I see this misconception all the time -- a teacher of mine (who is generally reputable) was absolutely convinced Snowden had given the documents to Anonymous. I wonder what's caused that.

Old people aren't quite as tuned-in to the technical realities of the internet and its in-groups and out-groups.

The premise that "there is no anonymous" escapes 4 out of 5 people I talk to. It takes very careful explaining, to bring people to the understanding that their are hacking teams with names, that get away with things, and the things that those named sub-groups manage pull off are perpetrated by "some unknown, anonymous group of people" until evidence demonstrates who done it.

Because of this, The Proles (people who aren't paying close attention) often confuse the premise being a simple anonymous tipster with being affiliated with the fictious premise of an organized, regimented imaginary hacking group that possesses a rightful claim to the mantle of "Anonymous" as if it were Batman.

Then media outlets exploit this cluelessness, to sell advertising, by drumming up exciting click-bait that perpetuates the false narrative that there is a movement called Anonymous, rather than the prank call it really is.

Wow... I was under the impression that he had given them carte blanc to WikiLeaks too, an action I thought warranted punishment. I have no idea where I picked that up. Maybe a subconscious association made over time somehow?