Public Face of Anonymous Leaves Group 191
Gunkerty Jeb writes "Barrett Brown, the reporter who became a media-friendly spokesperson for the shadowy hacking group Anonymous, says that he is quitting the group in the wake of a public feud that has broken out between different hacker factions within the loosely organized collective."
Someone is encouraging the dissension (Score:5, Interesting)
Pardon me as I break my tin-foil hat out here. But there are a lot of government agencies and companies who have a vested interest in seeing Anon fall to pieces. The timing on this is almost as convenient as Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Julian Assange being arrested for sexual assault (the former right after he pulled decisively ahead of pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy in the polls and the later just weeks after he released a series of secret documents that embarrassed the U.S.). But then, I've always said [slashdot.org] that pedophilia and sexual assault charges are the quickest way to discredit someone publicly--way better than anything as crude as assassination.
Don't get me wrong, here. I'm not the kind of guy who thinks the moon landings were faked or that the U.S. planned 9-11 or any of that horseshit. But sometimes the timing on certain events just strikes me as a little too convenient for mere coincidence. And as was done with Wikileaks, the first step in a descrediting campaign is to encourage dissension from within and to get some internal plants/buy-offs to publicly bad-mouth the leadership (Daniel Domscheit-Berg [wired.com], I'm looking in your direction, little plant). Just don't be suprised to see some Anon leaders suddenly facing rape/pedophilia/sexual assault charges in the near future. You'll know for sure if beautiful women suddenly start throwing themselves at 4channers in public.
it used to be fun (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it used to be fun (Score:2, Interesting)
When did Anonymous (i.e. 4chan) become heroic?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Those of us who have know of 4chan for 10+ years can't help but be a little perplexed at this transformation of Anonymous into "Hacking Heroes of the People". For as long as I remember, Anonymous, or as they used to call themselves, "/b/tards", were more known for pulling elaborate Internet trolls, vandalizing web pages, and basically creating chaos just "for the lulz". Far from being heroic, these people could be a nightmare. Get the wrong kind of attention from the Anonymous horde, and find your personal information posted all over the web.
Then they chose a few targets who everybody agreed deserved it: white supremacists, Scientology, arrogant corporations. Suddenly the media decides they're heroes and everyone just eats it up.
Sorry, I don't buy it. This is the same group that popularized the phrase "TITS OR GTFO", who created Pedobear. I don't buy that these people have suddenly grown Hearts of Pure Good. In their heart, they still get off on creating chaos for fun, and eventually they'll go back to it. Some 4channers will web-harass some teenage girl who made an ass of herself on the Internet (as already happened once), or do something else morally reprehensible, and will use the Anonymous banner because why not? Then the media's collective head will explode as they try to understand why their wonderful Internet Bandit Heroes have turned bad.
------RM
Anonymous is the mob, it has leaders but denies it (Score:4, Interesting)
The mob claims not to exist. They claim to be legitimate businessmen. They claim to have no hierarchy, structure, or internal planning.
Those are all lies.
Anonymous is an on-line gang. It has leaders, structure, goals. It denies them all because if it didn't, it would be obvious it was a gang and it would be subject to increased scrutiny and prosecution under RICO statutes.
As the on-line world becomes darker and darker, people who use the Internet will flock to gangs, just as minority children do in inner cities. Gangs offer them protection and meaning in a chaotic, dangerous world. Gangs lure them in with women, drugs, and attention. Anonymous lures them in with pornography and jokes and gives them a place where they can be as racist and sexist as they want to be.
However, like everything else in the world, ultimately it comes down to money. Someone is funding Anonymous. Someone is protecting them from the government (really, if a Japanese gang attacked one of America's biggest corporations, do you think the US might press Japan to go after them?).
Who? Why, the US government, of course. Anonymous is a government-funded, government-protected para-cyber-military organization for engaging in false flag attacks against foreign corporations and foreign governments. Because of the outrageous behavior of Anonymous, the government has plausible deniability regarding their connection; in fact, the mere idea of the US utilizing anime and meme-obsessed "newfags" for false flag hacking operations against, say, Iran, sounds ludicrous. And indeed it should, because members who are attacking Iran are not posting memes and child pornography. They have very little to do with those members. Those members are the smokescreen. Their attacks against, for example, Second Life, were merely screening exercises afforded to a group of malcontent white metrosexual men to build an army of followers.
You might respond "What about Scientology?" Do you think the US government cares about Scientologists? That was a clear effort to define Anonymous as "outlaws."
And "What about Wikileaks?" Yes, what about Wikileaks? After all, do you think the US government is really scared of Wikileaks? Aside from Manning, who clearly violated his responsibilities in the military, has the US targeted any members of Wikileaks? The database Manning "compromised" was likely compromised dozens of times by foreign powers. No effort was made to keep it secure. And the data released by Manning? It merely supports the notion that the US did not attack civilians in Iraq. Almost all of the embarrassing information "leaked" by Wikileaks was detrimental to other powers, not the US. The US came off as, mostly, clean.
The US isn't afraid of Wikileaks. Why should it? Do you think Wikileaks has the power of the Soviet Union's intelligence agencies at the height of the Cold War? Chinese intelligence agencies? British? Japanese? German?
If the US is prepared to defend its intelligence against those powers, Wikileaks can pose no threat. Period. "But what about all the people in the US government calling for Assange's head?" Like, who? Palin? She's a private citizen. Huckabee? Another private citizen. There have been no attempts by the US to even charge Assange for conspiracy in the Manning leak. Zero. Why? Wikileaks is absolutely no threat.
And since Wikileaks is absolutely no threat to US businesses or government interests, it can be seen as an asset. Yet another para-cyber-military organization for the sole purpose of revealing "leaked" information regarding powers that we want denigrated.
Wikileaks + Anonymous = the perfect tool for going after weaker regimes and organizations with absolutely no egg on the face of the United States government.
No, this isn't a conspiracy theory. I don't claim the government started either organization, but only that they found them useful and likely have moles inside them helping steer them the way they want.