A question for the ''new'' breed of anonymous Hacktivists

Cross posted from scanchan: http://www.scanchan.net/skynet/res/212.html

Yo, Anon is full of humans doing what humans do, just doing it on the internet. If you think there is no difference between doing it thru the tubes vs. doing it IRL then you are probably a virgin. Congratulations (or condolences).

It's interesting to talk about individual influence and there certainly is plenty of it in Anon networks, some of it related to the ownership of resources and some actually based on merit (intellect, humor, nice tits). Some of it is based on sheer persistence. I have seen the inner workings of at least one of these networks and I speak from experience. The issue of popularity is a little more complex. From what I’ve seen those who own the resources anons use are not necessarily the most popular, in fact in some cases they are quite UN-popular which may in fact be part of their motivation for owning things in the first place. If the server is mine I'm in control no matter what a sad, delusional, basement dwelling petty criminal I may be and you have to listen or gtfo.

Anonymous escapes no social mechanisms, in fact it may be more accurate to say that Anonymous IS a social mechanism. All the jockeying for position and power (and, natch, sexual competition) that corrupts IRL utopian movements goes on in Anon, and the deeper down you drill the thicker it gets. Despite the blithe “we are legion” propaganda plenty of individuals have invested relatively large portions of their lives in this, and they take it seriously.

Which brings me to

Power doesn’t accumulate in Anonymous because SO FAR power in general doesn’t accumulate on the internet. It would be nice to believe that there’s something inherent to the internet that makes the accumulation of power impossible here, but I doubt it. In any case the theory will be tested very soon—SOPA and ACTA and similar bills are designed to make the internet safe for the powers that be, to allow commercial interests to monopolize it and governments to control it. Anon, such as it is at any given moment, survives through dispersion and diffusion. It can reconfigure much more quickly and efficiently than real life groups. For that kind of agility it needs a relatively accessible and affordable ‘space’ to move in.

What Anonymous are you talking about? Anonymous of Project Chanology or Anonymous of the cybercriminal, cyberfascist post-Chanology groups of hackers operating under the name and symbols of Anonymous who betray the fundamental value of Anonymous culture, free speech for everyone?

Feel free to masturbate yourselves blind over the legitimacy (or not) of ddos.

Alternatively please go right ahead and say something fresh

If you have to ask you probably haven't read the post, or even the title

What was the question again?

I imagine many of the apparent contractions stem from that that it's not a monolithic organisation, but a collective made up of all kinds of individuals.

There's no 'official' or 'false flag' ops. Sometimes high profile but poorly supported operations give rise to a backlash.

DDoS isn't an attempt to silence anyone. A website may be slowed to load or inaccessible for few hours, but there's no lasting damage. It's more a token gesture than anything, but it generates media interest. Often people use it to draw attention to an issue that's not otherwise being addressed.

Anonymous gets criticised all the time, and there's no risk of being attacked for it. HBGary was a notable exception, but that went beyond criticism.

I don't think anyone deserves to be attacked or threatened.

Some people take this stuff waaaaaaaaay too seriously.

tl;dr

OP doesn't know he's a newfag,
mistakes old behaviors he doesn't understand, for scary new changes in Anonymous culture.

lame.

I did not post it, I found it interesting though.

Do you find it accurate?

ok shaw.
You broke the formatting when you cross-posted.
That is disgusting, and you have definitely lost my vote.

blip

If you're for freedom of speech and freedom of information, then you should be sceptical about all attempts to block access to information and opinions - even when it's done by Anonymous. — Gisle Hannemyr

By the way, when I watch Anonymous demonstrations, where people dress up in identical Guy Fawkes masks to show their individuality, I'm reminded of a scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, where Brian tries to teach his followers to think for themselves - and the crowd just repeats what Brian says: "We're all individuals..." — Gisle Hannemyr

Anonymous is not the first group to recognize the power of this simple word: family. Family sticks together, family doesn’t report crimes or opposes unethical behaviour. — @Golden_Rule

Anonymous has a lot in common with Barack Obama. They're both romantic disappointments. — Oxblood Ruffin

---

Hi! Here's a few questions from a disgruntled Chanologist to Anonymous anno 2012. I'm genuinely interested in your take on this. Feel free to comment.

We have no leaders!

• Many seem to have trouble distinguishing between Anonymous as an idea and Anonymous as reality. It amazes me that so many individuals — who claim to be sceptical of hierarchies and the idea of leaders — completely fail to see that most Anonymous networks mirror their own schoolyard. What do these two environments have in common? This: popular and influental kids. In Anonymous these kids are running the services you use. My question for you is: How come some operations get labelled "false flag" (while others are considered "official")? I thought everybody could be part of Anonymous? Does this mean there is a hierarchy after all?

• How and/or why does Anonymous escape all the social mechanisms that affect other human interaction? How does one avoid the development of cell like structures with de facto leaders, i.e. individuals who: organize and coordinate operations; guide and instruct new participants; run the services that particular network/cell uses. In short: Is the idea of Anonymous really that compatible with social psychological theories about group dynamics? Why doesn't power accumulate in Anonymous?

We fight for freedom of speech and freedom of information!

• How does one fight for freedom of speech and freedom of information by silencing others? Shouldn't you be fighting for their right to express themselves? Protip: Google "doublethink" and "cognitive dissonance".

• How does Anonymous handle critics within its own movement? Is it safe to criticise Anonymous — or does one risk getting attacked? If it's not safe: How is this freedom of expression?

• What distinguishes Anonymous from other self-righteous groups and movements? If Anonymous can break the law, does this mean that other groups — which are not different in kind — can break the law and attack Anonymous? If you expect legal safeguards for yourself, then you also must adhere to laws concerning public security.

• On which grounds are 14-18-year-olds particularly suited to do complex and delicate value judgements?

We are fighting for YOU!

• Then why is Anonymous constantly attacking and threatening innocent people? Is this OK as long as you also spend a certain amount of time on lofty, idealistic goals?

Who said this was a democracy?

So you're not running for president of the internet anymore?

Err. Read it again. It's about the discrepancy between "old behaviour" and "new" selfrighteous activism.

I still have no idea what he's talking about.
No idea what point he's trying to make.
The OP seems to be angry or annoyed, but I don't get it.

Great questions. Don't expect any kind of insightful answers from this crowd. Just lots of LOL ANONYMOUS IS LEEGUN DAVID MISCABBAGE IS SHORT EPIC LULZ XD

Anons do nasty shit ("old behaviour"), but now it's suddenly ok (or you're expected to look away when this takes place) since they also have "lofty, idealistic goals". I might be wrong, though, but that's how I read OP.

During the annual meeting of the norwegian labour party, they had a live feed. Some kids who were unhappy with some of their decisions then decided they would stop that livefeed aswell as their communication channels, so basically they took it all down. No lasting damage?

I'm no hacktivist, but here is the way I see it. If me and 1,000 of my buddies (hypothetical...I'm hardly popular) go and sit in the lobby of a cyber-intelligence firm to raise awareness to its---what should be--- illegal or at least unethical conduct... am I "silencing" said firm because I block its lobby for a couple days?

Yeah, so it probably isn't the perfect analogy for DDOS, but hopefully you get the idea. By shutting down a website for a few hours/days, you are hardly silencing their organization, you are just disrupting their operations for said days and hours. Not to mention, it would be an extreme stretch imho to call what these organizations do, ex. HB/Stratfor, "free speech." Anon is calling attention to some serious, IGNORED, PROBLEMS in our society so that the public can judge for themselves. When I see a youtube video of STRATFOR's CEO say that Anon is "silencing" them by calling attention to their activities which are kept highly secret from a so-called democratic society I laugh like crazy. What was uncovered speaks for itself.

In my educated opinion, I would classify behaviors that constitutes true silencing of dissent as those along the lines of discrediting [ad hominem], blacklisting, blackbagging, assasination, and censorship... all of which truly render the party permanently silent, in one fashion or another.

I respect your (the article's) questions as I truly believe questions are important in activism, I hope this answer was sufficient. I do not believe that DDOSing (as opposed to permanently shutting down websites SOPA/FBI style) is censorship any more than a sit-in. Its a temporary means to bring awareness to VERY important issues. If it was I would not support it.

Yeah, that's pretty lame.

BTW Gisle Hannemyr I would hardly say Anons wear Guy Fawkes masks to "express individuality" and if you'd make that claim you reeaaaallly haven't done your homework on Chanology. LT read nubface.

Its ironic that you want everything the government do to be published, and at the same time you want privacy for yourself. Do you think the government could do its job if they were never allowed to keep some information secret? Information that could endanger lives? Take diplomacy as a an example, you think its a good idea to never let a diplomat share his real opinion in privacy? That would just make criticism of other governments impossible. The same kids who stand behind those attacks are not elected and at the same time they make their decisions on private irc channels, thats democracy?

You know that theres tons of organizations who work for the same goals as anonymous and who never use ddos, theres other ways to gain attention to those problems such as using the media or to influence politicians trough lobbying, and i know that it gave results in norway. Those organizations are getting more and more fed up with anonymous as they feel they ruin their case. I have seen anonymous being chased away from demonstrations organized by some of those organizations.

Beside as more and more innocent people get harmed by ddos attacks, it would just turn opinion against anonymous in the long run. Like taking down the website of a grocery company or a blogsite.
Ddos attack also harm other sites which are hosted at the same isp as the target. One other thing is that most new laws come as a result of changes in society, and ddos attacks could as a result give us more restrictions.

I see nothing ironic here. You see no difference between the privacy rights of an individual and those of an enormous aggregation of institutions with not only national but international reach? Get your eyes checked. Or get one of these



it worked wonders for the Renaissance





As regards Anonymous, less this





more this

Anonymous is what Anonymous does. Do any of you really think that a concept spawned in the pits of 4chan could become ethical or logical activism?

My point was based on information leaked by wikileaks/anonymous, do we want "private" emails between those who make up the organization to be leaked and read by everyone?

I agree that most information should be available, but not "everything", and based on the information which is leaked theres alot of information which we dont need. Is it upto some 15 year old scriptkiddie to decide what information that should be shared?

What we as individuals might "want" means fuck all. In 2012, shit like this will happen regardless of any disgruntled WWP thread. Here, have a stoner perspective.

I think that's the point OP is trying to make. A lot of kids out there see themselves as gallant knights, saving the world from evildoers, but they're basically doing the same shit Anonymous has been doing since day one. Why is it suddenly so "noble"?

Because humans often find it fun to laugh at a things that are quite mockable. Maybe unable to do so themselves, they like to tolerate those doing the mocking.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...er-national-organization-for-mariages-twitter

Tricksters of the world unite!

Oldfags have invested a LOT of effort into this coordinated motherfuckery, so it must be a worthy cause; only an idiot would spend this much time on a cause that wasn´t worthwhile. And oldfags dont like to think of themselves as idiots...

Yes, sure, but it's equally naive to think that humans will just stop keeping secrets. It's a question of what's relevant, imo. I'm interested in a certain degree of transparancy when it comes to, say, economic matters, but I don't give a rat's ass about whether or not a diplomat flirted on a business trip to Spain.

The only idiots that say that it is "noble" are Sabu and his little cellmates. I love how everyone tries to analyze this.

Sabu and his 150 cellmates.

It's not sudden, Chanology (for instance) is riddled with White Knights and co-dependent would be heroes, always has been.

Yeah, but most of them don't spend half their (activism) time faceraping, hacking fellow anons' e-mail accounts, hacking blogs of random people, running life ruin-ops on dissenters etc. I'M AN ACTIVIST!1

I hope humans never stop keeping secrets, especially considering we are so very bad at it.

Regarding anonymous internet-based leaks, it seems that there's either a shortage of manpower, or maybe just patience, when it comes to sorting the wheat from the chaff, so it's not likely you'll be receiving well tailored info from those sources any time soon. That Anonymous is inherently sloppy and the internet lacks sorely for editors IMO determines the (ir)relevance of neither.

Hey someone's gotta keep the faith.

huh?

it wasn't ok before, but people always looked the other way anyhoo. (most anons did)
it didn't get suddenly "ok". it was always "ok" and at the same time "not ok".
moralfags with strong opinions about distinguishing between "ok" and "not ok" are a relatively new import. Since Chanology for the most part. Chaotic neutral fags who don't especially give a shit as long as its funny were most or all of /b/.

chaotic retard fags (the ones who "care" about taking down things other than Scientology) seem to have bitten off some of the moralfag cookie, but spit out the parts they don't like. I don't think that's inherently different from how any Anons have operated.

OP getting their panties in a twist because some Anons are "not doing it rite", and because they think they are more important than the OP himself- priceless. The ows/foi retards probably are more important than him, if they're actually doing something other than surfing the webs and typing angry words about scilons. Chanologists who are busy getting shit done (TODAY. not what you did 4 years ago) usually have better things to do than baww.