Another 'Anonymous' thread.

[GLo Jones]

I'm sure you've all seen the reports suggesting Anonymous's attack on the PSN, and the figureheads of AnonOps responding with "it was nothing to do with us". Many people here instead suggest that, due to Anon's structure (or lack of), it could still easily be a splinter group within the organisation.

My question is, if smaller and smaller groups of people posing anonymously perform acts such as this, at what point can they no longer considered part of the collective?

All of us here seem to refer to 'Anonymous' as one large entity. But what if the PSN 'intrusion' was caused by one individual? Is that still the work of 'Anonymous'? Can we ever know? If the one person claims to be 'Anonymous', would the group have no way of shaking off the effects of the minority without losing it's shapelessness?

Comments regarding your opinion on the group itself, or it's activities, is discouraged. We have enough of those threads these days.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

They actually aren't a group or collective, at all. The very fact that so few people seem to realize this is pathetic in it's own right.

Each act by "Anonymous" is basically a totally different group of like-minded people with totally different goals. Hence the reason the name Anonymous is used. "Anonymous" itself is basically a showcase for what a group of people can do when they work together for a common goal. Sure, some people may overlap between each "attack" or whatever, but on the whole it's just people coming together to prove a point. For good or ill, depending on perspective.

 

[eels05]

This is where their whole set up comes around and bites them on the arse.

They have zero control over what acts are perpetrated under their banner.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Fuck yeah, tapirs.

Anyway, from what I heard the statement was more along the lines of, 'it might be some of us, but it's not all of us'.

And yes, the thing about Anonymous is anyone can be it. You don't even have to buy a Guy Fawkes mask to join either.

This is where their whole set up comes around and bits them on the arse.

They have zero control over what acts are perpetrated under their banner.

I'm not really sure what the problem is for Anonymous, really. If it's not them, it's not them.
It's generally only the people who aren't behind seven ponies proxies who get collared anyway. Kind of a 'survival of the fittest' of the digital world.

 

[Verlander]

I could do something and refer to myself as anonymous. That's the strength AND weakness of anonymous. However, unfortunately, since this has started, I never see it stopping unless people stop paying attention to them.

 

[GLo Jones]

Each act by "Anonymous" is basically a totally different group of like-minded people with totally different goals.

The announcements made by AnonOps, however, tend to point towards the group being one collective, and no other anons ever dispute this.

If a group other than AnonOps were to commit acts counter-productive to the 'Anonymous's current mission' anonymously, how would they be defined? Would they be referred to by their IRC networks? If so, why stop there? You could have the alias of various IRC users, and then, would that still count as anonymity?

 

[StBishop]

Isn't Anon just everyone?

I was always under the impression that every person on the planet is Anon but we all deny it and decry their actions to appear civil.

 

[SkyrimOrBust]

Anonymous is fail.

The simple reason has been stated; they can't get anything done because they're all trying to get something else done.

I've seem some statements from Anonymous that I believe are true and some I believe are absolute bullshit.

Their very nature has undermined them.

 

[PimpHandofGod]

Personally I think Sony is blowing smoke to discredit the point Anonyomous is trying to make (which wouldnt be hard considering how they go about it). It just doesnt make any sense for them to attack the costumers.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Personally I think Sony is blowing smoke to discredit the point Anonyomous is trying to make (which wouldnt be hard considering how they go about it). It just doesnt make any sense for them to attack the costumers.

Sony has not blamed Anon for this current problem.

I haven't seen the word anonymous come into play out of Sony's mouth regarding this. So, why people act like you think Sony is using Anon as a scapegoat is fucking ridiculous.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Each act by "Anonymous" is basically a totally different group of like-minded people with totally different goals.

The announcements made by AnonOps, however, tend to point towards the group being one collective, and no other anons ever dispute this.

If a group other than AnonOps were to commit acts counter-productive to the 'Anonymous's current mission' anonymously, how would they be defined? Would they be referred to by their IRC networks? If so, why stop there? You could have the alias of various IRC users, and then, would that still count as anonymity?

They're just blowing smoke, really. Preying on the media's vision on Anon as an organized attack group.

 

[PimpHandofGod]

Personally I think Sony is blowing smoke to discredit the point Anonyomous is trying to make (which wouldnt be hard considering how they go about it). It just doesnt make any sense for them to attack the costumers.

Sony has not blamed Anon for this current problem.

I haven't seen the word anonymous come into play out of Sony's mouth regarding this. So, why people act like you think Sony is using Anon as a scapegoat is fucking ridiculous.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.279299-Sony-Admits-External-Forces-Brought-Down-PSN

Take that for what you will. They may not have outright said it but you can tell what they are implying.

 

[GLo Jones]

Personally I think Sony is blowing smoke to discredit the point Anonyomous is trying to make (which wouldnt be hard considering how they go about it). It just doesnt make any sense for them to attack the costumers.

Sony has not blamed Anon for this current problem.

I haven't seen the word anonymous come into play out of Sony's mouth regarding this. So, why people act like you think Sony is using Anon as a scapegoat is fucking ridiculous.

Sony doesn't need to spell it out. After recent events, they can be as vague as they want, and at this stage, all they've said is that it was caused by someone outside the company. By the definition you earlier mentioned, that means Anonymous ARE presumed the perpetrators unless some form of identification is found.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Personally I think Sony is blowing smoke to discredit the point Anonyomous is trying to make (which wouldnt be hard considering how they go about it). It just doesnt make any sense for them to attack the costumers.

Sony has not blamed Anon for this current problem.

I haven't seen the word anonymous come into play out of Sony's mouth regarding this. So, why people act like you think Sony is using Anon as a scapegoat is fucking ridiculous.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.279299-Sony-Admits-External-Forces-Brought-Down-PSN

Take that for what you will. They may not have outright said it but you can tell what they are implying.

No. No, you can't tell. If they were actually trying to scapegoat Anon, they would just say it. They'd have nothing to fucking lose by just saying "Anonymous", really. You don't quietly scapegoat. You do it loudly and try and victimize yourself.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Personally I think Sony is blowing smoke to discredit the point Anonyomous is trying to make (which wouldnt be hard considering how they go about it). It just doesnt make any sense for them to attack the costumers.

Sony has not blamed Anon for this current problem.

I haven't seen the word anonymous come into play out of Sony's mouth regarding this. So, why people act like you think Sony is using Anon as a scapegoat is fucking ridiculous.

Sony doesn't need to spell it out. After recent events, they can be as vague as they want, and at this stage, all they've said is that it was caused by someone outside the company. By the definition you earlier mentioned, that means Anonymous ARE presumed the perpetrators unless some form of identification is found.

No...by the defination I gave earlier...ANYONE could have done it.

The fact is, what Anon is, and what the media's representative of it is are two different things. They aren't trying to blame Anon here. Read above post.

 

[GLo Jones]

Each act by "Anonymous" is basically a totally different group of like-minded people with totally different goals.

The announcements made by AnonOps, however, tend to point towards the group being one collective, and no other anons ever dispute this.

If a group other than AnonOps were to commit acts counter-productive to the 'Anonymous's current mission' anonymously, how would they be defined? Would they be referred to by their IRC networks? If so, why stop there? You could have the alias of various IRC users, and then, would that still count as anonymity?

They're just blowing smoke, really. Preying on the media's vision on Anon as an organized attack group.

So we reach my initial question about the definition of Anonymous. Why does everyone continue to refer to them as a single entity with all the fallacies that brings? How should they be referred to? Would using the IRC network used for the project be more accurate?

 

[SkyrimOrBust]

Each act by "Anonymous" is basically a totally different group of like-minded people with totally different goals.

The announcements made by AnonOps, however, tend to point towards the group being one collective, and no other anons ever dispute this.

If a group other than AnonOps were to commit acts counter-productive to the 'Anonymous's current mission' anonymously, how would they be defined? Would they be referred to by their IRC networks? If so, why stop there? You could have the alias of various IRC users, and then, would that still count as anonymity?

They're just blowing smoke, really. Preying on the media's vision on Anon as an organized attack group.

So we reach my initial question about the definition of Anonymous. Why does everyone continue to refer to them as a single entity with all the fallacies that brings? How should they be referred to? Would using the IRC network used for the project be more accurate?

You can't really address them as one thing. People refer to them as one because they don't really know what Anonymous is.

 

[gigastar]

Really Anon's greatest failing is that they dont have an established structure.

Because of this, any like-minded group of individuals can act on anything they come to agreement on without telling the rest of the amalgam.

Yes, i believe the correct term for Anon is amalgam.

 

[McPulse]

I quite enjoyed the article in Crikey! magazine recently regarding a US military branch who claimed to have 'hacked anonymous'. When they refused to produce any supporting evidence, their computers were wiped in what they called an 'unrelated incident' and most of their files were posted on wikileaks.

How hard would it be to 'hack anonymous'?

NB- I have no way of verifying this story. Crikey! is generally considered a trustworthy news source, but it has multiple authours. On the other hand, I haven't seen a retraction yet.

 

[PimpHandofGod]

Personally I think Sony is blowing smoke to discredit the point Anonyomous is trying to make (which wouldnt be hard considering how they go about it). It just doesnt make any sense for them to attack the costumers.

Sony has not blamed Anon for this current problem.

I haven't seen the word anonymous come into play out of Sony's mouth regarding this. So, why people act like you think Sony is using Anon as a scapegoat is fucking ridiculous.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.279299-Sony-Admits-External-Forces-Brought-Down-PSN

Take that for what you will. They may not have outright said it but you can tell what they are implying.

No. No, you can't tell. If they were actually trying to scapegoat Anon, they would just say it. They'd have nothing to fucking lose by just saying "Anonymous", really. You don't quietly scapegoat. You do it loudly and try and victimize yourself.

Theres a difference between trying to pass off blame and trying to ruin someone's reputation. Though I will admit that its entirely possible some fuckwits calling themselves Anon could have attacked the servers just because they have Sony's name on it but I just dont think thats very likely because the only people being hurt are the players.