top | item 1984955

Anonymous in The Economist

137 points| mcantelon | 15 years ago |economist.com | reply

69 comments

order
[+] electromagnetic|15 years ago|reply
I like the symbolism that Anon has become. Simply put Anon is the anger and frustration of millions (acted on by the few hundred) and is having real effects.

If Anon is taking down Mastercard and Visa, then perhaps our governments will start obeying their own laws instead of trying to manipulate companies into compliance. Or at the very least, our companies might actually question whether obeying the government is in their best interests.

[+] tzs|15 years ago|reply
> Simply put Anon is the anger and frustration of millions...

And the idiocy of millions, considering that one of their "bank" targets (PostFinance) isn't a bank. It is a money transfer service operated by the Swiss post office for Swiss residents only. Assange is not a Swiss resident, so they closed his account, and are returning his money to him.

> If Anon is taking down Mastercard and Visa, then perhaps our governments will start obeying their own laws instead of trying to manipulate companies into compliance. Or at the very least, our companies might actually question whether obeying the government is in their best interests.

Let's see--obey an anonymous group of DDOSers, who at most can cause you a short term outage until you add more capacity, or obey the government which has the full power of the state behind it and can actually stop your business and seize your assets...this one is a no brainer.

[+] kmfrk|15 years ago|reply
Anon is (a) digitized mob mentality. No reason to commend it.
[+] TomOfTTB|15 years ago|reply
Just out of curiosity, can you name a time when a Government has responded positively to this kind of attack? Where a protest has defied the law and the Government has reacted by giving the protesters what they want?

Because I can't. In every example I can think of the Government has doubled down on its crack down effort. I suspect we're only months away from a bunch of these people getting arrested for cyber-terrorism.

I suppose this sort of thing can be effective if the government crack down becomes so oppressive that the general public turns on them (See the Kent State Shooting). But that's a pretty destructive way to make your point.

[+] steveklabnik|15 years ago|reply
It's the Ghost in the Shell. The Internet's collective id.
[+] mcantelon|15 years ago|reply
Twitter just suspended @anon_operations. Expect involutary Twitter fast. ;)
[+] DanielRibeiro|15 years ago|reply
They are up again:

http://twitter.com/AnonOpsNet

http://twitter.com/anonops

http://twitter.com/AnonOperation (not official, but seems to be working along: http://twitter.com/AnonOperation/status/12652603078877184)

This tweet (http://twitter.com/#!/anonops/status/12651605946015744 ) is a wary thought on how things can scalate, and how badly: if we can't have twitter account, nobody can

I just wonder if any of this will come on the panel with Tim Bray later tonight: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1981547

[+] JSig|15 years ago|reply
Interesting magazine to be writing about Anonymous. I sometimes feel that the magazine itself is a LOIC for the global banking system. It's possibly one of many publications (nodes) that publishes (DDOS) anonymous writings that seem to usually endorse the position that the world needs more debt.
[+] jonshea|15 years ago|reply
Very interesting. I’m glad that you pointed out that the Economist is “anonymous”. (If you haven’t noticed, almost all Economist articles are published without a byline). It’s a quirk I’ve never been convinced that they adequately justify. One of my favorite gags is to claim that I write for the Economist? Don’t believe me? I challenge you to prove that I don’t.
[+] anigbrowl|15 years ago|reply
How is publishing in any way analogous to a denial of service? If I purchase a copy of the Economist, it does not impair anyone else's economic activity or ability to do business with me. Your suggestion that they promote indebtedness doesn't seem very consistent with the content either.
[+] alanh|15 years ago|reply
Not positive, but I think this is “only” a blog, and not part of the print distribution.
[+] icegreentea|15 years ago|reply
It's 'only' a blog. The economist goes to print Thursday nights, so we might still see an Anon article in the next edition.
[+] orblivion|15 years ago|reply
I'm surprised. I thought they organize mostly on 4chan, and then go down to IRC channels spontaneously and temporarily, and keep their identities only temporarily. Am I to understand that there are actually people who have a persistent identity? Who are "in charge"?
[+] count|15 years ago|reply
No. Just moot, but he's got nothing to do with it.
[+] URSpider94|15 years ago|reply
There was an article on New York Times online today as well. It's pretty funny to read how mainstream reporters try to explain Anonymous to their readers whose experience of the Internet begins and ends with email and Facebook. There was no mention of 4chan anywhere in the NYT article (probably for the best).
[+] known|15 years ago|reply
"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth--anonymously and posthumously." -- Thomas Sowell