Actions of Anonymous

stealth toilet

stealth toilet

Moderator
I'm curious as to what people think about the hacker group Anonymous, and their motivations and actions over the past little while.

Specifically, I'm asking:

What do you think Anonymous is or is not responsible for?
What reasons do they give for what they appear to be doing?
Why do you think they are doing what they appear to be doing? Are their reasons justified, and are they being honest about their motivations?

I'm curious about other thoughts you guys might have about this whole situation as well.

Please Note:
In order to discuss this within the confines of the rules of the board, I want to stress that we are talking theoretically about the ethics of Anonymous, and attempting to determine just what it is they stand for and why they are doing whatever they are doing. We can talk about roms and piracy abstractly (though part of what I'm wondering is how these are even linked to Anonymous) but do not post any links to sites that undoubtedly promote either, and it should be noted that Game Addicts "does not endorse in any way, shape, or form the use of emulators, roms, CD-RS, pirated games, mod chips, or anything else that is not made directly by the manufacturor or used in conjunction with the intended original system." I think the specific questions I've posted guide this discussion onto safe ground, so as long as we keep those the focus of the discussion I think it will be a fruitful one.
 
I don't really care for debates, and I'm not in the mood for a long post.

But I just wanted to say how annoying "Anonymous" is to me.
They're a bunch of ridiculous idiots.

In my opinion. ;)
 
stealth toilet said:
What do you think Anonymous is or is not responsible for?
Click to expand...

Hard to say. They have so many fork factions that even within the Anonymous umbrella they're not always for the same cause.

What reasons do they give for what they appear to be doing?
Click to expand...

To show that they can't be ****** with. Also, to prove to people that being a giant arrogant ass does have consequences.

Why do you think they are doing what they appear to be doing? Are their reasons justified, and are they being honest about their motivations?
Click to expand...

I guess the same answer for the first question. Being anonymous means they can say whatever they want and not have to mean it, but it's also possible they do. It's what makes them dangerous and good at the same time. On the surface, it can look like they're doing good but it's entirely possible they have ulterior motives.


I recommend everyone read this article from Ars Technica. Very fascinating story.

[How one man tracked down anonymous and paid a heavy price]
 
The motivations sound like they hold true to the original true ideal of hackers; that is that information should be shared among everyone, not locked away by those in power.

I can see both sides of the argument, Sony protecting proprietary information on their products and the ideals of information not being only for the privileged.
 
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/72106.html

The case isn't just about Hotz; it's about the bigger question of whether consumers actually own the electronics products they buy and are free to use them as they wish.
Click to expand...

The case also imperils individual freedoms, Darren Hayes, a professor at Pace University, told TechNewsWorld.

"The Constitution defends the individual's right to read anonymously, and case law shows that this right extends to the right to online privacy," Hayes pointed out.
Click to expand...

This goes into a deeper question of ownership. Once I buy a console, should I be able to turn it into a coffee maker if I should so choose, or is that always owned by the company that sold it to me, meaning that my money is doing nothing more than giving me license to use their hardware?

Of course, investors and business owners would likely side with Sony owning intellectual rights to the units. But, once a consumer purchases an item, does the complete ownership and control move to the consumer? Have consumers in this age become powerless to the whims of larger corporations?
 
Anonymous is pathetic. They're a bunch of lifeless trolls who use some made up purpose to justify what they do to people. They're never pursuing some greater, noble purpose, they're just attacking people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. I guess most of them don't have much going for them in real life so they hide behind anonymity and take it out on people online.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
they're just attacking people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

Although I would agree that a majority of the people who have been attacked have not really done anything wrong, I wouldn't say they're all innocent either. I guess if you believe in Karma this could be it in a way.

There is collateral damage though. That is what sucks the most.
 
Hmm. That's pretty interesting.

I personally agree with Grindspine the most out of all the responses, but I was more interested in just seeing what everyone else thought. I won't attempt to convince anyone of my take on the whole situation, but I will say that I am somewhat saddened by Anonymous' inability to communicate their motives and intentions to the public. Whether or not that inability is their fault, or simply what happens when the little guy tries to take on a corporate empire, I cannot say.

As far as I can tell, though, they are doing this as a public service, i.e. they are taking great risks and suffering the denigrations of mass media in order to pursue a cause they feel will empower the very citizens who wish to see them stopped and punished, which makes them really hard to dislike, even if you don't agree with their methods.
 
Fr0dus Maximus said:
hackers =/= Anonymous
Click to expand...

It's easy, especially on a gaming forum, to hate "hackers" as a group. Most of what we call hackers are just abusing vulnerability in code that someone else found... Those are script kiddies, not real network hackers.

As far as I can tell, though, they are doing this as a public service, i.e. they are taking great risks and suffering the denigrations of mass media in order to pursue a cause they feel will empower the very citizens who wish to see them stopped and punished, which makes them really hard to dislike, even if you don't agree with their methods.
Click to expand...

I think all too often, the term "Hacker" is derogatory, indicating someone accessing information for personal gain, whether it be hacking to get someone's personal financial information, or hacking game script for an unfair advantage. I think the links provided concerning anonymous hold true to the deeper philosophical questions of intellectual rights.
 
Grindspine said:
It's easy, especially on a gaming forum, to hate "hackers" as a group. Most of what we call hackers are just abusing vulnerability in code that someone else found... Those are script kiddies, not real network hackers.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that not all of Anonymous are hackers, whether it be good or bad.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Anonymous is pathetic. They're a bunch of lifeless trolls who use some made up purpose to justify what they do to people. They're never pursuing some greater, noble purpose, they're just attacking people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. I guess most of them don't have much going for them in real life so they hide behind anonymity and take it out on people online.
Click to expand...

i think they are idiots!
 
New article posted on Kotaku regarding how Anonymous wants to distance themselves from the PSN hack. I thought it was quite interesting.

"All the Sony kids were flooding the [Anonymous chat servers] and whining and complaining," said Gregg Housh an activist associated with Anonymous. An attack on Sony's PlayStation Network "pisses off a lot of people they want as fans not enemies."
Click to expand...

This could all be a front but it looks like they're trying humanize themselves.

[Anonymous Fears Nerd Backlash]
 
They've been actively distancing themselves from whoever hacked the PSN since the beginning when the servers went down inexplicably and a lot of people were pointing the finger at Anonymous. This was before anyone knew Sony had been "hacked" and Sony themselves were still saying they were just doing maintenance. Anonymous then, as now, has consistently said "not us," and that is completely consistent with all their other messages (at least the ones that can be corroborated to actually be from Anonymous members, and not people acting in the name of Anonymous). The information theft is actually the opposite of Anonymous' aims, which as far as I can figure out is to restore a Sony customer's autonomy and freedom as a property owning individual citizen, and is, therefore, diametrically opposed to putting that identity at risk. Anonymous' beef with Sony is that they too put a citizen's autonomy in jeopardy, so jeopardizing that even further seems completely illogical.

Again, this is all if I'm understanding the situation correctly, and there could always be more evidence that could crop up and force me to totally re-evaluate that understanding (hence why I wanted to talk about it here and find out what other people have seen and heard that could go against my current theory).

The links I posted in the very first post of this thread were specifically about Anonymous distancing themselves from the PSN hack. Come on Creepin, do your homework. :lol
 
stealth toilet said:
The links I posted in the very first post of this thread were specifically about Anonymous distancing themselves from the PSN hack. Come on Creepin, do your homework. :lol
Click to expand...

yeah, but this is the latest article! From today! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top