Anonymous did not attack Stratfor | Hacker News Reader

Anonymous did not attack Stratfor

pastebin.com

67 pointssteve891821 comments

Man it's a good thing I have this pastebin post to discredit my other pastebin post.

When one anonymous person tells the other anonymous person that they were not responsible for the anonymous person's action, you better believe it.

It'd be funny if people started doing completely mundane things under the banner of Anonymous.

For example, posting the receipt from a Coinstar machine.

THIS CHANGE RECEIPT IS THE WORK OF ANONYMOUS

TOTAL: $1.35

We are Anonymous

We do not forgive

We do not forget

Expect us

Anyone can call themselves Anonmyous, and use its name for anything.

Both a strength and a weakness...

Anonymice should start using colors to distinguish between each other.

Digital signatures would be better.

So far as I have observed, while the group is loosely-knit, and really is in concept "anyone" -- in terms of general perception by media and people there rather actually is some consensus of who is more Anonymous than the other.

And that's on the basis of who historically carried out most of the attacks, as were reported/confirmed on Twitter by Sabu ( https://twitter.com/anonymouSabu ) and AnonymousIRC ( https://twitter.com/AnonymousIRC ). Sabu was the de facto leader of LulzSec (the most technically able person in LulzSec -- the only member of LulzSec who's in fact still on the run) and he seems to be promoting the leak pretty persistently. AnonymousIRC did also take responsibility for this one.

So really, we should view the attacks as committed by LulzSec members under the banner of Anonymous, but not Anon "proper", correct?

For those who don't know who "Sabu" is: Sabu is an alleged leader of the hacking group LulzSec. He features prominently in the group's published IRC chats, and is a supporter of the "Free Topiary" campaign.

The Economist refers to Sabu as one of LulzSec's six core members and their "most expert" hacker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabu_(hacktivist)

Unfortunately for Anonymous, false-flag ops against it are entirely too easy to pull off. Perhaps if it had some way of identifying itself with a public key...

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you claim a global mandate, it means you don't get to disavow anyone's actions.

Yep, saw that coming. Some people tried to build a group identity and reputation around the name "Anonymous", made it fashionable, and now every spook, wannabe-spook, and random vandal uses the name, regardless of whether they're associated with the original group or not.

What original group?

It's highly likely that the first people who used the identity never did any of the things that you've heard of.

As I said, it's tough to be anonymous and not be spoofed at the same time. Perhaps this is not the real anonymous? Or maybe it is. This group is vulnerable to having their aims completely diluted for precisely this reason - that they are anonymous :P

The question is - does anyone at Anonymous actually know if the other people were not also part of Anonymous? Why do they have any more right to be called Anonymous than someone else? Oh the anonymousness...

the plot thickens?! http://pastebin.com/DVNWEQDf

pastebin is the new Press Agency. Let me know how it works out for you.

Maybe I should pastebin to the world I invented the cure for cancer, or discovered cold fusion.

"Some people are more Anonymous than others"

We won't have the final word on this matter until we hear from http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=anonymous.

Here's what Anonymous did do this holiday: http://www.techmeme.com/111220/p19#a111220p19

I have updated my post with that press release: http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/anonymous-antisec-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com