. They really don't have the ability to get their 15 minutes back from the Scientology round on command. Just because they're crying for attention doesn't mean anyone out there knows or cares that they exist.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

What about guilt by association?

If a government decides that Anonymous or Wikileaks is by their definition a "terrorist" organization or criminal organization, excluding contemplations of RICO, could they not also include any and everyone they find actively working in support of Anonymous or Wikileaks?

 

[Starke]

First off, Slick Samurai loses on a Godwin rule.

Usually people point out that he was a vegetarian to make that argument... or to imply that vegetarians are evil... I'm not sure which...

EDIT: the weird almost not quite alliteration word repetition was weirding my brain.

Secondly, I see the point you're making, Starke, and I understand that the FBI has really tried to clean up its image, but when they are involved with these sort of corporations that image is dragged through the mud. As far as I can see, paying a third-party IT security firm for the information gained through shady means (ie. legal in the US, but illegal where the suspect lives) isn't so far away from the 'old school' way of doing things. This is even more true when you consider that HBGary were planning to do a cyber-'black bag job' on the Anon servers in the bunker, as well as 'lean on' reporters to keep it hushed up.

And these are the folks your FBI are hiring as consultants. If the FBI want to keep their reputations clean, they have to avoid disreputable mobs like this.

It does appear that the pressuring reporters came out of the pentagon and was focused on the wikileaks angle... or at least that they were courting the pentagon with this. To say they were leaning on reporters over Anon gives Anon far too much credit.

 

[Starke]

What about guilt by association?

If a government decides that Anonymous or Wikileaks is by their definition a "terrorist" organization or criminal organization, excluding contemplations of RICO, could they not also include any and everyone they find actively working in support of Anonymous or Wikileaks?

I believe, for RICO to attach you have to commit a criminal act in support of the organization. Once you've done that then you can get swatted with everything under the tree. That said, this could theoretically include anyone who donated to Wikileaks...

 

[AnonOperations]

Anon hasn't gotten real mainstream media attention since the Scientology era.

Anons got plenty of mainstream media attention with operation payback. But that isn't the point, you don't need to get media attention to work towards a free press and against censorship.