10 ms·

It's very interesting to see folks rediscover what we always knew: there's a big difference between a group with a purpose and standards and a mob. It used to

It's very interesting to see folks rediscover what we always knew: there's a big difference between a group with a purpose and standards and a mob. It used to be that geography contained a lot of mob-like behavior. You might be mad at the guy who lived in the nearby castle, but there were only so many villagers you could round up. And some of those liked the guy, some didn't want trouble, some didn't like your plan, etc. Now the internet lets us find the most emotional people possible about a particular topic and put them all together in one "place". Then people can feed off each's other anger, saying and doing more and more preposterous things in order to impress the group. Information that might challenge the groupspeak is discarded. "Acts of valor" the group commit are spread far and wide, drawing in more members, thereby creating a feedback cycle which encourages more and more dramatic acts. The thing is: the issue doesn't matter. The larger story isn't about Sony, or Anonymous, or any one particular issue. It's about how governments are going to be able to consistently function when the world is breaking up into thousands of little angry groups like this. I have no idea how this is going to play out, or how many kids and families of corporation execs are going to suffer because of things they cannot control. But there will be a backlash. It's building, and I'm concerned that when it happens we are going to see governments step in and take control in ways that are as equally terrible. </doomsaying>

djtumolo 16y ago
You may be exaggerating. I visited the #opsony room, and at one point they were broadcasting how many LOICs were in operation. Millions? Thousands? No. <100. Less than 100 people in this mob of internet justice. And fewer still doing more nefarious stuff like stalking down execs.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Yes, I am purposely overstating and glossing over certain details, mainly because I'm attempting to extrapolate. Thanks for pointing that out, though. Perhaps if we're lucky (?) tools to monitor and control mobs will evolve faster than tools to communicate and collaborate securely. Anonymous is working at the basest level of security -- just drop by and jump in. I imagine what we'll see soon, what we see already in organized crime, is a combination of better ways of vetting while still integrating to the wider net in order to attract new recruits. As they say in the movies, the night is still young. If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems (once again, I'm overstating for effect) Having said all of that, even if it's only 100 people, and even if it's always 100 people are less, that's a problem. Smaller groups that fly under the radar are more problematic than large noisy ones. How many people did it take to dump all the secure embassy traffic of the United States government?
  - makmanalp 16y ago
    It's useful to mention that you're overstating when you do it (like you did in this post) so that people don't fall into the trap of believing that what you're saying is actually the status quo.
  - ahi 16y ago
    >If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? For the record, I don't see a problem with any of those things, and I doubt I'm the only one.
  - bluedanieru 16y ago
    If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? What's wrong with that? That would be terrific.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    > If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems We are not going to have problems. Governments and corporations who want to take away our rights are going to have problems.
    - krakensden 16y ago
      It's all fun and games until you discover that you're working for today's bad guys, your address is posted up, and there are cocks drawn on your face on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
  - pdaviesa 16y ago
    Although you may be right, if the hackanery gets too bad the gov may have no choice but to step in. I wonder how long it will be before a special ops team from the newly formed Ministry of Information is banging down these kids' doors.
- falcolas 16y ago
  If < 100 people can cause this level of disruption, I think it adds to, instead of detracts from, GP's point. Ye' olde pitchfork mob couldn't even think of causing this kind of disruption, even at similar numbers.
- mattmanser 16y ago
  You've got to look at it from the other side too though, it only took a handful of people at SCEA to decide to make geohot's life hell. There's a lot of general life getting in the way out there, how many people agree with a topic compared to how many will work their ass of to stop it?
- nwmcsween 16y ago
  From what they've taken down in the past I don't have a doubt that one or more 'anonymous' have access to a botnet. This is probably what the FBI is after and is why no action has been taken.
mcantelon 16y ago
>there's a big difference between a group with a purpose and standards and a mob. You're implying that this group doesn't have a purpose or standards? Seems like they have a fairly obvious purpose: discourage Sony from being heavy-handed against hobbyist hackers. And they also have standards: just ones you may disagree with. I'm sure if someone shot a Sony exec's kid the bulk of Anon would disagree with this action. The back and forth of the establishment attempting to control and elements of the population pushing back is not a new thing.
- hartror 16y ago
  A lynch mob has a purpose. It isn't necessarily even the same purpose at the end as it was in the beginning. This is the danger of mobs, people become more emotional and feel more entitled to take more drastic actions that they would otherwise eschew alone. It would only take one lone nut case with a gun and the information Anon has gathered to turn this media curiosity into the biggest story this side of Libya. I am not against what Anon is arguing for in this case, but what they are doing is highly questionable and crosses the line. This is no longer civil disobedience but something more akin to mobster tactics. If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops.
  - blhack 16y ago
    >If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops. I'm not sure if you're joking here or not, but this is exactly what was done to "them" during the HbGary thing, and this is exactly what is trying to be done to "them" in the George Hotz case (Sony is seeking information on George Hotz, as well as anybody who visited his website.) And they are crying foul from the internet's rooftops. Which is exactly where we are at now.
    - hartror 16y ago
      So two wrongs make a right? Because others are doing it Anon is justified in doing it as well? And justified in taking it further and exposing innocent bystanders?
tomelders 16y ago
I see pure, unfettered democracy in action. It's ugly, but I love it.
- jbermudes 16y ago
  In the "2 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" sense...
  - Devilboy 16y ago
    Democracy will always be the tyranny of the majority.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Actually this seems to be a case of the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Or rather the lambs friends private army.
  - tomelders 16y ago
    If the Lamb in this scenario is a litigious bully who stretches the law to breaking point and abuses privileges that aren't available to you or I, then yes.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      No, we're the lambs. One of the wolves is a giant multinational company, the other owns tanks and can control Internet peering. On behalf of the rest of you lambs, I'd like to thank people who commit crimes to make points about freedom online for picking this fight. I'm sure we'll do just fine in it.
      - bluedanieru 16y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting one should put up with some injustice in the face of the threat of more of it?
jodrellblank 16y ago
"Acts of valor" the group commit are spread far and wide, drawing in more members, thereby creating a feedback cycle which encourages more and more dramatic acts. Off topic, how is it that people can be against socialism, and yet also personally glory in the acts of soldiers and sports persons, etc.? Isn't that exactly taking something from the hard work of the capable few and spreading it over a whole nation in such fashion that the people who need it more can 'take' the most from it?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
morrow 16y ago
Excellent point. It reminded me of Clay Shirky's TED talk, on institutions vs. collaboration: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_on_institution... I'd add another problem with this state where more ideas, movements, tribes, etc. find critical mass via better and better communication technologies, is the side-effect of these groups forming echo chambers of ideas leading to more divergent groups with less in common, thus creating harder to resolve differences.
spoiledtechie 16y ago
> Now the internet lets us find the most emotional people possible about a particular topic and put them all together in one "place". Sort of reminds me of the White people that are able to find each other on the internet and hate on another race. It has formed segregated groups and have executed killings based on what people and communities talk about online. I pretty much agree with your assumption. Its going to get worse.

djtumolo 16y ago

You may be exaggerating. I visited the #opsony room, and at one point they were broadcasting how many LOICs were in operation. Millions? Thousands? No. <100. Less than 100 people in this mob of internet justice. And fewer still doing more nefarious stuff like stalking down execs.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Yes, I am purposely overstating and glossing over certain details, mainly because I'm attempting to extrapolate. Thanks for pointing that out, though. Perhaps if we're lucky (?) tools to monitor and control mobs will evolve faster than tools to communicate and collaborate securely. Anonymous is working at the basest level of security -- just drop by and jump in. I imagine what we'll see soon, what we see already in organized crime, is a combination of better ways of vetting while still integrating to the wider net in order to attract new recruits. As they say in the movies, the night is still young. If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems (once again, I'm overstating for effect) Having said all of that, even if it's only 100 people, and even if it's always 100 people are less, that's a problem. Smaller groups that fly under the radar are more problematic than large noisy ones. How many people did it take to dump all the secure embassy traffic of the United States government?
- makmanalp 16y ago
  It's useful to mention that you're overstating when you do it (like you did in this post) so that people don't fall into the trap of believing that what you're saying is actually the status quo.
- ahi 16y ago
  >If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? For the record, I don't see a problem with any of those things, and I doubt I'm the only one.
- bluedanieru 16y ago
  If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? What's wrong with that? That would be terrific.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems We are not going to have problems. Governments and corporations who want to take away our rights are going to have problems.
  - krakensden 16y ago
    It's all fun and games until you discover that you're working for today's bad guys, your address is posted up, and there are cocks drawn on your face on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
- pdaviesa 16y ago
  Although you may be right, if the hackanery gets too bad the gov may have no choice but to step in. I wonder how long it will be before a special ops team from the newly formed Ministry of Information is banging down these kids' doors.
falcolas 16y ago
If < 100 people can cause this level of disruption, I think it adds to, instead of detracts from, GP's point. Ye' olde pitchfork mob couldn't even think of causing this kind of disruption, even at similar numbers.
mattmanser 16y ago
You've got to look at it from the other side too though, it only took a handful of people at SCEA to decide to make geohot's life hell. There's a lot of general life getting in the way out there, how many people agree with a topic compared to how many will work their ass of to stop it?
nwmcsween 16y ago
From what they've taken down in the past I don't have a doubt that one or more 'anonymous' have access to a botnet. This is probably what the FBI is after and is why no action has been taken.

mcantelon 16y ago

>there's a big difference between a group with a purpose and standards and a mob. You're implying that this group doesn't have a purpose or standards? Seems like they have a fairly obvious purpose: discourage Sony from being heavy-handed against hobbyist hackers. And they also have standards: just ones you may disagree with. I'm sure if someone shot a Sony exec's kid the bulk of Anon would disagree with this action. The back and forth of the establishment attempting to control and elements of the population pushing back is not a new thing.

hartror 16y ago
A lynch mob has a purpose. It isn't necessarily even the same purpose at the end as it was in the beginning. This is the danger of mobs, people become more emotional and feel more entitled to take more drastic actions that they would otherwise eschew alone. It would only take one lone nut case with a gun and the information Anon has gathered to turn this media curiosity into the biggest story this side of Libya. I am not against what Anon is arguing for in this case, but what they are doing is highly questionable and crosses the line. This is no longer civil disobedience but something more akin to mobster tactics. If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops.
- blhack 16y ago
  >If the same was done to them, someone pursuing their families, they would be crying foul from the internet's roof tops. I'm not sure if you're joking here or not, but this is exactly what was done to "them" during the HbGary thing, and this is exactly what is trying to be done to "them" in the George Hotz case (Sony is seeking information on George Hotz, as well as anybody who visited his website.) And they are crying foul from the internet's rooftops. Which is exactly where we are at now.
  - hartror 16y ago
    So two wrongs make a right? Because others are doing it Anon is justified in doing it as well? And justified in taking it further and exposing innocent bystanders?

tomelders 16y ago

I see pure, unfettered democracy in action. It's ugly, but I love it.

jbermudes 16y ago
In the "2 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" sense...
- Devilboy 16y ago
  Democracy will always be the tyranny of the majority.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Actually this seems to be a case of the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Or rather the lambs friends private army.
- tomelders 16y ago
  If the Lamb in this scenario is a litigious bully who stretches the law to breaking point and abuses privileges that aren't available to you or I, then yes.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    No, we're the lambs. One of the wolves is a giant multinational company, the other owns tanks and can control Internet peering. On behalf of the rest of you lambs, I'd like to thank people who commit crimes to make points about freedom online for picking this fight. I'm sure we'll do just fine in it.
    - bluedanieru 16y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting one should put up with some injustice in the face of the threat of more of it?

jodrellblank 16y ago

"Acts of valor" the group commit are spread far and wide, drawing in more members, thereby creating a feedback cycle which encourages more and more dramatic acts. Off topic, how is it that people can be against socialism, and yet also personally glory in the acts of soldiers and sports persons, etc.? Isn't that exactly taking something from the hard work of the capable few and spreading it over a whole nation in such fashion that the people who need it more can 'take' the most from it?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

morrow 16y ago

Excellent point. It reminded me of Clay Shirky's TED talk, on institutions vs. collaboration: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_on_institution... I'd add another problem with this state where more ideas, movements, tribes, etc. find critical mass via better and better communication technologies, is the side-effect of these groups forming echo chambers of ideas leading to more divergent groups with less in common, thus creating harder to resolve differences.

spoiledtechie 16y ago

> Now the internet lets us find the most emotional people possible about a particular topic and put them all together in one "place". Sort of reminds me of the White people that are able to find each other on the internet and hate on another race. It has formed segregated groups and have executed killings based on what people and communities talk about online. I pretty much agree with your assumption. Its going to get worse.