5 ms·

Hackers’ Efforts to Identify Officer Create Turmoil

38 points by 001sky 12y ago

meowface 12y ago
Some of the statements in this article are a little bit confusing to me, and seem to show an inaccurate and sensationalized view of hacktivism and "Anonymous" in particular. >Gabriella Coleman, an anthropologist who studies Anonymous and teaches at McGill University in Montreal, said she was taken aback that members of Anonymous would be so quick to release unverified information, and would speak so openly about their methods in online chat channels. >“My jaw was dropping,” Ms. Coleman said, reading members’ communications. “I was surprised because what I was seeing was suggestive but not definitive. Anonymous tends to care about its image quite a bit, and if they were wrong, it would be really bad.” I've worked in the information security industry for a while, and this is the exact kind of behavior expected all of us have seen and expected from Anonymous since they first gained public spotlight in 2008 (mostly with "Project Chanology"). Anyone who's spent any time in any IRC channel claiming to be tied to Anonymous, or anyone who's seen one of the related ~5000 Twitter feeds knows full well they are the definition of hasty, impulsive, disorganized, unsubtle, and incompetent in general. Which is exactly what you'd expect from a "group" (really a label) of miscellaneous teenagers. It's always humorous to see media outlets sometimes try to glorify them. There have been some occasional exceptions with some of the spinoff groups, but generally speaking this is very much not unusual. They have been like that from day 1. I question exactly how well this individual has apparently studied Anonymous.
- saraid216 12y ago
  Well, according to her Wikipedia page, she's said to be the foremost expert.
  - barry-cotter 12y ago
    1. Maybe she wrote the page. 2. One can be the foremost academic expert on something pop cultural and be embarassingly,stupidly,obviously wrong about things that actual fans/participants know. I summon gwern! Tell us of how badly wrong academics get Neon Genesis: Evangrlion wrong, gwern.
- ejr 12y ago
  There are multiple layers to the onion that is Anonymous. It's conceivable that she's familiar with only a few of those.
- yarrel 12y ago
  Coleman's studied Anonymous at length. There's no contradiction between Anonymous being disorganized teenagers (sic) and them caring about their image. Quite the opposite in fact.
  - meowface 12y ago
    Of course they care about their image, as any arrogant group of individuals would. It's just her shock and dismay at their blunders and infighting seems a bit out of place.
- malandrew 12y ago
  "said she was taken aback that members of Anonymous would be so quick to release unverified information" At the same time I still hold the skepticism about anything attributed to Anonymous. Yes, there are people who actually do the kinds of things anonymous does. I don't also doubt that there are people who seek to discredit and marginalize people who identify with the notion of Anonymous by intentionally masquerading as members of Anonymous and acting egregiously irresponsible to the point it becomes so remarkable that the news must report on Anonymous unfavorably. We've all seen stories of real people arrested for irresponsible behavior, and we've also seen enough leaks like the HB Gary one to know that there are numerous active efforts at sock puppetry. At the end of the day, without identities and verifiable facts, none of this is news. It's hearsay. I don't know who's right and wrong here. You don't know who's right and wrong here. And I assure you that the NY Times reporter who wrote this story doesn't know who is and is not right and wrong here.
adamnemecek 12y ago
> implying anonymous is a single entity
- QuantumChaos 12y ago
  How would you characterize they way people cooperate to do the various things that are done in the name of Anonymous? If they tend to be the same people involved and they tend to coordinate their actions the same way each time, then it is fair to say they are a single entity.
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    While it's a terrible example, as far as leadership goes, I think that it's somewhat similar to Al-Qaeda. As in somewhat loose collection of subgroups that might have some single, overall goal but that work kind of independently.
    - jmatthews 12y ago
      it's as simple as the game of "tag". You see something in life that requires action(you're "it"), you have "a certain set of skills"(Taken quote), and you act to right the perceived wrong.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    It seems more of a branded franchise than an entity.
  - socceroos 12y ago
    What you're describing is only a collective element under the umbrella of Anonymous. There are many elements each with ability to go in completely the opposite direction. This is actually a very interesting and possibly revolutionary form of government. Actually, when you think about it, it's like the world's governments all under the umbrella of 'Earth'. Each going their own direction and each with their supporters and detractors.
socceroos 12y ago
What annoys me the most about this is that everyone is overlooking the big picture here - Anonymous will always have subversive elements from government agencies who's goal is to bring about the loose collective's demise or, more importantly, to control it's direction. This was effectively promised in state media during Anonymous' original publicity.
danso 12y ago
I was walking through Union Square (in Manhattan) just now, where a Ferguson rally was wrapping up...An older gentleman was ranting (correctly, IMO) about the unaccountability of the police, particularly the withholding of the shooting cop's identity, and a young woman interrupted to correct him that we indeed know who the cop is, thanks to Anonymous... I'd been off the Internet for most of today but even I knew that Anonymous's revelation was a flop this morning. I sometimes wonder if the Internet really will bring meaningful truth to discourse, rather than just shifting the echo chamber.
- meowface 12y ago
  It absolutely can bring meaningful truth to discourse. Just not from Anonymous or similar.
  - sheesiey 12y ago
    I don't think that generalization holds.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  >I sometimes wonder if the Internet really will bring meaningful truth to discourse, rather than just shifting the echo chamber. Agree. Since the minute this happened, focus was moved away from what happened at the scene. When people talk of this, it's never about the dead boy (much) but all about police accountability and I'd bet, a week from now, no one remembers the dead boy's name. I would even bet that half of everyone reading this isn't even aware of what happened on the street and no one here knows of the background around that.
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    Sorry to sound callous, but I think that's exactly what people should be focused on. Most people didn't know this kid, and remembering his name isn't going to bring him back to life. At least increasing police accountability has the potential to prevent future similar deaths.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Not as much turmoil as the effort not to.

38 points by 001sky 12y ago

Some of the statements in this article are a little bit confusing to me, and seem to show an inaccurate and sensationalized view of hacktivism and "Anonymous" in particular. >Gabriella Coleman, an anthropologist who studies Anonymous and teaches at McGill University in Montreal, said she was taken aback that members of Anonymous would be so quick to release unverified information, and would speak so openly about their methods in online chat channels. >“My jaw was dropping,” Ms. Coleman said, reading members’ communications. “I was surprised because what I was seeing was suggestive but not definitive. Anonymous tends to care about its image quite a bit, and if they were wrong, it would be really bad.” I've worked in the information security industry for a while, and this is the exact kind of behavior expected all of us have seen and expected from Anonymous since they first gained public spotlight in 2008 (mostly with "Project Chanology"). Anyone who's spent any time in any IRC channel claiming to be tied to Anonymous, or anyone who's seen one of the related ~5000 Twitter feeds knows full well they are the definition of hasty, impulsive, disorganized, unsubtle, and incompetent in general. Which is exactly what you'd expect from a "group" (really a label) of miscellaneous teenagers. It's always humorous to see media outlets sometimes try to glorify them. There have been some occasional exceptions with some of the spinoff groups, but generally speaking this is very much not unusual. They have been like that from day 1. I question exactly how well this individual has apparently studied Anonymous.

saraid216 12y ago
Well, according to her Wikipedia page, she's said to be the foremost expert.
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  1. Maybe she wrote the page. 2. One can be the foremost academic expert on something pop cultural and be embarassingly,stupidly,obviously wrong about things that actual fans/participants know. I summon gwern! Tell us of how badly wrong academics get Neon Genesis: Evangrlion wrong, gwern.
ejr 12y ago
There are multiple layers to the onion that is Anonymous. It's conceivable that she's familiar with only a few of those.
yarrel 12y ago
Coleman's studied Anonymous at length. There's no contradiction between Anonymous being disorganized teenagers (sic) and them caring about their image. Quite the opposite in fact.
- meowface 12y ago
  Of course they care about their image, as any arrogant group of individuals would. It's just her shock and dismay at their blunders and infighting seems a bit out of place.
malandrew 12y ago
"said she was taken aback that members of Anonymous would be so quick to release unverified information" At the same time I still hold the skepticism about anything attributed to Anonymous. Yes, there are people who actually do the kinds of things anonymous does. I don't also doubt that there are people who seek to discredit and marginalize people who identify with the notion of Anonymous by intentionally masquerading as members of Anonymous and acting egregiously irresponsible to the point it becomes so remarkable that the news must report on Anonymous unfavorably. We've all seen stories of real people arrested for irresponsible behavior, and we've also seen enough leaks like the HB Gary one to know that there are numerous active efforts at sock puppetry. At the end of the day, without identities and verifiable facts, none of this is news. It's hearsay. I don't know who's right and wrong here. You don't know who's right and wrong here. And I assure you that the NY Times reporter who wrote this story doesn't know who is and is not right and wrong here.

adamnemecek 12y ago

> implying anonymous is a single entity

QuantumChaos 12y ago
How would you characterize they way people cooperate to do the various things that are done in the name of Anonymous? If they tend to be the same people involved and they tend to coordinate their actions the same way each time, then it is fair to say they are a single entity.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  While it's a terrible example, as far as leadership goes, I think that it's somewhat similar to Al-Qaeda. As in somewhat loose collection of subgroups that might have some single, overall goal but that work kind of independently.
  - jmatthews 12y ago
    it's as simple as the game of "tag". You see something in life that requires action(you're "it"), you have "a certain set of skills"(Taken quote), and you act to right the perceived wrong.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  It seems more of a branded franchise than an entity.
- socceroos 12y ago
  What you're describing is only a collective element under the umbrella of Anonymous. There are many elements each with ability to go in completely the opposite direction. This is actually a very interesting and possibly revolutionary form of government. Actually, when you think about it, it's like the world's governments all under the umbrella of 'Earth'. Each going their own direction and each with their supporters and detractors.

socceroos 12y ago

What annoys me the most about this is that everyone is overlooking the big picture here - Anonymous will always have subversive elements from government agencies who's goal is to bring about the loose collective's demise or, more importantly, to control it's direction. This was effectively promised in state media during Anonymous' original publicity.

danso 12y ago

I was walking through Union Square (in Manhattan) just now, where a Ferguson rally was wrapping up...An older gentleman was ranting (correctly, IMO) about the unaccountability of the police, particularly the withholding of the shooting cop's identity, and a young woman interrupted to correct him that we indeed know who the cop is, thanks to Anonymous... I'd been off the Internet for most of today but even I knew that Anonymous's revelation was a flop this morning. I sometimes wonder if the Internet really will bring meaningful truth to discourse, rather than just shifting the echo chamber.

meowface 12y ago
It absolutely can bring meaningful truth to discourse. Just not from Anonymous or similar.
- sheesiey 12y ago
  I don't think that generalization holds.
icantthinkofone 12y ago
>I sometimes wonder if the Internet really will bring meaningful truth to discourse, rather than just shifting the echo chamber. Agree. Since the minute this happened, focus was moved away from what happened at the scene. When people talk of this, it's never about the dead boy (much) but all about police accountability and I'd bet, a week from now, no one remembers the dead boy's name. I would even bet that half of everyone reading this isn't even aware of what happened on the street and no one here knows of the background around that.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  Sorry to sound callous, but I think that's exactly what people should be focused on. Most people didn't know this kid, and remembering his name isn't going to bring him back to life. At least increasing police accountability has the potential to prevent future similar deaths.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Not as much turmoil as the effort not to.