Mainstream Media Looks At Anonymous 118
ScuttleMonkey writes "In an uncharacteristically accurate writeup of Anonymous, the Guardian has published a look at the assembled mob behind the mask. A great place to send those unfamiliar with who or what Anonymous really is. From the article: 'This collective identity belongs to no one in particular, but is at the disposal of anyone who knows its rules and knows how to apply them. Anonymous, the collective identity, is older than Anonymous, the hacktivist group – more to the point, I propose that the hacktivist group can be understood as an application of Anonymous, the collective identity.'"
"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, would you prefer it to be "Social Media Expert" or some other weasel words?
The author actually does a pretty good job, though I'd disagree with some of her points.
But then, I'd yet to find one to say "I really know what Anonymous is!" and not break out his not-sufficiently-humble opinion on the subject - /. experts on Anonymous included.
On a side note, all those writing Anonymous with capital A make me puke. Is it just or does anyone else feel it whores out the concept of anonymity and anonymous?
Re: (Score:1)
That's largely the point! The capital A is effectively an icon. The individuals may be nameless but the movement and its actions are not.
It seems like such a simple and self-evident concept. It is not any one particular group, yet it unites those who identify with the movement. In a data-driven world where anonymity had been practically forgotten, the movement is a reminder that social change does not require one dictatorial leader, but merely a group of nobodies acting in concert.
For example, the rebel
Re: (Score:1)
"A group of nobodies acting in concert" does not equate "Anonymous". All mass uprisings were "groups of nobodies acting in concert".
That's why I say "whoring out" - Anonymous is the one who thinks big, important thoughts and stands up for the greater justice, and others are just petty script kiddy cowards hiding behind the mask and clearly has nothing to do with We, The Anonymous, The Forece For The Greater Good.
Disgusting, really.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Theater, Film, and Media Studies" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm Synonymous. Exactly the same as Anonymous, just a different name.
After seeing the original Chanology clip with the speech-synthesis voice, I was ready to call them Monotonous...
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair it seems to be a very well written article if using slightly more flowery language than required.
It even seems to have actually been decently researched.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like the sort of person who can give a good report on this issue.
The internet is media. Someone who studies Anonymous is necessarily engaging in "media studies". Are you saying someone whose academic focus is media studies isn't qualified to engage in media studies? Who would you suggest, then? A biologist?
Indeed! (Score:1)
A person studying Theater, Film and Media is indeed the most qualified to talk, because the concept is older than written history and perhaps older than the concept of mask itself:
1. In Ancient Greek Theater, especially Tragedy (also in classical theater of other cultures), Anonymous is personified on stage by the Chorus, representing a very elaborate hybrid of the author's opinion and the Public Opinion. The chorus wore masks, to make the distinction between a person and a collective explicit.
2. In Film, a
There is no "knowledg e barrier" (Score:2)
But not to anyone else, is that the story? So much glorification of such a flimsy premise...
my explaination (Score:2)
That's right, bloody goddamn communist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
But not to anyone else, is that the story?
You could, perhaps, actually read the story to find out what the story is. Silly idea, I know... so much easier to just go off on one particular sentence from the summary...
Re: (Score:2)
If it were possible to really identify Anon... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Scientologists would have already sued them into oblivion. Their disorganization is their strength.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks [xkcd.com]: is there anything it can't do?
Nietzsche says (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple way to understand. (Score:2)
Just read Lord of the Flies. Or any of the studies of how people behave when they feel like they are anonymous. And you can stop calling them anything or you declare them a gang of bullies and identity thieves that will attack those that say things they do not agree with.
If they are just a random blob of people with out structure you can call them nothing but a population.
If they are not then they have attacked people for as harmless as a teenage boy that started a website that encouraged kids to not use pr
Re: (Score:2)
Bullies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)#No_Cussing_Club [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)#Epilepsy_Foundation_forum_invasion [wikipedia.org]
Identity thieves
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d0a21040-7800-11e0-b90e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LbiGgDhc [ft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No actually it is Nobody. Anonymous is the username given to an open FTP site.
Re: (Score:1)
You are confusing things truly done in a decentralized way by a group of activist individuals with an ideological goal in mind, and things BLAMED on a decentralized group of activist individuals because they are a convenient scapegoat.
The fact that you cant tell the difference precludes your opinions from having merit, friendo.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
2,768 people and webmistressrachel liked this post. Be the first of your friends to Like this post!
Sony Hack (Score:5, Insightful)
In regards to the Sony hack which Anonymous supposedly denies, if Anonymous is leaderless, isn't it pretty much impossible to say whether or not they did something? Can't anybody claim to be Anonymous and do what ever they want? I assume for anything Anonymous does there are some people who consider themselves members who disagree, so does that mean Anonymous didn't do it?
This isn't meant as a critique of Anonymous, but without leaders or hierarchy it's pretty much impossible to define what it is or what it does.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, exactly right. I am tired of seeing articles claiming "the Anonymous" did one thing or another. Anyone unidentified is by definition "anonymous" and trying to pin this name onto a specific group of people is an insult to intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
but of course it was anonymous
"Do we know who did it?"
"no"
"so the perpetrators are anonymous"
"uhhhh"
"Anonymous did it!"
Of course that lone wolf "Somebody" seems to have done even more dastardly deeds.
Re: (Score:1)
So if Sony was hacked by someone else, I imagine that Anon is working on exposing them or otherwise melting there cores.
Re: (Score:2)
Either "Anonymous" is useful to the powers that be (i.e. it's a CIA/NSA/whatever plot) or soon we'll see someone arrested for terrorism o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't meant as a critique of Anonymous, but without leaders or hierarchy it's pretty much impossible to define what it is or what it does.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Anonymous the hacktivist group wouldn't steal credit cards. It's not in their interests. Anyone who would identify with Anonymous' activism has no reason or motivation to steal personal information. However, such an organization provides the perfect scapegoat, as is shown with the Sony hack and a supposed text file with "We are legion", an Anonymous phrase, being left on one of the servers.
Re:Sony Hack (Score:5, Interesting)
You are over-thinking it. It is simple.
Anyone can be anonymous, but not everyone is Anonymous. An action performed by a member of Anonymous, is not the same as an action by Anonymous. Think of it as a gestalt -it is not, until at some undefined point, it is.
There are leaders within Anonymous. Just because they are not part of a hierarchy does not mean they do not exist. No one appointed them, no one elected them, but others followed them. Leading is not the same as ruling.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No one appointed them, no one elected them, but others followed them. Leading is not the same as ruling.
+1 Gets It.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That is a different situation than if an existing member does something that runs contrary to the will of the group. That seems
Re: (Score:1)
How do you define "membership in Anonymous"? Where can I apply to get my member card?
What are those "Anonymous' activities" that are consistently on hacktivism side?
Do you equate some AnonOps or 4chan or whatever else with Anonymous and "Anonymous' activities"?
I've seen anonymous willingly go raiding social nets and brute-force hacking accounts on dating sites, were those "Anonymous' activities", and were they on the "hacktivism" side of the computer crimes spectrum than the "for-profit crime" side?
You're j
Re: (Score:1)
How do you define "membership in Anonymous"? Where can I apply to get my member card?
Anonymous is a community. Participation in that community amounts to membership. Stop being obtuse.
What are those "Anonymous' activities" that are consistently on hacktivism side?
The afore mentioned HBGary hack is one. The DDOS attacks against perceived enemies of Wikileaks are another. I could go on. Note that I did mention that Anonymous' actions are crimes. I don't condone the methods or actions of Anonymous; I was just rejecting the original Parent's argument that Anonymous is so amorphous that it is "impossible to define" as he or she put it.
Do you equate some AnonOps or 4chan or whatever else with Anonymous and "Anonymous' activities"?
I've seen anonymous willingly go raiding social nets and brute-force hacking accounts on dating sites, were those "Anonymous' activities", and were they on the "hacktivism" side of the computer crimes spectrum than the "for-profit crime" side?
There's a distinction between people wh
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists do just fine with limited to no leadership...
Re:The collective? (Score:5, Funny)
What is anonymous (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous is like a one time pad in cryptography.
In other words, without the secret decoder ring, it's nothing but a sequence of random gibberish into which anyone can read any message or ideology they want.
And you can never know if you have the secret decoder ring or not.
How exactly is this going to achieve... well, anything?
Re: (Score:2)
so, Anonymous is like a hipster? Once you've figured it out, it's too late!
Re: (Score:1)
Are We Not Men? We Are Devo!
Anonymous FTP (Score:3)
Want to have some fun with the media? Tell them about "anonymous" ftp two decades ago, then tell them about the "anonymous" FTP over email services circa 1991, that'll confuse the heck out of them.
What's to Know? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a mob. Bound by no principals except what they happen believe at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. But I'm sure they didn't have any Principals either.
Re: (Score:3)
a guess at the sony thing.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont think its right to say anonymous is not organized, it seems extremely democratic to me, especially the dos attacks.
If you suggest a course of action and it resonates then it is anonymous, if it gets no support then its just you.
Regarding sony I would wager what happened was during the anonymous dos attack someone peeked at the defenses and went holy crap its wide open,
and went back alone.
IE the initial anonymous attack probably did uncover the vulnerable network but the hack was not by anonymous.
Re: (Score:1)
it seems extremely democratic to me
what exactly is democratic here? I don't see it. please elaborate.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, as I understand, the dos attacks are done by individuals targeting the LOIC program at the proposed target.
The strength of the attack then is directly proportional to the number of "votes" it gets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
there is a form of leadership etc. in irc channels, but I dont think that concerns the democratic aspect.
Its not mob mentality because whoever chooses to participate is anonymous to other participants aswell as the target.
We are anonymous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
anonymous has a topic, it's important to say that (Score:2)
if you were to analyze anonymous's larger domain of overlapping grievances, you would characterize what anonymous is about. and you would also describe the motivation that brings people together under the banner of anonymous. this list of grievances can accurately described as internet freedoms
so, for example, anonymous has nothing to do with islamic militant fundamentalism, which, like anonymous, is also largely organic in nature and self-organizing around a set of grievances. now let's say, just for the c
Prediction from long ago (12 years) (Score:1)
Henson: well it comes off the recreation budget. [He is making fun of this expensive lawyer, and it's getting Lieberman's goat.] This is training for the big action, Henson says. Lieberman takes the bait: What's that?
Henson: when some major government finally decides to really sit down hard on free speech on the net.
Lieberman spends a few minutes in a halfheart
Re:First post (Score:5, Funny)
Somehow I expected it to be posted Anonymously...
Re: (Score:2)
Informed and literate? You're probably a terrorist.
Re: (Score:1)
Guy Fawkes was no more a terrorist than Samuel Adams. The only difference is Fawkes lost.
Re: (Score:3)
Another difference you're overlooking is that Samuel Adams had no intention of setting up a theocracy worse than what he was fighting...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the mask has nothing to do with that Guy Fawkes; it's the mask of the Guy Fawkes from Alan Moores comic "V for Vendetta".
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, V was his psuedonym not Guy Fawkes.
Re: (Score:2)
What surprises me a bit about Guy Fawkes masks as symbol of freedom, is that Guy Fawkes fought on the side of an oppressive government against a rebellious upstart Republic that wanted autonomy and freedom of religion. Fawkes was a religious extremist, and had no interest whatsoever in real freedom.
But I admit I've never seen V for Vendetta. Apparently that movie trumps historic fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you listened to some Englishmen, our first President was a terrorist.
Seems like Guy Fawkes was just trying to put a little god into government. And you'd think so too if you loved Baby Jeesus.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems like Guy Fawkes was just trying to put a little god into government.
From what I know, he planned on doing it by blowing said government to kingdom come.
Re: (Score:1)
A religious coup.
How is that any different from what the U.S. military has been doing to the middle east ?
Is the U.S. government then a terrorist organisation ? They blow up foreign governments to install their own brand of culture.
At least Fawkes wanted to blow up his own government. That is far more noble and democratic than today's racially-charged wars and mercantile marauding.
Re: (Score:2)
There being no hope for peaceful change, it's not a bad selection.
Re:Guy Fawkes (Score:4, Informative)
Terrorist ?
Just because he was a man with explosives does not make him a terrorist. He intended to blow up the House of Lords, a very specific political target. He would have been a political assassin, not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald.
Terrorists, as the title suggests, spread terror by attacking random citizens. The whole point of terrorism is to instill wide-spread panic by implying that anyone could be the next target, man/woman/child of any status.
I can relate to the idea of challenging/attacking a nation's leaders. We entrust those people with the power to run the country on our behalf, and if they abuse that power and turn it against us, they should expect retribution. In that sense, I think Guy Fawkes is the ideal mascot for the Anonymous movement.
Re: (Score:3)
He wanted to blow up the government in enact a theocracy.
I don't really find either act very honorable. And even if your blowing up a "legitimate" target, if your intention is to cause terror, fear, or disruption; your a terrorist. If they just would have attacked the Pentagon, and not the WTC on 9/11, it still would have been an act of terrorism. If we were occupying their country, and they attacked a military base, or a patrol, it would be a legitimate action, and not terrorism.
I can relate to the idea of challenging/attacking a nation's leaders. We entrust those people with the power to run the country on our behalf, and if they abuse that power and turn it against us, they should expect retribution.
Yep... the government d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying I condone mass murder, I'm saying sometimes the ones in power can be hard of hearing (read: fascist). In such cases, a coup is often the only remaining recourse.
If you still believe the vote has any power or meaning, well I'm afraid I am wasting my words on you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying sometimes the ones in power can be hard of hearing (read: fascist). In such cases, a coup is often the only remaining recourse.
Sadly the policies and ideology of many of the people advocating coups and violence ("second amendment solutions") are as abhorrent as the current policies and ideologies of the current government to me. That is one of the problems I have, to be motivated enough to advocate a coup you must have a very strong ideological stake. People with very strong ideological stakes are generally tyrants in training, who find issue with competing ideologies.
If I managed to overthrow the government and instilled one tha
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist ?
Just because he was a man with explosives does not make him a terrorist. He intended to blow up the House of Lords, a very specific political target. He would have been a political assassin, not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald.
Lee Harvey Oswald didn't try to blow up an entire building at a time when it would be full of hundreds of people. many of them innocent and uninvolved in the political process. I'd say that makes a difference.
Re: (Score:1)
I just checked http://spaceweather.com/ [spaceweather.com] and http://www.syzygyjob.com/ [syzygyjob.com] and we're in the clear for now.