Serious question regarding Anonymous Hacker Group

I actually have a question for any one who can answer this. I find the whole Anonymous agenda to be a little confusing, but it is not their current agenda I am questioning, its potential future ones. I know Anonymous's response to the FBI saying they could/would shut down the power grid was along the lines of, " Why would we hurt the people we are trying to protect....etc..etc..". My question is if anonymous has no formal leadership and anyone can be a part of it who is to say someone won't. Couldn't someone commit terrorist acts that actually do harm to American citizens, claim to be Anonymous, and not be telling a lie? I'm just curious. From what I can tell this is a totally possible scenario. So when someone from Anonymous says they are not a terrorist group that commits acts of violence how do they know one of their members won't become violent if they have zero control over who joins and who does what..? Not trying to insult anyone or anything, I just see this as being highly plausible..

It's a completely possible scenario but if someone did commit an act such as that without consulting with the rest of the hive mind then they would be shunned for claiming it was done in the name of Anon. Anonymous would publicly state that person acted alone.

Same as if anyone did it in the name of a company or a government agency. They would come out and say that person worked alone.

reply to post by XTTIOTX


Good question, but it won't work.

Anonymous is more of a movement than a group.

If "anonymous" does something that goes against it's beliefs then it's not an act of "the anonymous". Simply because the majority of those who associate themselves with anonymous think that said action is wrong.

For instance, if i was a communist and i decided to start a capitalist scheme, i wouldn't be a communist anymore. Even though there is no "list" of people or any kind of recruitment available, it's still possible to identify what is done by an actual anonymous supporter/hacktivist/protester, and what is not done (smears, lies, etc) by a true anonymous supporter/hacktivist/protester.

It's just like looking at a hippy from the 60's who is associated with anti-war and ty-dye clothes, for example if someone came to a hippy protest carrying a pro-war sign... they certainly aren't part of the hippy movement are they!

That's one way to get your head around how anonymous works. remember it's a movement, and not a group. There are groups with movements as always (lulzsec for example, carried the anonymous message)

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
reply to post by XTTIOTX

 

Good question, but it won't work.

Anonymous is more of a movement than a group.

If "anonymous" does something that goes against it's beliefs then it's not an act of "the anonymous". Simply because the majority of those who associate themselves with anonymous think that said action is wrong.

For instance, if i was a communist and i decided to start a capitalist scheme, i wouldn't be a communist anymore. Even though there is no "list" of people or any kind of recruitment available, it's still possible to identify what is done by an actual anonymous supporter/hacktivist/protester, and what is not done (smears, lies, etc) by a true anonymous supporter/hacktivist/protester.

It's just like looking at a hippy from the 60's who is associated with anti-war and ty-dye clothes, for example if someone came to a hippy protest carrying a pro-war sign... they certainly aren't part of the hippy movement are they!

That's one way to get your head around how anonymous works. remember it's a movement, and not a group. There are groups with movements as always (lulzsec for example, carried the anonymous message)

A lot more explanation and more eloquently put than my version, but spot on.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
reply to post by XTTIOTX

 

Good question, but it won't work.

Anonymous is more of a movement than a group.

If "anonymous" does something that goes against it's beliefs then it's not an act of "the anonymous". Simply because the majority of those who associate themselves with anonymous think that said action is wrong.

For instance, if i was a communist and i decided to start a capitalist scheme, i wouldn't be a communist anymore. Even though there is no "list" of people or any kind of recruitment available, it's still possible to identify what is done by an actual anonymous supporter/hacktivist/protester, and what is not done (smears, lies, etc) by a true anonymous supporter/hacktivist/protester.

It's just like looking at a hippy from the 60's who is associated with anti-war and ty-dye clothes, for example if someone came to a hippy protest carrying a pro-war sign... they certainly aren't part of the hippy movement are they!

That's one way to get your head around how anonymous works. remember it's a movement, and not a group. There are groups with movements as always (lulzsec for example, carried the anonymous message)

A lot more explanation and more eloquently put than my version, but spot on.

Thanks for both of your answers. I didn't really think of it that way. I was thinking more on the lines of it being tough to deny things when you can't be sure who the people denying/propagating actually are. I understand now though. Their mission statement has already been established so any actions contradictory to those goals and standards would be indicative of separation from the movement. Thanks again!