This was never fun and games for the causes Anonymous has championed: Wikileaks, Egyptian and Tunisian protestors, etc.

Anonymous, despite it's origins, is a political movement centered around the cause of internet freedom. That's not a matter of fun and games, and I support Anonymous because of that.

In other words, if given the choice between a political movement fighting for an ideal I support, and the ability of a corporation to maintain it's revenue stream, I'm going to fall in support of the political movement most of the time.

I think this tipped some folks off about how powerful Anonymous could be, if it was guided somehow. Or maybe, it was simply the awakening within Anonymous that it could be something other than a childish prankster.

I've always thought that 4chan was synonymous with the internet's "id;" now it seems as if Anonymous is the birth of the internet's superego. There may be people subtly playing with strings (the aforementioned - a few responses up in a different thread - inner circle of quite competent blackhats), but largely I think Anonymous has become self-fulfilling. A meme catches its interest, and it acts.

Hell, there's even a link to the "Stand Alone Complex" section of the Ghost in the Shell philosophy page. Not a philo-head myself, but it makes sense. Network intelligence together close enough, and a different kind of intelligence will probably emerge.

Historically, this describes a lot of political formations beyond Anonymous. There's a number of situations where semi-apolitical hooligans became political forces. The Young Lords, for instance.

Now, if they take down censorship in China or targeted a similar actual oppressive regime instead of going after easy targets, then they'd have my respect.

For example, their attack on Scientology is something I respect, but that was only shortlived since Scientology is actually bad and will cause Anon significant damage.

So, as we can see, it is actually just for the lulz and not a higher ideal.

What about Anonymous' attack on Gene Simmons, for expressing an opinion they did not agree with? Or is your notion of internet freedom that only people who have the right opinions get to speak?

In Anonymous' mind (I have absolutely no relationship with the group, other than academic curiosity), I believe it goes a little like the aversion we have as a society to not incite riots. He was advocating being (potentially) frivolously litigious. That made him a target - not some random opinion.

Compare how Gene acts towards the internet and how Trent Reznor acts towards the internet. Gene may have an order of magnitude higher net worth (~300mm vs ~35mm, according to "Celebrity Net Worth" - probably not a very good source), but he got it by playing crappy bass in a mediocre band, being a litigious douchebag, selling a lot of over the top merchandise. Trent made it by making good (subjectively) music, and continued to make it by making music instead of Nine Inch Nails-branded coffins. And uses the internet to great success.

Which is a better netizen?

I'm not Anonymous, so I'm not sure why you're addressing that to me.

And more importantly, those who took down Gene Simmons' website may not even have been the same people who had anything to do with Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, etc. That's the nature of a decentralized, amorphous non-entity like Anonymous.

You said it was a political movement that you supported. It's entirely reasonable to ask you what that movement stands for.

(Hint: The reason you're finding that a difficult question is that Anonymous is not a political movement and you're just projecting your own beliefs onto it whenever it happens to do something you think is good.)

Gene Simmons was attacked because his statements, and his position as a pop star made him a target as a threat. Like all immune systems, Anonymous is known to overreact.

If you look at the targets for Anonymous in terms of political uprisings, you'll notice a concentration of places where the internet played a large role and/or was targeted. Uprisings occur the world over, but Anonymous gets involved when the internet is threatened.

In this sense, the use of the "V for Vendetta" mask is a perfect symbol for Anonymous, for anyone who has read the comic book (or even just seen the film adaptation).

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

V was not so much interested in popular revolt, anarchism, social equality, etc. per se. He was interested in revenge. Justice became the ultimate form of revenge against a tyrannical government.

You can see that similarly in the actions of Anonymous. Democratic movements are supported against dictatorships, and transparency is supported against representatives of Democracy. Not because Anonymous is a positive force for Democracy or transparency, but because those are weapons they can wield against the internet's perceived enemies.

So yes, Anonymous is a political movement, although a leaderless, amorphous, and pluralistic one united only in negative political space. They don't seek to create, as much as destroy their political enemies. But, as some say, "the urge to destroy is also a creative urge".

...you engender such a large selection bias that I remain as convinced as ever that you're simply projecting your own beliefs onto something considerably more nihilistic. Yes, if you throw out everything that doesn't fit the quotably Bakuninian pattern you expect by saying "oh, but that was different people" or "oh, that was just an overreaction", it all becomes so clear...but if you don't, you get a messy and impure reality in which Anonymous better resembles Brownian motion than a movement.

It's just a bunch of bored college kids looking for a cause to belong to.

Harsh but I think true.

Now if they were a company that baked and distributed cheesecakes, I'd give them a pass on criticism for having security issues.

I think you're forgetting Korea, Japan, Taiwan and several middle East countries. Even China isn't doing too bad, recently. And isn't western-style democracy much closer to economic Darwinism than eg. socialism?

China is a different case. Insofar as they respect human rights they prosper. Insofar as they don't they fail.

No, socialism is strongly tied to eugenics, which is state driven Darwinism. That is purposefully killing off the weak and unfit.

Capitalism is a matter of letting the best man win. Killing the weak is not a part of that.

Ahh good old fashion sarcasm.

Karma's a bitch eh?

> At the heart of the matter, we are scientists investigating the truth.

No, you're not. You're consultants doing analytical work. I'm not arguing that one is intrinsically more worthwhile or valuable than the other, but post-hoc security analysis is not science.

In this particular case, anonymous is implicitly raising the question that if a security firm can't even secure their own web presence, their internal emails, and the data that they've gathered on an FBI contract, then how could their data and conclusions be trusted? Regardless of whether the employees of any particular security firm are sympathetic individuals, and whether being hacked would incur significant financial loss, you'd hope that a security firm would be, you know, secure.

Is what Anon did illegal, or at least in the ambiguous grey zone? Sure, but I feel personally that they are more like the Robin Hoods keeping others in check for the deeds of corporations which may be legal, but significantly less moral.

it's not lifes ruined but company ruined in this case. It's just fail, but not life fail. Nobody will die, get in prison for 300+ years, get sick, etc. Your company failed - start it over and do it right next time.

yeah, tell that to yourself metasploit-cowboy :]