| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (167)

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:32AM ObiAlKenobi said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Yeah right. Throw the stone and hide the hand.

These kids are rally badass.......

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:38AM ObiAlKenobi said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@ObiAlKenobi : The sadest part is that many sites reporting these kids activities, are treating these children like an organized group
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:40AM Typhonic said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@ObiAlKenobi
The saddest part is that you a) don't know if they are children and b) actually care about such things.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:52AM mmmfishtacos said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Typhonic Every been in their chat rooms? Thats prof enough they are children.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:38AM mairondil said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Typhonic

They are still children. 12-15 years ago, they were known as script kiddies. Now they're known as Anonymous
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 12:14PM schpelTiger said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@ObiAlKenobi Wow! You know absolutely nothing! Congrats.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 2:26PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@ObiAlKenobi

What I find entertaining is that the hacking they were doing in the first place wasn't exactly legal, whether or not it was morally right, so technically they don't have a leg to stand on, even if what they are doing is for the god of the people.

A parent can't decide to punish a company by taking a stand and refusing to leave until their rights are met, then avoid the situation and act as though it wasn't their fault when their child raids and steals several important documents.

You started it, take bloody responsibility, if you can't keep your members in check, maybe you should reconsider the purpose of your group and the rules it abides by.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 3:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ObiAlKenobi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29
learn a little something about anonymous before just making your judgments based off of your gaming anger. I think its obvious who the kids are in here
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 4:07PM Vocality said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

It's on Wikipedia so it MUST be truth.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 4:34PM Mutagenaric said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Spunky Monkey 190906 Let me get this straight: if a parent decides to stand up for his or her rights against a massive company, and then their children do something entirely unrelated and illegal, the parents ought to be held responsible NOT because they ought to take better care of their children, but because standing up for the little guy creates social disorder that leads to criminal acts?

That's what it sounded like you said. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's definitely what I'm hearing.

Anyways, the rest of the people who are saying that Anon as a whole ought to be blamed for the actions that MAY OR MAY NOT have been committed by certain of its members are either hypocrites or irrational. Do you believe that all Americans should be held responsible for the Bhopal chemical spill in India? Because maybe America should have "centralized" and "reigned in" Union Carbide. And yes, people DO have a choice about being American or not - but if you still don't like that analogy, how about blaming all Muslims for 9/11/01, or all Christians for the Westboro Baptists? Use your heads, people; this is the exact same kind of fallacious logic that justifies genocides all over the world.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 4:43PM Once known as Shadsy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Spunky Monkey 190906 Never take a philosophy course.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:34AM Spookimitsu said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Anon has PR?

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:22AM kurian2z5 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
How can anonymous deny or take credit for anything. No one knows what the other are doing. ANYTHING that ANYONE has done in life was potentially done by anonymous.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:14AM ironneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ForeverAndEver

I find myself entertained by the header picture mostly. It's actually quite spiffy.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:25AM Mrguy you know that guy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Spookimitsu Aren't the hackers still anonymous, Anonymous? hyuk hyuk
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:35AM AnderFREAK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@kurian2z5
At least someone gets it...
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:55AM Che J P said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Spookimitsu

No. What people don't get is that Anon is not necessarily a group. That "announcement" could have been written by one "member" or a small group of them. There is no particular voice or face of Anon. Just a bunch of people. No one distinct idea or ideal. This press release means NOTHING. If you go to their boards it's easy to see what I'm saying. A portion of the Anon community very well could've had a hand in this SONY thing. There's already YouTube videos of "members" claiming to have been a part of the shinnanigan. This letter means nothing.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 12:50PM SaviorSpherioth said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Che J P

The goggles! They do nothing!
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 1:28PM Stevetrop Man of Mystery said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Che J P

Exactly Anon is like a group of birds. They fly together in a flock but they also split apart and do things independently. One Anon could make a claim, then another Anon could retort it. They can save kitties, then go off and reveal private information of a corporation they are against.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 4:22PM Daverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Spookimitsu

Seriously the very definition of Anonymous defines that they do not know if they themselves are involved or not.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 5:26PM Mach2 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@kurian2z5
Anything that anyone has ever done, hm?
OH GOD. ANON ARE THE MODERN REPRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLARS.

Assassins at the ready!
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:37AM Sailorjeff said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, I love their statement. Especially this part:

"Of course, the "intrusion" could still have been the work of someone who self-identifies as an Anonymous member; that very "distributed and decentralized" structure makes it difficult to identify officially sanctioned actions by those claiming affiliation."

Therefore, making it your fault. Sorry, want to be a decentralized group? Then you take the hit when your immature members do criminal, unwanted activities. I'm getting tired of this "we didn't sanction it, unless when convenient." diatribe these morons put out.

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:43AM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Sailorjeff
"Sorry, want to be a decentralized group?"
if they want is not the question. they simply don't have any other choice.
anonymous would never work any other way.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:47AM DarkSonata said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff
that part was a JC's comment dude....
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:53AM Banksyliveraa said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Sailorjeff
Exactly. Either centralise or GTFO.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:55AM ytilanigiroon said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff

You're aware that the bit you are quoting was written by JC Fletcher and not Anonymous, right?
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:15AM Sailorjeff said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ytilanigiroon

I'm sorry if im mistaken but the quoted bit in the center (how this post is written) indicates that it is a statement that was sent to the guardian by Anon. If im misreading that, I apologize but I dont think i am.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:17AM Rather Dashing said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff The problem with this is pretty obvious to me. Though a group may have decentralized leadership, it's obvious that if only a tiny portion of self-identifier's attack, it can't be considered an overall action by an entire group. If I were to, for example, perform charitable activities while claiming Anon affiliation, could the headlines be "Anon works at soup kitchen", "Anonymous Entertains at Children's Parties", or "Anonymous Donates to Homeless Shelters"?

I don't think decentralized means what you think it means.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:30AM FriedConsole said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff

Anonymous can take credit for stuff the public views as cool. Disavow actions that turn people against Anonymous. Genius.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:35AM BigDaddy0790 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff Exactly. They just told us that it might be them, so their statement was pretty useless.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:36AM Sailorjeff said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Rather Dashing

No, I'm well aware what decentralized means. The problem with claiming that you are a decentralized group is that you can pick and choose what you take credit for. I have a feeling that if the gamer outcry wasnt so vitriolic against this, they would have claimed this as well.

Dont get me wrong, I hate corps that abuse power or are bad news but this anon hack (the first one) has opened the flood gates for a complete raping of the sony servers.

And im not going to play into the victimization theory responses i will probably get on this either. No servers are unhackable. I just hope sony learned that IT security is much more important than they and 90% of other companies think.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:40AM rowd149 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff This part?:

"Of course, the "intrusion" could still have been the work of someone who self-identifies as an Anonymous member; that very "distributed and decentralized" structure makes it difficult to identify officially sanctioned actions by those claiming affiliation."

Uh, no, those're JC's words. You ARE reading it wrong.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:40AM Sailorjeff said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@FriedConsole

Yeah this +100.

On the other hand, how long IS it going to take Sony to get things back up. I know they said this week but the week is whittling down fast here lol.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:44AM Sailorjeff said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rowd149

Well, Maybe i did, I at least copped to it.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 12:41PM PN04 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff
the most important part of any of their timeline statements is that they're not going to bring it back up until they're sure it's secure. Yeah they could probably be back up tonight but it'd just get hacked again if they didn't make sure the server was nailed shut.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 1:14PM Sailorjeff said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PN04

Yeah I guess you are right on that. I'm wantin some online gameplay though. However I'd rather wait than have my info stolen again or have something else happen that screws up their servers even more.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 1:53PM Victoryismine52 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff
Though JC worded that comment members of Anon have stated the same thing on their boards saying that the attacks could have been done by rouge members of their group even though the group as a whole doesn't condone the attack
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 3:10PM sigma8 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Sailorjeff
Doesn't a lot of religion kind of work like that? Aren't we only now getting over blaming all muslims for the acts of a few crazy people who happened to be muslim? So you're saying we should do the same for Anonymous, and any other decentralized group? Mission statements and purpose don't matter?
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 3:46PM Sailorjeff said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

Are we really doing this? We are going to compare generalizing an entire religion to generalizing that a group of criminals are criminals? Look whether you agree with what they do or not, its criminal behavior when they launch DDoS attacks and whatnot. It takes a great leap of logic to try and correlate these two issues.

Note: I'm just speaking about Anon in general now not regarding this particular attack.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
the bad thing is: i believe them

anonymous wouldn't have done the hack because of financial interests, so my data would still be secure...someone else on the other hand who wants to stay anonymous and blames anonymous (the irony) could very well be interested in selling the data. in that case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXU8w336oGs

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:49AM copa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

I agree completely, I wish it was Anonymous. I wouldn't go so far as to say our data would be secure. But it's unlikely that the password information would be sold to someone who plans to launch viruses/malware through people who reuse the same password on Facebook/Twitter. And it would make it much less likely that financial fraud will occur if credit cards were in fact compromised.

I wish it was Anonymous, but it probably wasn't.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:38AM Typhonic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cue shitstorm of anti-anonymous banter by Joystiq users.

Posted: May 5th 2011 12:02PM ShadowXIII said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
This whole damn thing is a spiraling vortex of stupid.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 3:17PM Kiron67 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Typhonic

The idea that this attack in anyway resembles Anon's modus operandi is ridiculous.

Yes, a month ago, a whole bunch of 14 - 19 y.o kids with LOIC assembled under the banner of 'Anonymous' and launched a DDOS attack against Sony. However, this simple distributed attack does not in anyway prove that they then went and hacked (here meaning; actually broke into) their network!

DDOS with LOIC =/= Hacking.

What happened to Sony's network (from the little information we have been provided) must be seen as a proper 'hack', which requires manipulating the network through code based means - i.e; not SOCIAL ENGINEERING or simple DDOS.

While I'm sure, in the global, gelatinous, undulating, oozing, conglomerate that is Anonymous, there is at least (if not more than) ONE person who is capable of this kind of attack - the idea that it was "all their idea all along" is an impossibility - if anything, it is the responsibility of the individual not the mass in this case. That is, if the attacker even had anything to do with Anonymous (which I highly doubt).
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:39AM doubtingthomas said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Can we just be done with Anon already?

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:51AM Apsac D said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@doubtingthomas

Yeah, I can see what they're trying to do. To get back at a company for offering great hardware, software and free, online services.

So far, all they've done is piss off the legitimate users. I don't think they were behind this attack, they said themselves that the user's are in their best interest. I believe them.

However, I am sick of hearing about them. They took PSN or Sony's website or something down for a day or so... Then started a small protest in a few places. Sony is probably laughing at them. I know I am.

Initially, I didn't care, but now I just want to stop hearing stuff about what Anonymous is and isn't doing.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:40AM Liquidfingers said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Apsac D

personally, i don't think sony is laughing at anyone right now.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 11:44AM Deaths Hand said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Liquidfingers They're laughing at Nintendo because Anon just hacked into DSiware: http://images.nintendolife.com/games/dsiware/anonymous_notes_chapter_2_from_the_abyss/cover_large.jpg
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 2:54PM The Aquacharger said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deaths Hand
That's an actual DSiware game.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 10:39AM ShingoEX said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Accusing Anonymous is about as lazy as Sony can get...

"Uh...duh...um...duh...oh...herp...derp...uh, Anonymous did it...yeah, uh...ok...yeah...that's the ticket...HERP DERP...hackers on steroids n' shit, yeah...uh...yeah..."

This is called "blaming a group for the sake of saving yourselves wasting even more money trying to find the actual culprit". Scapegoat much?

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW