4 ms·

I would be shocked if this isn't actually just a post-rationalization for previously completed hacking activity (which has been the majority of their previous M

I would be shocked if this isn't actually just a post-rationalization for previously completed hacking activity (which has been the majority of their previous M.O.)

bpatrianakos 14y ago
Thanks for saying this as sometimes I'm afraid that Anonymous gets too much respect around here. You mention their M.O. which seems to basically be hack something, release tons of private or damaging information then say its because the people they hacked were evil. In reality its a bunch of bullshit. If they had hacked the American Cancer Society or even Piratebay or Wikileaks they'd come up with some reason they were evil. Shit was cute at first but now its just looking like a reason hack for its own sake. And the whole grandiose "Hacktivist" identity they've garnered is now looking more and more like its also bullshit.
- angersock 14y ago
  Right, but they didn't hack the ACS, or Piratebay, or Wikileaks. That's worth keeping in mind.
  - redthrowaway 14y ago
    No, but there was the Epilepsy Foundation, back in the day. I tend to draw a distinction though between Chanology, /i/, Op Payback, and OWS flavours of Anonymous, despite a great deal of overlap in the people involved. This idea of Anonymous being (or seeing themselves as) a force for good is actually pretty new. I'm thinking it can probably be traced back to the financial blockade against Wikileaks and the response thereto. Coming just as it did after the resurrection of Anonymous during Op Payback, I think the response to Wikileaks' trials probably brought in a lot of new people with a much different set of ideals than those who came before.
    - lmm 14y ago
      Epilepsy Foundation was widely speculated to be a Church of Scientology false-flag operation. Don't know if anything was ever proven either way. I'd say the idea of Anonymous being a force for good goes all the way back to the Hal Turner raid. Before then it was all about spoiling other people's fun (Habbo Hotel etc.), but after targeting this white supremacist (basically by accident) suddenly people realised that maybe this power could be directed against those who really deserve it. Chanology and all the rest of it came out of that.
      - ProblemFactory 14y ago
        > Epilepsy Foundation was widely speculated to be a Church of Scientology false-flag operation. A curious thought: are false-flag operations even possible with Anonymous, which is a label anyone can take, not an organisation? If Church of Scientology decides to hack Epilepsy foundation and call themselves Anonymous, then they are Anonymous. And hacking to troll and upset some group of people is certainly within the usual motivations of Anonymous activity.
        lmm 14y ago
        >A curious thought: are false-flag operations even possible with Anonymous, which is a label anyone can take, not an organisation? Meh. Ultimately Anonymous does describe a particular cluster of people and behaviours, however loosely affiliated - and rightly or wrongly, they do have a reputation to discredit. When one incident is an outlier both in terms of action and (alleged) perpetrators, I think it's fair to call it a false-flag operation. >hacking to troll and upset some group of people is certainly within the usual motivations of Anonymous activity. Absolutely, but hacking to cause actual physical injury is far less so IME.
      - redthrowaway 14y ago
        >Epilepsy Foundation was widely speculated to be a Church of Scientology false-flag operation. That rumour was started by 7chan, where the raid originated. They also blamed ebaumsworld, because they always blamed ebaumsworld. It strikes me as naive to think that they would be capable of launching a false flag operation that so closely emulated Anon's previous raids, given how inept the CoS was in responding to Chanology, and how readily and willingly they fed the trolls. The choice of target, means of attack, and escalation of the raid were all classic Anon.

I would be shocked if this isn't actually just a post-rationalization for previously completed hacking activity (which has been the majority of their previous M.O.)

bpatrianakos 14y ago

Thanks for saying this as sometimes I'm afraid that Anonymous gets too much respect around here. You mention their M.O. which seems to basically be hack something, release tons of private or damaging information then say its because the people they hacked were evil. In reality its a bunch of bullshit. If they had hacked the American Cancer Society or even Piratebay or Wikileaks they'd come up with some reason they were evil. Shit was cute at first but now its just looking like a reason hack for its own sake. And the whole grandiose "Hacktivist" identity they've garnered is now looking more and more like its also bullshit.

angersock 14y ago
Right, but they didn't hack the ACS, or Piratebay, or Wikileaks. That's worth keeping in mind.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  No, but there was the Epilepsy Foundation, back in the day. I tend to draw a distinction though between Chanology, /i/, Op Payback, and OWS flavours of Anonymous, despite a great deal of overlap in the people involved. This idea of Anonymous being (or seeing themselves as) a force for good is actually pretty new. I'm thinking it can probably be traced back to the financial blockade against Wikileaks and the response thereto. Coming just as it did after the resurrection of Anonymous during Op Payback, I think the response to Wikileaks' trials probably brought in a lot of new people with a much different set of ideals than those who came before.
  - lmm 14y ago
    Epilepsy Foundation was widely speculated to be a Church of Scientology false-flag operation. Don't know if anything was ever proven either way. I'd say the idea of Anonymous being a force for good goes all the way back to the Hal Turner raid. Before then it was all about spoiling other people's fun (Habbo Hotel etc.), but after targeting this white supremacist (basically by accident) suddenly people realised that maybe this power could be directed against those who really deserve it. Chanology and all the rest of it came out of that.
    - ProblemFactory 14y ago
      > Epilepsy Foundation was widely speculated to be a Church of Scientology false-flag operation. A curious thought: are false-flag operations even possible with Anonymous, which is a label anyone can take, not an organisation? If Church of Scientology decides to hack Epilepsy foundation and call themselves Anonymous, then they are Anonymous. And hacking to troll and upset some group of people is certainly within the usual motivations of Anonymous activity.
      - lmm 14y ago
        >A curious thought: are false-flag operations even possible with Anonymous, which is a label anyone can take, not an organisation? Meh. Ultimately Anonymous does describe a particular cluster of people and behaviours, however loosely affiliated - and rightly or wrongly, they do have a reputation to discredit. When one incident is an outlier both in terms of action and (alleged) perpetrators, I think it's fair to call it a false-flag operation. >hacking to troll and upset some group of people is certainly within the usual motivations of Anonymous activity. Absolutely, but hacking to cause actual physical injury is far less so IME.
    - redthrowaway 14y ago
      >Epilepsy Foundation was widely speculated to be a Church of Scientology false-flag operation. That rumour was started by 7chan, where the raid originated. They also blamed ebaumsworld, because they always blamed ebaumsworld. It strikes me as naive to think that they would be capable of launching a false flag operation that so closely emulated Anon's previous raids, given how inept the CoS was in responding to Chanology, and how readily and willingly they fed the trolls. The choice of target, means of attack, and escalation of the raid were all classic Anon.