How do we know that Anonymous is really Anonymous?

Having watched these anonymous events unfold, I can't help but wonder if anonymous is only anonymous to us, the citizens.

What if the plans of the DHS, CIA, FBI etc. were to use anonymous as a scapegoat. Maybe they are the same? Who knows if anonymous is really anonymous? Is it perhaps a psychological weapon created to be used against the people?

Think about these scenarios:

Hack a private site, blame anonymous, create more internet laws.

Hack a Govt. site, blame anonymous, create more security.

Hack a military site, blame anonymous, create a domestic false flag event and Martial law is launched.

Hack another Country's Govt. or Military network, blame anonymous, then blame that Country for any retaliation against the innocent US. An International false flag event.

Hack a nuke command center, launch an attack, blame anonymous, create WW3 and blame that on anonymous as well.

Then when TPTB need their new bogeyman, un-mask anonymous as...(Insert Country, Ideal, Religion or Dictator here).

And on and on...

Yeah, I know it's crazy, wildly speculative and way out there. But that's what ATS is for, right? This is actually the perfect tool to have people cheering for anonymous as their heroes while allowing TPTB to carry out their agenda.

Just a thought...what say you?

reply to post by jude11


Sarah Palin could beat Anonymous.

Sorry, had to get that dig in.

Actually, it's a damned good question.
S+F

I agree with you OP, you can also throw in Julian Assange and Wikileaks in that boat.

reply to post by jude11


The following is My personal opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up

If anyone or anything starts WW3 it would go against what Anonymous is supposed to be about - they can blame or claim they are Anonymous - the message sent by starting a world war should be enough to disprove its Anonymous

I think that itself means that everyone with a good message IS Anonymous - Hypothetically, I could hack into the white house files and steal all their proof of aliens and distribute them publically - then claim it Anonymously - no one would question it because it was for a greater knowledge, with no intent to harm anyone

This is why "Anonymous" claims you can arrest us, shoot us, do whatever you want to us - because we really aren't an organization or necessarily a "group" in any sense - we are different people, individuals with enquiring minds, and we want to know - and we'll find out - and you can't get us all (my interpretation, not verbatim)

Kind of like... hippies weren't all in one group - they were a "movement" spread across the entire US and included people from all walks of life - even if some of the individuals I'd consider a hippie didn't really live the hippie lifestyle - the idea was there, that was enough

Originally posted by satron
I agree with you OP, you can also throw in Julian Assange and Wikileaks in that boat.

Yeah, did that.

But this one is clearly more dangerous as anonymous doesn't have a face and that allows it to go on forever. It also allows any Country to be blamed for being the mastermind behind anonymous. Even US citizens.

the anonymous concept was ripe for abuse at the onset really.

the image and concept are so vague that one can use the anonymous style of "attacks" to any means desired, from disinfo to push any type of agenda.

i for one wasn't nor i'm expecting to be saved by a bunch of internet superheros riding around on pokemons uttering silly memes.

anonymous is the perfect boogey man concept applied to the internet

I'd agree except that I think 'Anonymous' is too clever of a name for the government to come up with. I feel like they would put a face to the name, like 'Internet Terrorists'. Then everyone would assume it's just a bunch of Arab people doing all the hacking, and in ten years we will find the mastermind and kill him.

But I agree, otherwise. It's tough to really know who is behind all of it.

ETA: Looks like you answered my post while I was writing it. Are you hacking my account?

Originally posted by jude11
But this one is clearly more dangerous as anonymous doesn't have a face and that allows it to go on forever. It also allows any Country to be blamed for being the mastermind behind anonymous. Even US citizens.

edit on 6/11/2011 by scojak because: (no reason given)

reply to post by jude11


I agree. It only stands to reason that Anonymous has at the very least been infiltrated,
long ago.

And perhaps, as time passed you know who has operatives in the top ranks.

Id bet money, alot of money on this one. S&F.

Originally posted by Forevever
reply to post by jude11

 

The following is My personal opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up

If anyone or anything starts WW3 it would go against what Anonymous is supposed to be about - they can blame or claim they are Anonymous - the message sent by starting a world war should be enough to disprove its Anonymous

I think that itself means that everyone with a good message IS Anonymous - Hypothetically, I could hack into the white house files and steal all their proof of aliens and distribute them publically - then claim it Anonymously - no one would question it because it was for a greater knowledge, with no intent to harm anyone

This is why "Anonymous" claims you can arrest us, shoot us, do whatever you want to us - because we really aren't an organization or necessarily a "group" in any sense - we are different people, individuals with enquiring minds, and we want to know - and we'll find out - and you can't get us all (my interpretation, not verbatim)

Kind of like... hippies weren't all in one group - they were a "movement" spread across the entire US and included people from all walks of life - even if some of the individuals I'd consider a hippie didn't really live the hippie lifestyle - the idea was there, that was enough

I understand that it's an ideal and so far, a good one. Good point.

It would also be necessary to think about how far will anonymous go in spreading the message and if that plays into a deeper agenda.

I could see a hack attack on the Pentagon for instance. The repercussions could be an attack on the citizens as we are supposed to be anonymous.

Kinda goes round and round I know, but I have a suspicion that all is not what it seems with this.

And not just is it anon but was it anon then hijacked by the man just like the tea party.
Prolly hijacked is my guess.

This is a conspiracy I can actually get my head around. The fact that "Anon" is initially anti-establishment would be the perfect approach to manipulate events that would "force" the government to take further draconian measures against a faceless, nameless entity.
Look at what a shoe-underwear bomber has done for the TSA!

Originally posted by scojak
I'd agree except that I think 'Anonymous' is too clever of a name for the government to come up with. I feel like they would put a face to the name, like 'Internet Terrorists'. Then everyone would assume it's just a bunch of Arab people doing all the hacking.

But I agree, otherwise. It's tough to really know who is behind all of it.

The name anonymous allows for it be whoever and whatever. That's the genius.

Just use it until it becomes clear who the next bogeyman will be on the World stage. Then the unveiling of anonymous.

Please read this comment, I will do my best to explain what the Anonymous group is.

This reply is very well based. If you do not fully understand the Anonymous group, please read this comment.

For simplicity sake, I'll use just one facet of the group, which is 4chan. Users on there post images on threads and replies to those images anonymously. The poster and the repliers do not submit a user-name or any form of authentication.

If you were to go on there, you would have no ability to know which user posted which comment/image, or reply.
Now yes, the site administrators and moderators do have access to the IP addresses from which posts originate, however, each thread only last for about 45 minutes. The boards only show 10 pages of threads, and there is so much activity that it takes less than an hour for a thread to be pushed off of the 10th page from the overwhelming amount of content.

Essentially, if you post there, no one knows who you are, and your content is only up there for a small period of time.

Now, this is an extremely active place, and there are a large number of users, and they mostly have a similar mindset on the events of the world. When something happens that pisses them off, they will often use a thread to stir up unrest in the anonymous users who frequent the board. As other members get stirred up and want to take action, it doesn't take long before several of the tech-savvy members of the board begin to organize attacks.

Now, the attacks are not anonymous in anymore of a sense than if I were to launch an attack. However, they end up with such an overwhelming amount of users taking part in the attack that it is infeasible to pin down any one attacker. The same way that a single person protesting is easy to quell, but a full on riot is a different beast.

This, then mixed in with the use of proxies makes the attacks that much more difficult to track down.

Now yes, they are not thinking about the repercussions of their actions. They often think in a very reactionary sense, someone does something they don't like, they fight back. They often hide behind the anonymous nature of their attacks and think they will see no consequence. This, as the OP pointed out, has the potential to lead to new internet laws and restrictions.

But remember, the users that take part in these attacks are international, of all age groups, and of different mindsets.

So is Anonymous a government unit, No.
But, there is a question you can ask, Is it possible that the anonymous users who stir up the anger that causes the attacks... government agents?. And that, is a very very hard question to answer.

Also, don't be surprised if members from their sites come into this thread to troll and flame. They don't like it when people talk about them.

Originally posted by scojak
I'd agree except that I think 'Anonymous' is too clever of a name for the government to come up with.

Would "Cult of the Dead Cow" be better?

How ironic, that before /b/ hacker groups could organise attacks, hack, crack, generally play anarchists on the BBS's and then the Net, and they were considered.... Hackers....

Nowadays, if you're a secret group on the net, you're the CIA.

lol. Maybe times were just less conspiracy saturated in 1984.

1999: Hacktavismo.

In late 1999, the cDc created Hacktivismo, an independent group under the cDc communications umbrella dedicated to the creation of anti-censorship technology in furtherance of human rights on the Internet. The group's beliefs are described fully in The Hacktivismo Declaration, which seeks to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Internet.[7] Among Hacktivismo's beliefs include access to information as a basic human right. The organization partially shares Critical Art Ensemble's (CAE) belief in the value of secrecy, but challenges both with CAE and many hacktivists on the subject of civil disobedience. The cDc model is, instead, one of disruptive compliance.[8] Disruptive, in this case, refers to disruptive technology; compliance refers back to the Internet and its original intent of constructive free-flow and openness.[9]

linkypoos

Sound familiar? This one has a name.

Originally posted by renegadeS
The poster and the repliers do not submit a user-name or any form of authentication.

ATS is already famous on ED.

One thing I'd like to correct, and it's minor, is that you can use a name if you choose.

But then, foobywoomerateapot would be too easy to know it's me, so I prefer not to.

No?

reply to post by badw0lf


Small groups is one thing, people in it know each other and who is the leader or at least author of ideas.
Anonymous by declaration is like huge hive of bees in which there is huge number of unfamiliar people so all intelligence agency got to do is to start a momentum using not expensive and not difficult tactics and then Anon who think that they participate in something else are in reality their army.
Understand this, if there is X that is suddenly the target, someone somewhere came with this idea. Not "legion" but individual. Or bunch of individuals.

reply to post by renegadeS


Maybe on that website they are anonymous to each other. but I am sure they are not anonymous to the powers that be....they can track anyone.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by renegadeS

 

Maybe on that website they are anonymous to each other. but I am sure they are not anonymous to the powers that be....they can track anyone.

Yeah, I think if they wanted to bring anonymous down, they would. Unless it's been them all along of course.

mainly anonymous to each other and everyone else behind nicknames and such

I know I've helped out on many a raids, utilizing tools from the darknet (freenetproject.org...) inaccessible from the normal way of things keeps things super anon/encrypted/etc. You don't know where things actually come from.

The way many got caught is using IRC or light net forums to go into details of plans and such then caught.

That's why those that do help, just stick to the darknet...

There are many darknets out there though

If you are interested in reading up on the several darknets you can here: filesharefreak.com...

darknets are heavily encypted and use extensions the normal web doesn't work with. such as Tor's darknet, that uses the .onion extension like www.example.onion

the hidden encrypted onionland forum for Tor -> l6nvqsqivhrunqvs.onion... good source of info

anyhow just an example to help open the world of the darknet to newbies just be careful cause it's 100% anon and uncensored.