Nuanced view of the once and future Anonymous


17 Responses to “Nuanced view of the once and future Anonymous”

  1. Lobster says:

    It’s obviously, definitively criminal.  The question is whether or not it’s worth doing anyway.

  2. artimusClyde says:

    The obvious error in citing the group, is that anyone can do something in the name of Anonymous. There are things they do badly. There are things they do that are a gain to society, like focusing attention on certain issues. Problem is, anyone can bring up and issue and get others to help, and when it is illegal, the whole group is painted as criminal. In my eyes, they’re grey-hats.

  3. awjt says:

    If you really wanted something *done*, would you feel the need to band together and use a name to do it?  No.  You’d find a way and just get it done.  That’s why you don’t see the deviously effective hackers promoting themselves under a name.  They *just do it.*  I’m not saying it’s right, or that one is right and the other is wrong.  What I’m saying is that because of the constant public-addresses, Anonymous lacks credibility, and is distracting from the real black hats who are trying to launch the nuclear missiles.

  4. Brian Lalonde says:

    Help! Will someone please fix the mobile layout? It doesn’t scroll for Android Browser, Dolphin, Skyfire, xScope, probably others—Firefox Mobile and Opera Mobile work.

    • Xeni Jardin says:

      noted, and am alerting our team…

      • awjt says:

        Also, during a page loading, pages tend to jump back up to the top if you have not waited until the load is completely completely complete.  If you try to scroll during the load, it’s massively frustrating to have keep re-scrolling.  Then it flips you back up to the top *again* and you have to re-scroll again…  and again… until the page is loaded.  There has to be a way to just additively load on a phone rather than resetting the place marker where you’ve scrolled to so far.

  5. Mordicai says:

    Citing things like the Patriot Act is crucial when trying to frame argument about a “legislative backlash,” because it highlights the chain of events.  It isn’t “Anonymous happened, so your civil liberties were suspended & unreasonable electronic search & seizure became the norm.”  That isn’t how it went.  It was vice versa– the Patriot Act, THEN groups like Anonymous.  Whatever your views on Anonymous are, it is important to note the causality.

    • Cowicide says:

      Mordicai, how DARE you bring it back to the point of the article?!

      Now, everyone, back to demonizing Anonymous and pushing your own agenda.

  6. Zachary Sarver says:

    Anonymous. Is not. A group. Anonymous does not have members or even a concept of membership. Anonymous is an idea, a label that people can assume when they want to do something anonymously.

    • Lobster says:

      Can we not then discuss what people do under that banner?  Group or not, it is a label that people willingly claim.

    • nemryn says:

      Anonymous is a semi-autonomous gestalt entity whose composition is constantly in flux.

      • csforstall says:

        Anonymous is a semi-autonomous gestalt entity whose composition is constantly in flux

        I think that might be a bit generous. Coleman’s blog makes it apparent that there are mostly two types who “hang around” Anon: Techs (“hackers”), and Non-Techs (“activists”). There might indeed be flux within the ranks, but calling it gestalt just sounds too mythical. Its not like the groups overall purpose or motivation has waviered, as such a description might suggest. There is form there, just no one is talking about what that form is.  

        It is unfortunate that these sorts of sentiments are filling the void left by a lack of hard data on the group.  

        EDIT: upon continued thought I think you are also engaging in definitional abuse of the word gestalt as you choose to modify it with “flux”. Which then begs the question, is the entity in question a unified concept or not?

  7. Daemonworks says:

    Anonymous is not clandestine. They’re about as open as you can get.

  8. Finnagain says:

    The Anonymous you can read is not the true Anonymous.

  9. csforstall says:

    Well nobody but Biella Coleman has the inside scoop. Its seems a bit unrealistic to expect or demand that Menn or anyone else make use of such inside analysis as availiable to Coleman and this blog. So what are we left with? I would suggest that Coleman take a more proactive, and not a reactive, approch to the whole matter.

    Go ahead and explain for the rest of the general public what we need to know. The longer she waits the muddier the waters get, and the more confusing it will be for everyone else.

  10. allen says:

    Anonymous aren’t the only group using these techniques.  They aren’t even the most active.  They are just the most benign, and most publicized.  Groups like the Russian Business Network cause a lot more damage and stay under the media radar.

    So: worrying about legislative backlash is a weird issue.  I think that we have some big problems with the infrastructure of the internet, and the way it interfaces geopolitcally.  Backlash could be a very good thing if it was the right kind of backlash, in which we put effort into maintaining the freedoms we want the internet to provide, with less exposure to the risks we currently face (and this isnt just an internet issue- it goes to things like the way we handle credit).

    I think what the author of the article is concerned about isn’t backlash per se- it’s more that we are a lot more likely to get a knee-jerk authoritarian response from governments than a considered refactoring.

    The author reduces the solution to two choices: ignore the fire, or throw gas on it.  Sadly, I agree that those are the most LIKELY two choices available.

Leave a Reply