On Anonymous

[Vetinarii]

Experienced Points: On Anonymous

Shamus considers the Anonymous phenomenon.

Read Full Article

And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.

Clearly you don't realise that not every anon is a dick. That's the whole nature of anon. Some are good. Some are bad. United for a common cause for as long as they're needed and then they move on.

The one making lopsided arguments here is you. Scared? Part of the collective? What do you think the escapist is made up of exactly?

Tapping this one off before I go to work.

Do you ever notice how anonymous will only usually take credit for the good things? Any time anything bad happens, from hacking a website, to trolling some random guy, they collectively shout. "splinter group! wasn't us!"or "those clowns aren't the real anonymous!" but when something "positive" happens they don't mind soaking up all the attention like they are truly saviors? Hell more now than ever. the group out right refuses to take true responsibility for anything and anytime something really happens that can make them look even more awful {somehow} they ill swear up and down its not them and try to point the blame elsewhere.

Well done... you have now encountered how life works...

Think for a second. What if the people who started Anon feel very strongly against the bad things? Well the TRUE Anon didn't do it then did they? Some randomers did. Terrorist groups often have splinter factions that just want to cause loads of damage and have no actual ideals. Note the term terrorist. Also shut up I hate your free speech.

 

[Starke]

Massive snip

Thanks for calling my ideology stupid.We can totally clash and measure their IQ.The girl claimed she was 16.Trying to troll,saying she has tits etc.Tits or gtfo is a rule of the internet.She could have always hidden for a while.Apologised.Simple actions that any 12 yo would know.I know I did that age.[/quit]
Well, you're welcome. Yes, we've all reviewed the Jessi Slaughter story by now. But quite frankly Tits or get the fuck out is a rule of 4chan. 4chan is not the internet much in the same way anesthetized bowel surgery is not quality entertainment. And yes, 12 year olds tend to do moronic things. It is always comforting to know that we can expect an equally mature response from Anonymous/4chan though.

I'd rather not have some industry clown speak his mind with something rather offensive because he thinks he's untouchable.

Well, you got one part of that dead on right, this is Gene Simmons we're talking about. Again, it's not about thinking he's untouchable though, the mistake is Simmons thinking he's relevant. Unfortunately for everyone, anonymous validated his crazy card by retaliating against him.

If they'd posted a news release saying, "We'd respond to Mr. Simmons, but then we remembered he was crazier than a Lemur on mescaline," then he would have gotten nothing, and they could still hide behind their claims of believing in free speech. But that didn't exactly happen.

Justin Bieber is already a laughing stock.That said people don't just attack him out of spite.There was also the case where he put a guy's phone number on twitter and told his fans he was a troll.Effectively bullying the kid.But you know best right.

Except, the attack on Bieber came during the LOIC attacks on Visa and Mastercard. Not as part of a separate operation. This wasn't a response to anything Bieber had done (beyond existing). There was no statement of intent from Anon, just a random DDoS.

I'm not saying Bieber isn't an annoying little shit, or that I'm not amused by this. I am saying this was completely fucking random and unprovoked.

Right, because that was the problem for the girl Anonymous went after a couple years ago, she was being an "asshole" by not taking off her shirt when they told her to. Right.

Are you talking about Jessi Slaughter? Because you're very uninformed on that front [http://gawker.com/5589103/how-the-internet-beat-up-an-11+year+old-girl]...
Her parents were slacking off at being parents. Someone had to teach her a lesson. She would up getting it the hard way.

Uninformed? Nope. Misremembering? Yes. Others did remind me of the details yesterday, but thank you for the link.

 

[Shio]

I still find myself waiting for someone to prove Anonymous actually exists.

 

[Starke]

Imagine the police drag you in and explain that they want the names of all of the people in your organization.

I have to take the opportunity to post this video. The TL;DW is talking to cops under any circumstance is a bad idea. The only words you should say are "am I free to go?" and if the answer is no then the only proper response is "I would like to speak to an attorney"

I seriously love that video. It's been a couple months since someone posted it, but still.

Tapping this one off before I go to work.

Do you ever notice how anonymous will only usually take credit for the good things? Any time anything bad happens, from hacking a website, to trolling some random guy, they collectively shout. "splinter group! wasn't us!"or "those clowns aren't the real anonymous!" but when something "positive" happens they don't mind soaking up all the attention like they are truly saviors? Hell more now than ever. the group out right refuses to take true responsibility for anything and anytime something really happens that can make them look even more awful {somehow} they ill swear up and down its not them and try to point the blame elsewhere.

Well done... you have now encountered how life works...

Think for a second. What if the people who started Anon feel very strongly against the bad things? Well the TRUE Anon didn't do it then did they? Some randomers did. Terrorist groups often have splinter factions that just want to cause loads of damage and have no actual ideals. Note the term terrorist. Also shut up I hate your free speech.

It's not so much "how life works" as how organizations tend to behave when they don't have a coherent ideology underlining their actions. Sure you get schisms in any group, but this is a kind of blatant opportunism that really doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Actually, the freedom to "protest peacefully" is a misinterpretation of what people's ACTUAL rights should be. Just because someone isn't attacking you with a club doesn't mean he has the right to walk in your front door, sit in your living room, and refuse to leave. He CERTAINLY doesn't have the right to physically block you from getting out of your house so you can go to work, even if he never raises a hand against you. So why should people have the "right" to do this to businesses and government agencies? Don't people who own businesses and work at government agencies have rights?

Property owners have the right to the use of their property. If you are forcibly blocking them from doing so they have the absolute right to remove you from their property.

And, no, that street or sidewalk in front of their property is not a "public" street for anyone to use for any purpose they wish. (The fact that everyone is forced to pay for said street by the government aside--the government shouldn't be taking our money to build roads in the first place.) You can't take a jackhammer out there some day and start ripping up the road at your whim. Nor should you be permitted to interfere with the other people who are legally using that street.

The right to peaceably assemble means that you have the right to meet and talk with people if you have permission from the property owner where you are assembling. I don't see any problem with people standing around with signs and distributing leaflets, either, provided, again, that they have the permission of the property owner. But once you start using force (not necessarily being violent, but violence is *not* the only form of physical force) the police should send you off.

 

[icaritos]

I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.

And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?

Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.

To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?

Yeah, Hal Turner and Chris Forcand were harrassed.

Good deeds to not exempt someone from bad deeds. Anon engages in far more bad than good, unless you've never actually lurked on a chan and seen their completely unprovoked trolling brigades?

I like how people keep sqauking out the same 5 or 6 good things (and more ironically most of them happened over 4 years ago) they have done, the same names, the same events, and at the same time completely ignore everything else. There is a REASON they are known as the assholes of the internet, or did you forget that to?

/b is not anonymous, you are confusing the chans with the actual movement.

 

[Toasty Virus]

I admit here and now (as if i actually have to at this point) I hate anonymous. Completely and utterly. I think they are a collection of terrible poeple with insane every changing ideals, i think they are responsible for there splinter groups because they themselves created them. I have a absolute 10 mile high hate boner for anons. And i swing here in your faces.

They probably do more good that I've ever heard of but thats only because i can't hear it over all the bad they do as well. I'm sure the actual group only a tiny percentage actually engage in any of the criminal or hurtful acts. But i don't believe that just "voids" you from responsibility or acknowledgement.

Okay, I've sat and read all of your posts up until this point. You've gone too far.

I'll level with you, I have participated in trolling a internet radio station. Technically this makes me a part of anonymous. Does this however make me a "terrible person with ever changing ideals?" Like fuck it does!

and nothing, NOTHING gives you the right to judge another person based on their ideals.

 

[Starke]

I admit here and now (as if i actually have to at this point) I hate anonymous. Completely and utterly. I think they are a collection of terrible poeple with insane every changing ideals, i think they are responsible for there splinter groups because they themselves created them. I have a absolute 10 mile high hate boner for anons. And i swing here in your faces.

They probably do more good that I've ever heard of but thats only because i can't hear it over all the bad they do as well. I'm sure the actual group only a tiny percentage actually engage in any of the criminal or hurtful acts. But i don't believe that just "voids" you from responsibility or acknowledgement.

Okay, I've sat and read all of your posts up until this point. You've gone too far.

I'll level with you, I have participated in trolling a internet radio station. Technically this makes me a part of anonymous. Does this however make me a "terrible person with ever changing ideals?" Like fuck it does!

and nothing, NOTHING gives you the right to judge another person based on their ideals.

Then I think you missed the point. I don't think anyone in here is really hammering on Anonymous for their espoused ideals. They are being judged based on how they betray their own espoused ideals at every turn, sabotaging the very causes they claim to champion.

Is it legitimate to judge someone because of their ideology? Well, yes. We do it all the time. It may not be tasteful, or fair, but it does happen.

Is it legitimate to judge someone for their actions? Absolutely. It is also legitimate and completely fair to judge someone's actions based on their own espoused ideology. Those who fall short are called hypocrites. A term we can readily apply to Anonymous.

 

[The Great JT]

Talking about Anonymous?! You brave fool, are you TRYING to piss off the volcano?

 

[Retosa]

Tapping this one off before I go to work.

Do you ever notice how anonymous will only usually take credit for the good things? Any time anything bad happens, from hacking a website, to trolling some random guy, they collectively shout. "splinter group! wasn't us!"or "those clowns aren't the real anonymous!" but when something "positive" happens they don't mind soaking up all the attention like they are truly saviors? Hell more now than ever. the group out right refuses to take true responsibility for anything and anytime something really happens that can make them look even more awful {somehow} they ill swear up and down its not them and try to point the blame elsewhere.

Well done... you have now encountered how life works...

Think for a second. What if the people who started Anon feel very strongly against the bad things? Well the TRUE Anon didn't do it then did they? Some randomers did. Terrorist groups often have splinter factions that just want to cause loads of damage and have no actual ideals. Note the term terrorist. Also shut up I hate your free speech.

It's not so much "how life works" as how organizations tend to behave when they don't have a coherent ideology underlining their actions. Sure you get schisms in any group, but this is a kind of blatant opportunism that really doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.[/quote]

You're wrong, and blatantly wrong at that. People will take the praise and soak up the good while trying to cast the blame at others when things go bad. No one wants to admit they dun goofed up, and organizations are even worse for that. Individuals will sometimes admit it. Organizations, companies, and large entities however have a reputation to consider. And they will pick the easiest scapegoat available to pin the blame on, and continue trucking along like nothing happened if they can. If they can't, they'll HAVE to accept some responsibility.

 

[Sofus]

Imagine the police drag you in and explain that they want the names of all of the people in your organization.

I have to take the opportunity to post this video. The TL;DW is talking to cops under any circumstance is a bad idea. The only words you should say are "am I free to go?" and if the answer is no then the only proper response is "I would like to speak to an attorney"

No offense, but the police is the USA are either terribly underqualified, or the system is entirely broken at it's core. I have to admit that here in Denmark the court functions differently. Specefically that no person can be convicted aslong as it is questionable whether or not the prosecuted is guilty.

Without proof, all you have is guesswork, and then we might aswell just flip a coin.

 

[Starke]

It's not so much "how life works" as how organizations tend to behave when they don't have a coherent ideology underlining their actions. Sure you get schisms in any group, but this is a kind of blatant opportunism that really doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.

You're wrong, and blatantly wrong at that.

No, not really. But, I'm sure I have a lot to learn on that subject from you.

People will take the praise and soak up the good while trying to cast the blame at others when things go bad. No one wants to admit they dun goofed up, and organizations are even worse for that. Individuals will sometimes admit it. Organizations, companies, and large entities however have a reputation to consider. And they will pick the easiest scapegoat available to pin the blame on, and continue trucking along like nothing happened if they can. If they can't, they'll HAVE to accept some responsibility.

Well, that is a very cynical view of the world. Not completely incorrect, but very cynical. You're right that most people will not stand up and admit their errors unless they have to, and that (in western culture) groups, and especially companies will avoid it unless they're genuinely caught.

But, that's not what's going on here. In these cases, Anonymous was taking credit for things they did not do, while shirking the blame for the consequences of their actions. In their defense, I seriously doubt they've stopped to consider what the consequences of their actions were, instead, choosing to create a fiction where they are the heroes.

And that, my good sir, is "opportunism," not simply a perspective of human nature.

 

[Starke]

No offense, but the police is the USA are either terribly underqualified, or the system is entirely broken at it's core. I have to admit that here in Denmark the court functions differently. Specefically that we have no jury (as a jury acts on more than just evidence), and that no person can be convicted aslong as it is questionable whether or not the prosecuted is guilty.

Alot of guilty people do however go free here (minor offences though), simply because the police deem that they lack evidence to get someone convicted, so instead of wasting time in the court they just move on.

While I'm not truly qualified to talk about the complete history of law and civil rights in the States, this is a system that has emerged over the past century and change.

The US inherited a chunk of it's legal system from the British in the eighteenth century, and has continued to evolve it from there. On the whole the system is actually skewed in favor of the accused, but, when it comes to the police, they get a disproportionate affect on court proceeding.

I would encourage you to watch the second half of the video, which presents the side of this from the position of a police officer.

 

[Calbeck]

A few dozen Anons have already been picked up. The reality is, lots of Anons know each other, and many of those Anons know other Anons.

The ones who are "Anons when they feel like it" aren't the "highly-motivated" ones involved in anything of significance that Anonymous does.

The very fact that there are certain people who supposedly act as "spokesAnons", and that there are actually "splinter groups" with their own projects and agendas within Anonymous, means that there is some level of organization there...not the perfect semi-anarchy so often claimed.

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

I think Anonymous is far more dangerous than you think. Regardless of who perpetrated it, the PSN attack shows that a small group of hackers of even minor talent can shut down a whole corporate operation, cost that company billions and, in essence, essentially shift whole sectors of the economy (i.e., after two significant attacks, certainly millions of playstation owners are eyeing the emergency exit right now).

Shortly after the PSN attack, a major US security firm was also hacked (the name escapes me right now), and while the firm CLAIMS no sensitive information was taken, the attack apparently caught them off guard and the next one might just result in the pilfering of some seriously powerful stuff.

Hardly anything exists on paper anymore, and it's fairly obvious that some are slower than others to adapt to the computer age, which leaves huge gaps in security just waiting to be exploited. The power and significance of these attacks will only escalate.

That said, for my money, Anonymous does a pretty good job of sticking to at least a loose set of principles, and often stand up for the little guy. I hesitate to say they're modern day Robin Hoods but they at least act as a sort of watchdog to ensure corporations and politicians adhere to some kind of ethics.

 

[Calbeck]

Don't START nothing, then there won't BE nothin.

Well, except for the small fact that Anon's never needed an excuse to start somethin' in the first place. Can't forget that it's all about the lulz...including those sought for the purpose of assuaging self-righteous anger.

 

[Sudenak]

tell me exactly how they attacked the problem? buy sending hundreds of thousands of customers forcefully offline? buy releasing the personal information of thousands of bottom wrung paper pushing employees trying to earn their 9 to 5?? How did they do anything but catastrophically effect literally hundreds of thousands of poeple who had nothing to do with this to begin with? the "choice makers" in sony are all at the top, not at the bottom. They disrupted the jobs and gaming of a insane amount of innocent poeple to "make a point" they are going after firms who have utterly nothing to do with sony's gaming market now. Tell me what lesson was taught, and how this "eye opener" has done anything more than piss a scores of poeple off who had nothing to do with this in the first place?

they have no concern who they effect as long as they get out there message. No matter what the impact is, no matter the collateral damage, no matter who's effected.

And you wonder why poeple call them terrorists.

edit: And as if that wasn't enough, they do this well outside the boundaries of the law, doing some things that could land them over 25 years in the slammer. They aren't even brave protesters, they hide and do things from thousands of miles away, doing all they can to not get caught. at least in the 70's they had the balls to actually show up and protest without breaking 10 laws in the process.

You can have your thugs buddy.

You are purely blaming Anonymous. You previously stated that you just utterly hate Anonymous no matter what. We're done here.

I said that Anon had no reason to go after Sony, and that Sony only started blaming Anon once they got the bill for what happened. Before that, Sony was in agreement that Anon didn't do it.

So, as I said: We're done here. Go ahead and blindly froth at Anonymous. Because that totally gets things done, and totally shows how evil they are. Enjoy trying to prove how a bunch of hackers are affiliated with an anonymous, amorphous entity that prides itself in being literally anybody.

Next you'll be cheering on the Patriot Act or something.