h264 said:
nightwolf667 said:
It should probably be noted that in so far of the FBI investigation(and the very limited information available) the feds do seem to be targeting those Anons who behave like "leaders"/staff. IRC channel admins who organize the different "operations" and the like.
There has to be some kind of structure, they can't have people coming in and spamming etc. These people prosecuted are comparable to forum moderates.
As I witnessed last night and today, press releases are a combined effort from whoever is available and willing to work on them at the time. There is no specific people doing each of them, anyone can help and add ideas etc.
Which goes back to my point I made earlier...
Who controls who does what and ensures that members of Anonymous aren't engaging in corrupt, illegal, or even dangerous activities?
Who vets the materials to make sure that members are releasing doctored documents or even flat-out lies? How do you establish credibility with such an organization where just about anyone can do anything and simply slap the "Anonymous seal of approval" on it.
Just as in this case... which member of Anonymous sat there and reviewed each and every one of those 60,000 documents, parsed the information that was relevant from what was irrelevant, took the pains to protect the innocent from having their personal or private information bundled in accidentally and revealed to the world unwillingly, and redacted anything else that might have been unnecessary to release?
It couldn't have been one person, this information, this "plot" is too new, too fresh.
This is what makes Anonymous dangerous... they boast while saying they do not boast. They attack with impunity without a care to the collateral damage they cause, and offer no reparations to the third parties that might have been inadvertently harmed. When I see a story that says "Anonymous takes collection, pays off mortgage for poor chap that got fired when his companies evil plans were exposed by hacked documents they released", then I'll perhaps view them in a favorable light.
Until then, I'll remain heavily suspicious and wary of them, and perhaps even in support of some sort of Government investigation into their actions. Heck, how do I know that right now I am not being marked for "reprisal" for speaking my opinion and pointing out concerns? I am not an evil man with evil plans, yet my logic and lack of support my sway opinions about them, thus making me a potential threat? How long before someone from Anonymous decides to to take so-called "non-violent" action against me? Maybe even a member that just wants to do it for the Lulz because he's so down for the cause?
Which leading member of Anonymous, if any, who has any real clout within the organization can give me a personal assurance of safety and privacy? I don't want the Government in my business, but I sure as hell don't want Anonymous in it either.