The farcical comedy of "Wikileaks", "Anonymous" etc.

[warriorhun]

Dear Anonymouse,

As per the Anonymous, please consider this:

Do you think it is feasible, in this day and age, for private individuals, to organise a secret group via the internet with the openly declared aim to engage in cyber-espionage and cyber-terrorism?
I think not.

An observation I have made on the viewpoint/ideology of the Anonymous activists in Hungary: all of them clearly represented the Liberal/Lefty political viewpoint, and in Hungary this part of the political spectrum are the running dogs of NWO...

[Anonymouse]

Dear Anonymouse,

As per the Anonymous, please consider this:

Do you think it is feasible, in this day and age, for private individuals, to organise a secret group via the internet with the openly declared aim to engage in cyber-espionage and cyber-terrorism?
I think not.

Hmm, I don't know if I agree, although it really depends on what you mean by cyber-espionage and cyber-terrorism. See, because I was doing chanology stuff, I was working with a core group of people who were basically "moralfags" too. Even though it might have been lulzy to troll the CoS, if one didn't have actual empathy for the people stuck in that mindfuck of a cult, you'd get tired and bored of it all pretty quickly.

Now, at the same time I was doing my chanology thing, the "Operation Titstorm" ddos was being discussed on the forums. I told them, "Some of us actually want to watch the Federal Parliament committee webcasts, ya know?"...but apparently they didn't listen...or give a shit. Seriously...It's like herding cats.

Anyhow, I don't actually think ddos'ing is a very smart thing to do...a moral grey area, perhaps...but it's more an inconvenience than anything resembling "terrorism". As for anything more sinister than that...well, if it was going on (and that's a big "if"), it was a frickin' well-kept secret. Seriously, any real hacker threat to citizens will be state and/or corporate sponsored in some form or another. Whether that is done under the "anonymous" moniker remains to be seen.

The "espionage" one is interesting. I think it's kind of a given that anons, comprising such a diverse range of people, collectively have access to quite an array of sensitive information. The thing is that one can't just go "Hey I have a plan to steal a bunch of credit card numbers...Who's on board?", because you'll be told NYPA...GTFO...etc...etc... Just like most other normal, decent people, anons are not gonna help some random person steal other people's money, or whatever other malicious plot might be hatched.

One the other hand, I think anon has a weak spot: co-opting by stealth. They're well aware of more transparent attempts to PA them, but I have serious concerns about their ability to spot more covert methods. It seems to me that the work done here is very relevant to their interests! So, even while my cynical side starts reaching for the popcorn, the moralfag in me is really wanting media fakery to be taken up by more anons, especially in regards to leaked docs.

I know with Chanology, wikileaks played a vital role. They not only hosted the OT-III materials and other relevant documents, but they subsequently published the CoS's legal demands to remove the materials on copyright grounds (plus their reply, saying why they would not). Of course, even more Barbara Streisand effect ensued, and a deluge of leaked audio, training manuals, and internal communications were being uploaded all over the place.

Now, reviewing the work here, the obvious danger is that these genuine CoS leaks were serving as a trust-building exercise and that leaked misinformation is serving to co-opt anons by stealth. Anons want "dox"...and say "pix or it didn't happen"...but can they reliably spot bogus docs, or "pix AND it never happened"? How will they deal with information when NO source is reliable?

Anyhoo...my thoughts are a work in progress. The whole "decentralized" and "leaderless" thing is not just rhetoric, even if certain people end up in coordinating roles. Still, anon as a force only really has shape when it has something to rally behind which, in the misinformation age, seems a rather precarious state of affairs.

...though definitely not straight forward.

[reichstag fireman]

Anyhoo...my thoughts are a work in progress.

At the moment, what you're drip-feeding into this forum is disinformation under a heap of psychobabble.

[Anonymouse]

Anyhoo...my thoughts are a work in progress.

At the moment, what you're drip-feeding into this forum is disinformation under a heap of psychobabble.

Lol. Wot?

I'd say "obvious troll is obvious", but I think you might actually believe what you just said.

*Sigh*...Opinions and assholes...

[simonshack]

Anyhoo...my thoughts are a work in progress.

At the moment, what you're drip-feeding into this forum is disinformation under a heap of psychobabble.

Lol. Wot?

I'd say "obvious troll is obvious", but I think you might actually believe what you just said.

*Sigh*...Opinions and assholes...

Let me just chip in here. As I see it, "Anonymouse", your very screen name is the problem. In this day and age, anything "anonymous" triggers a natural rejection/suspicion. Why don't you just post with your real name? Why don't we ALL do so? As for myself, I have stated time and again that my real name is Simon Hytten - but I've been publicly known as "Simon Shack" (a registered name with the Swedish Musician's Union) ever since I started making music a couple of decades ago.

"Hytten" means: " the hut". My nickname "Shack" was coined by a Colorado jazz musician (Fontaine Burnette) who I used to jam with. One day he asked me: "What does "Hytten" mean? I answered: " The hut". So he quipped - " Damn, that's kinda tough to pronounce. Ah, well - I'll just call you "Shack" then..."

Now, seriously: WHAT EXACTLY is the point of everyone on the internet using nicknames instead of their real/or established names?

[Anonymouse]

Let me just chip in here. As I see it, "Anonymouse", your very screen name is the problem. In this day and age, anything "anonymous" triggers a natural rejection/suspicion. Why don't you just post with your real name? Why don't we ALL do so? As for myself, I have stated time and again that my real name is Simon Hytten - but I've been publicly known as "Simon Shack" (a registered name with the Swedish Musician's Union) ever since I started making music a couple of decades ago.

"Hytten" means: " the hut". My nickname "Shack" was coined by a Colorado jazz musician (Fontaine Burnette) who I used to jam with. One day he asked me: "What does "Hytten" mean? I answered: " The hut". So he quipped - " Damn, that's kinda tough to pronounce. Ah, well - I'll just call you "Shack" then..."

Now, seriously: WHAT EXACTLY is the point of everyone on the internet using nicknames instead of their real/or established names?

Well, maybe it's my well-ingrained paranoia speaking, but I NEVER use my real name on the internet. Then there's also my mum's paranoia which I absorbed over the years, fueled by tv-tales of internet predators lurking on every chat-room. Obviously, my anon friends know my offline identity (heck, I live with more than one of them)...but that's something I only divulged when I got to know them offline...with a scarf over my face.

Also, back in high school (when for us, reliable internet access was just coming in), I loved the whole being able to communicate ideas, completely disembodied from my real-world identity - and it's kinda never left. Instead of being terrified of saying something stupid and "never living it down" (as teenage girls are prone to think), having a handle was very liberating - plus teenage-girls are creep magnets. It's much easier just to let people assume you're a dude.

Then there's the whole not wanting to egofag - because when it comes to matters of importance, it's not about me, or getting credit for anything. It's why I even periodically change my handle. Anyhow...I understand why it might seem odd to you - me wanting to keep my online and offline persona's separate, but it is something that I value a whole bunch.

[reichstag fireman]

Well, personally, I stay incognito, for fear of losing my CGI'ed job here on the CGI'ed Space Station where I've been promoted to maître d' of the CGI'ed restaurant.

On a serious note, you are right, Simon. There's nothing to gain from anonymity. Even the lowliest shill it seems has access to government records, the contents of which on occasion are selectively divulged to unnerve and hopefully silence critics of the Apparatus. "We noze who you iz - we eezen noze woz you vatchen on zootube!!"

A few months back I was flicking through some papers belonging to a late relative who spent his life in academia. It caused some dismay to find he'd authored a report in the mid-60s for a NASA contractor - on the topic of the Lunar Exploration Module and its design.

When we visited him as young children, he'd often ask us the weirdest questions, quite often about NASA's legendary trips to our nearest celestial neighbour. A recurring topic of conversation was the relative energy densities of various fuels. Unfortunately, not a topic many six year olds could find enthusing. In hindsight, he was trying to educate us on the fraud he himself had helped to perpetuate. How shame can percolate out in the strangest ways.

[fbenario]

As I see it, "Anonymouse", your very screen name is the problem. In this day and age, anything "anonymous" triggers a natural rejection/suspicion. Why don't you just post with your real name? Why don't we ALL do so? As for myself, I have stated time and again that my real name is Simon Hytten - but I've been publicly known as "Simon Shack" (a registered name with the Swedish Musician's Union) ever since I started making music a couple of decades ago.

TOTALLY AGREE.

Many, many, more of you need to do so. The NSA has long had a copy of every email you've ever sent, every website you've ever visited, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. And? SO WHAT?

[Anonymouse]

Lol. "Peer pressure". You guys are a riot.

[LightCone]

'

I don't think the very crux of anonymity is deception.

What would we really gain if everyone used their real names anyways?

[simonshack]

'

I don't think the very crux of anonymity is deception.

What would we really gain if everyone used their real names anyways?

Nevermind - it's not such a big deal to me. Sorry for bringing it up, folks.

[Anonymouse]

Nevermind - it's not such a big deal to me. Sorry for bringing it up, folks.

No probs for me.

I really didn't mean to start dramas...and obviously I need to keep my virtual mouth shut when it can lead to a derail.

Sorry guys!

[fbenario]

I don't think the very crux of anonymity is deception.

What would we really gain if everyone used their real names anyways?

What, to you, IS the crux? And what other goals of anonymity are so obvious to you? (Don't worry, LightCone, this post is not aimed at you. So far your posts have credibility.)

Why SHOULD each of us use his real name? For new and relatively new members, the obvious main goal would be to build the trust of the other forum members. When someone stands behind his every word with full disclosure of who he is, it lends credibility to every word out of his mouth. New and short-tenure members are, as everyone here knows, very much distrusted until they build a record of credibility.

I'm sure we are all familiar with the phrase "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." Every human should live in the light, not the darkness, with every particle of his being.

And this post is very specifically NOT in any way aimed at, or intended for, ANY long-term member. Every one of us with a long tenure, and many 100s of posts (over 1000, for about 6 of us), have built up more than sufficient credibility without using his real name. Simon and my real last names are of course obvious to everyone.

[Anonymouse]

I don't think the very crux of anonymity is deception.

What would we really gain if everyone used their real names anyways?

What, to you, IS the crux? And what other goals of anonymity are so obvious to you? (Don't worry, LightCone, this post is not aimed at you. So far your posts have credibility.)

Why SHOULD each of us use his real name? For new and relatively new members, the obvious main goal would be to build the trust of the other forum members. When someone stands behind his every word with full disclosure of who he is, it lends credibility to every word out of his mouth. New and short-tenure members are, as everyone here knows, very much distrusted until they build a record of credibility.

I'm sure we are all familiar with the phrase "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." Every human should live in the light, not the darkness, with every particle of his being.

And this post is very specifically NOT in any way aimed at, or intended for, ANY long-term member. Every one of us with a long tenure, and many 100s of posts (over 1000, for about 6 of us), have built up more than sufficient credibility without using his real name. Simon and my real last names are of course obvious to everyone.

Why do you need to trust people? How does that validate their contributions?

We're all just pixels on a screen. There's no way for me to check that you're actually who you say you are (or anyone else really). Anything anyone posts will stand or fall on it's own merit...at least it should.

The only advantage to be named, is when you're a primary source of information (like a whistle blower) and being named can help verify your story - OR, if you're addressing the general public and have professional qualifications that lend weight to your assertions.

For everything else, I think all of your offline identities are totally irrelevant - and an unneeded distraction from the content of your work.

You should be able to stay on target, and get shit done, even if the boards are teaming with infiltrators, spies and trolls. Seriously - this is not something any of you should care about. You have bigger fish to fry, remember?

[fbenario]

I just sent a slightly longer PM to Anonymouse expanding on this paragraph:

"There's a reason I'm belaboring this point [about anonynimity]. From when I was little my father repeatedly said the only thing of value I have is my word, and if anyone ever thinks I'm a liar or untrustworthy, nothing else I have is of any value at all, including money. I will go to any length within reason to keep anyone anywhere from seeing me as a liar, or as hiding something, like my name. It is the only thing about me personally that I care about in the slightest. I have little money, and little interest in ever getting more."

LightCone, I'm still waiting for your comments on what you see the crux of anonymity being, and what your goals are if they aren't deception.