4 ms·
I guess I should expound: The title of the article is silly. Anonymous is a concept and perhaps the first large scale stand alone complex (SAC) (http://www.cy
by ryoshu 16y ago
I guess I should expound: The title of the article is silly. Anonymous is a concept and perhaps the first large scale stand alone complex (SAC) (http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientology-sac/ http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientology-sac/) we have seen emerge. Trying to unmask an SAC is a sisyphean effort because it acts as a scale free network. This is very important to white hats who need to protect against attacks. We aren't dealing with your garden variety skiddies or black hats. As evidenced by the attacks in Operation Payback, Anonymous has created a voluntary botnet with LOIC's new hivemind feature. Anonymous is something different.
The author states: "Whenever a thread is particularly weak, discussants mark it with an image of Guy Fawkes." This is wrong. The author is attempting to show knowledge of chan culture, but he can't even get basic facts straight. Another example: "Once, hackers in the group busted into an online children’s game, flooding an animated swimming pool with their own characters." Also wrong. Five minutes on Google will tell you about the raid on Habbo (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Great_Habbo_Raid_of_July_2006 http://encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Great_Habbo_Raid_of_Jul...). Not only is Habbo not a children's game -- its target market is teenagers -- the raid shut down numerous aspects of the game. Sloppy research and/or writing on the author's part. And then there is his use of the word "hacker" and the phrase "busted into" to describe the act of registering an account. The author seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what he is writing about.
All of these details are important to anyone that wants to understand Anonymous, which should include any white hat, and especially those of us who work on multi-player web based games. It's amazing how a writer can get so many things wrong in such a short article.