Re:JP Barlow: A Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace
by peterwwillis on Wednesday January 04, 2012 @04:42AM
(#3423447)
I'm a little too tired right now to comment on the rest but the comparison to abortion-clinic bombers is accurate. They basically pioneered the use of leaderless resistance in the United States (i'm not very familiar with historical use in the rest of the world). I wasn't making the suggestion that Anonymous hates abortion doctors if that's what you're inferring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance#Internet_...
The way you talk about 'Anonymous as a whole' is ridiculous. They don't do anything as a whole by definition. You have to consider their rhetoric in general and whether or not they accept actions taken by members of the group. If one guy says 'we hate Scientology' and the majority of people who identify with Anonymous agree with that guy in principle, guess what? The group has just made an implicit collective declaration. You can't identify as a member of a group and be an active participant in it and then claim no responsibility for the group's actions just because there's supposedly no leader or official stance on anything. You are an accomplice, or if you prefer, a willing participant by association. This wouldn't be the case if the entire idea of the group weren't that there is no central decision-making; you can distance yourself from a voice which no longer represents the majority, but you cannot distance yourself from that which cannot be identified unless you step outside of the ether entirely.
Which actions do you mean? The botnets, sqli sweeps, social engineering or meaningless skirmishes with the jester and other pseudo-blackhat douchebags? I never really paid attention to the early stuff due to a loathing for anything from 4chan. I'm no expert, but one doesn't need to be a scholar to watch kids at play.
The way you talk about 'Anonymous as a whole' is ridiculous. They don't do anything as a whole by definition. You have to consider their rhetoric in general and whether or not they accept actions taken by members of the group. If one guy says 'we hate Scientology' and the majority of people who identify with Anonymous agree with that guy in principle, guess what? The group has just made an implicit collective declaration. You can't identify as a member of a group and be an active participant in it and then claim no responsibility for the group's actions just because there's supposedly no leader or official stance on anything. You are an accomplice, or if you prefer, a willing participant by association. This wouldn't be the case if the entire idea of the group weren't that there is no central decision-making; you can distance yourself from a voice which no longer represents the majority, but you cannot distance yourself from that which cannot be identified unless you step outside of the ether entirely.
Which actions do you mean? The botnets, sqli sweeps, social engineering or meaningless skirmishes with the jester and other pseudo-blackhat douchebags? I never really paid attention to the early stuff due to a loathing for anything from 4chan. I'm no expert, but one doesn't need to be a scholar to watch kids at play.