Why “Anonymous” is completely irrelevant

Anonymous refuses all definitions, yet a close look at their actions is all one needs to understand what they are all about. Anonymous is not a group of socially minded and technologically savvy internet users that want to change the world for the better. They are not a group at all. Instead, they are a loose federation of loud mouths and hackers who mostly want to make a buck or achieve the goal of inflating their selfish pride-albeit anonymously. In the most sophisticated achievement to date, Anonymous has managed to cripple and embarrass HBGary, a security firm that insulted Anons everywhere by infiltrating their IRC channel and figuring out the handles of those responsible for deployment of the LOIC. Not only is this attack childish, spiteful, and pointless, but it shows that Anonymous is most willing to use their potential for positive change instead for self-aggrandizing and meaningless pursuits.

As Iran continues to injure and kill protesters as in 2009, Anonymous continues to take down symbolic political targets on the web with their weakest tool, LOIC. The power of a symbol is in the attention it receives from the media and Anonymous has only been truly successful in these kind of attacks on Visa and Mastercard. It is hard to grasp and explain the Anonymous mindset because there are very few things that “Anons” have in common. Firstly, they are all internet users. Secondly, “Anons” choose to remain anonymous, but only in principle. The truth is that “Anons” assume the security of anonymity whether or not it truly applies.

I feel it is a wholly weak and pitiful trait of humankind that we must hide our identities to speak our mind or to take action. I believe anonymous is comprised of weaklings who take action in fear and would not do so if they did not believe they could get away with it anonymously. You are not brothers to protesters in the streets, you are cowards who sit behind computer screens and put your greatest efforts towards selfish pride instead of greater good. Hacktivist is too good of a term for Anons. That implies an ultimate purpose where there is obviously none.

Of all the facets of Anonymous, AnonNews is the most despicable. I’d challenge them to release their financial records but that’s not even necessary. Using PayPal, hated enemy of free speech, the owner takes donations and PayPal gets their dirty little share. Not only that, but they’ve gotten some cash from Military Recruiters. Yet no one seems to care about what amounts to blatant financial exploitation of the Anonymous phenomenon.

Anons are weak and pitiful for not holding AnonNews to account.

Anons are weak and pitiful for attacking HBGary when they could make a change that matters.

Anons are weak and pitiful for remaining anonymous.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive,
We do not forget,
Expect us
Sincerely,
Anonymous

Photoshopped to highlight what no one seems to pay attention to. See what I'm doing here?

203 comments to Why “Anonymous” is completely irrelevant

  • Anonymous

    WTF Anonnews financial reports? You know that sites been up less than 4 months right? It makes me wonder reading news articles like this… IS this part of a discrediting smear campaign? Also ghosts aren’t real. Sorry.

  • Anonymous

    TROLLS TROLLING TROLLS

  • Anonymous

    I’ll keep my comments to the most egregious misconception to which you are most intransigently committed: you do not begin to understand the importance of what was revealed through the HBGary hack.

    I can appreciate that you’re out to troll, and to get Anons to think about what they’re doing and why, but your failure to grok the significance of the implications makes the entire context of your efforts (f you’ll forgive the term), moot.

    You can question the ‘decision’ to ‘allocate resources’ to the initial attack, and paint it as representative of a greater commitment to self preservation and/or juvenile retalliation than the higher moral claims annunciated for operations supporting popular uprisings across the Mahgreb and beyond; but to do so is to betray a fatuous misunderstanding of the way the legion operates.

    And to dismiss the findings in the exfiltrated data on the basis of its ease of acquisition is criminally moronic: the emails show that this firm, with impeccable government connections, was consciously exploiting its freedom from the laws restraining government investigators, to work outside the law to collect data on dissident groups, which it then planned to sell back to the government (as well as corporate clients).

    Perhaps a full appreciation of the significance of this is only available to those with a solid conceptual grounding in what ‘the rule of law’ is supposed to entail.

    Even so, any attempt to dismiss the HBGary episode as something other than ‘change that matters’ proceeds either from painful ignorance or vested interest.

    • Kilgore Trout

      Water Brother: Instead of quietly acting in your own self-interest and using a third party, perhaps WikiLeaks, to responsibly release this information, you have acted in haste. I might have done the same, and I’m not here to dismiss the importance of the findings. I think it is fairly clear that the rule of law is applied with no balance whatsoever and you are overstating the urgency of this matter to an extreme. Yet, it’s ultimately good to bring these things into the light of day. I will be happy to see the legion progress and mature.

      • Anonymous

        Here’s the thing: you either have the rule of law, or you do not.

        It is not to be ‘applied’ with or without balance, because that presupposes one set of people doing the ‘applying’ and another having it ‘applied’ to them.

        This is the rule of men, and cannot coexist with the rule of law.

        As to haste or otherwise – that was one phase of the legion maturing, and it was fucking exhilirating to watch – the development of a platform to release a searchable archive within a week, the unearthing of information so timely it disrupted planned meetings in furthrance of criminal conspiracies – all of this unfolding in realtime, none of it planned in advance or directed from on high.

        • Kilgore Trout

          Have it your way. It is not so incredible and astounding that corporations collude with our government and clandestinely act outside the law. This has been the case in America for over 150 years. The truth is that the fallout in the release of these files will likely hurt Anonymous much more than it will the government. Whoever was responsible for getting a hold of HBGary’s documents is responsible for the manner they have been published. The refusal to use a neutral party for publishing calls their validity into question by a public that is increasingly hostile towards Anonymous. Death threats and searchable archives are not a sign of maturity. The ability to understand consequences is. You have your great victory but i don’t believe you have the slightest clue what it really means to the rest of the world.

          • Anonymous

            If the point that you’re looking to make is that feeble assertions of tampering with emails or of death threats are likely to be taken at face-value by some of the less infovorous citizens out there when made by company presidents, then sure, I guess. You seem to have taken the death-threat thing to the next level, though, and are assuming its truth, which leads me to question either your analytical capacities or your bona fides.

            Although I’ve seen you express it many ways, I’m not sure I understand your critique about ‘not releasing through a neutral party’ – you even mentioned at one point using WikiLeaks. I’m trying to work out whether you genuinely believe yourself to have a salient point here, or whether this is just more trolling, but just in case it is the former, let me assure you that you are both mistaken, and probably a little defective.

            As for how the world sees it, the story has stopped being about Anon – focus has shifted to Hunton & Williams, BoA & WikiLeaks, in many stories the way the emails came to let does not even get a mention. I’m fine with this, but also recognise that it wouldn’t have gotten to this point had interest and attention not been arrested by the captivating tale of Mr Barr’s fatal hubris.

            Wouldn’t it be nice if that attention developed and intensified to the point where it became feasible to talk about an end to 150 years of corporate collusion and corrupt governance? Got any ideas on how to get there from where we are now that don’t involve reliving the past two weeks, or do you confine your expertise to offering redundant advice?

            • kilgore trout

              True, not even the least reputable news source has connected these death threats with anonymous. Yet surely they were made anonymously. In all fairness, is this not also the legion?

              HBGary has likely exaggerated, or even made up the threats to shift public opinion. What you have decided is pure win also has some major drawbacks. If you were polling, public trust for anonymous is surely at an all-time low.

              I understand that anonymous is the resultant action of a collective of connected individuals. The thing is by denying that you are a group, you are creating a false truth that there are no connections. So not exactly a group, but a collective.

              Currently, Anonymous is a self-destructive collective that denies the reality of others. My redundant advice is that it doesn’t have to be this way.

              I have many ideas about how this can be done. The first and most important step is to convince enough people that I am right.

              • Anonymous

                “surely they were made”
                …is where you lose me… come up with something more than desperate press releases, and maybe it’s open for discussion, but until then, I will dismiss it as self-serving obfuscation and will not be convinced otherwise.

                I also flatly reject your assertion that public opinion is at an all-time low – I’m not sure what you’re reading that has led you to this view, but the dominant sentiment in the media has been notably tolerant, while the comments sections have been marked by unabashed cheerleading, with a notable streak of ‘I wasn’t sure about these guys before this, but now… gogogo!!!’.

                But you raise an important issue, and one which has been productively discussed from time to time and place to place. That’s another weakness of the swarm; internal communications are unreliable, potent insights are lost in the shuffle rather than integrated into operating parameters. And then, attempts to produce more reliable structures for collecting and discussing messages are slammed as ‘missing the point’ by fucktards who think claiming 2005 makes them internet old-school.

                As someone who remembers the internet before the web, I can assure you that seeds of what Anonymous is becoming predate the vast majority of its participants. I’m not looking at rewriting official histories, here, but there was an anonymous underbelly of the internet long before there was a ‘moot’ (whatever the fuck that is).

                A lot of the changes I’ve seen in the IRC channels lately (especially since HBGary) have reflected a sensibility that brought me there some months back – this is what a lot of people have been waiting for. Those of us who glimpsed the potential, and were ready to roll way back when, but the pipes were not in place yet, so to speak. And most of us in that position have had this burning sensation in the back of our heads for some years now about what is to come, and how it will be, leading to a persistent chorus of people coming in saying “hey, I love what you did here (and the fact the world is presently paying attention to you), but what you need to do now, is…”. Sound familiar?

                I’m not saying you have nothing to contribute; on the contrary, despite initial misgivings, you seem an entirely capable and worthwhile ‘legionnaire’. I do, however, disagree with your assessment that denying a false reality is a tactical error; were I looking to expand I would probably mutter something about a populace needing to be shocked to wakefulness by the administration of a general aesthetic, but would then recognise the uselessness of such utterances and shuffle back to the corner.

                You can attempt to make the case that you’re right, but so long as you retain an obsession with consequences and the view from without, you’re unlikely to convince anyone who has witnessed firsthand the evolution of this superorganism: it runs on lulz and has bigger plans than any one of us could conceive, let alone pull off.

              • Kilgore Trout

                The populace is not shocked to wakefulness by facts or even logic. Emotional appeals command politics. They are a tool that is used effectively against Anonymous but not by Anonymous. It is important to retain a steady observation and awareness of the general political state including all news sources. Notice the way that Anonymous is attacked so it can be defended. The image of criminality must be destroyed. With this kind of awareness, Anonymous will be able to go on the offensive in a way that has never been possible. This all begins with Anons looking at outside news sources analytically, recognizing a reality that must be altered. It is not up to me. It’s up to the legion. I am not giving marching orders, nor will I. I am just saying that because this is possible, it should happen sooner than later. It is the next logical conclusion in the evolution of Anonymous and Anons themselves.

  • Hey guys, part-owner of chronicle.SU here.

    If anonymous is a decentralized hacker network, why does it need a central news source?

    Back in 2005 when we were all messing with Hal Turner, I truly felt like a part of something equally hurtful, hilarious, meaningful and positive. I believe we were all posting anonymously, thus we were “anonymous.”

    What I see in anonnews.org is that it gives the authorities a go-to point. Basically, the website makes the opposition’s job easier and defeats your own purpose. So it’s a choice the users have made between recognition for their service, and the ability to actually perform that service.

    The long and short of it is, I see you as a bunch of try-hards, and kind of nerds who missed the bus and then missed the point. So from the standpoint of a journalist and someone who wants to see a positive change in governments, societies and humanity as a whole, you guys lost me.

    Good riddance.

    • Anonymous

      anonnews.org is nothing.
      anonnews.org is everything.
      It is a hamburger.
      It is as important as a million dirty orgasms filling up exile mother.
      Sure… they could be clean, but she’s still a whore.

      Don’t you have ghosts to bust?

  • Anonymous

    you sir, are irrelephant! and i didnt even read your post!