I walked the street during Project Chanology, and I'm not particularly afraid to admit it -- it was a long time ago, though. These days, I wouldn't dream of admitting being associated with Anonymous. Somewhere between then and now they really lost their way; Anonymous isn't about media appearances (which they seem to love now. CNN? really?) nor the infamy, it's about committing to an ideal that a bunch of "overnight neckbeards" believe in. That was the power I signed up for, and it was impressive to behold. I really felt like the Internet could catch on and do some good in the real world, but then it all went to hell.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and Anonymous means something a lot different than I thought it does.
I'm convinced now that Anonymous is down to a small group of people who are basically really clever botnet herders. LOIC itself is a clever way to get a large botnet with fairly little effort. Since they operate under a guise of religious zeal and fervor, they largely get positive attention from the media for doing something that all Internet operators hate. As such, they're a pretty big threat to the operations community, and they're just discovering how to wield that power. The media eats it up because it's a story that sells itself.
When is the last time Anonymous actually picketed something to take their message public? Now their modus operandi seems to be to basically be that group of script kiddies that everyone hates, and punish groups they disagree with by hitting them with over 9,000 cable modems. That isn't to say that wasn't a part of Chanology, but I felt like the picket lines had a more positive effect than shutting down Scientology's Web site.
the downside of anonymous is that anybody can claim to be from the group and pop their head up on CNN
considering what anonymous stands for, I think it is safe to say that anybody claiming to be part of the group while participating in a live on-air discussion on a news network, is not from the group and definitely doesn't understand it.
I think you're way too pessimistic. Anonymous is anyone and everyone who wants to be Anonymous. Even if the current people called Anonymous in the lime light right now aren't what you would hope for it's still an inspiration of what can happen.
I remember years ago someone warned against a company angering the internet. I laughed. What is the net going to do? Spam email them? Shut down their network documentation? BFD. Anonymous is like in the matrix where Agent Smith managed to escape the virtual world and could affect things in the real world. That is power and that is potential.
> Anonymous is anyone and everyone who wants to be Anonymous.
Well, that's simultaneously the benefit and the drawback. Nightly News ran an exclusive the other night that interviewed some chain smoker who whored it up as well, and the piece highlighted Anonymous's accomplishments of taking down VISA and MasterCard. That's what Nightly News indicated that they were known for. I don't even recall if they mentioned Scientology, and if they did, it was in passing.
Regardless of what Anonymous can be, the media has latched on to the "computer hacking," and that's what Anonymous is now to every non-informed person who gets their information from press. A bunch of basement computer nerds, triumphing over old money establishment with all the suspense of a Grisham novel; that made a lot more headway in the international media than Project Chanology ever did, because it's a more interesting story.
The important part is that Anonymous isn't making strides to fix it: they're learning where the reward is, and all of the recent operations have lingered in that area -- countless SQL injections and DDoS attacks later, any possible positive outcome for Anonymous has long been overshadowed by the destructive. Even if, as you say, all of the destructive ops have been the work of a group that's genuinely out of touch with what Anonymous should be, the inherent drawback to anonymity itself means that their tactic has won the fight.
>Regardless of what Anonymous can be, the media has latched on to the "computer hacking,"
The media is going to link bait and, frankly, a lot of them make money off the current establishment and don't like upstarts rocking the boat. Personally I would ignore the media aspect because there is no reasonable way to appeal to the Fox/CNN crowd.
>any possible positive outcome for Anonymous has long been overshadowed by the destructive
I disagree. You yourself have different goals and focus on different victories they've had. Every person like you can be the change you want to see tomorrow.
Dabblers never understand what it is they're dabbling in. That can't be fixed. And making the world a better place normally comes at the expense of those who gain from it being as it is. These two facts combined mean Anon will always have a bad rep with the uninformed no matter what anyone does. I say one should just ignore it and do what we can for the causes we care about. If the world gets better for people do we really care so much who gets the credit? Credit is good to get people involved but I would argue that most of the ones who can make the difference will know who was actually responsible and will get their motivation from results.
Comments
I walked the street during Project Chanology, and I'm not particularly afraid to admit it -- it was a long time ago, though. These days, I wouldn't dream of admitting being associated with Anonymous. Somewhere between then and now they really lost their way; Anonymous isn't about media appearances (which they seem to love now. CNN? really?) nor the infamy, it's about committing to an ideal that a bunch of "overnight neckbeards" believe in. That was the power I signed up for, and it was impressive to behold. I really felt like the Internet could catch on and do some good in the real world, but then it all went to hell.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and Anonymous means something a lot different than I thought it does.
I'm convinced now that Anonymous is down to a small group of people who are basically really clever botnet herders. LOIC itself is a clever way to get a large botnet with fairly little effort. Since they operate under a guise of religious zeal and fervor, they largely get positive attention from the media for doing something that all Internet operators hate. As such, they're a pretty big threat to the operations community, and they're just discovering how to wield that power. The media eats it up because it's a story that sells itself.
When is the last time Anonymous actually picketed something to take their message public? Now their modus operandi seems to be to basically be that group of script kiddies that everyone hates, and punish groups they disagree with by hitting them with over 9,000 cable modems. That isn't to say that wasn't a part of Chanology, but I felt like the picket lines had a more positive effect than shutting down Scientology's Web site.
It's been a pretty sad transformation to watch.
the downside of anonymous is that anybody can claim to be from the group and pop their head up on CNN
considering what anonymous stands for, I think it is safe to say that anybody claiming to be part of the group while participating in a live on-air discussion on a news network, is not from the group and definitely doesn't understand it.
I think you're way too pessimistic. Anonymous is anyone and everyone who wants to be Anonymous. Even if the current people called Anonymous in the lime light right now aren't what you would hope for it's still an inspiration of what can happen.
I remember years ago someone warned against a company angering the internet. I laughed. What is the net going to do? Spam email them? Shut down their network documentation? BFD. Anonymous is like in the matrix where Agent Smith managed to escape the virtual world and could affect things in the real world. That is power and that is potential.
> Anonymous is anyone and everyone who wants to be Anonymous.
Well, that's simultaneously the benefit and the drawback. Nightly News ran an exclusive the other night that interviewed some chain smoker who whored it up as well, and the piece highlighted Anonymous's accomplishments of taking down VISA and MasterCard. That's what Nightly News indicated that they were known for. I don't even recall if they mentioned Scientology, and if they did, it was in passing.
Regardless of what Anonymous can be, the media has latched on to the "computer hacking," and that's what Anonymous is now to every non-informed person who gets their information from press. A bunch of basement computer nerds, triumphing over old money establishment with all the suspense of a Grisham novel; that made a lot more headway in the international media than Project Chanology ever did, because it's a more interesting story.
The important part is that Anonymous isn't making strides to fix it: they're learning where the reward is, and all of the recent operations have lingered in that area -- countless SQL injections and DDoS attacks later, any possible positive outcome for Anonymous has long been overshadowed by the destructive. Even if, as you say, all of the destructive ops have been the work of a group that's genuinely out of touch with what Anonymous should be, the inherent drawback to anonymity itself means that their tactic has won the fight.
>Regardless of what Anonymous can be, the media has latched on to the "computer hacking,"
The media is going to link bait and, frankly, a lot of them make money off the current establishment and don't like upstarts rocking the boat. Personally I would ignore the media aspect because there is no reasonable way to appeal to the Fox/CNN crowd.
>any possible positive outcome for Anonymous has long been overshadowed by the destructive
I disagree. You yourself have different goals and focus on different victories they've had. Every person like you can be the change you want to see tomorrow.
Dabblers never understand what it is they're dabbling in. That can't be fixed. And making the world a better place normally comes at the expense of those who gain from it being as it is. These two facts combined mean Anon will always have a bad rep with the uninformed no matter what anyone does. I say one should just ignore it and do what we can for the causes we care about. If the world gets better for people do we really care so much who gets the credit? Credit is good to get people involved but I would argue that most of the ones who can make the difference will know who was actually responsible and will get their motivation from results.