Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Casiella]

You know, it's funny. I spent a lot of time thinking about this thread. As I've mentioned a few times before, my entire professional life focuses on detecting and responding to threats like this (and Anonymous is not unknown to me in that context).

But I don't feel hate for these groups. For some of them, derision perhaps ("s'kiddies"). Others, annoyance or irrelevance. A particular few groups, yes, professional fear. And for some groups or individuals, grudging respect.

I'm not sure yet about Anonymous in any detail. But they do fascinate me.

[Z.Sinraali]

Because they think they just got the leadership of Anon.

Also lol@thinking Anonymous have 'leadership' of any sort.

I do not understand this sentiment. Despite the rhetoric, Anonymous (hacking group) is an organization that does things in the real world. When you do things in the real world, hierarchies develop and leaders emerge. Yes, from where I'm standing it certainly appears to be a fairly decentralized network, and leadership is hard to identify in a social structure that prizes non-identity. But that doesn't mean it's a pure anarchy wherein all behavior is merely emergent glomming onto the next noble cause.

Using botnets is a bit more shady, but the article is not at all clear whether they went ahead and made one of their own or just let some muppet with a botnet know that Anonymous' target du jour was website XYZ, a la "co-ordinated attacks using IRC chat and used sophisticated encryption techniques to conceal their communications."

Ethically, this seems like a distinction without a difference. Would you care to elaborate?