Two veteran Anonymous members say group is responsible for Sony attacks


45 Responses to “Two veteran Anonymous members say group is responsible for Sony attacks”

  1. Anonymous says:

    So if someone robbed your house, you are to blame for not putting landmines on every square inch of your property? I always thought the villain in any theft is indeed the thief him, or her, self? Why are Sony still the target? Someone please answer this without psuedo-intellectual absurdities and non-coherent riddles and comparisons. Break with the tradition of this wonderful information medium we have systematically ruined and deal in what is fact. Yes, Sony dropped the ball in some respects, but then again so did Mastercard, Paypal, Facebook, etc, etc ad infinitum……..Even the Pentagon.

    Geohotz was, and is a hacker. He got caught. End of. If the vigilante response is to hurt the innocent? then I’ll stick with the corrupted legal system thanks. And whover did this will eventually be caught and that same corrupted legal system will make an example of them most likely. But for Sony to be then targeted by every two bit script kiddy on the web as ‘justice’ for legal defense is hilariously misguided. A group that so adamantly denies criminal activity, and stands solely for the freedoms we used to have, then deny millions their freedoms too by not only silencing those who disagree, but even innocent 3rd parties with no affiliation with anyone save having a product for entertainment. Geoputz broke the law. His knight in faceless, shadowy armour has too. And ironically it’s the hackers who have tried to put their skills to more purposeful uses who will be villified and tarnished for belonging to a select group of ‘skilled’ persons.

  2. archmagetrexasaurus says:

    Yeah, either Anonymous is a placeholder for anyone acting without identity on the internet, or it sucks.

    I mean, the ‘hacker’ quoted “uses the online nickname Kayla”, which clearly means she isn’t anonymous, and, if you ask me, she’s also not Anonymous any more than I am, (and I clearly am not).

    From what I see, there’s Anonymous, and then there’s AnonOps, which may well be several real groups of people trying to rally Anonymous to achieve an entirely unsurprising mix of smart, stupid, good, and bad things. I mean, having Op-anything and veteran members and leaders and whatnot is pretty freaking lame. Wasn’t the thing that made Anonymous at all interesting the way that actions developed overnight from suggestions on boards, without any stupid codenames or cheesy signoffs? I’m mean, if you’re going to suck and have an identity, stop pretending to not have an identity.

  3. yrarbil cilbup says:

    DUH… Wikipedia is your friend, and U R lazy.

  4. Davidget says:

    I take no responsibility for my name, that would be on my parents, and no I am not that David Davidson.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I do find it interesting that the response to the hack wasn’t ‘My, this is a criminal act and those responsible should be brought to justice’ but rather ‘The slut was asking for it, dressed all slutty like that’

  6. Anonymous says:

    Except that this super secret vulnerability they discussed, was outdated unpatched Apache servers.

    That Sony had known for MONTHS prior about the issue and well if its not broke why cut a $1 from executive pay to fix it.

    And while we spend time trying to find out the outside evildoer, no one is looking at Sony and saying WTF were you thinking?

    Given the evidence from the HBGary Federal book of dirty tricks, why are people still willing to think that corporations do not and will not engage in misinformation to promote what they want?

    Hollywood – We are loosing Bajillions to pirates! (Yet they can claim a Harry Potter film lost 675 million on paper.)

    Music Industry – We are loosing Bajillions to pirates! (Ignore the 6 billion we were on the hook for in Canada for stealing music from our artists and not paying them.)

    Sony – We were hacked by the awesome super hackers! (Ignore that out web servers were gerbil powered and out security was a hand written note that said “Keep Out! No Really Keep Out!”. Ignore we knew for like 12 days before we told people their info was out there. Ignore our systems are so poorly secured we STILL dunno if they got the CC info. Oh and the other half of our operation lost a buncha records too. BUT IT WAS ANONYMOUS, THEY HAVE SUPER POWERS NO ONE CAN RESIST!)

    Someone might have joined a chat room and listened in, heard about a vulnerability they were going to use to put up lolcat pix and then did something with it themselves. Is it the fault of the Anons or is it the fault of Sony for the disregard of basic security concepts?

    Until people are reporting charges on their cards for 1000′s of pizzas sent to douchebags, it should take more than a shadowy figure pointing the finger at Anon to create proof.

    Someone should check behind Kayla’s ear for a Sony tattoo.

  7. Zoman says:

    Two veteran Anonymous members blah blah blah.

    Unless “Anonymous” have suddenly become Russian Mafia style cyber criminals, they had nothing to do with the Sony hack. What you get from Anonymous is a really really good trolling.

  8. BrendanBabbage says:

    Again, I don’t really believe it.
    More like Russian/Czech hackers extrapolating on the earlier “Jailbreak” of the console by home-brew enthusiasts.

    This was just a pure criminal act. Break in, get the data, use/sell it for $.

    There’s been a ton of people talking about stuff happening since, one commenter on ArsTechnica a while back if I read it right had been called for the “You’ve won a prize” scam but instead of the “Please confirm your CC, the first four digits are” it was we HAVE your CC ——number—– now please confirm the CCV code! (He hung up and called to change the #!)

    Anon’s “Criminal” activities are simply pranks, annoyances, activism and indeed hacktivism. They’ll certainly break the law, but it’s for social justice.

    This, IMO, is just a Conspiracy to try to crush them, first by destroying their “Street Cred” that would have been made “Robin Hood” level if the govt/big business just went after them directly for supporting Assange/Wikileaks.

    And, NO, I am NOT a member of “Anonymous” so I do not identify myself as such, and therefore am not;-)

  9. Anonymous says:

    Just a thought here.

    There just might, y’know, maybe, be some overlap between the membership of Anonymous and some unscrupulous types who would use uncovered security vulnerabilities to try and gather personal details and credit card numbers.

    Of course another thought suggests that Anon only gets to do these things it does as long as it doesn’t do anything that law enforcement actually gives a good goddamn about and actions that come to the attention of the US senate may fall on this list.

  10. Ceronomus says:

    “If you say you are Anonymous, and do something as Anonymous, then Anonymous did it,” said the hacker, who uses the online nickname Kayla. “Just because the rest of Anonymous might not agree with it, doesn’t mean Anonymous didn’t do it.”

    That’s rather the problem isn’t it. ANYONE claiming to be a member of Anonymous *IS* a member of Anonymous. Heck, Sony could put out a new rootkit on their CDs, claim it was Anonymous and…it would BE the work of Anonymous.

    Having no structure and being able to act independently while operating under one banner is great…but this is the downside.

    Heck, Marvel comic’s Avengers learned this lesson back in the 80′s… (“Anyone who says they are an Avenger is an Avenger”, which lead to Super villains claiming to be members) one would think that bit of geek learning would’ve been absorbed into the Anonymous collective consciousness.

    This is the point where Anonymous must decide how to move forward. Either continue as they have, and put all of themselves at risk for future activities which could be the work of the US or foreign governments, or create some sort of structure while still trying to maintain their veil of anonymity.

  11. cabr1to says:

    Uh, no they aren’t. Anons have also disavowed any centralized involvement (in Sony hacks, in anything, in particular)…

  12. Newbornstranger says:

    I would like to officially announce that Anonymous is responsible for the capture of Bin Laden, the collection of the recall votes in Wisconsin, the outcome of Canada’s latest election, and the Hindenburg tragedy.

  13. Cowicide says:

    Just because the rest of Anonymous might not agree with it, doesn’t mean Anonymous didn’t do it.

    Just because the rest of the human race might not agree with it, doesn’t mean the human race didn’t do it.

  14. Anonymous says:


  15. dug says:

    “If you say you are a member of the public, and do something as a member of the public, then the public did it. Just because the rest of the public might not agree with it, doesn’t mean the public didn’t do it.”

    Is that better?

  16. Bubba says:

    The guy who shot Kennedy hasn’t been officially named so I guess he must be …. you know….. also fake moon landings and the current residence of Elvis. Also I can’t log into hotmail. I know it’s been two years, but still. That moose has some xplaynin to do.

  17. Anonymous says:

    anonymous isnt really a ‘group’
    i think a lot of people get hung up on the idea of it as a group
    the name literally comes from the name of a poster who chooses not to leave a personal identifying name, and just leaves it as “anonymous”
    i feel like the general ethos, if u even want to try and define it, is that the faceless masses of the internet like the internet as it is.
    this all started with MAFIAA cronies DDoSing some torrent site
    well, it all started when the @ssholes out there decided the internet was a problem to be dealt with, to maintain money, or power, or w/e
    but the ‘last straw’ (give or take) was aiplex admitting it was DDoSing some torrent site
    and finally the faceless mass of tech savvy and free time that is the internets rose up under the banner of “anonymous”
    if you like the interwebs, ur probably anonymous. if ur unsure, ur probably anonymous. if u read boing boing ur anonymous. except obama. word is he reads boing boing, but obama bin biden is total MAFIAA shill. u dont have to know ur anonymous to be anonymous
    but yah guys, try not to think of it as a ‘group’, if there is one thing anonymous eschews, its control and centralization
    weve all seen what happens when one man controls another
    maybe there was a time that was needed, and maybe its still needed in real life
    but this is our internets, we got this under control just fine tyvm, and if you come in OUR playground and mess with OUR toys, well, look at Sony…
    (or HBGary, or that db@g with the mass lawsuits for that matter, and the list is much, much bigger)

    “And he asked him, What is thy name? And he saith unto him, My name is Legion; for we are many.”

  18. asuffield says:

    That’s rather the problem isn’t it. ANYONE claiming to be a member of Anonymous *IS* a member of Anonymous. Heck, Sony could put out a new rootkit on their CDs, claim it was Anonymous and…it would BE the work of Anonymous.

    Less of the problem, more of the point. “Anonymous” isn’t a group with a single purpose. It cannot be held responsible for anything. “Anonymous” is just a way of saying “people”. It’s not much more than the idea that a bunch of random people can decide to do something and just do it.

    Of course Anonymous did this. Anonymous does everything that isn’t associated with any particular organisation. That’s what Anonymous means: the set of all things which are just done by random people who thought it was a good idea and didn’t want to associate it with an identity.

    This is the point where Anonymous must decide how to move forward. Either continue as they have, and put all of themselves at risk for future activities which could be the work of the US or foreign governments, or create some sort of structure while still trying to maintain their veil of anonymity.

    You don’t get it. Anonymous is not something that can make a decision. That’s as meaningless as saying “people aren’t wearing yellow as much this year, they’re mostly shifting to reds; yellow must decide what approach it will take to respond to this trend”. Formally: you are attempting to adopt the intentional stance with respect to something that is not capable of acting with intent.

    Those who wish to act in a way that builds a reputation which they can then use will continue to act under a recognised identity, as they always have. It may be a pseudonymous identity, which is your proposal.

    Those who do not wish to do this will always be Anonymous. It is in no way altered or diminished by the existence of people who choose to go for reputation.

    • Ceronomus says:

      I think you are confusing anonymous with “Anonymous.”

      If you don’t think it is a problem? Bear in mind that anyone associated with Anonymous will most likely now be treated like a member of a terrorist cell or organized crime family if caught. If you think that is the point, I think that you are mistaken.

      Law enforcement is going to treat ANY “member of “Anonymous” as having been part of a group responsible for ALL the actions of Anonymous.

      • Anonymous says:

        I don’t understand why people keep saying ‘member’ when referring to Anon.. There is no such thing as a ‘member’ – Anon has no barrier to entry, requirements or indicators of membership, or exit barriers for that matter either. The only requirement for someone to be anonymous is that they are, ephemerally, unidentified. Cease to be unidentified and you’ve failed at anon.

        If someone wants to claim that a particular action was on behalf of anon, then sure, it was – only thing is, only the 1337 h4xx0r himself can claim anon-status and that absofuckinglutely has not happened in this case. It’s unlikely to happen in any case where the breach is significant enough to discourage the perpetrators from saying *anything* about *anything*. Committing a genuine felony and then taunting the cops and your victims is stupid, and any anon stupid enough to do so would quite rightly lose anon status by, well, being quickly identified and arrested.

        • Ceronomus says:

          I have to disagree a bit.

          Anyone can join or leave Anonymous. However, someone being anonymous doesn’t make them part of Anonymous – an amorphous collective.

          Indeed, “Anonymous” is used, in this case, as a massive plural noun to refer to the “members” of anonymous whether in whole or in part.

          Frankly, the government and law enforcement aren’t going to worry about the “in part” portion. The fact that Anonymous has spawned its own “Women’s Group” of sorts, makes the community fascinating.

          And that’s the thing. Anonymous is a community more than an organization. The term organization does imply more of a cohesive plan than the group has.

          That said…they are being TREATED as an organization by law enforcement and that gets back to my original point. That anyone can claim to be “Anonymous” (note the capital “A”) and that anyone can make a release for “Anonymous”….

          Its going to cause trouble for those who are members of that community.

      • Anonymous says:

        Eh? You think Anon doesn’t have an angle on this.

  19. Anonymous says:

    How do you know they’re veteran members if they’re anonymous? How do you know they’re even anonymous members at all if they are in fact anonymous??

    I need a venn diagram. And perhaps a better metaphor than ‘class vs. method’.

  20. Anonymous says:

    The problem is @asuffield is that ‘Anonymous’ as the group that we all know constantly put out little PR snippets saying “We are targeting x”

    So they constantly act like a collective that has some sort of control or order yet your explanation goes against that reasoning. Unless of course you could have ‘Anonymous’ say they are targeting Sony and also have ‘Anonymous’ say they are siding with Sony, both being true but basically being meaningless

  21. sworm says:

    I like playing GTA. Now I can’t play online. Thanks!

    Anonymous is 4chan. 4chan is the toilet of the internet.

    It’s a shame that we can’t have the equivalent of a condom to encapsulate that festering wound. Sure, sometimes it’s hard to look away, but I wouldn’t touch it with a stick.

    I wonder where the lulz occurred in this operation? Or are the people claiming to be Anonymous, just the usual douchenozzles who think an internet community circle-jerk is the beginning of a social movement? Grow up and get real.

  22. Anonymous says:


  23. Anonymous says:

    “Just because the rest of Anonymous might not agree with it, doesn’t mean Anonymous didn’t do it.”

    I disagree. “Anonymous” (as a proper noun, rather than an adjective) applies only post-act – if your action gets lulz, it builds on itself and oftentimes grows in scale and scope.

    In this case, the vulnerability in question came out during an Anon op which was well supported, but the individual who took that information and, perhaps with the help of other anons who were actively involved against Sony, went off and did something that garnered pretty much zero lulz.

    I think the best comparison is when a gang member does something stupid and gets disavowed – the difference here being that anon has no formal structure or membership so disavowing members is not something there’s much of a mechanism for (since it’s so easy to ‘join’, if that even makes sense..).

  24. Anonymous says:

    It sounds to me like anonymous simply observed was what a glaring security hole that anyone else would have noticed if they had looked at the server. It doesn’t mean they exploited it. They only made acknowledgement of the obvious.

    The above quote even says as much. They said they saw the same vulnerability that was (likely) used for the break it. That’s all. Anything beyond that is speculation.

  25. cory says:

    You don’t get it. Anonymous is not something that can make a decision. That’s as meaningless as saying “people aren’t wearing yellow as much this year, they’re mostly shifting to reds; yellow must decide what approach it will take to respond to this trend”. Formally: you are attempting to adopt the intentional stance with respect to something that is not capable of acting with intent.

    And yet, the group itself (or at least, many of its members, at least so far as it can have members–fuck this is hard to talk about), do refer to Anonymous as if it were a discrete group with members.

    There’s a reason for that. They do have certain things in common. 4chan is a common element. There are probably others by now, since not everyone who speaks in /b/ considers themselves part of Anonymous. 4chan is a pretty important feature, btw, since 4chan accepts images from anyone and, unless they name themselves, the site names them Anonymousxxx — hence the name of the group.

    So to say “Anonymous is responsible” means more than just “people are responsible”, but it is, as yet, hard to define what it means. Definition is a problem for us, though, not for Anonymous itself.

  26. Anonymous says:

    The title Anonymous is used by many seperate people and small groups.
    just because somthing si done by them/it not all of them/it did it.
    Someone(s) did it but not all of them.

    This is confusing.

    Since i didn’t log in you could clame i am anonymous but i don’t know anyone asociated with that/them.

  27. smaier69 says:

    *so-and-so* speaking for anon, and we give it creedance?

    i mean, really people.

    anon is what it does. period. anything beyond that, by definition, is meaningless.


  28. Anonymous says:

    this thread is definitely a PhD thesis.
    crap, we are in for it.
    I’m defecting from the digital world

  29. Anonymous says:

    GodDamned!!!! Why Isn’t ANYBODY Talking About The Potential Possibility That SONY’s DataBase Was “Hacked” By Some Friggin’ EXECUTIVE’s Spoiled Brat Kid Who May Have Used His Parent’s SONY Access Codes/PassWords To Pick On People Who Are A Lot More Financially POOR And Have CREDIT CARDS? THAT IS A Possibilty When You Think About It… Especially When “ANONYMOUS” Put Out The Image Of Being A Group Of “Cyber-Robin Hoods” Who Would PROBABLY Rack Up Huge Amounts Of Debt Onto SONY EXECUTIVE CREDIT CARDS And Stay Away From Stealing Off Of PSN/SOE Clients Who Are Non-SONY Employees. I Mean Think About It… The Hack Was PROBABLY Done By Some Rich ASSHOLE Whose “Parent Of The Year” Works In A High Ranked Position In SONY’s Japan Or New York Offices. The GodDamned “We Are Legion” Thing Was Kinda “Rich Kid Stupid” Taken From Some Movie And Done To Annoy AnyBody With LESS MONEY Than A SONY EXEC. Plus… The “SONY Rich Kid Club” Would Have To Be TRULY ANONYMOUS Out Of Fear That If Their Member(s) Were To Be DisCovered To Be The Spoiled Children Of Certain SONY Employees, Their Parents Would Probably Get FIRED From The Company For The Stupid Prank/Hack/Cyber Crime That Was Committed And Of Course… All That “SONY RICH KID ALLOWANCE $$$” Would Be Halted…AS Their “Former SONY EXEC Parents” Would Have To Get Jobs At WAL-MART Or McDonald’s Just To “Work Their Way Back Into Heaven”. Well… THAT’s MY THEORY. It’s Simple. Makes Sense. And No Body From “The OutSide” Can Really “Hack” Into SONY And NOT Set Off The Alarms. At The Most… I Do Not Think So. Anyways, Thanks For That “Happy Mutant HandBook” Back In 1996 And Tell Mark Fruenfelder That I Say “Hi”. -RICHARD WILLIAM KIRKPATRICK-THORNE

  30. Anonymous says:

    Someday, we will upgrade our language to the point that we can talk about things like this without sounding like stroke victims on too much LSD.

  31. Rob says:

    Every time some square tries to talk about Anonymous it reminds me of some clueless parent accusing their kid of being ‘hopped up on goofballs’ or ‘going crazy on glue’.

  32. BBNinja says:

    Regardless, of the PSN hack and the network being down the real issue is Sony’s gawd awful response to it. Knowing their customer’s accounts were compromised and waiting a week to tell them. If that wasn’t bad enough they knew that their PC accounts had been compromised as well and waited an extra week to announce that.

    That’s Sony in a nutshell for ya. Instead of looking out for their customers Sony was trying to protect their bottom-line and ironically ruined it.

    Even though Sony, PS3 and SOE is a bag of flaming manure I do hope they catch those responsible and drop the ban hammer on their sorry
    expletive deleted.

  33. happyez says:

    That’s fantastic, asuffield.

    Every corporation can now blame all their faults on Anonymous. That’s FREE! legal abstention from any digital problems.

    I’d love it if our major companies acted in the sincere, ernest and knowingly way that your sub-culture thinks – like every Forbes 500 company hiring hundreds of goths, anarchists and stoners to run their marketing, finance and strategy departments – but maybe these companies will see the tag Anonymous and use it to pretty much put the blame (and therefore, liability) onto others. Whoohoo.

    But they ARE listening to you, they are. Fear not, your world will become a reality.

    Next week, every anti-cappo affinity group come together by consensus to form a corporation, raise $459million and then proceed to buy out every mining, manufacturing and investment company on the Stock Exchange. They now turn them into left-wing green institutions, helping avert disastrous climate change and creating self-sufficient permaculture intentional communities making jewellry to sell at the local market while folk bands play songs with an emphasis on m7 chords. Just walk into a bank to start this inevitable process….

  34. Anonymous says:

    I liked the part where Sony was “distracted” from the break-in because of the denial of service attack. If anything, shouldn’t Sony have been on alert during that time? But no, they couldn’t even keep their patches up-to-date. Not by a long shot.

    The problem wasn’t that they were distracted. The problem was that they were ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL.

  35. doingsitups says:

    So basically, someone somewhere did it? Maybe he or she once agreed to the ideals of Anonymous, which is to say it could have been your grandmother?

  36. Anonymous says:

    Kayla’s a fed ?

Leave a Reply