4 ms·
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" i
by 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 agoWell, according to her Wikipedia page, she's said to be the foremost expert.
- barry-cotter 12y ago1. 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 agoThere are multiple layers to the onion that is Anonymous. It's conceivable that she's familiar with only a few of those.
- yarrel 12y agoColeman'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 agoOf 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.