Sony Provides Timeline of Attack Hinting at Anonymous' Involvement

[Svenparty]

I cant go through these threads without cringing at the thought of people who have this logic:

"Anonymous didn't do it because they haven't announced it etc"

Anon can be ANYONE of ANY idealogical stand point. It's what gives them their power as they can be portrayed by the majority of Media as a shadowy org who are everywhere. For all we know the hackers could claim to be Anonymous but that doesn't place the blame on a large extent on the more popular "operations"

Overall things like this make you wonder about the future of the Internet when hackers can sometimes be virtually limitless.

Our logic arises from some simple points:

1. Anonymous, as the group most well known, has certain characteristics. Dick-waving being chief among these.
2. While anyone (EVERYONE!) is Anonymous, that doesn't mean they're Anonymous or that other Anons will give half a shit. If one Anon goes against the rest of Anonymous, said Anon is now just an anon.
3. Hackers on Steroids. Get some curtains and buy a dog.

1. The most well "known" groups of Anon are unlikely to have the hacking ability to pull off the Sony hacking.

2. There are various groups that claim to be Anonymous. My point still stands you are making it sound like the hackers have to be part of the "well known" groups which defeats the point of Anonymous

 

[BlueMage]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

they attacked websites belonging to the US government.

that's not cyber-terrorism?

 

[BlueMage]

I cant go through these threads without cringing at the thought of people who have this logic:

"Anonymous didn't do it because they haven't announced it etc"

Anon can be ANYONE of ANY idealogical stand point. It's what gives them their power as they can be portrayed by the majority of Media as a shadowy org who are everywhere. For all we know the hackers could claim to be Anonymous but that doesn't place the blame on a large extent on the more popular "operations"

Overall things like this make you wonder about the future of the Internet when hackers can sometimes be virtually limitless.

Our logic arises from some simple points:

1. Anonymous, as the group most well known, has certain characteristics. Dick-waving being chief among these.
2. While anyone (EVERYONE!) is Anonymous, that doesn't mean they're Anonymous or that other Anons will give half a shit. If one Anon goes against the rest of Anonymous, said Anon is now just an anon.
3. Hackers on Steroids. Get some curtains and buy a dog.

1. The most well "known" groups of Anon are unlikely to have the hacking ability to pull off the Sony hacking.

2. There are various groups that claim to be Anonymous. My point still stands you are making it sound like the hackers have to be part of the "well known" groups which defeats the point of Anonymous

* sigh * You still don't get it, and I'm tired of saying the same thing in a slightly different way so you can pick up on it.

The Sony attack is far more indicative of ORGANISED FUCKING CRIME than the usual For The Lulz! that Anon typically goes with. Chanology? Yeah, at its heart, for the lulz. Anon is basically a hive mind - if one mind dissents, it's cut off from the group, therefore .... no, you know what? Fuck it. This is why I don't do multiplayer.

 

[BlueMage]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

they attacked websites belonging to the US government.

that's not cyber-terrorism?

They also attacked websites belonging to the Australian government.

No, that's not cyber-terrorism. Cyber-terrorism is targeting infrastructure - say, a nuclear plant where the Siemens control system is net-facing - and remotely changing firmware parameters, thereby destabilising the plant and dramatically increasing the likelihood of critical failure. You see the difference?

 

[BodomBeachChild]

So what people are saying is... a group as good as Anon is dumb enough to leave a big red sign saying "we did it." I wish video game laws applied to reality and things were that simple. I have serious doubts to Anon stealing all this.

 

[Saelune]

The bonus stuff is pretty sweet...for all the people who survived the PSN hack without losing any credit info.

While I believe Anonymous did not jointly do it, could always be a splinter hacker that did it on their own, or someone using an obvious scape goat.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

they attacked websites belonging to the US government.

that's not cyber-terrorism?

They also attacked websites belonging to the Australian government.

No, that's not cyber-terrorism. Cyber-terrorism is targeting infrastructure - say, a nuclear plant where the Siemens control system is net-facing - and remotely changing firmware parameters, thereby destabilising the plant and dramatically increasing the likelihood of critical failure. You see the difference?

if they were not criminals, then why are the governments of the world attempting to bring them all to justice? plus, you have poor reasoning if you do not see the connection between cyber-terrorism and their actions. they have shown nothing but disregard for federal and international laws. the fact that they would target and attempt to bring down government sites and EVEN ATTACK THEIR INFRASTASTRUCTURE (which they have, don't deny it) then does that not (even by your definition) make them cyber terrorists?

 

[BlueMage]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

they attacked websites belonging to the US government.

that's not cyber-terrorism?

They also attacked websites belonging to the Australian government.

No, that's not cyber-terrorism. Cyber-terrorism is targeting infrastructure - say, a nuclear plant where the Siemens control system is net-facing - and remotely changing firmware parameters, thereby destabilising the plant and dramatically increasing the likelihood of critical failure. You see the difference?

if they were not criminals, then why are the governments of the world attempting to bring them all to justice? plus, you have poor reasoning if you do not see the connection between cyber-terrorism and their actions. they have shown nothing but disregard for federal and international laws. the fact that they would target and attempt to bring down government sites and EVEN ATTACK THEIR INFRASTASTRUCTURE (which they have, don't deny it) then does that not (even by your definition) make them cyber terrorists?

I'll deny anything you can't back with proof. Given my argument is the negative, that places the burden of proof upon you. So yes, show me where critical infrastructure (no, PSN does NOT count) has been targeted. I'll even help you start the search - Stuxnet.

And you seem to have a misunderstanding about what a terrorist is versus what a criminal is. I rob a bank - I'm a criminal. I plant a bomb in a crowded location and trigger it - I'm a criminal AND a terrorist.

I hack a website - I'm probably a criminal. I hack a government website - I'm very likely a criminal in the eyes of that government. I bypass security and remotely alter programming or firmware of a control system on a hospital or a power plant - I'm a criminal and a terrorist.

Of course, the issue most governments take with Anonymous in particular is that because of the world-wide distribution, one way or another, whatever restriction is legally placed, can be legally circumvented elsewhere.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

they attacked websites belonging to the US government.

that's not cyber-terrorism?

They also attacked websites belonging to the Australian government.

No, that's not cyber-terrorism. Cyber-terrorism is targeting infrastructure - say, a nuclear plant where the Siemens control system is net-facing - and remotely changing firmware parameters, thereby destabilising the plant and dramatically increasing the likelihood of critical failure. You see the difference?

if they were not criminals, then why are the governments of the world attempting to bring them all to justice? plus, you have poor reasoning if you do not see the connection between cyber-terrorism and their actions. they have shown nothing but disregard for federal and international laws. the fact that they would target and attempt to bring down government sites and EVEN ATTACK THEIR INFRASTASTRUCTURE (which they have, don't deny it) then does that not (even by your definition) make them cyber terrorists?

I'll deny anything you can't back with proof. Given my argument is the negative, that places the burden of proof upon you. So yes, show me where critical infrastructure (no, PSN does NOT count) has been targeted. I'll even help you start the search - Stuxnet.

And you seem to have a misunderstanding about what a terrorist is versus what a criminal is. I rob a bank - I'm a criminal. I plant a bomb in a crowded location and trigger it - I'm a criminal AND a terrorist.

I hack a website - I'm probably a criminal. I hack a government website - I'm very likely a criminal in the eyes of that government. I bypass security and remotely alter programming or firmware of a control system on a hospital or a power plant - I'm a criminal and a terrorist.

Of course, the issue most governments take with Anonymous in particular is that because of the world-wide distribution, one way or another, whatever restriction is legally placed, can be legally circumvented elsewhere.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107596-Anonymous-Strikes-Back-Hacks-Internet-Security-Firm
boom
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107389-FBI-Executes-Search-Warrants-on-40-Anonymous-Members
bam
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107348-Anonymous-Members-Arrested-for-Performing-DDOS-Attacks
pow
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106549-FBI-Raids-Texas-Company-in-Hunt-for-Anonymous
another onomatopoeia


and for the coup de gras?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104994-Anonymous-Attacks-US-Government

that up there is a blatant act of cyber terrorism. if you make any hostile action against a government (or at all) in order to make them show some amount of fear or provoke a response, that makes you a terrorist

 

[BlueMage]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

they attacked websites belonging to the US government.

that's not cyber-terrorism?

They also attacked websites belonging to the Australian government.

No, that's not cyber-terrorism. Cyber-terrorism is targeting infrastructure - say, a nuclear plant where the Siemens control system is net-facing - and remotely changing firmware parameters, thereby destabilising the plant and dramatically increasing the likelihood of critical failure. You see the difference?

if they were not criminals, then why are the governments of the world attempting to bring them all to justice? plus, you have poor reasoning if you do not see the connection between cyber-terrorism and their actions. they have shown nothing but disregard for federal and international laws. the fact that they would target and attempt to bring down government sites and EVEN ATTACK THEIR INFRASTASTRUCTURE (which they have, don't deny it) then does that not (even by your definition) make them cyber terrorists?

I'll deny anything you can't back with proof. Given my argument is the negative, that places the burden of proof upon you. So yes, show me where critical infrastructure (no, PSN does NOT count) has been targeted. I'll even help you start the search - Stuxnet.

And you seem to have a misunderstanding about what a terrorist is versus what a criminal is. I rob a bank - I'm a criminal. I plant a bomb in a crowded location and trigger it - I'm a criminal AND a terrorist.

I hack a website - I'm probably a criminal. I hack a government website - I'm very likely a criminal in the eyes of that government. I bypass security and remotely alter programming or firmware of a control system on a hospital or a power plant - I'm a criminal and a terrorist.

Of course, the issue most governments take with Anonymous in particular is that because of the world-wide distribution, one way or another, whatever restriction is legally placed, can be legally circumvented elsewhere.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107596-Anonymous-Strikes-Back-Hacks-Internet-Security-Firm
boom
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107389-FBI-Executes-Search-Warrants-on-40-Anonymous-Members
bam
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107348-Anonymous-Members-Arrested-for-Performing-DDOS-Attacks
pow
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106549-FBI-Raids-Texas-Company-in-Hunt-for-Anonymous
another onomatopoeia


and for the coup de gras?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104994-Anonymous-Attacks-US-Government

that up there is a blatant act of cyber terrorism. if you make any hostile action against a government (or at all) in order to make them show some amount of fear or provoke a response, that makes you a terrorist

Congratulations: You've proved precisely two things: That Anonymous has hacked websites - government and non-government; and that they've been targeted for such.

Scarily, the definition of terrorist you seem to be sticking with includes peaceful protesters - good to know. Get the boys back in the fields, those ones that marched for equal rights were terrorists.

Now, if you please, the proof of critical infrastructure being damaged. Like I said previously, I've given you the starting location: Stuxnet.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

they attacked websites belonging to the US government.

that's not cyber-terrorism?

They also attacked websites belonging to the Australian government.

No, that's not cyber-terrorism. Cyber-terrorism is targeting infrastructure - say, a nuclear plant where the Siemens control system is net-facing - and remotely changing firmware parameters, thereby destabilising the plant and dramatically increasing the likelihood of critical failure. You see the difference?

if they were not criminals, then why are the governments of the world attempting to bring them all to justice? plus, you have poor reasoning if you do not see the connection between cyber-terrorism and their actions. they have shown nothing but disregard for federal and international laws. the fact that they would target and attempt to bring down government sites and EVEN ATTACK THEIR INFRASTASTRUCTURE (which they have, don't deny it) then does that not (even by your definition) make them cyber terrorists?

I'll deny anything you can't back with proof. Given my argument is the negative, that places the burden of proof upon you. So yes, show me where critical infrastructure (no, PSN does NOT count) has been targeted. I'll even help you start the search - Stuxnet.

And you seem to have a misunderstanding about what a terrorist is versus what a criminal is. I rob a bank - I'm a criminal. I plant a bomb in a crowded location and trigger it - I'm a criminal AND a terrorist.

I hack a website - I'm probably a criminal. I hack a government website - I'm very likely a criminal in the eyes of that government. I bypass security and remotely alter programming or firmware of a control system on a hospital or a power plant - I'm a criminal and a terrorist.

Of course, the issue most governments take with Anonymous in particular is that because of the world-wide distribution, one way or another, whatever restriction is legally placed, can be legally circumvented elsewhere.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107596-Anonymous-Strikes-Back-Hacks-Internet-Security-Firm
boom
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107389-FBI-Executes-Search-Warrants-on-40-Anonymous-Members
bam
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107348-Anonymous-Members-Arrested-for-Performing-DDOS-Attacks
pow
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106549-FBI-Raids-Texas-Company-in-Hunt-for-Anonymous
another onomatopoeia


and for the coup de gras?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104994-Anonymous-Attacks-US-Government

that up there is a blatant act of cyber terrorism. if you make any hostile action against a government (or at all) in order to make them show some amount of fear or provoke a response, that makes you a terrorist

Congratulations: You've proved precisely two things: That Anonymous has hacked websites - government and non-government; and that they've been targeted for such.

Scarily, the definition of terrorist you seem to be sticking with includes peaceful protesters - good to know. Get the boys back in the fields, those ones that marched for equal rights were terrorists.

Now, if you please, the proof of critical infrastructure being damaged. Like I said previously, I've given you the starting location: Stuxnet.

i don't see how piracy and slavery/racism are even comparable in terms of being worth protesting over.

that's.... quite a fallacy you're making there.

 

[BlueMage]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Acts of "terror" ... no, I shit you not, I'm snorting with laughter at this.

they attacked websites belonging to the US government.

that's not cyber-terrorism?

They also attacked websites belonging to the Australian government.

No, that's not cyber-terrorism. Cyber-terrorism is targeting infrastructure - say, a nuclear plant where the Siemens control system is net-facing - and remotely changing firmware parameters, thereby destabilising the plant and dramatically increasing the likelihood of critical failure. You see the difference?

if they were not criminals, then why are the governments of the world attempting to bring them all to justice? plus, you have poor reasoning if you do not see the connection between cyber-terrorism and their actions. they have shown nothing but disregard for federal and international laws. the fact that they would target and attempt to bring down government sites and EVEN ATTACK THEIR INFRASTASTRUCTURE (which they have, don't deny it) then does that not (even by your definition) make them cyber terrorists?

I'll deny anything you can't back with proof. Given my argument is the negative, that places the burden of proof upon you. So yes, show me where critical infrastructure (no, PSN does NOT count) has been targeted. I'll even help you start the search - Stuxnet.

And you seem to have a misunderstanding about what a terrorist is versus what a criminal is. I rob a bank - I'm a criminal. I plant a bomb in a crowded location and trigger it - I'm a criminal AND a terrorist.

I hack a website - I'm probably a criminal. I hack a government website - I'm very likely a criminal in the eyes of that government. I bypass security and remotely alter programming or firmware of a control system on a hospital or a power plant - I'm a criminal and a terrorist.

Of course, the issue most governments take with Anonymous in particular is that because of the world-wide distribution, one way or another, whatever restriction is legally placed, can be legally circumvented elsewhere.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107596-Anonymous-Strikes-Back-Hacks-Internet-Security-Firm
boom
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107389-FBI-Executes-Search-Warrants-on-40-Anonymous-Members
bam
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107348-Anonymous-Members-Arrested-for-Performing-DDOS-Attacks
pow
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106549-FBI-Raids-Texas-Company-in-Hunt-for-Anonymous
another onomatopoeia


and for the coup de gras?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104994-Anonymous-Attacks-US-Government

that up there is a blatant act of cyber terrorism. if you make any hostile action against a government (or at all) in order to make them show some amount of fear or provoke a response, that makes you a terrorist

Congratulations: You've proved precisely two things: That Anonymous has hacked websites - government and non-government; and that they've been targeted for such.

Scarily, the definition of terrorist you seem to be sticking with includes peaceful protesters - good to know. Get the boys back in the fields, those ones that marched for equal rights were terrorists.

Now, if you please, the proof of critical infrastructure being damaged. Like I said previously, I've given you the starting location: Stuxnet.

i don't see how piracy and slavery/racism are even comparable in terms of being worth protesting over.

that's.... quite a fallacy you're making there.

My apologies - I've perhaps misinterpreted your meaning in the part emboldened above?

And I note you've still yet to supply the proof I've requested, instead latching onto the part of my post that I freely admit to be hyperbole. Well done though, you reacted with less outrage then expected.

 

[Harbinger_]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

So proof of guilt is no longer a factor?

 

[Harbinger_]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

If I had a PS3, or fi my PSP PSN account was hooked up to a credit card (c'mon people, that's STUPID to do! Just buy recurring subscription cards!), I would sell my PS3 and get a 360. Oh wait, I already have one.

Thats like saying that people that play World of Warcraft or any sort of online game are stupid. Good for you you have a 360, is that at all relevant to what I had mentioned or are you just trying to show off the fact you have a 360?

 

[Azaraxzealot]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

So proof of guilt is no longer a factor?

it's like with OJ simpson. sure a jury ruled him innocent, but really? we all knew he did it. all we had to wait for was a little slip up and we just give a REALLY harsh prison sentence. just like Al Capone

 

[Low Key]

Well, at least Sony is finally saying that it may not be Anon. It could very well be, but at least they aren't blindly pointing fingers. I feel better about this whole situation now. Sony was really starting to piss me off. Good thing I don't own a PS3 or I'd still be pissed.

 

[Harbinger_]

It is possible that someone was trying to frame Anonymous... just saying. Also I don't want free stuff from Sony, I'd rather have a cash equivalent as I got rid of my PS3 but my information was still on the PSN.

anonymous is evil, whether or not they were framed is irrelevant, they must still be prosecuted for their acts of terror.

So proof of guilt is no longer a factor?

it's like with OJ simpson. sure a jury ruled him innocent, but really? we all knew he did it. all we had to wait for was a little slip up and we just give a REALLY harsh prison sentence. just like Al Capone

I still think that in this case proof of guilt is a factor.

 

[boag]

Either:

a) An Anon did it to try and gain some kudos but quickly realized that nobody wanted this.
b) The hacker tried to frame Anonymous to throw investigators a red herring.
c) The hacker did it for some other reason but agreed with Anonymous' campaign/philosophy.

Of these 'a' is the best option.

D) The hacker did it for the lulz?

 

[MattAn24]

Anon has no reason to steal credit card information from users. They are against Censorship and are sometimes doing stupid shit to prove that, but stealing personal data is not anti-censorship and I therefor could not believe Anon is involved.

I don't know about anyone else, but I do not want "Anonymous" representing ME for anti-censorship or anything.

In fact, THEY have released people's personal information in the past as well. Or have we all forgotten the Gawker incident as well? Anonymous CLAIMED involvement in that and it involved innocent people's personal details/passwords being put up on BitTorrent.

I'm all for standing up against censorship, in a sense, but NOT by maliciously hacking and taking people down with cyber attacks. That is NOT a noble or even remotely logical answer. Anonymous is STILL doing the wrong thing/going about things the wrong way, whether a small group of their "members" are involved in this or not.

Anonymous and al-Qaeda aren't exactly that different. They're terrorists. They're only causing MORE trouble.

Wikileaks has SOME merits, because it's uncovering government secrets that really should NOT be that secret. But there is a limit before it becomes blind extremist behaviour..