Anonymous Who?

Just a brief post to say that this blog is on hiatus until anyone actually cares about Anonymous again. We sure don't.

So, How About That "Freedom of Information"?

After shutting down AnonOps.net, rogue members of Anonymous left this clever comic for the rest of Anonymous to find.

Anonymous vs. Anonymous: Self-Destruction Engaged

It must have seemed like a great idea at the time: create a smack-talking, headless entity composed of hundreds of people, and have them all wear Guy Fawkes masks. Regardless of the lack of leadership, hierarchy, or even an official political or ethical platform, Anonymous would defy logic, functioning as a focused and collective force of justice; a real hivemind! Right?

Nope.

Anonymous is now under siege by a splinter group of its own members, who disagree with the attacks launched against Sony. Remember when AnonOps.net went down? The splinter group has claimed responsibility, adding that they intentionally leaked identifying information (IP addresses and passwords) of Anons who'd been operating through AnonOps.net and its IRC chat rooms.

The splinter group also remarked, in an exclusive interview with Thinq, that certain members of Anonymous had been "abusing their power by setting themselves up in a leadership role," using AnonOps "to feed their own egos."

Additionally, two veteran members of Anonymous have spoken out, stating that Anonymous is responsible for the PSN intrusion:

One Anonymous member told the FT that he saw technical details of a vulnerability in Sony’s network that enabled the break-in discussed on an Anonymous chat room, shortly before the intrusion.

The second member to speak up was "Kayla," a well-established Anonymous persona who played a vital role in the attacks against HBGary:

“If you say you are Anonymous, and do something as Anonymous, then Anonymous did it,” said the hacker, who uses the online nickname Kayla. “Just because the rest of Anonymous might not agree with it, doesn’t mean Anonymous didn’t do it."

As a side note, if you didn't already know, Anonymous had already confessed their plans to breach the PSN, with full knowledge that credit card information could be compromised--as early as April 6th.

We can only hope that the FBI is on top of this, knows about the leaked info from AnonOps.net, and uses it to their advantage. Anonymous would be wise to disband their ridiculous imitation of V for Vendetta and put the Guy Fawkes masks away for good.

Gene Simmons' Retribution; More Anons Swept Up by the FBI

The SeattlePI reports that the FBI has tracked down and descended upon members of Anonymous who were involved in the "Operation Payback" attacks against the Gene Simmons website.

Reviewing information related to the October attacks against Simmons, the FBI was able to trace the source to several IP addresses. One of those, the agent told the court, tracked back to the Gig Harbor home.

What does Anonymous have against Gene Simmons? Well, Mr. Simmons spoke out against music piracy at a MIPCOM convention in Cannes, France last October. And when Anonymous claims to be "fighting for the freedom of information," what that really means is "fighting for the freedom to pirate stuff online." The dramatic YouTube videos and the Guy Fawkes masks? Yeah, that's all because of some kids who didn't want to part with their allowance.

It turns out that if you didn't want to part with your allowance, Gene Simmons isn't the guy you should have messed with. During the talk he gave at Cannes, he made it unmistakably clear that he'll sue the pants off anyone who dares to steal his music--let alone attack his website!

"Make sure there are no incursions, be litigious, sue everybody, take their homes, their cars, don’t let anybody cross that line."

Let's just say that it wouldn't be a surprise if another Anon ends up in prison with a $20,000 bill to pay.

Why Anonymous Can't Back Out of This One

We're sure you know there's a fiery debate going on over whether Anonymous could be responsible for the intrusion on Sony's networks. Would they do it? Are they even capable of doing it? Shouldn't we just believe whatever Anonymous says? Well, we've got answers for you.

1. Anonymous specifically stated they were going to do it.

For some reason, few seem to remember at this point, but after Anonymous took the PSN down, they coerced one of the writers at Playstation Lifestyle to grant them an interview in the #SonyRecon IRC chat. The resulting article in Playstation Lifestyle was entitled, "The Worst Is Yet to Come: Anonymous Talks to Playstation Lifestyle." And this is what established Anonymous persona "Takai" had to say [emphasis mine]:

"So far, all Sony has seen from us is poking and prodding. A simple salute to let them know, we’re coming. Make no mistake, what you saw today and  thought to be frustration is merely preparation for what’s to come.
We said, expect us. Counting us out, would be a mistake."

"For the sake of not shooting ourselves in the foot, I won’t comment on specific operational tactics we may or may not employ here. I will however say, that if Sony thinks LOIC is the only trick in our hat … they’re in for a hell of a wake up call. We’re really going all out for this one."

It wasn't only that. Anonymous went on to openly invite malicious hackers to participate in the upcoming attack:

We mentioned that due to the IRC’s anonymity, a malicious hacker could go along with the hack, and use the chaos to their advantage, but Takai countered: 

“Attacks on systems are done as part of a coordinated effort. Although the operation is open to all, as is ddosing. 

Guess what? Something malicious did happen. And, Anonymous--after declaring your operation open to everyone, including malicious hackers, with full knowledge nearly a month ago that credit card info could be compromised--you can't just turn around now. You know that intruder that planted the "Anonymous" file? You're on record as stating that they could be part of your operation, and apparently they are.

And there you have it, folks. We could have gone on to other points, but I think we can already declare the case closed.

Anonymous Lied About PSN Intrusion; Sony Discovers Evidence

If the government's attention could be likened to the Eye of Sauron, Anonymous would be square in the center of its blinding gaze right now. And the Eye of Sauron knows that Anonymous has no magical trinkets nor virtuous hobbits in their ranks to save them. The dark riders are coming, and--hate to have to say it, Russia Today, but--you're screwed, Anonymous.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently asked Sony to answer a number of questions related to the PSN breach, and it just so happened that Sony replied with evidence to implicate Anonymous as the perpetrator.

What Sony discovered was a file with the markings of Anonymous, planted in one of the Sony Online Entertainment servers. The file itself was named "Anonymous", and it contained text that read, "We are Legion." While this alone may not have been conclusive evidence, Sony was able to draw upon the overwhelming antics of "Operation Sony"--the threats and demands made against Sony, and the initial attacks against the PSN which Anonymous themselves admitted to. An excerpt from Sony's letter:

"When Sony Online Entertainment discovered this past Sunday afternoon that data from its servers had been stolen, it also discovered that the intruders had planted a file on one of those servers named "Anonymous" with the words "We are Legion." Just weeks before, several Sony companies had been the target of a large-scale, coordinated denial of service attack by the group called Anonymous. The attacks were coordinated against Sony as a protest against Sony for exercising its rights in a civil action in the United States District Court in San Francisco against a hacker."

Sony then proceeds to point out, in so many words, that Anonymous is a threat to the security of internet commerce, and the world needs to band together to shut them down.

"While protecting individuals' personal data is the highest priority, ensuring that the internet can be made secure for commerce is also essential. Worldwide, countries and businesses will have to come together to ensure the safety of commerce over the internet and also find ways to combat cybercrime and cyber terrorism."

The entirety of the letter is available through the Playstation Blog (click here to go straight to the letter images).

It seems that as we near the end of this unfortunate situation, Anonymous' plan to paint Sony as the enemy has backfired horribly. Sony has learned how to communicate more intimately with their customers, as well as demonstrating their competence in handling the situation. Oh no, Anonymous--you didn't bring Sony to their knees, as you had fantasized about in your IRC chat rooms. Instead, like a power-obsessed, raging Darth Vader lunging at Obi-Wan Kenobi, you struck Sony down... but you only made Sony more powerful than you could ever imagine.

Like most of the entities that Anonymous targets, Sony will recover and continue doing business. Anonymous, however, will never recover from the fury they've brought upon themselves, launching their desperate and ultimately pointless cyber-crusades at the cost of the innocent.

Members of Anonymous Caught and Sentenced; Update

We've discovered further information on the confirmed arrests and sentencing of members of Anonymous in the past. While this is older news, we'd like to provide this update for the sake of comprehensiveness.

First, if you're interested in this sort of thing, it's imperative that you stop by the Cybercrime & Doing Time blog, which is a truly impressive resource of information and analysis. The link will take you to a post where updates on the pursuit and capture of Anons are added to the bottom of the article as they become available.

So far, our tally of Anons caught and sentenced, or in the process of being sentenced, are:

• Dmitriy Guzner; DDoS attacks against Scientology websites. Caught and sentenced, 1 year in prison, 2 years probation.
• Brian Thomas Mettenbrink; DDoS attacks against Scientology websites. Caught and sentenced (sentencing appendix here), 1 year in prison, 1 year probation, pay Church of Scientology $20,000 in reimbursement.
• Five unnamed (except for Chris Wood), plus a sixth; DDoS attacks against PayPal/Visa. Captured and awaiting the results of investigation.
• Zhiwei "Jack" Chen; participated in an Anonymous IRC chat, search warrant issued and executed by FBI. Chen's room was raided, and the FBI confiscated all of his electronics.
• Screen name "Jeroenz0r"; involvement with several DDoS attacks, caught and sentenced to an unspecified term of imprisonment in the Netherlands.
• Screen name "Awinee" -- real name Martijn Gonlag (picture); involvement with Operation Payback DDoS attacks, caught and held on remand.

We've also located a video containing footage of unmasked Anonymous member Chris Wood (aka "Coldblood") providing an interview to CBC news.

You've gotta wonder how it feels to be sitting in prison, your personal record marred for life, looking back on those DDoS attacks you made. What exactly did you accomplish? How does it feel to personally foot the $20,000 bill for the damage done by your Anonymous "comrades", none of whom you even know?

Kids, don't trust Anonymous.

Is a DDoS Attack Really Just a "Cyber Sit-In"?

Cyber-terrorist group Anonymous (and I'll soon explain why I call them that) is fond of rationalizing their DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks as "cyber sit-ins". These attacks are the bread and butter of most of their operations. Almost anyone can participate simply by getting online and volunteering their computer up to one of Anonymous' leaders.

The result of these DDoS attacks is that a website overloads with information and shuts down. This, in turn, is intended to force the owner of the website to comply with whatever Anonymous has demanded.

Before we go any further, let's listen to Anonymous explain their perception of this illegal activity. Keep in mind that the interview embedded here was done through Russia Today--commonly known as RT--a news station funded by the Russian Government, with an extreme bias in favor of the illegal antics Anonymous uses to frustrate the United States Government. You can read more about that here.

To save yourself time, here's a few notes: at the timeline of 1:30, the Anonymous speaker begins to explain that DDoS attacks are "not malicious" and are like "cyber sit-ins". At 4:55, the Anon claims to be baffled by the ten year maximum sentence for conducting a DDoS attack. If you're wondering what actually happens when an Anon gets caught and sentenced, you can read about the sentencing of an Anon involved with the attacks against Scientology websites here.



So, is a DDoS attack really just a "cyber sit-in"? Well, let's compare DDoS and an actual sit-in. When a group of people gather in front of a store to protest, would you consider that an attack? It doesn't seem to remotely qualify as one; people standing with signs is hardly a threat to anyone's well-being. So why is it that a DDoS attack is referred to by everyone--including Anonymous--as an attack? It seems that Anonymous has betrayed their own argument by the mere usage of that terminology.

They use the term "DDoS attack" precisely because it is intended to have the effect of an attack. An actual store-front protest can't prevent customers from entering the store, nor the store from conducting business; a DDoS attack disables the store/website entirely. The Anon in the video says that, "...we're not breaking windows of buildings; we're not destroying parts of websites." This is akin to saying, "I didn't get any scratches on your car when I stole it. I just took it for a ride."

Furthermore, consider that at a real store-front protest, you can see the protesters. You can respond to them. And when you take away that aspect of being able to visually grasp the situation and confront your opponents, you start delving into the realm of terrorism. This is one of the core differences between an actual protest and a DDoS attack. The DDoS attack is meant to induce terror; "You can't see us, you can't find us, and you can't stop us from abusing you. Now give us what we want."

Anonymous clearly is a cyber-terrorist organization--a criminal organization fueled by criminal minds. Fortunately, their delusional nature will ultimately be their undoing, much like the capture of Hannibal Lecter by Will Graham:

Will Graham: "I know that I'm not smarter than you."
Hannibal Lecter: "Then how did you catch me?"
Will Graham: "You had disadvantages."
Hannibal Lecter: "What disadvantages?"
Will Graham: "You're insane."

AnonOps Website Goes Down, Gets a Taste of its Own Medicine

For those who didn't know, AnonOps.net is a primary gathering place for members of Anonymous to discuss their plans for cyber-terrorism. The website, however, is open to outsiders for viewing and participation due to the fact that all posts and comments are done anonymously.

As of Thursday evening, April 28, 2011, AnonOps.net was shut down, leaving visitors with the message, "This domain is down for maintenance."

Speculation began among members of Anonymous that the site had been seized by the FBI. Others tried to diffuse the situation by claiming that the interruption of service was the result of "a prank". However, rumor also has it that small anti-Anonymous operations are quietly materializing across the world. While I cannot reveal any details, there had been an anti-Anonymous attack planned for the same date that AnonOps.net went down. Currently, there is no evidence to prove the two are connected.

Know Your Enemy: Anonymous Security Tactics Revealed in Online Handbook

So, you want to be an internet terrorist, but you don't want to get caught. Well, here's a great idea: publish a guide detailing exactly how you're going to do it, so investigators already know where to look for incriminating evidence.

Curious about how Anonymous works? Treat yourself to a look at their Security Starter Handbook. If anything, you'll come away with a better understanding of how to protect your identity (and identifying information) online.

Anonymous Accuses Tea Party of Utilizing "Methods of Intimidation", Threatens to Shut Down Website

Anonymous recently released a statement at the Tea Party Patriots message board (which has since been removed by moderators) indicating that the Tea Party has overstepped the boundaries of free speech by utilizing "methods of intimidation" and "mental and emotional abuse". SodaHead.com obtained a copy of the statement, which you can view by clicking here.

In short, the statement is exactly what one would expect from Anonymous: unbridled tongue lashings decrying the very same behavior that Anonymous themselves have engaged in since the beginning of their activities.

There is currently speculation that the statement is a hoax released by the Tea Party themselves to gain publicity. One must wonder whether it's truly possible for the Tea Party to critique themselves so harshly and so eloquently.

Anonymous Tells a Few Jokes

As part of their new PR campaign, Anonymous tries their hand at comedy. However, they seem to be a little paranoid about those search warrants...

Anonymous Releases New PR Campaign; Tries for Softer Image

In light of the recent devastation to their image, Anonymous has quickly developed a new PR campaign--aimed at showcasing their softer side. In a dramatic swing from anarchist to adorable, Anonymous has done away with the masks and replaced their dark attire with pastel-colored bunny suits. No one could have seen this coming.

However, it seems that when Anonymous tries to be sentimental, they get a little... too sentimental. Have a look for yourself!

Members of Anonymous Caught and Sentenced; the Power of an Idea?

[EDIT: We now have a greatly updated tally of Anons that were captured, available here.]

What happens when a member of Anonymous gets caught? Does the universe implode due to the magnitude of the inherent paradox? If the dude is both everyone and no one--most likely opting to be no one when NASA shows up on his front lawn--then how can he possibly be arrested? Does the power of Nihilism really protect him from the law? "Oh, snap! It's the FBI! But if I close my eyes, they can't see me."

Okay, okay--it's the power of an idea, right? And if you can't stop an idea, you can't stop Anonymous. I'm digressing here, but I think it's necessary to point out a fatal flaw in that particular set of logic: you're not the only entity that has an idea. Greedy corporations and corrupt governments have ideas too. And by the merits of their own logic, every enemy that Anonymous has is equally as invulnerable as they are. Now what?

You can't stop corporate greed because it's an idea! Ahaha! Obviously, having an idea doesn't equate to invincibility, nor does the mere existence of an idea necessitate its value. And this only serves to further illustrate the blind lunge for power characteristic of Anons. Someone says something misleading--that an idea cannot be stopped--and desperate minds eat it up without a second thought. I'm going to finish my digression by explaining how things really work.

V for Vendetta was where you went wrong. You failed to realize that the person who said an idea cannot be stopped happened to be unparalleled in combat and really good at blowing things up. It wasn't his idea that toppled the corrupt government. He killed them.

Welcome to reality, ladies and gentlemen, where ideas amount to zilch unless you have the power to expand and protect the presence of those ideas. This is precisely why we've seen such a great divide between the likeness of V for Vendetta's V and the pseudo-intellectuals calling themselves Anonymous and wearing his mask. V really didn't have to say anything to anyone; he actually had the power to do things. Anonymous, on the other hand, does nothing but talk and talk, trying to convince us that they have power.

And then, like most delusional psychopaths, they get caught and go to jail. Given, that a year in jail and two years probation for participating in the anti-Scientology cyber-attacks isn't nearly as bad as the ten year maximum punishment could allow. And six months in prison for hacking into NASA is even less severe. But it's enough to make someone think twice:

What are you going to do now? People of my generation would ask if you've learned your lesson.

I've learned my lesson. I shouldn't do stuff like that.

People, just because a guy has mutant powers, a cool mask, and lots of shiny daggers doesn't mean you should blindly believe everything he says. Remain vigilant. Think twice, or three times if necessary.

Anonymous Teams Up With Corrupt, Anti-American Pro-Libertarian Government-Funded News Station

Imagine this: you're watching the news, and suddenly a story about Anonymous pops up. "Alright," you think. "This should be interesting." You watch for a minute, and then something strange happens: the reporter looks straight at you and says, "Do not mess with Anonymous." Whoa! Seem a little biased? Well, have a look for yourself. Skip to 1:55 if you're impatient.



Notice anything else that was, perhaps, disturbing? Maybe when she openly smeared the FBI?

"I hate to say it, but, they had to see this one coming, right? When the FBI started issuing search warrants for members of the organization--forty of them, executed last week here in the U.S. When they arrested five people in relation to the attacks in the U.K. What did they think was going to happen?"

Welcome to the wonders of extremely biased news network, Russia Today, or RT. You may be surprised to learn that RT and FOX News have a few things in common. Oh, it's not just the biased reporting. Both FOX News and RT have an active agenda against President Obama. These news stations have even both picked up the same stories to deprecate Obama with:

Fox News began to air allegations of an anti-white bias at the Obama Justice Department. But almost no one else reported on the case—it was old, tenuous, and even a prominent conservative commenter called it “small potatoes.” One outlet that did pick up the story, however, was Russia Today, a fairly new and still mostly obscure English-language cable news channel funded by the Russian government

Of course, there's a fundamental difference between FOX News and RT--you know, the whole "funded by the Russian government" thing. And you'll see it here in the drastically different way that FOX News portrays Anonymous.



Now, why do you think it is that while FOX News is willing to explore the harm done by Anonymous, RT seems to completely disregard it? Why is it that RT praises Anonymous so strongly for striking back against the FBI? Well, the most likely answer is that Russia Today is an anti-American news station, and something very strange is going on here.

Allow me to provide you with more information. Anonymous has granted RT several interviews in the past. One could say that RT has become the preferred news outlet for Anonymous to work with. And the question must be asked: why is Anonymous whoring themselves out to a news station that represents the very principles they're supposed to be fighting against? Bending the truth--suppressing the truth--and omitting relevant facts for political reasons. Terrorism; which is what, "Do not mess with Anonymous," proclaimed by a news station, falls dangerously close to. Especially when it's directed at the American government.

Of course, it all makes sense. Why wouldn't Anonymous resort to this kind of thing in a desperate attempt to boost their image? Well, it's too late, Anonymous. We're on to you.

The PSN Outage, and Why Anonymous is Afraid to Admit Involvement

The petulant narcissism and desperate vanity that is Anonymous continues to devour itself with each passing day. In all of their history, Anonymous had never backed down and never denied responsibility for their actions. Why is it that now, Anonymous claims they have ceased their attack on the Playstation Network? They never forgive, and never forget. I mean, seriously--these guys wear Guy Fawkes masks. Clearly, you don't mess with them. How is it, then, that they're suddenly so vulnerable? Arguably, tricking children into watching pornography is a worse offense than interfering with the Playstation Network. And yet, they didn't flinch back then. Why now?

Because a raging fanboy is nothing to mess with. Anonymous had never suffered such a grievous blow to their image until they incurred the wrath of the gaming community. The net is ablaze with condemnation, and there's no turning back. Here's a small sampling of what can be found in the comment sections of Anonymous-related articles [all emphasis mine]:

"For an anonymous group they sure care about their web image. One could easily read quite a lot about people who make those videos from the way they (re)act."

 "Wow....anonymous get dumber and dumber every fucking day....they said that other members of anonymous acted out but anops didn't. So doesn't that defeat the whole, "we are one, we are legion, we are anonymous" slogan?.....Yeah..nice try idiots, anonymous is anonymous, it's too late. You rejects are finally realizing that NO ONE likes you for your blind actions.

You try to make it seem as if you're the heroes but don't realize your the antagonist. You guys are outcast to the gaming community, you'll never fit in no matter how hard you try. It's to late, bring psn back up and hide in your caves in shame. You guys are officially the outcast of the gaming/tech industry."

"They claim that every time they get crapped on by people on the net it actually helps their cause. You're hurting yourselves by hurting us is the message they're trying to convey here.

It's laughable. This is nothing more than a poor attempt at tryin' to silence the masses."

Oops! Where did you go wrong, Anonymous? You were so lost, staring at your own reflections in your magic mirrors, that you couldn't see beyond your ridiculous fantasies. You were so proud, fancying yourselves as social engineers. What kind of social engineers are so inept that they sabotage themselves with their own propaganda?

The very core of Anonymous is image. Even casual observers have noticed this, thanks to the gaping vulnerabilities in every clip of Anonymous propaganda. And the reason that Anonymous is suddenly backing down (and resorting to stalking children) has everything to do with their image. Destroy the illusion of their power, their ability to terrorize, and especially the illusion that they're heroes, and you've all but destroyed Anonymous itself. What are they going to do, press on while regarded as villains?

And that is one of the reasons why Anonymous will not admit responsibility for the PSN outage. Their image is in critical condition. Now, if you read their related release at AnonOps, you'll see that they actually tried to turn the outage to their advantage and declared that Sony used the outage to turn gamers against them. So, now Anonymous wants us to feel sorry for them. And why? Because it'll help them repair their image.

The second reason why Anonymous won't admit responsibility for the outage is actually a simple and clever reason: if you trust what they say, you're effectively placing them in a safety zone to continue attacking PSN. As soon as you say, "But Anonymous already said they didn't do it," what does that allow them to do? Launch another attack under your protection.

It's a funny coincidence that after all of that talk from Anonymous about never forgiving and never forgetting, the gaming community are the ones holding the rights to those words now. In the words of one of the commenters above,

Yeah..nice try idiots, anonymous is anonymous, it's too late.

Anonymous Tricks Children Into Watching Porn; Plans for Kidnappings Emerge

Chances are that if you're not a parent, you have younger siblings, younger relatives, or friends with children that you care about. And these days, chances are that Anonymous is watching the children you care about, digging up information on where they live, who they stay with, and where they go to school.

Anons began collecting much more information on people like overall Sony boss Sir Howard Stringer and his family, with one complaining, "No one found ANY info on Stringers kids?" But they did eventually find information on Stringer, including his height, his addresses, his old fraternity, his corporate security officer, the dates he adopted his son and then his daughter, the schools he attended, his brother's name and year of birth, and the names of his parents.

Now, wait a minute. Isn't this the same Anonymous that was outraged over Sony obtaining people's IP addresses in relation to the Geohot trial? And we were supposed to beg for Anonymous to save us because Sony was invading our privacy?

You may have noticed in the paragraph quoted above (from the Ars Technica article), that Anonymous put a special emphasis on retrieving information about the children:

"No one found ANY info on Stringers kids?"

If that isn't disturbing, it certainly leads to the question of why Anonymous has made children such a high priority target in their crusade. For that answer, we need only venture back to the year 2009.

In 2009, Anonymous had already begun targeting children with organized efforts, which received worldwide publicity. And what was the goal of these noble and virtuous self-proclaimed internet-superheroes? To trick children into viewing pornography:

Video-sharing website YouTube has removed hundreds of pornographic videos which were uploaded in what is believed to be a planned attack.

The material was uploaded under names of famous teenage celebrities such as Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers

Many started with footage of children's videos before groups of adults performing graphic sex acts appeared on screen.

The reason given for this attack was simply that YouTube had been deleting music. And this was strikingly familiar: Anonymous had been denied something they wanted, and no matter how trivial the issue, it became their justification to abuse others--including children.

We can easily connect their behavior in 2009 to the present situation, establishing a reliable pattern. Their feud against Sony, which began with the removal of Linux on the PS3, has predictably inspired Anonymous to step beyond their previous boundaries with children and actually begin establishing the framework for kidnappings.

One might argue that Anonymous is too cowardly to actually follow through with such plans, but let's not forget that Anonymous--by their own definition--can be anyone and everyone. And maybe Anonymous releases some dox ("documents"; a collection of personal information) to the public, which includes everything a pedophile, rapist or killer needs to know to locate a child, and something terrible happens. This is the exactly the situation that Anonymous has made possible.

And this is why Anonymous must be stopped.

Anonymous Launches Operation PG-15

The clever people over at The Noble Eskimo came up with this spoof. The funny thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if Anonymous were to actually launch this operation.

Anonymous purchased matinee tickets for PG-rated Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules but instead walked into the showing of R-rated Your Highness. AMC theater employees witnessed this event and promptly asked Anonymous to leave the building.

Head to The Noble Eskimo for the full story.

V for Vendetta? No. F for Fail-hard.

Please, Anonymous--take off your Guy Fawkes masks. Your severe inability to comprehend V for Vendetta has become a historical embarrassment of epic proportion. I'd like to make a few points:

1. Do you utilize explosives? Guy Fawkes was hanged for his intention to use them, and as far as fiction goes, V from V for Vendetta relied considerably on the physical destruction of key infrastructures to accomplish his goals. Your attacks consist of interfering with websites and verbally harassing people. Take the mask off.

2. On top of bombing buildings, V was exceptionally talented at assassinating key government figures. Let's not forget that the act of killing on his part was partially motivated by revenge; he'd not only been disfigured and transformed by government experiments, but he'd watched as the entire country was mobbed by its own military. Abductions, torture, theocracy. And you, Anonymous, sincerely believe that your "suffering" is on par with V's? You seriously believe that the absence of Linux on the PS3 is even vaguely comparable to that? Enough of your inanity. Take off the mask.

3. In V for Vendetta, V functioned as the leader of a revolution. He did the difficult work--the bombings and the assassinations--allowing himself to become a target for his enemies to focus on. By the time V had intended for the public to become involved, he'd already paved the way for their success. When they marched, they marched against a government he'd robbed of its evil, driving forces. Without puppet-masters to control the puppets, the puppets fell limp and useless. In other words, V made a great sacrifice to ensure the safety of his followers and the effectiveness of his plan.

You, on the other hand, Anonymous, not only lack the courage to profess leadership and face your enemy directly, but you also require that your followers endanger themselves. And for what? The glory of temporarily meddling with a company's website? Is it really worth sending young, impressionable minds to prison so you can accomplish relatively nothing? Well, to you--the cowardly leaders of Anonymous--I suppose it is. You are villains, after all. Take off the mask.

4. V had class. When he spoke to the world, it wasn't for the purpose of verbally building himself up and flaunting his power. V spoke to inspire and reassure the public. He followed through with actions that were meaningful enough to help the public develop trust in him and courage of their own--but unlike you, Anonymous, he did not encourage them to become a living shield so that he could hide in safety. No, V asked for very little: on this day, come together, and I will clear the way for you.

And it made sense. V possessed powers and resources that the average citizen did not, and he accepted the responsibility that followed. Anonymous, you merely have the power to tamper with websites and, with the help of identity-theft and some luck, convince the employees of your enemy to provide you with passwords. The fact is that you lack the power or ability to create significant and lasting change. And that's including the power of literature, since every opportunity you receive for publicity is wasted on feeble attempts at terrorism and self-glorification. You'll never be as eloquent, as classy, as intelligent, or as well-educated as V. Take off the mask.

Anonymous: Misinformation Tactics

How do you suppose that Anonymous organizes and carries out its attacks? If the group has no leaders, and anyone can be a part of it, who decides what will be done, and when it will be done? Who figures out how it will be done? Who, among what we're supposed to believe is an unstoppable number of members, has the final say on what justice is and what must be done to achieve it?

The bolder voices of Anonymous will tell you that there is no hierarchy, and the answers to all of these questions is simple: Anonymous is a hive-mind that communicates instantaneously with itself; hundreds of bodies that all share the same brain, the same expertise and knowledge. No matter which member of Anonymous is captured, the other members will carry on their singular vision of vengeance, undeterred. Frightening, like a zombie outbreak. Well, that's what Anonymous would like you to think, anyway.

Which brings me to my first point: Anonymous relies on the dissemination of misinformation to instill fear among observers (call it information-terrorism if you please). They want you to think that they're bigger and more powerful than they really are, and they're going to lie to you to achieve this goal. A fantastic example of this is the way they deceived their own followers into utilizing unsecure software to illegally disrupt the websites of their targets:

"The tool was written to do a stress test on your own servers and there was no intention for it to used to do denial of service, said Dr Pras, "because of that they did not do any anonymization."

Furthermore, five members of Anonymous were arrested in the U.K., where "computer misuse" can carry a steep penalty of up to ten years in prison. Following those arrests, the FBI issued 40 search warrants for members of Anonymous spanning the United States. It seems that while "fighting for our freedom"--which includes reparations for horrific violations of our liberty, such as not being able to run Linux on gaming consoles--Anonymous has done more damage to itself than to anyone else. But that's beside the point.

The point is that Anonymous clearly has leaders, all of whom can be found and arrested. They can be stopped. This isn't the Zodiac Killer we're dealing with here... or are we? No--the Zodiac Killer was far more intelligent. But following the dethroning of former HBGary CEO Aaron Barr, members of Anonymous left him serial-killer-ish Facebook messages:

The threats have come through Facebook including one commenter who wrote: “I’m gonna find out all the people that you know and cause them pain. Death is too good for you.”

That's what happens when you invite anyone and everyone to help you do your dirty work. Does it seem suspicious that while Anonymous claims to demand accountability from certain entities for their actions, Anonymous itself cannot and does not enforce accountability for the actions of its members? What could be the reason for such careless recruitment?

My thought is that Anonymous recruits its members so freely because it intends to use them as fodder--a smokescreen to help distract authorities from discovering the master manipulators. They don't care who gets hurt along the way. Anonymous is about the lust for power; thuggery from behind the comfort of a desk.

Anonymous Must Be Stopped

The group known as Anonymous is inherently and harmfully hypocritical. They claim to believe in the freedom of information, yet guard any information surrounding their identities viciously--the relevant ones, anyway. The ring masters. I, for one, am not fooled by their seemingly well-meant intentions. Yes, the corrupt corporate kings need to be exposed and dethroned. But Anonymous, in their boundless vanity and self-worship, are taking every opportunity to make themselves the spectacle of their crusade; oh, how glorious we are. We are legion. We don't forgive. We don't forget. Everyone should be afraid of us. Cue the dramatic music. Alright, Mr. Demille. Anonymous is ready for their close up. And this is a sign of something bad. Very bad.

You see, Anonymous has already become the freedom-stifling entity that it wants to despise. They're paying out special favors for their hacker friends--illegally--and dragging innocent bystanders along with them. How would you like to play your PS3 online tonight? Sorry, Anonymous took the Playstation Network down again. And with the same dastardly, deceptive mindset equipped by V for Vendetta's government, Anonymous is telling us that they need to be in power--that we need to grant them power, because they've invented a problem, and they're the only ones who can save us.

Naturally, these pretentious pricks are using their perceived power in perverse ways. These brave knights of uncensored information have begun making threats to--can you guess?--censor viewpoints they disagree with. Like anti-Anonymous viewpoints. I quote here a comment from a member of Anonymous, left beneath this article in The Telegraph:

"Hmmm nice site you have there John Brown. Blogspot isn't the most secure platform though you realise? Good luck stopping us. You cannot stop an idea."

The comment was directed at the author of Anonymous Watch, an eloquent anti-Anonymous blog that inspired me to voice my own opinion.

Anonymous also makes threats against people they wish to coerce and use for their agenda, such as Playstation Lifestyle's Sebastian Moss. In Moss's own words:

After waking this morning, I checked Anonymous’ IRC, a secure chat system used by the group to co-ordinate their attacks, after scrolling down a few pages I noticed something – Anonymous were looking for me. User Takai stated on SonyRecon’s IRC “Find me Sebastian Moss… Wanna talk to him”.

Moss proceeded to observe the IRC conversation, during which Anonymous members attempted to dig up his private information. Moss submitted to their demands after they threatened to obtain his phone number--and who knows what sort of harassment would have occurred if he had not.

This Takai character obviously experiences a strong degree of entitlement and superiority; one can easily imagine him sashaying about, plucking his pinky from his mouth and commanding his followers, "Find him... I wish to speak to him now!" Is this the sort of person that can sincerely represent the idea of fairness and freedom? Of course not! He is, rather, the representation of an Orwellian nightmare materializing before us: All animals are equal, but Anonymous is more equal than others.

We need a hero, but Anonymous is not that hero. Anonymous is nothing but a fickle engine of emotionally-immature vengeance, whoring itself out to whomever pervades its ranks..