Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)

Origin of Anonymous

The article currently has Anonymous "originating in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan," which is inaccurate. 4chan itself started in 2003; Anonymous (as the name is used in this article) started later with the Scientology raids. 4chan was hardly the origin of internet anonymity, and long before the term referred to an activist group, "anonymous" on 4chan just differentiated anonymous posts (presented as an amorphous body) from those using a tripcode for unique identification. And despite what Y5Phl2x below seems to think, posting on 4chan sans tripcode does not mean automatic inclusion in Anonymous_(group). 4chan was not the first site to allow anon posts.

tl;dr Anonymous as a group started years after 2003 74.73.105.201 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

well yes, While 4chan did always allow for "anonymous" posts it didn't automatically create the group mentality of "anonymous," but the group itself started before the scientology raids as the habbo raids were active with the collective mentality. do you have a WP:RS Coffeepusher (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Anonymous

This definition of Anonymous is heavily waited to a fear mongering point of view. There are numerous uses of anonymity beyond the internet or civil disobedience. Henry Ford provides one reason beyond civil disobedience, "The fear of loosing what you have blocks all avenues of innovation and advancement." Similarly, Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." BenDoGood (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC) "Scott Nesler" - The Do Good Gauge

I may be not be the first to notice, but to me it seems like this article is saying, that anyone, calling themselves Anonymous, is part of one big group. Now i seriously doubt, that this is the intention of the article and all the writers, and im fairly sure that the writers know that this isn't one big group, but for the less informed that use this site as their main source of information, the article could very well lead to misunderstandings. And with all the negative reputation that the word "Anonymous" has gotten over the past months (playstation network being a good example) i think it would be good to clarify, that Anonymous is not one big group - and only rarely sytematic long-lasting groups at all - but that it rather seems to be spontanious assemblys created for a once time purpose and with very short livespans. So to sum it up, my request is that it be clarified that Anonymous is not one big group, but that it is instead lots of smaller assemblys, and that the actions of those calling themselves Anonymous is only rarely connected with each other, and that is is rarely the same persons participating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumal0 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous is not a groupGlajaklsgjkd (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ruma. Anonymous is not a group in any way shape or form. It has no structure. It has no organisation. It is simply a group of people. I am anonymous right now (save for my IP). Anyone can be anonymous. This article credits Anonymous with many hacking/DDoSing activities, which is wrong. It should credit Anonymous PEOPLE, not the 'group' anonymous, because of course we all (should) know that anonymous is not a defined group. ANONYMOUS IS NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT IS A CONCEPT THAT IS USED BY PEOPLE. 109.158.131.50 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To credit the individuals seems like a rather pedantic endeavour. Firstly, one of the concepts of the Anonymous collective is that you are not an individual, but a part of the hive. Secondly, the acts were carried out under the guise of the Anonymous collective, so attributing it to the group is more than reasonable. Anonymous technically has no individuals or members, as it is merely a set of loosely defined ideals that people can stand with for certain issues AnonNietzsche (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This really does need to be clarified. This article is very misleading about what anonymous is. It's not a group. There is no membership. Nstring (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this going to be done soon? Especially because of the current goings-on with people like Lulzsec. Guyag (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

These should be mentioned

Operation Andes Free

• An attack On Peru and Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.51.101 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Anonymous demanding child porn from an 11-year old girl and sending death threats to her family when she asks them to stop.
• Anonymous defaces Facebook pages for dead children.

Most of the present coverage on this page covers their "activist" actions, while in reality the bulk of their actions are the harassment and bullying of children.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter doesn't mention Anonymous. Adambro (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cracked.Com is a comedy web site (after the well known pulp comic book.) I don't think a reference to a comedy web site web page is a very good reference, Gawker would be a better reference for that series of incidents, in my opinion. Damotclese (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The dead children thing isn't Anonymous is it? It was reported in New Zealand as being the work of a US neo-nazi group. NZ forever (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these actions being attributed to anonymous is that anyone can claim to be part of the group. So these may be separate circles. --Mutlee (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is very biased towards Anonymous. Efforts need to be put forth to present the article from a netural point of view, instead of just trying to make Anonymous look like a bunch of heroes. --Little Jimmy (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And if it helps, heres a better link to the case about the 11 year old girl. --Little Jimmy (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The better link mentions random 4chan users, not Anonymous. SuperPurple (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You use a cracked aricle as a source? Wow. This just makes me assume you read the article, rushed to Wikipedia, and started your bias propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.247.135 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't Anonymous that defaced the RIP pages it was 4chan trolls, get your facts straight newfriend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.208 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It WAS Anonymous who defaced the pages. It was not the "hacktivist" group from WhyWeProtest/AnonOps, but those sites do not represent the views and opinions of Anonymous. If the posts originated from 4chan, they are inherently and automatically part of Anonymous (provided they didn't use tripcodes). I recommend a section about these articles (and others like it) to illustrate the fact that modern Anonymous is NOT about nonviolent protest, these are only the views of a large portion of Anonymous. If it appears otherwise, I believe this is only because the hacktivism activities are the ones that make national news. Anyone can be part of Anonymous and have any kind of opinion they want as long as they are anonymous. --Y5Phl2x (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion because Anonymous make reference not only to 4chan (is just the place of birth) but also to a Idea. Idea is anachism (social anarchism), like in the comic V for Vendetta. (sorry for my bad english). 83.113.232.4 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Group

Since when has Anonymous been a group? And how is it a group? It by no means fills the definition of social group.Glajaklsgjkd (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

THIS (call it an anti-group, movement, mindset or whatever) Zoef1234 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Call it a movement. I think that's the best description of an 'organization' like this (but it's not really organized enough to be an organization) -A friend (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Infact, referring to it as Anonymous only would be much better as it is quite random bunch of people. Glajaklsgjkd (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So, it is not a group, it is a bunch? DigitalC (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a group, nor a bunch, it's a name and a label. Anyone who wants can simply "claim" to be part of anonymous or not at any given time, for any reason. Because of this trying to attribute anything that anyone does in the name of "Anonymous" to "Anonymous" as though it were one entity is meaningless. It's like trying to say that "Author Unknown" is one single person, which ironically is one of the tongue-in-cheek jokes on which the "Anonymous" name and concept took off. In fact, with no membership structure it becomes impossible to have a criticism section on any of Anonymous's actions because trying to hold "Anonymous" as responsible for anything its self-proclaimed members do would be an exercise in stupidity. If President Obama were to sign a bill into law and claim that he did it as a member of "Anonymous", could "Anonymous" be held responsible for the bill being signed into law? No, because Anonymous is nothing more than a label. All we have here are a bunch of individuals who went out, did things, and all gave themselves the same name, or lack thereof as the case may be. As such, the article should reflect this, and rather than treating "Anonymous" as any kind of entity, simply identify it as a concept and label to which many people have attached themselves. As it is, the article appears to have unsourced implications that the people which committed one act in the name of "Anonymous" had something to do with the people who committed other acts. All we know is that they both used the same name, or lack thereof.Ziiv (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous isn't a group. Anonymous is a brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.215.107 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous may or may not be an organization, it may or may not be consistent from day to day, but it is a group. "In the social sciences a social group can be defined as two or more humans who interact with one another, share similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity." Two or more, yup. Interaction, yup. Similar characteristics? How about using the same name and the LOIC? Sense of unity? Can't get much more hive minded than a bot net. Peboki (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Oslo explosion

Hi, I have read in some websites that Anonymous has claimed responsibility. Is this so? can anyone confirm? Thank you very much. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.80.228 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Futaba Channel, the Japanese internet and Anonymous

In the first section there's a paragraph saying "[...] many websites are strongly associated with Anonymous. This includes notable imageboards such as 4chan, Futaba [...]".

I would like to clarify that Futaba Channel, being a site for uploading images usually used by Japanese otaku, has nothing to do with Anonymous as described in this article. Anonymous is pretty much a western exclusive phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.137.24 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Shows what you know. We are not just a Western Movement. "We destroy corruption and bring liberty We are Anonymous We are legion We do not forgive We do not forget Expect us" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.82.70 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I know Futaba Channel (ふたば☆ちゃんねる) very well since I have been there more than a few times. I also understand that Anonymous is an international phenomenon but if there is one country where "Anonymous" does not have a presence, it is Japan. If you search on Google at all for the phrase アノニマス you will find that the only results that you get are the same news articles as you would read in English, albeit translated into Japanese. Not only that, but you will find that when it comes to Japanese articles talking about the attack on Sony, there is not a single positive comment about Anonymous. Pretty much everyone says things like きも or 死ね or something like that - not a single Japanese person said anything positive about Anonymous. There is one good reason for this: Japan, probably more than any other nation, does not understand the concept of how breaking the law at any time could be a positive thing, even if it is a "bad law." By this, I do not necessarily mean the law as written and codified, but more so the informal social laws of "courtesy" (儀礼). The basic mindset is that more important than the individual is the whole of Japanese society, that all Japanese people must be respected (i. e. one must submit oneself to the respect of all others as long as they are Japanese), and this concept extends into the business world as well. Whereas in the West, it makes sense to criticize companies and say they are greedy and do not care about the people, such a concept would not make sense in Japan because the basic thinking goes along the lines that people must promote Japan and the Japanese people, and therefore the idea that corporations would care more about money than the people would not make sense. It would therefore feel natural for every Japanese people to think of all Japanese people and businesses as "extensions of themselves." Therefore, the fact that Sony is Japanese is very important - since Sony is Japanese, any attack on Sony would be thought of as an attack on all the Japanese people. This is different from the U.S., where although Microsoft is a U.S. company, an attack on Microsoft would not necessarily be thought of as an attack on all the U.S. people. Therefore, the very basic notion of Anonymous, the idea of any attack against businesses or even small internet forums, whether it is for a cause, or if it is just "for the LULZ," makes no sense at all to Japanese people. The basic thought in Japan right now about Anonymous is that Anonymous is a foreign crime organization. Whether or not you like the way Japanese people think, this is the way things are. Until I see a good reason why Futaba Channel is relevant to this at all, I shall remove "Futaba Channel" from the list.--A (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the original intent of this mention was that Futuba Channel (2chan) was one of the inspirations of 4chan and other anonymous(adjective) imageboards where Anonymous(group) took root. I'm not sure of a proper way to include this in the article, so I didn't edit. However, I do feel that Futuba played an important role in the development of Anonymous(group), and may deserve a mention here. I don't think that discussions about Japanese culture are relevant here as Futuba channel welcomes international users. Christopher Poole (moot, the American creator of 4chan) was an active user of Futuba channel. "During the creation of 4chan, he obtained the source code for the Futaba Channel website, and translated the Japanese text into English using Altavista's Babelfish online translator." (From the wikipedia 4chan article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

The anonymous(adj) nature of Japanese imageboards is what lead to the development of Anonymous(group.) Peboki (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET

IS THIS NOT WORTHY OF MENTION? September 17th, Anonymous is planning to flood into Wall Street.

There's an article about it, Occupy Wall Street. SalfEnergy 10:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was not Anonymous who started the Wall Street Flood. Anon joined in after noticing it being posted on 4Chan and other sites. It was just a bunch of protesters who started it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.102.90 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 

Edit request from 3ntity, 19 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Would like to include this two part article that includes an interview with professed members of Anonymous under the section on media coverage. Thanks.

http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/09/in-search-of-anonymous-down-and-out-in-the-digital-age/

http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/09/in-search-of-anonymous-down-and-out-in-the-digital-age-part-ii/

3ntity (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider 'Deliberatelyconsidered.com' to be a reliable source, so I will not action this request. If you disagree, please raise it on WP:RSN; if consensus there agrees that it is acceptable, please re-request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

22 Sept 2011 arrests

I see some articles today on arrests, of both Lulzsec and Anon. E.g. Fox News: "In another indictment, Christopher Doyon, 47, of Mountain View, Calif., and Joshua Covelli, 26, of Fairborn, Ohio, were charged with conspiracy to cause intentional damage to a protected computer, causing intentional damage to a protected computer and aiding and abetting .." If anyone can confirm that other sources also name those two persons as (allegedly) part of Anon, then the material may be suitable for this article. --Noleander (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Threat against the NYPD

Anonymous threatened to attack the NYPD in response to the police aggression against the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Its tough to find sources on this issue due to the media blackout however i have this article and video. Surely this deserves a mention. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/anonymous-threatens-nypd-_n_983941.html --132.198.228.121 (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

aku ingin belajar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.69.209 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

_________________ In austria there are regular protestaction made by anonymous, and i am pretty sure taht other countries hav etheir anonymous actios, shouldnt that be mentioned somehow anonaustria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.229.59 (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request 10/10/11

From the initial section:

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a group initiating active civil disobedience and spread through the Internet while staying hidden, originating in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many online community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain.

This is neigh unreadable. I propose it is simplified and split.

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a group initiating active civil disobedience and spread through the Internet, while attempting to maintain anonymity. Originating in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, the term refers to the the concept of many online community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, chaotic global brain.

175.35.216.12 (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Bility (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

how do i join???? 66.87.0.68 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You can join by clicking this link. – Richard BB 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 October 2011

Tumtumtumtums (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What edit are you requesting? If you can provide more information, please restore your edit request by setting answered=no in the template call. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Operation Darknet

new information about Anonymous:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/operation-darknet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.46.252 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ArsTechnica - Anonymous takes down darknet child porn site on Tor network — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.134.173.50 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You can read more sites on here: [1] PasteHTML – #OpDarknet

[2] CyberGuerrilla – Anonymous – Press Release 4/26/2011 – OPERATION DARKNET #OpDarknet

[3] Tor – Home

[4] Gawker – http://gawker.com/5851459/vigilante-hackers-wage-war-on-underground-kiddie-porn

[5] PasteBin – #OpDarknet Major Release & Timeline

[6] Ars Technica – Anonymous takes down darknet child porn site on Tor network

[7] PasteBin – #OpDarknet – To Catch A Predator

[8] YouTube – Become Anonymous

[9] PasteBin – #OpDarknet – Lolita City user dump

[10] Examiner – Anonymous exposes pedophile ring – hacks Lolita City

[11] Huffington Post – Anonymous Hacks Lolita City Alleged Porn Ring

[12] PC World – Hacker Collective Anonymous Strikes at Child Porn Sites

[13] Geekosystem – Anonymous Takes Down Massive Child Pornography Server, Leaks Usernames

[14] The Wall Street Journal – Anonymous Hacktivists Target Child Pornography Sites

[15] Information Week – Anonymous Attacks Child Pornography Websites

[16]BBC – Hackers take down child pornography sites

[17] Techie Buzz – An Interview with an OpDarknet Anon

[18] Reddit – Anonymous exposes pedophile ring

[19] Anonymous Hamburg – AnonyNEWS – KW4

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/operation-darknet#.TqY7WnETNq4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.78.18 (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Beatrice Hall

The quote referring to Beatrice Hall, to my knowledge it was the French 18th century philosopher François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire who first came up with this. Pls, check and correct.

BR/ Shogman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shogman (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonOps IRC Network

{{Editprotected}} Adding the URL for www.AnonOps.com / www.AnonOps.li / www.AnonOps.info for the network that was and is still used by followers of Anonymous. AnonOps has been made to give a user the access to discuss and conversate details regarding anything related. AnonOps does not allow Child Porn sharing or discussing, I don't think I have to explain why not. AnonOps tries to keep the users privileges and privacy on a high agenda. We also have been DDoS't a lot by people that dislike Anonymous, or AnonOps in itself, but we have withstand most attack we got towards our network. At this time of reading, AnonOps runs on reserves (WebIRC and IPv6 only) cause a group known as "Skidsr.us" is DDoS'ing us. Most operations regardin VISA/Mastercard, Sony and some AntiSec activity has been discussed and communicated through via AnonOps, which was being used by every individual and random person to gain information as in what has happened and what is happening at the moment. AnonOps does not allow any botnets or LOIC networks being hosted or controlled via our network.

Maybe create a small part regarding AnonOps's involvement with Anonymous and in which they aren't involved, as AnonOps has been a lot of discussion in the past and still. AnonOps is not Anonymous, we support Anonymous in their work of free-speech, which AnonOps tries to uplift as well.

[Edit] I notice AnonOps Communication blog link in this website. This has no links with AnonOps IRC network, which the site is located at www.anonops.com We do not support this page officially, since we have no idea what it is spreading under the "AnonOps" name handler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2a2008 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source given, so we can't edit the article.  Chzz  ►  00:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

Anonymous targeting Lt. John Pike of the UC Davis Police Department

While reviewing news reports for the Occupy UC Davis article, I stumbled upon various reports that Anonymous is now targeting Lt. John Pike of the UC Davis Police Department, and that it had released a YouTube video to that effect. By the time I got to YouTube, the video had been removed as being a violation of YouTube's policy against "hatespeech." - http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-protesters-spray-pike-089/ - // Internet Esquire (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Occupy movement wikilink to this article

Add Occupy movement wikilink to this article. See Occupy movement#Background and Occupy Wall Street#Origin for example. 99.181.134.134 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also see Occupy movement#Weeks 1 - 4 .28September 17 .E2.80.93 October 14.29 (Weeks 1 - 4 (September 17 – October 14, 2011)) which is similar to Occupy Wall Street#Chronology. 99.35.12.139 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)