Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Internet & Networking It looks like several companies are learning what happens when you mess with the internet - and they're learning it the hard way. Several major companies have been hit by the collective powers of Anonymous after 4chan launched several distributed denial-of-service attacks. What many have been predicting for a long time now has finally happened: an actual war between the powers that be on one side, and the internet on the other. Update: PayPal has admitted their WikiLeaks snub came after pressure from the US government, and Datacell, which takes care of payments to Wikileaks, is threatening to sue MasterCard over Wikileaks' account suspension. Update II: is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
Thread beginning with comment 452821
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Hah, no and no.

There is no "Anonymous" organization. There is no "Anonymous" organization. I say it twice in hopes that if nothing else you will remember this point. There are groups of people who are anonymous who talk about what "anonymous" wants and does, but these people are either (a) wannabe fakes, or (b) referring to anonymous in the singular as described in my original post. Anyone who is not an un-named person and is declaring that there is some "Anonymous" group is wrong, having no factual basis for the claim.

It did not start as individuals critical of scientology. Individuals, who were not named and tried to remain un-named, who were critical of scientology did a number of things, such as DDoS attacks, to express that. There was no group at that time, nor before that time.

However, people who are un-named and therefore anonymous did many things before the scientology stuff. It is the scientology incidents which drew enough mainstream attention that clueless reporters started referring to "Anonymous" as a group, as some kind of organization. Prior to the scientology stuff there was also no group and also still DDoSing and other activities took place. After the scientology stuff these things continue, but there remains no "Anonymous" organization.

I am not saying none of these un-named individuals talk to each other or coordinate in an 'organized' fashion. They certainly do. Suppose that one day ou and I have lunch one day and both agree that buying Google is a good idea, then the next day we both buy Google. Would it be fair to say that the You-And-Me organization is now buying Google? No. We did not formulate a plan, we did not sign up with anything, we may not even know the other person is doing anything, we are not responsible for the other's actions, neither one of us can speak for the other about what the other is doing.

Despite what you may have heard there is no Anonymous organization.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:

Centralized control and command structure using top down management? No.. obviously not such an organization.

A decentralized masterless mob of people who all self-identify as "Anonymous" the group not "anonymous" the english word? Yes.. there seems to be such an organization.

I don't see a central office command as a requirnment for a collection of people to associate with one another. It's surely not a well organized group but it is clearly a group.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sorpigal Member since:

I did not specify that central command and control was necessary for a so-called "Anonymous" group to exist, and I did not argue that a lack of such control means that no group exists.

I am saying that no group exists. People are not identifying themselves as "Members of the group Anonymous" - instead people are naming themselves "anonymous". There is no grouping going on.

A collection of people working on similar goals at the same time does not make an organization. An organization requires more than that.

If you and I and all other people talking about Wikileaks began calling ourselves David that does not mean that the David organization is talking about Wikileaks.

Edited 2010-12-10 13:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2