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: Visa.com 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 452958
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

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:
2005-11-02

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

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

More than one person claim to be Shriners. They don't specify, "I'm a memober of the Shriners group".

If more than one person associates themselves with others; you have a group of people. The name they choose to represent that group is not the qualification for it's existance.

Anonymous
The Anonmymous
Anonymous, local 54, member 82

You really think the name of a group matters that much in qualifying if it's a group of people or not?

Lots of distributed individuals are identifying themselves as "Anonymous"; does that not make it a group of people identifying the group as "Anonymous"?

I mean sure, if it was all a fraud by big business to invent a new boogieman then wow, it's a heck of a social engineering feat. But unless there is evidence showing that multiple people are not actually calling themselves by the common group title "Anonymous", existing evidence supports the group's existence.

And really, this is an honest request for relevant supporting information.. perhaps the true history of the Anonymous PR campaign by big business showing how they've manufactured the perceived history.. say.. given by the MP3 link I provided earlier from HOPE 2008. I mean, if I'm one of the masses that have fallen for the fraud; enlighten me with the factual time-line so I can see where the deceptions are.

Reply Parent Score: 2