5 ms·

Anonymous could provide a lot of red meat for Wikileaks if they tried, I think. Or would that not be a leak anymore but a theft? Anonbreaks - Wikileaks in overd

Anonymous could provide a lot of red meat for Wikileaks if they tried, I think. Or would that not be a leak anymore but a theft? Anonbreaks - Wikileaks in overdrive.

marshray 16y ago
I think Wikileaks' policy is not to accept intentionally haxored info, although it's claimed that they've let some through in the past.
parfe 16y ago
There's a lot of misunderstanding of what Anonymous is. adrianwaj is Anonymous if you so chose. You could release a Word Document with "Aaron Barr" in the author field declaring a war on Egg McMuffins and sign it Anonymous. You probably would get no traction and be ignored... Or a week later you might read about a bunch of 16 year olds throwing Egg McMuffins to the Elephant at the Bronx Zoo wearing woody wood pecker masks while singing Christina Aguilera's version of the national anthem. There is no "Anonymous" in the sense of a coherent group. There are only specific acts that received enough interest to garner outside attention. When you say "If they tried" you are missing the point. You could try.
- adrianwaj 16y ago
  Sort of like Jihad? Except here only for otherwise clearly unsavory responses to perceived threats against freedom vs otherwise clearly unsavory responses to perceived threats against Islam? The argument lies whether the acts are actually unsavory, otherwise unsavory, if the perception of being a threat is correct and whether that threat is valid enough to justify a response. So when if ever does Jihadism/Anonymous go to far? So Anonymous is really just a mask that can be put on. There is nothing that can keep either group in check except for how aligned each one is with the core values that it seeks to defend, and how that tension resolves. Why doesn't Anonymous rail against Jihad? Where people that might otherwise be labelled racist, however accurately or not, could then proceed with their actions without having that inhibition.
  - praptak 16y ago
    "Why doesn't Anonymous rail against Jihad?" They do, on a small scale. Some folks create some blasphemous cartoons of Muhammad and post them on imageboards. Some people print them out and post IRL. Pick anything and you'll probably find a group of people waving the Anon flag and rallying against it. TLDR answer: It just hasn't got enough traction.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    Anonymous is not an organization. It is just a bunch of people without a leader who hear someone suggest something, hear someone else give instructions, and then do it because they think it sounds smart. It's just like any other bunch of people doing that for any other thing, it doesn't have to be a DDOS or harassment. It could be religion. Some guys hear Muhammad or Buddha speak, think they're pretty smart, and decide to start doing what they say for a while; the group is not the taste-testers, but the devoted followers. Anonymous is the undefined mass; people with leaders in IRC rooms are the individual organizations plucked from an undefined, unorganized mass. Treating Anonymous as a coherent group with a coherent leader is the same thing as saying "Humanity today DDOSes MasterCard", "I'm publishing a list of humanity's leaders", etc. It's a completely meaningless misnomer; there is no cohesion to humanity whereby one could direct any significant portion of the entirety of humanity, just as there is no cohesion to Anonymous -- it's just a group of people without definition or mission statement, and it is too broad to mean anything. Heretofore most participants in "Anonymous" raids, etc., have been users of 4chan or similar message boards, but again, that's a very expansive and large group, there is no significant percentage of its users involved in any one attack or following any one leader or chain of command. It, like our previous example of the entirety of humanity, is too broad of a definition to have meaning. An organization is not an organization until you have leaders and subordinates with definable positions. Before that, it is just a bunch of guys talking about ideas, some liking some, others liking others, and coming and going as they please, some involved in one event under the one marshal and then going to one held by another. That is not an organization, but a bunch of drifting, undecided people. And that's what Anonymous is, too. You do not have a terrorist or criminal organization just because someone can drop in to a common forum and get a bunch of script kiddies to act as his personal botnet for a single event. The participants are not initiated into his group and they have no obligation, affiliation, responsibility, or position in it, they are just guys who heard an idea, thought it was cool, tried for a while, and moved on.
steveklabnik 16y ago
http://twitter.com/AnonymousIRC/status/35861584349892608# http://twitter.com/AnonymousIRC/status/35861584349892608# > While #Wikileaks seem to have some problems: #Anonleaks will be launching very soon. To start it will release 27000 mails of greg@hbgary.com - @anonymousirc
- adrianwaj 16y ago
  Wow, anonleaks.com just got created today. http://whois.domaintools.com/anonleaks.com http://whois.domaintools.com/anonleaks.com its name server anonleaks.ru 2 days ago http://whois.domaintools.com/anonleaks.ru http://whois.domaintools.com/anonleaks.ru
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    A great example of this comment in action: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2201247 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2201247 Go read it and upvote it, if you didn't see it yesterday. Good stuff.
    - adrianwaj 16y ago
      I actually don't think it's such a bad idea for everybody to see Aaron's emails, so long as Aaron can see everybody else's emails. Pure transparency would be as entrapping as it would be liberating initially. So long as the transparency mechanism does not discriminate, I think it'd be awesome. You could pledge to go transparent when say 80% of your contacts do too. It'd be an interesting experiment regardless. Friends could see what you're up to and try to help (and you'd get to know someone better by seeing them in new contexts), emailing becomes like tweet messaging someone -- maybe a good startup idea, something like http://Hackerfollow.com http://Hackerfollow.com on someone's emails, requiring mutual follows - you have to know who's following you and approve them, and the only emails shown to you are those between two people already on the network that have both approved you - the rest exclude you. So when that comment talks about OODA, all of a sudden with this system the top of a hierarchy can intervene in the bottom, and the bottom knows what the top is talking about. The hierachy becomes a set of intersecting rings of different sizes, there's no top of bottom anymore.

Anonymous could provide a lot of red meat for Wikileaks if they tried, I think. Or would that not be a leak anymore but a theft? Anonbreaks - Wikileaks in overdrive.

marshray 16y ago

I think Wikileaks' policy is not to accept intentionally haxored info, although it's claimed that they've let some through in the past.

parfe 16y ago

There's a lot of misunderstanding of what Anonymous is. adrianwaj is Anonymous if you so chose. You could release a Word Document with "Aaron Barr" in the author field declaring a war on Egg McMuffins and sign it Anonymous. You probably would get no traction and be ignored... Or a week later you might read about a bunch of 16 year olds throwing Egg McMuffins to the Elephant at the Bronx Zoo wearing woody wood pecker masks while singing Christina Aguilera's version of the national anthem. There is no "Anonymous" in the sense of a coherent group. There are only specific acts that received enough interest to garner outside attention. When you say "If they tried" you are missing the point. You could try.

adrianwaj 16y ago
Sort of like Jihad? Except here only for otherwise clearly unsavory responses to perceived threats against freedom vs otherwise clearly unsavory responses to perceived threats against Islam? The argument lies whether the acts are actually unsavory, otherwise unsavory, if the perception of being a threat is correct and whether that threat is valid enough to justify a response. So when if ever does Jihadism/Anonymous go to far? So Anonymous is really just a mask that can be put on. There is nothing that can keep either group in check except for how aligned each one is with the core values that it seeks to defend, and how that tension resolves. Why doesn't Anonymous rail against Jihad? Where people that might otherwise be labelled racist, however accurately or not, could then proceed with their actions without having that inhibition.
- praptak 16y ago
  "Why doesn't Anonymous rail against Jihad?" They do, on a small scale. Some folks create some blasphemous cartoons of Muhammad and post them on imageboards. Some people print them out and post IRL. Pick anything and you'll probably find a group of people waving the Anon flag and rallying against it. TLDR answer: It just hasn't got enough traction.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  Anonymous is not an organization. It is just a bunch of people without a leader who hear someone suggest something, hear someone else give instructions, and then do it because they think it sounds smart. It's just like any other bunch of people doing that for any other thing, it doesn't have to be a DDOS or harassment. It could be religion. Some guys hear Muhammad or Buddha speak, think they're pretty smart, and decide to start doing what they say for a while; the group is not the taste-testers, but the devoted followers. Anonymous is the undefined mass; people with leaders in IRC rooms are the individual organizations plucked from an undefined, unorganized mass. Treating Anonymous as a coherent group with a coherent leader is the same thing as saying "Humanity today DDOSes MasterCard", "I'm publishing a list of humanity's leaders", etc. It's a completely meaningless misnomer; there is no cohesion to humanity whereby one could direct any significant portion of the entirety of humanity, just as there is no cohesion to Anonymous -- it's just a group of people without definition or mission statement, and it is too broad to mean anything. Heretofore most participants in "Anonymous" raids, etc., have been users of 4chan or similar message boards, but again, that's a very expansive and large group, there is no significant percentage of its users involved in any one attack or following any one leader or chain of command. It, like our previous example of the entirety of humanity, is too broad of a definition to have meaning. An organization is not an organization until you have leaders and subordinates with definable positions. Before that, it is just a bunch of guys talking about ideas, some liking some, others liking others, and coming and going as they please, some involved in one event under the one marshal and then going to one held by another. That is not an organization, but a bunch of drifting, undecided people. And that's what Anonymous is, too. You do not have a terrorist or criminal organization just because someone can drop in to a common forum and get a bunch of script kiddies to act as his personal botnet for a single event. The participants are not initiated into his group and they have no obligation, affiliation, responsibility, or position in it, they are just guys who heard an idea, thought it was cool, tried for a while, and moved on.

steveklabnik 16y ago

http://twitter.com/AnonymousIRC/status/35861584349892608# http://twitter.com/AnonymousIRC/status/35861584349892608# > While #Wikileaks seem to have some problems: #Anonleaks will be launching very soon. To start it will release 27000 mails of greg@hbgary.com - @anonymousirc

adrianwaj 16y ago
Wow, anonleaks.com just got created today. http://whois.domaintools.com/anonleaks.com http://whois.domaintools.com/anonleaks.com its name server anonleaks.ru 2 days ago http://whois.domaintools.com/anonleaks.ru http://whois.domaintools.com/anonleaks.ru
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  A great example of this comment in action: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2201247 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2201247 Go read it and upvote it, if you didn't see it yesterday. Good stuff.
  - adrianwaj 16y ago
    I actually don't think it's such a bad idea for everybody to see Aaron's emails, so long as Aaron can see everybody else's emails. Pure transparency would be as entrapping as it would be liberating initially. So long as the transparency mechanism does not discriminate, I think it'd be awesome. You could pledge to go transparent when say 80% of your contacts do too. It'd be an interesting experiment regardless. Friends could see what you're up to and try to help (and you'd get to know someone better by seeing them in new contexts), emailing becomes like tweet messaging someone -- maybe a good startup idea, something like http://Hackerfollow.com http://Hackerfollow.com on someone's emails, requiring mutual follows - you have to know who's following you and approve them, and the only emails shown to you are those between two people already on the network that have both approved you - the rest exclude you. So when that comment talks about OODA, all of a sudden with this system the top of a hierarchy can intervene in the bottom, and the bottom knows what the top is talking about. The hierachy becomes a set of intersecting rings of different sizes, there's no top of bottom anymore.