Jump to content

Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Operationanonymous (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 26 February 2011 (→Edit request from Operationanonymous, 26 February 2011: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2008Articles for deletionKept
March 19, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 11, 2009Articles for deletionKept

Template:Calm talk

Unsourced additions to page

[1] and [2] = please, do not add unsourced additions to the page, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caption changed such that it reflects specifically on the source, and is thus cited. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLeaks

Reportedly, Anonymous supports WikiLeaks: [3] [4]

I've been told that these don't count as reliable sources. However, with a group like Anonymous, no formal announcement is possible (since it has no formal leader etc.). So how much coverage do we need, exactly, to count this claim as reliable? Sonicsuns (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just found it in the New York Times: [5] Sonicsuns (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Anonymous does not support Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an organization bent on one purpose self gain. This is against the anonymous creed. False prophets claim to be anonymous. Do not be deceived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.200.73 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Anonymous supports Wikileaks ^that guy is not representative of anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.208 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Beck vs. Eiland-Hall link because it has zero bearing on Anonymous as a group. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These should be mentioned

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Operation Tunisia

So anonymous has been busy helping activist fight censorship laws in Tunisia. When should we add this into the article?--Mutlee (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also this.
and this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Jimmy666 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
already added to the article.Дунгане (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous's activities have been linked to islamist terrorist organizations, please add this section to the article-

The terrorist group Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb has voiced support for the demonstrators against the Tunisian and Algerian Governments, in a video released on January 13, 2011, which was reported by an American organization. Al Qaeda offered military aid and training to the demonstrators, calling them to overthrow "the corrupt, criminal and tyrannical" regime, calling for "retaliation" against the Tunisian government, and also calling for the overthrow of Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika. AQIM leader Abu Musab Abdul Wadud starred in the video. He called for Islamic sharia law to be established in Tunisia.[1] Al Qaeda has begun recruiting the anti government demonstrators, some of the Algeriain and Tunisian protestors have taken up arms before to battle American forces in Iraq and Israeli forces in Gaza.[2]

Maybe that would be relevant to the Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Abdelaziz Bouteflika articles. It seems a little POV and with an agenda to put it here, i'll tone it down a little before adding it to the section.Дунгане (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZINE EL ABIDINE BEN ALI IS PROTECTED YOU MORON, I CAN NOT EDIT NEITHER THIS NOR BEN ALI'S ARTICLE WHY THE HELL DID YOU THINK I POSTED THIS MESSAGE ON THE TALK PAGE!?!?!?!Mr Bey Dey (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHILL out- Wikipedia:Civility, i regret not seeing that you are not an autoconfirmed user and cannot add content to protected articles, but thats no reason to go out in all caps. I will add it to the article and see what others say.Дунгане (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this in the article. Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a link to anonops.ru and the IRC channel irc.anonops.ru?--Drwwht (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes

Maybe, it's never been clear to me if anonops.ru has much importance. Aren't the protests organized through whyweprotest.net? Isn't the core history based more around /b/? Anonops might be most relevant to the LOIC, but presumably it's mentioned there already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.122.34 (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Anonymous" Russia in action (and in the news)

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html --94.246.150.68 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rferl.org/content/putin_mansion_photographs/2283270.html too. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be afraid to add the information to the article yourself- see WP:BOLD.Дунгане (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I take that back, i forgot the article is protected. You should create an account to edit the article.Дунгане (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KTTV Fox 11 news report

That section has been mistakenly removed. The content is still there, but the header is gone. As a result, there's content unrelated to Operation Tunisia that is listed as part of Operation Tunisia. I'd fix it, but I can't edit the page. --Borror0 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - TT-97976's comment somehow hid the section title (and the entire section before it). --Six words (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

De facto flag for the Anonymous group

I can not edit the page. --212.183.198.9 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Put the flag!!! --212.183.198.9 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a version without the green-and-black background (a "coat of arms") would be more appropriate. I have not encountered this background on Anonymous-related media ever. Ian (87.205.138.43 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The 'coat of arms' is becoming increasingly popular and useful for the media, as it presents an easily copy/pasted element to use in place of an unavailable photograph. However, while the flag is less frequently used, it is nonetheless a good choice for this article for its use of colors. Green and black are also common themes in Anonymous iconography. We just need to cite it properly. --Cast (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of an unofficial flag at the top of the page, we should include it at the bottom in a gallery with Anonymous related images and symbols. I prefer an image of people participating in an Anonymous event to any flag graphic. KLP (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with using human activists is that it tilts the perception of Anonymous towards the activist angle. My decision behind including two images, a flag image and activists, in the Infobox was to give equal weight to Anonymous as concept (graphic symbol) and as activist cause (unknown people in a group, on the ground). I'm prepared to replace the flag with a simple coat-of-arms, but I insist that it be set beside masked activists. One should not replace the other. They've become indivisible at this point. Also, don't forget that masked activists have only been associated with one operation— Chanology. The most well known activist causes (Payback; Tunisia; Leakspin) are still not associated with masked protesters yet. We should consider issues of weight. --Cast (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I would prefer the simple emblem to the flag, as the flag seems to be just one of many variations of the emblem. As for the photo, perhaps we can find one a little more illustrative than guys in masks. I'd suggest this one, less the demotivational part, but I haven't found its source yet. KLP (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few images that may be of use, if we dig around on Wikicommons. How about this protest at Hamburg, which combines the Anonymous flag with activists? Then we can safely replace the flag with the coat of arms, and maintain the link between the emblem and activism. I'll create a small gallery we can use for the purpose below. Feel free to add more for consideration.--Cast (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find something with more irreverence. The image I linked to included a reference to long cat amid a serious protest against CO$. IMHO, that, or something similar, could successfully typify Anonymous. KLP (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that's where you were going, but there was nothing like that in commons. Well, we could always skim through some photos of the era and ask if anyone has images of a meme-riddled protest they can upload. I hoped the Hamburg image would be useful, as it at least has the Anons being playful ("Free Brainwash" and such). --Cast (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No flag, but useful for the emblem.
    No flag, but useful for the emblem.

Operation Egypt added?

I'm wondering if the "Anonymous Press Release" on "Operation Egypt" relating to the Egyptian government's shut down of the internet and cell phone service should be covered on this page. I am referring to the message as given in the following YouTube video and some other similar ones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZw9EzQIa4E&feature=related

I've seen the video or variants (same audio, different video) of it shown on Al Jazeera English, and it's probably been shown on other networks as well (confirm?). The page is of course locked; I can't make the edit. Errantsignal (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable mentioning anonymous in relation to egypt protests: msnbc [6] Huffington post [7] Washington post [8] IBTimes [9] 88.192.37.191 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also a mention here, BBC [10]. If this page remains locked, wikipedia editors really needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for keeping it up to date. 165.112.60.201 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Operation Egypt Should be fully explained! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.208 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anonymous" is not a mass noun

Mass nouns in English are pretty exclusively determined by the absence of determiners and the use of a single agent verb inflection. The are in "We are Anonymous. We are legion." is a multiple-referent inflection on the verb. The syntactic category is pretty clearly a regular use of a proper name NP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeminemaudlin (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Founded" field in infobox

What should we say for when this group was founded? The new infobox initially said 1997 but now it says 2008. According to the article, actions attributable to them have occurred at least as early as 2006 (i.e. Habbo). I understand it's difficult to be sure due to the loosely defined nature of the group. Discuss/consensus? 71.231.76.242 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the field need not be filled at all until a source on the subject can be found. In reality, the meme holds its origins in the founding of 4chan, when Moot and other administrators first debated emulating 2chan's culture of anonymity. Some of the earliest memes, including catch phrases such as "Anonymous does not forgive" stem from this period. But until we get some original source on this, we can't cite it. However, citation is only necessary for statements that are potential sources of conflict. If no one disputes the origin of the meme, we can put the date as coinciding with the early years of 4chan. That would be 2003 to start, with a little bleed-over into 2004 for the development of the memetic themes. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HBGARY and stuxnet

See this and this the first is a link where the guardian reports that anonymous might have stuxnet, and the 2nd one says that (in the manifesto in the same link), in response to the declarations by Greg Hoglund, addittional 27000 emails were leaked. Please, if the page is going to remain protected (i understand the reasonning) then atleast have a minimum effort to keep it up to date.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.122.167 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if you want to see it edited, you could always create an account and edit it yourself. Be bold about it. --Cast (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous and Anarchy

Per Cast's (talk) suggestion, I'd like to discuss Anonymous as an example of anarchy with respect to self-organization or the political inclinations of its constituent members. I, for one, believe that Anonymous does exemplify anarchy in terms of self organization and that the article deserves a section on this phenomenon. Any takers? KLP (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the easy solution is Google to see if they've been described as an Anarchist group or not. If yes, then we can at least list it as a see-also. If the group disputes it, or there is commentary contradicting the label or its meaning, then we might need a separate section to address the philosophical nature/purpose of the group. Let's start with sources, both inside and outside Anonymous and see what they say. That way we don't have to rely on anyone's personal opinion of either Anonymous or Anarchy. Ocaasi (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Add... Also, it's important to distinguish between Anarchy as a method and Anarchy as a goal. I think it's clear that the lack of top-down coordination which Anonymous uses is a form of Anarchy, but that is quite different from the group wanting a world in which no governments exist. Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Your findings satisfy the see-also requirement, but we'll have to wait until someone publishes a an assessment in order to include a proper anarchy section. KLP (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has to be a specific section on Anonymous philosophy. I think there is already plenty out there to focus on the sub-culture aspects of Anonymous (the memes, the aesthetics, the themes) and that minor references to politics can be safely made there. A section on origins as a meme already exist. Expand on it there. Specifically, take a listen to this: [11], a radio interview where the dark humor of Anonymous is discussed. There are other references and explanations of memes and mottos in several news reports. Throw politics in there and go with it. --Cast (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy/Anarchic

  • http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/12894: "We are not a terrorist organization as governments, demagogues, and the media would have you believe. Rather, Anonymous is a spontaneous collective of people who share the common goal of protecting the free flow of information on the Internet. Our ranks are filled with people representative of many parts of the world and all political orientations. We can be anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you are in a public place right now, take a look over your shoulder: everyone you see has all the requirements to be an Anon. But do not fret, for you too have all the requirements to stand with those who fight for free information and accountability."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Incidentally, also very useful for sources on other aspects of Anonymous as a sub-culture, such as the Guy Fawks meme (4:39 - 5:58), the importance of thematic iconography and memes (6:05 - 6:27, 12:00 - 14:32), and how an action becomes supported by Anonymous (1:32 - 2:42)] --Cast (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Anarchy/Anarchic

Lead focus

There seems to be some inadvertent disagreement over the lead's focus--anonymous the group or anonymous the meme. I think the title of this article gives primacy to the former, and that the opening paragraph should clearly identify Anonymous in its more recent collaborative and newsworthy form, then giving the meme as a background, and then focusing on specific activities, as well as public reception. We can work on adding the later parts, but I think the current lead gets the order backwards, or suggests a separate article (or a new title). Thoughts? (note: I think it's User:Cast taking the other side here, so I am curious what he/she thinks)... Ocaasi (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a lot to be said on this subject; for now, I'll focus on a few important points to think about going forward. First: as we gather information, the majority of news reports will only cover the activist elements of Anonymous. The difficulty in providing a factual basis for the background meme will be compounded by the need to avoid undue weight to obscure details. No one cares about the latest meme in the Anonymous lexicon, but how else do we explain references the articles themselves make? Second: Anonymous is gaining coverage at an exponential rate - Wikipedia can hardly keep up - but Anonymous, by vast majority consists of people on the sidelines. That wing of the Legion is busy with the latest memetic variation on Waha! and Nevada-tan. We should give all due weight to those most notable elements of Anonymous, while baring in mind that the present order is not indicative of long term trends (or Project Chanology would still be the prime mission of the activists.) After the short term raids have subsided, Anonymous will move on, but will still have the same origin and the same majority of non-activists. The activism will always be more notable and encyclopedic, but not the best way of promoting understanding of the surviving cyberculture. My primary concern is recentism. (And I'm a guy, as there are no girls on the interwebs.)--Cast (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your concern with recentism. I would counter that although coverage of the group/activist aspects are more recent, it is also disproportionately the aspect that has received coverage from reliable sources, so it would seem to me per WP:Weight that we concentrate our focus on those aspects. I do see your point that acting as if activism was the real goal of the "group" rather than just one of the memes' manifestations is putting a box around a very amoebic thing. Still, I'd start specific, then cover the history, process, etc, and only in the latter half of the article discuss specific activism. Something along these lines, but not verbatim:

  • History
  • Meme-making
  • Message Boards
  • Lulz and internet culture
  • General goals (freedom of info, taking down bad guys in positions of authority)
  • Early projects (Chanology)
  • DDos attacks
  • Wikileaks activism
  • Current projects (Westborough Baptist)
  • Public Reception (support/criticism)
  • Future orientation of the group (recent raids, planned projects, changing leadership, changing goals, etc)

Ocaasi (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're largely in agreement. I referenced the importance of the weight of the activities. However, I think this is all moot. The lead should reflect and summarize the article as a whole. The article must take shape before changes to the lead become fixed. I think we've put the horse before the carriage, and I'm prepared to drop my objections to alternative versions of the lead for now, assuming editing the the main article continues at a steady pace to keep up with current events and available sources. If the main article becomes moribund while the edited lead does not reflect it, the neither part of the article is serving its proper role. --Cast (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 173.164.136.226, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} On 20 February 2011, Anonymous posted a press release claiming that Westboro Church was the true author of the "open letter", and that above all else Anon supports free speech http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=494

173.164.136.226 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting situation. Can we trust the site's reliability as the 'official' spokesperson for the group? Or could it just be someone else, individually, or contrarily posting to create confusion? If the site is itself relevant, we can probably use it, but may need to attribute the statement specifically to AnonNews rather than 'an Anonymous press release'. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the website: AnonNews uses an open-posting concept. Anyone can post to the site, and moderators will approve relevant posts. No censorship takes place! For information, edits, moderator applications, and everything else join the IRC channel or visit info@anonnews.org. Press can contact press@anonnews.org. We are not an official press platform, but we'd gladly answer questions about AnonNews, or, more broadly, get you in touch with other Anons.
From the press release: To the Media: Just because it was posted on AnonNews doesn't mean every single Anon is in agreement, in fact in this case it doesn't even mean a single Anon is in agreement. Next time, if you could give us a few minutes to put all our paperwork in order, we'll be sure to let you know what we're up to. (LOL) To Anonymous: It's a trap. They've got their ports wide open to harvest IPs to sue. Don't DDoS, and boycott Operation Westboro. If you really want to continue messing with them, just send them a few male prostitutes and faxes of goatse. Nothing more. (Note: This letter was written by more than 20 Anons, at the same time, and none of them were inbredfamily members. Unlike that other, shitty "Press Release".)
So my question would be, how can we know the press release is or is not accurate? Ocaasi (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the neutral perspective for Wikipedia to take on would be to cite that competing posts were made, and that accusations of illigetimacy were bandied about. The prose doesn't have to say "Anonymous released a press release," but rather, "a press was released on a website associated with Anonymous. Various media sources reported the event and ascribed the actions to the larger group. However, this was disputed by a second press release on the same website hours later." Just an idea. The best thing to do would be to wait until the dust settles before we made moves on it. --Cast (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

No section on the Anonymous page yet, despite them saying they would help. I just tried to go on the official website of Moamar al-Gaddafi, but it appears to have been taken down. I dont know who did this, but I assume it was Anon. Can somebody verify/debunk this and create a section for Libya on their page?

Website I reffered to: http://www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.239.134 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we took it down. Check HiveMind status on LoIC, more to come ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.88.166 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Add

Add the info: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9211305/Anonymous_hacks_church_Web_site_during_live_interview http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/frvmz/westboro_baptist_church_smited_by_anonymous/ http://browsershots.org/screenshots/d182f4c25d5ef3a56a25d48eee29e932 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.88.166 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could just create an account and edit it yourself. If you have time to make a Talk thread, you have time to sign in and edit an article. --Cast (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is semi-protected (there is a small bronze lock in the upper right corner of the article page). He can't edit the article to add anything. He has to post the info here in the talk page so someone with editing rights can add it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Operationanonymous, 26 February 2011

Anonymous
Formation2003-2004
TypeInternet meme;
Multiple-use name/avatar;
Virtual community;
Voluntary association
PurposeEntertainment;
Cyber-bullying;
Internet activism;
Internet trolling;
Internet vigilantism
Region served
Global
MembershipDecentralized affinity group
Parent organization
4chan[3]

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is an Internet meme originating 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many on-line community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain.[3] It is also generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known.[4]

In its early form, the concept has been adopted by a decentralized on-line community acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal, and primarily focused on entertainment. As of 2008, the Anonymous collective has become increasingly associated with collaborative, international hacktivism, undertaking protests and other actions, often with the goal of promoting internet freedom and freedom of speech. Actions credited to "Anonymous" are undertaken by unidentified individuals who apply the Anonymous label to themselves as attribution.[5]

Although not necessarily tied to a single on-line entity, many websites are strongly associated with Anonymous. This includes notable imageboards such as 4chan and Futaba, their associated wikis, Encyclopædia Dramatica, and a number of forums.[6] After a series of controversial, widely-publicized protests and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks by Anonymous in 2008, incidents linked to its cadre members have increased. [7] In consideration of its capabilities, Anonymous has been posited by CNN to be the successor to WikiLeaks.[8]

Background

Origins as a concept and a meme

An anonymous figure cosplays as Anonymous. Photographed at ROFLcon on April 26, 2008

The name Anonymous itself is inspired by the perceived anonymity under which users post images and comments on the Internet. Usage of the term Anonymous in the sense of a shared identity began on imageboards. A tag of Anonymous is assigned to visitors who leave comments without identifying the originator of the posted content. Users of imageboards sometimes jokingly acted as if Anonymous were a real person. As the popularity of imageboards increased, the idea of Anonymous as a collective of unnamed individuals became an internet meme.[9]

Anonymous broadly represents the concept of any and all people as an unnamed collective. As a multiple-use name, individuals who share in the "Anonymous" moniker also adopt a shared online identity, characterized as hedonistic and uninhibited. This is intended as a satirical, conscious adoption of the online disinhibition effect.[10]


Definitions tend to emphasize the fact that the concept, and by extension the collective of users, cannot be readily encompassed by a simple definition. Instead it is often defined by aphorisms describing perceived qualities.[3]

Iconography and aesthetics

As a cyberculture, Anonymous aesthetics are based in various forms of shock humour, including genres of cringe, surreal, and black comedy.[10]

Online composition

Anonymous consists largely of users from multiple imageboards and internet forums. In addition, several wikis and Internet Relay Chat networks are maintained to overcome the limitations of traditional imageboards. These modes of communication are the means by which Anonymous protesters participating in Project Chanology communicate and organize upcoming protests.[11][12]

A "loose coalition of Internet denizens,"[13] the group is banded together by the internet, through sites such as 4chan,[11][13] 711chan,[11] Encyclopædia Dramatica,[14] IRC channels,[11] and YouTube.[4] Social networking services, such as Facebook, are used for the creation of groups which reach out to people to mobilize in real-world protests.[15]

Anonymous has no leader or controlling party, and relies on the collective power of its individual participants acting in such a way that the net effect benefits the group.[13] "Anyone who wants to can be Anonymous and work toward a set of goals..." a member of Anonymous explained to the Baltimore City Paper. "We have this agenda that we all agree on and we all coordinate and act, but all act independently toward it, without any want for recognition. We just want to get something that we feel is important done..." [3]

Activities

The activities in this section were attributed to Anonymous either by their perpetrators or in the media. The actions taken by Anonymous do not seem to follow any single shared agenda. Those identifying with the term often take action simply for amusement. This is known within sites affiliated with Anonymous as "doing it for the lulz."

Habbo raids

A popular target for organized raids by Anonymous is Habbo, a popular social networking site designed as a virtual hotel. The first major raid is known as the "Great Habbo Raid of '06," and a subsequent raid the following year is known as the "Great Habbo Raid of '07."[16] The raid actually predates and was not inspired by the news of an Alabama amusement park banning a two-year-old toddler affected by AIDS from entering the park's swimming pool.[17] Users signed up to the Habbo site dressed in avatars of a black man wearing a grey suit and an Afro hairstyle and blocked entry to the pool, declaring that it was "closed due to AIDS,"[16][18] flooding the site with internet sayings,[18] and forming swastika-like formations.[18] When the raiders were banned, they complained of racism.[18] In response, the Habbo admins often ban users with avatars matching the profile of the raiders even months after the latest raid.[citation needed]

Hal Turner raid

Main article: Hal Turner

According to white supremacist radio host Hal Turner, in December 2006 and January 2007 individuals who identified themselves as Anonymous took Turner's website offline, costing him thousands of dollars in bandwidth bills. As a result, Turner sued 4chan, eBaum's World, 7chan, and other websites for copyright infringement. He lost his plea for an injunction, however, and failed to receive letters from the court, which caused the lawsuit to lapse.[19]

Chris Forcand arrest

On December 7, 2007, the Canada-based Toronto Sun newspaper published a report on the arrest of the alleged Internet predator Chris Forcand.[20] Forcand, 53, was charged with two counts of luring a child under the age of 14, attempt to invite sexual touching, attempted exposure, possessing a dangerous weapon, and carrying a concealed weapon.[21] The report stated that Forcand was already being tracked by "cyber-vigilantes who seek to out anyone who presents with a sexual interest in children" before police investigations commenced.[20]

A Global Television Network report identified the group responsible for Forcand's arrest as a "self-described Internet vigilante group called Anonymous" who contacted the police after some members were "propositioned" by Forcand with "disgusting photos of himself." The report also stated that this is the first time a suspected Internet predator was arrested by the police as a result of Internet vigilantism.[22]

Project Chanology

Main article: Project Chanology
Protest by Anonymous against the practices and tax status of the Church of Scientology.

The group gained worldwide press for Project Chanology, the protest against the Church of Scientology.[23]

On January 14, 2008, a video produced by the Church featuring an interview with Tom Cruise was leaked to the Internet and uploaded to YouTube.[24][25][26] The Church of Scientology issued a copyright violation claim against YouTube requesting the removal of the video.[27] In response to this, Anonymous formulated Project Chanology.[28][29][30][31] Calling the action by the Church of Scientology a form of Internet censorship, members of Project Chanology organized a series of denial-of-service attacks against Scientology websites, prank calls, and black faxes to Scientology centers.[32]

"Message to Scientology", January 21, 2008

On January 21, 2008, individuals claiming to speak for Anonymous announced their goals and intentions via a video posted to YouTube entitled "Message to Scientology," and a press release declaring a "War on Scientology" against both the Church of Scientology and the Religious Technology Center.[31][33][34] In the press release, the group states that the attacks against the Church of Scientology will continue in order to protect the right to freedom of speech, and end what they believe to be the financial exploitation of church members.[35] A new video "Call to Action" appeared on YouTube on January 28, 2008, calling for protests outside Church of Scientology centers on February 10, 2008.[36][37] On February 2, 2008, 150 people gathered outside of a Church of Scientology center in Orlando, Florida to protest the organization's practices.[38][39][40][41] Small protests were also held in Santa Barbara, California,[42] and Manchester, England.[39][43] On February 10, 2008, about 7000 people protested in more than 93 cities worldwide.[44][45] Many protesters wore masks based on the character V from V for Vendetta (who in turn was influenced by Guy Fawkes), or otherwise disguised their identities, in part to protect themselves from reprisals from the Church.[46][47]

Anonymous held a second wave of protests on March 15, 2008 in cities all over the world, including Boston, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Vancouver, Toronto, Berlin, and Dublin. The global turnout was estimated to be "between 7000 and 8000," a number similar to that of the first wave.[48] The third wave of the protests took place on April 12, 2008.[49][50] Named "Operation Reconnect," it aimed to increase awareness of the Church of Scientology's disconnection policy.[24]

On October 17, 2008, an 18-year-old from New Jersey described himself as a member of Anonymous, and he stated that he would plead guilty to involvement in the January 2008 DDoS attacks against Church of Scientology websites.[51]

On December 2, 2009, Anonymous held a competition, "Scientology Sucks: A Contest", and asked the contestants to carry out (legal) pranks on the Church of Scientology and offered $1000, $300 and $75 (initially $400, $100 and $50) from donation money for the top three entries.[52] The contest was won by a user who called himself MalcontentNazi for his video Scientology's Secret Nazi Ties in which he dressed as a Nazi and stood in front of a Scientology church and praised the church and consequently made a prank call to the church asking them why they were not able to pull the guy, who dressed himself as a Nazi and made fun of them, off the streets.[53]

Protests continued, and took advantage of media events such as the premiere of the Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie, where the venue was chosen in part to reduce exposure to the protests.[54]

Epilepsy Foundation forum invasion

On March 28, 2008, Wired News reported that "Internet griefers"—a slang term for people whose only interests are in harassing others[55]—assaulted an epilepsy support forum run by the Epilepsy Foundation of America.[56] JavaScript code and flashing computer animations were posted with the intention of triggering migraine headaches and seizures in photosensitive and pattern-sensitive epileptics.[56] According to Wired News, circumstantial evidence suggested that the attack was perpetrated by Anonymous users, with the initial attack posts on the epilepsy forum blaming eBaum's World. Members of the epilepsy forum claimed they had found a thread in which the attack was being planned at 7chan.org, an imageboard that has been described as a stronghold for Anonymous. The thread, like all old threads eventually do on these types of imageboards, has since cycled to deletion.[56]

RealTechNews[unreliable source?] reported that the forum at the United Kingdom-based National Society for Epilepsy was also subjected to an identical attack. It stated that "apparent members of Anonymous" had denied responsibility for both attacks and posted that it had been the Church of Scientology who carried them out.[57] News.com.au reported that the administrators of 7chan.org had posted an open letter claiming that the attacks had been carried out by the Church of Scientology "to ruin the public opinion of Anonymous, to lessen the effect of the lawful protests against their virulent organization" under the Church's fair game policy.[55] The Tech Herald[unreliable source?] reported that when the attack began, posts referenced multiple groups, including Anonymous. The report attributes the attack to a group named "The Internet Hate Machine" (a reference to the KTTV Fox 11 news report), who claim to be part of Anonymous, but are not the same faction that are involved in the campaign against Scientology.[58]

Some Anonymous participants of Project Chanology suggest that the perpetrators are Internet users who merely remained anonymous in the literal sense, and thus had no affiliation with the larger anti-Scientology efforts attributed to Anonymous.[58] During an interview with CNN, Scientologist Tommy Davis accused Anonymous of hacking into the Epilepsy Foundation website to make it display imagery intended to cause epileptic seizures. Interviewer John Roberts contended the FBI said that it "found nothing to connect this group Anonymous (with these actions)," and that it also has "no reason to believe that these charges will be leveled against this group."[59] The response was that the matter was on the hands of local law enforcement and that there were ongoing investigations.[59]

Defacement of SOHH and AllHipHop websites

The second in a series of five defaced SOHH banners and headline feeders, vandalized by hackers.

In late June 2008, users who identified themselves as Anonymous claimed responsibility for a series of attacks against the SOHH (Support Online Hip Hop) website.[60] The attack was reported to have begun in retaliation for insults made by members of SOHH's "Just Bugging Out" forum against 4chan's users. The attack against the website took place in stages, beginning when Anonymous users flooded and trolled the SOHH forums, which were then shut down. On June 23, the group organized DDoS attacks against the website, successfully eliminating over 60% of the website's service capacity. On June 27, the hackers utilized cross-site scripting to alter the website's main page with satirical images and headlines referencing numerous racial stereotypes and slurs, and also successfully stole information from SOHH employees.[61]

No Cussing Club

In January 2009 members of Anonymous targeted California teen McKay Hatch who runs the No Cussing Club, a website against profanity.[62][63] As Hatch's home address, phone number, and other personal information were leaked on-line, his family has received a lot of hate mail, lots of obscene phone calls, and even bogus pizza and pornography deliveries.[64]

YouTube porn day

On May 20, 2009, members of Anonymous uploaded numerous pornographic videos onto YouTube.[65] Many of these videos were disguised as children's videos or family friendly videos with tags such as "Jonas brothers."[65] YouTube has since removed all videos uploaded. The BBC contacted one of the uploaders who stated that it was a "4chan raid" organized due to the removal of music videos from YouTube.[66] BBC News reported that one victim posted a comment saying: "I'm 12 years old and what is this?"[66] which went on to become an internet meme.

2009 Iranian election protests

Front page of The Pirate Bay, June 20, 2009. Anonymous, together with The Pirate Bay, launched an Iranian Green Party Support site.[67]
Main article: 2009 Iranian election protests

Following allegations of vote rigging after the results of the June 2009 Iranian presidential election were announced, declaring Iran's incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the winner, thousands of Iranians participated in demonstrations. Anonymous, together with The Pirate Bay and various Iranian hackers, launched an Iranian Green Party Support site called Anonymous Iran.[67] The site has drawn over 22,000 supporters world wide and allows for information exchange between the world and Iran, despite attempts by the Iranian government to censor news about the riots on the internet. The site provides resources and support to Iranians who are protesting.[68][69]

Operation Didgeridie

Main article: Internet censorship in Australia

In September 2009 the group reawakened "in order to protect civil rights" after several governments began to block access to its imageboards. The blacklisting of Krautchan.net in Germany infuriated many, but the tipping point was the Australian government's plans for ISP-level censorship of the internet. The policy was spearheaded by Stephen Conroy and had been driven aggressively[70] by the Rudd Government since its election in 2007.

Early in the evening of September 9, Anonymous took down the prime minister's website with a distributed denial-of-service attack. The site was taken offline for approximately one hour.[71] On the morning of February 10, 2010, Anonymous launched a more prepared attack codenamed "Operation Titstorm." It defaced the prime minister's website, took down the Australian Parliament House website for three days and nearly managed to take down the Department of Communications' website.[72] The Australian newspaper later reported that neither attack was considered a serious crime by information security consultants, who suggested they only had an impact because the government "knew the [second] attack was coming but was unable to stop it."[73] A cover story in Security Solutions magazine said that "[s]uch attacks should not be considered cyberterrorism to ensure its meaning is not diluted."[74]

Operation Titstorm

Main article: Operation Titstorm

Occurred from 8 am, February 10, 2010 as a protest against the Australian Government over the forthcoming internet filtering legislation and the perceived censorship in pornography of small-breasted women (who are perceived to be under age) and female ejaculation. The protest consisted of a distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) on Australian Government websites. The Australian anti-censorship groups complained that the attack only hurts their cause, and Australian government members dismissed the attack and said that they would just restore the service when the attack finished.[75][76] Analysis of the attacks cited their peak bandwidth at under 17Mbit, a figure considered small when compared with other DDoS attacks.[77]

Operation Payback and Operation Avenge Assange

Anonymous release their flyers and press release in the public domain
Main article: Operation Payback

In 2010, several Bollywood companies hired Aiplex Software to launch DDoS attacks on websites that did not respond to software takedown notices.[78] Piracy activists then created Operation Payback in September 2010 in retaliation.[78] The original plan was to attack Aiplex Software directly, but upon finding some hours before the planned DDoS that another individual had taken down the firm's website on their own, Operation Payback moved to launching attacks against the websites of copyright stringent organizations, law firms and other websites.[79] This grew into multiple DDoS attacks against anti-piracy groups and law firms.

In December 2010, the document archive website WikiLeaks (used by whistleblowers) came under intense pressure to stop publishing secret United States diplomatic cables. In response, Anonymous announced its support for WikiLeaks,[80][81] and Operation Payback changed its focus to support WikiLeaks and launched DDoS attacks against Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard, Visa and the Swiss bank PostFinance, in retaliation for perceived anti-WikiLeaks behavior. This second front in the December offensive was performed under the codename Operation Avenge Assange.[82][83][84][85][86][87] Due to the attacks, both MasterCard and Visa's websites were brought down on December 8.[88][89] A threat researcher at PandaLabs said Anonymous also launched an attack which brought down the Swedish prosecutor's website when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested in London and refused bail in relation to extradition to Sweden.[90]

Operation Anonymous

This website was conceived by the Anonymous group in order to inform the general public, and news stations, or anyone else who might be interested, on who and what Anonymous is. [91] (Please feel free to correct this, i know this article is horrible, i just want this in here to, so that others may be able to become informed on the very latest in happenings.)


Operation Leakspin

Main article: Operation Leakspin

Operation: Leakspin was conceived by the Anonymous group, with the purpose of sorting through recent WikiLeaks releases and raise awareness of potentially important and previously overlooked cables.

Zimbabwe

The websites of the government of Zimbabwe were targeted by Anonymous due to censorship of the WikiLeaks documents.[92]

Operation Tunisia

The websites of the government of Tunisia were targeted by Anonymous due to censorship of the WikiLeaks documents and the ongoing 2010–2011 Tunisian protests.[93] Tunisians were reported to be assisting in these denial-of-service attacks launched by Anonymous.[94] Anonymous's role in the DDoS attacks on the Tunisian government's websites have led to an upsurge of internet activism among Tunisians against the government.[95] A figure associated with Anonymous released an online message denouncing the government clampdown on recent protests and posted it on the Tunisian government website http://www.pm.gov.tn/. [96] Anonymous has named their attacks as "Operation Tunisia".[97] Anonymous successfully performed DDoS attacks on eight Tunisian government websites. Anonymous's website suffered a DDoS attack on January 5.[98]

Attack on Fine Gael website

The website for the Irish political party Fine Gael, a centre right party and currently the Republic of Ireland's largest opposition party, was hacked by Anonymous according to TheJournal.ie.[99] The site was replaced with a page showing the Anonymous logo along with the words "Nothing is safe, you put your faith in this political party and they take no measures to protect you. They offer you free speech yet they censor your voice. WAKE UP! <owned by Raepsauce and Palladium>".

2011 Egypt protests

The websites of Egypt's Ministry of Information and President Hosni Mubarak's National Democratic Party were knocked offline by Anonymous in support of protesters calling for Mubarak's ouster during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.[100]

Attack on HBGary Federal

One man, who calls himself Owen, says his Anonymous colleagues broke into the company's servers. Hackers have a name for what they did. "They decided to just rape his servers and take all the information they wanted," he says. "Forgive that term ... 'Rape' is an Internet term, you know, as to go in and take everything out of somebody's server." Whatever the term, it was not a nice thing that Anonymous did to HBGary Federal. But now that the company's e-mails are out, it appears it was also willing to do some not-nice things.
—E-Mails Hacked By 'Anonymous' Raise Concerns, NPR[101]

On the weekend of 5-6 February 2011, Aaron Barr, the chief executive of the security firm HBGary Federal, announced that his firm had successfully infiltrated the Anonymous group, and although he would not hand over details to the police, he would reveal his findings at a later conference in San Francisco. In retaliation for Aaron Barr's claims, members of the group Anonymous hacked the website of HBGary Federal and replaced the welcome page with a message stating that Anonymous should not be messed with, and that the hacking of the website was necessary to defend itself. Using a variety of techniques, including social engineering and SQL injection,[102] Anonymous also went on to take control of the company's e-mail, dumping 68,000 e-mails from the system, erasing files, and taking down their phone system.[103]

Among the documents exposed was a PowerPoint presentation entitled “The Wikileaks Threat,” put together by HBGary Federal along with two other data intelligence firms for Bank of America in December.[104] Within the report, these firms created a list of important contributors to WikiLeaks; they further developed a strategic plan of attack against the site. As TechHerald explains, "the plan included pressing a journalist in order to disrupt his support of the organization, cyber attacks, disinformation, and other potential proactive tactics." The report specifically claims that Glenn Greenwald’s support was key to WikiLeaks ongoing survival.[105][106][107]

Anonymous also personally attacked Aaron Barr by taking control of his Twitter account, posting Mr Barr's supposed home address and social security number.[108]

In response to the attacks, founder of HBGary Federal, Greg Hoglund, responded to journalist Brian Krebs, "They didn't just pick on any company, we try to protect the US Government from hackers. They couldn't have chosen a worse company to pick on."[109] After the attacks, Anonymous continued to clog up HBGary Federal fax machines, and made threatening phone calls.[110]

Purported threat against the Westboro Baptist Church

File:WestboroBC Bring it on.png
WBC taunts Anonymous

On February 16, 2011, the group supposedly wrote an open letter to the Westboro Baptist Church, stating: "Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011 ... close your public Web sites. Should you ignore this warning ... the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover."[111][112][113] On February 19, 2011, the church responded, telling Anonymous to "bring it on" and calling them, among other things, "a puddle of pimple-faced nerds."[114][115][116] Anonymous subsequently questioned the authenticity of the threat, suggesting that someone from outside Anonymous made the posting.[117][116][118] Due to their website being openly editable by anyone, it is unknown who made the post at this time. Anonymous responded with a press release calling the Westboro Church "professional trolls" stating that they believe that it was a member of the Westboro Church making an attempt to provoke an attack, thus acting as a honeypot which would both allow the church to retaliate against Internet service providers in court, and to gain it further publicity.[116][119] They also claimed that they had more pressing matters to attend to, namely the support of the 2011 Libyan protests.[120] That said, Anonymous later suggested tactics for those who wished to attack Westboro nevertheless, avoiding DDoS in favor of sending "prostitutes, preferably male," and in general to "rape their asses in the most unpredictable ways possible."[119]

"Our best guess is that you heard about us on that newfangled TV of yours and thought we might be some good money for your little church."
—Anonymous response[118]

Anonymous also indicated that an attack would be self-defeating stating: "When Anonymous says we support free speech, we mean it. We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'"[121] Nonetheless, the website godhatesfags.com suffered an attack.[122][123][124]

Reception and impact

KTTV Fox 11 news report

KTTV Fox 11 investigative report on Anonymous.

On July 26, 2007, KTTV Fox 11 News, based in Los Angeles, California, aired a report on Anonymous, calling them a group of "hackers on steroids," "domestic terrorists," and collectively an "Internet hate machine." The report covered an attack on a Myspace user, who claimed to have had his Myspace account "hacked" into seven times by Anonymous, and plastered with images of gay pornography. The Myspace user also claimed a virus written by Anonymous hackers was sent to him and to ninety friends on his Myspace contact list, crashing thirty-two of his friends' computers. The report featured an unnamed former "hacker" who had fallen out with Anonymous and explained his view of the Anonymous culture. In addition, the report also mentioned "raids" on Habbo, a "national campaign to spoil the new Harry Potter book ending," and threats to "bomb sports stadiums."[7][125]

The day following the KTTV report, Wired News blogger and journalist Ryan Singel derided the report, stating that the "hacker group" in fact consisted of "supremely bored 15-year olds," and that the news report was "by far the funniest prank anyone on the board has ever pulled off."[126] In February 2008, an Australia-based Today Tonight broadcast included a segment of the KTTV report, preceded by the statement: "The Church of Scientology has ramped up the offensive against Anonymous, accusing the group of religious bigotry and claiming they are sick, twisted souls."[127]

Search Engine subject of focus

In January 2008, Search Engine, a Canadian radio show published by CBC Radio One, began reporting on Project Chanology. Brown called Anonymous "clowns," citing their lack of coordination, vulgar humor, and pack mentality, and invited them to confront him in person. On February 7, two members of Anonymous appeared on the show, explaining the nature of the group and the genuine criticism they held for Scientology.[10] After Anonymous held a protest in front of Scientology compounds around the world on February 10, 2008, Brown admitted that they had "proved me wrong."[128]

The nature of the protest was unprecedented - picketers wore masks and refused to divulge names - and sparked a follow-up discussion on the show about journalistic standards for source protection, and the meaning of identity. Brown brought the issue to his own workplace, interviewing CBC's president Hubert Lacroix in reaction to a conflict between him and an anonymous critic who went by the handle "Ouimet."[10]

See also

Memetic persona
Composition
Activism

References

  1. ^ ennahar (14 January, 2011). "Al-Qaeda supports the events in Tunisia and Algeria". Ennaharonline/ M. O. Retrieved January 15 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  2. ^ Adem Amine in Algiers and Jamel Arfaoui in Tunis for Magharebia (2011-01-13). "AQIM leader exploits Tunisia, Algeria unrest". Magharebia. Retrieved January 15 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ a b c d e f Landers, Chris (April 2, 2008). "Serious Business: Anonymous Takes On Scientology (and Doesn't Afraid of Anything)". Baltimore City Paper. Retrieved July 3, 2008.
  4. ^ a b Jessica Parral, James Clark (February 2, 2008). "Internet Group Takes Action Against Scientology". City on a Hill Press (student newspaper). University of California, Santa Cruz. Retrieved February 21, 2008.
  5. ^ Davies, Shaun (May 8, 2008). "The internet pranksters who started a war". ninemsn. Retrieved October 29, 2008.
  6. ^ Cade Metz (May 14, 2008). "Google kills Anonymous AdSense account". The Register.
  7. ^ a b Tsotsis, Alexia (February 4, 2009). "My Date with Anonymous: A Rare Interview with the Elusive Internet Troublemakers". LA Weekly. Retrieved February 7, 2009.
  8. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/23/wikileaks.anonymous/index.html?hpt=C1
  9. ^ Whipple, Tom (June 20, 2008). "Scientology: the Anonymous protestors". The Times. London.
  10. ^ a b c d e Brown, Jesse (February 7, 2008). "Community Organization with Digital Tools: The face of Anonymous". MediaShift Idea Lab: Reinventing Community News for the Digital Age. PBS. Archived from the original on February 11, 2008. Retrieved March 3, 2008. Cite error: The named reference "Search Engine" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b c d George-Cosh, David (January 25, 2008). "Online group declares war on Scientology". National Post. Canwest Publishing Inc. Archived from the original on January 29, 2008. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  12. ^ Ryan Singel (January 23, 2008). "War Breaks Out Between Hackers and Scientology – There Can Be Only One". Wired News. CondéNet, Inc. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  13. ^ a b c James Harrison (February 12, 2008). "Scientology protestors take action around world". The State News (student newspaper). Michigan State University. Retrieved February 25, 2008.
  14. ^ Davies, Shaun (May 8, 2008). "Critics point finger at satirical website". National Nine News.
  15. ^ Dahdah, Howard (February 8, 2008). "'Anonymous' group declares online war on Scientology". Computerworld: The Voice of IT Management. IDG Communications. Retrieved February 8, 2008.
  16. ^ a b "Net users insist 'racist' sign is joke". KENS-TV.
  17. ^ "HIV-Positive Toddler Banned From Pool". AolNews.
  18. ^ a b c d Ryan Singel (September 19, 2008). "Palin Hacker Group's All-Time Greatest Hits". Retrieved September 21, 2009.
  19. ^ "Harold C. "Hal" Turner v. 4chan.org". Justia. Retrieved July 27, 2007.
  20. ^ a b Jonathan Jenkins (December 7, 2007). "Man trolled the web for girls: cops". CANOE. Toronto Sun. Retrieved February 19, 2008.
  21. ^ Constable George Schuurman, Public Information, for Detective Constable Janelle Blackadar, Sex Crimes Unit (December 6, 2007). "Man facing six charges in Child Exploitation investigation, Photograph released, Chris Forcand, 53". News Release. Toronto Police Service. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ Gus Kim (reporter) (December 8, 2007). "Internet Justice?". Global News. CanWest Global Communications. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  23. ^ Richards, Johnathan (The Times) (January 25, 2008). "Hackers Declare War on Scientology: A shadowy Internet group has succeeded in taking down a Scientology Web site after effectively declaring war on the church and calling for it to be destroyed". Fox News. Fox News Network, LLC. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  24. ^ a b John Cook (March 17, 2008). "Scientology – Cult Friction". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Archived from the original on March 23, 2008. Retrieved March 18, 2008. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
  25. ^ Warne, Dan (January 24, 2008). "Anonymous threatens to "dismantle" Church of Scientology via internet". APC Magazine. National Nine News. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  26. ^ KNBC Staff (January 24, 2008). "Hacker Group Declares War On Scientology: Group Upset Over Church's Handling Of Tom Cruise Video". KNBC. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  27. ^ Vamosi, Robert (January 24, 2008). "Anonymous hackers take on the Church of Scientology". CNET News. CNET Networks, Inc. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  28. ^ George-Cosh, David (January 25, 2008). "Online group declares war on Scientology". National Post. Canwest Publishing Inc. Archived from the original on January 28, 2008. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  29. ^ Singel, Ryan (January 23, 2008). "War Breaks Out Between Hackers and Scientology – There Can Be Only One". Wired. CondéNet, Inc. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  30. ^ Feran, Tom (January 24, 2008). "Where to find the Tom Cruise Scientology videos online, if they're still posted". The Plain Dealer. Newhouse Newspapers. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  31. ^ a b Chan Enterprises (January 21, 2008). "Internet Group Declares "War on Scientology": Anonymous are fighting the Church of Scientology and the Religious Technology Center" (PDF). Press Release. PRLog.Org. Retrieved January 25, 2008.
  32. ^ Matthew A. Schroettnig, Stefanie Herrington, Lauren E. Trent (February 6, 2008). "Anonymous Versus Scientology: Cyber Criminals or Vigilante Justice?". The Legality. Retrieved January 25, 2008.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ^ Thomas, Nicki (January 25, 2008). "Scientology and the internet: Internet hackers attack the church". Edmonton Sun. Sun Media. Retrieved January 25, 2008.[dead link]
  34. ^ Dodd, Gareth (Ed.) (January 25, 2008). "Anonymous hackers vow to "dismantle" Scientology". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved January 25, 2008. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  35. ^ Brandon, Mikhail (January 28, 2008). "Scientology in the Crosshairs". The Emory Wheel. Emory University. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  36. ^ Feran, Tom (January 31, 2008). "The group Anonymous calls for protests outside Scientology centers – New on the Net". The Plain Dealer. Newhouse Newspapers. Retrieved February 4, 2008.
  37. ^ Vamosi, Robert (January 28, 2008). "Anonymous names February 10 as its day of action against Scientology". CNET News. CNET Networks, Inc. Retrieved January 28, 2008.
  38. ^ Braiker, Brian (February 8, 2008). "The Passion of 'Anonymous': A shadowy, loose-knit consortium of activists and hackers called 'Anonymous' is just the latest thorn in Scientology's side". Newsweek. Newsweek, Inc. Technology: Newsweek Web Exclusive. Retrieved February 9, 2008.
  39. ^ a b Barkham, Patrick (February 4, 2008). "Hackers declare war on Scientologists amid claims of heavy-handed Cruise control". The Guardian. London: Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved February 3, 2008.
  40. ^ Staff (February 3, 2008). "Group Lines Road To Protest Church Of Scientology". WKMG-TV. Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com. Retrieved February 3, 2008.
  41. ^ Eckinger, Helen (February 3, 2008). "Anti-Scientology group has protest rally". Orlando Sentinel. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  42. ^ Standifer, Tom (February 4, 2008). "Masked Demonstrators Protest Against Church of Scientology". Daily Nexus. University of California, Santa Barbara. Issue 69, Volume 88. Retrieved February 4, 2008.[dead link]
  43. ^ Eber, Hailey (February 4, 2008). "Anti-Scientologists Warm Up for February 10". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved February 4, 2008.
  44. ^ Carlos Moncada (February 12, 2008). "Organizers Tout Scientology Protest, Plan Another". TBO.com. Retrieved February 13, 2008.
  45. ^ Andrew Ramadge (February 14, 2008). "Scientology protest surge crashes websites". News.com.au. News Limited. Retrieved February 14, 2008.[dead link]
  46. ^ Harrison, James (The State News) (February 12, 2008). "Scientology protestors take action around world". Retrieved February 14, 2008.
  47. ^ Forrester, John (February 11, 2008). "Dozens of masked protesters blast Scientology church". The Boston Globe. Retrieved February 15, 2008.
  48. ^ Andrew Ramadge (March 17, 2008). "Second round of Anonymous v Scientology". News.com.au. News Limited. Retrieved March 17, 2008.
  49. ^ Davies, Shaun (March 20, 2008). "Scientology strikes back in information war". National Nine News. ninemsn. Retrieved March 20, 2008.
  50. ^ Andrew Ramadge (March 20, 2008). "Scientology site gets a facelift after protests". News.com.au. News Limited. Retrieved March 20, 2008.
  51. ^ Staff (October 17, 2008). "Teenage hacker admits Scientology cyber-attack". Agence France-Presse. Retrieved October 18, 2008.
  52. ^ “” (December 2, 2009). "Scientology Sucks: A Contest". YouTube. Retrieved December 15, 2010. {{cite web}}: |author= has numeric name (help)
  53. ^ Anoncontest.org
  54. ^ Courtney Hazlett (December 15, 2008). "Group bungles protest at 'Valkyrie' premiere". msnbc.com. Retrieved December 16, 2008.
  55. ^ a b Andrew Ramadge (April 1, 2008). "Anonymous attack targets epilepsy sufferers". News.com.au. News Corporation. Retrieved April 1, 2008.
  56. ^ a b c Kevin Poulsen (March 28, 2008). "Hackers Assault Epilepsy Patients via Computer". Wired News. Condé Nast Publications. Retrieved April 1, 2008.
  57. ^ Michael Santo (March 29, 2008). "Hackers Attack Epilepsy Forum; Cause Headaches, Seizures". RealTechNews. Underground Networks. Retrieved April 1, 2008. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
  58. ^ a b Steve Ragan (March 31, 2008). "Targeted physical attack takes aim at Epilepsy". The Tech Herald. Retrieved April 2, 2008.
  59. ^ a b Scientology vs Anonymous, Critics take it to the web. CNN. Event occurs at 0:50–1:38. Retrieved June 27, 2008.
  60. ^ Reid, Shaheem (June 30, 2008). "Hip-Hop Sites Hacked By Apparent Hate Group; SOHH, AllHipHop Temporarily Suspend Access". MTV.com. MTV Networks. Retrieved July 18, 2008.
  61. ^ Chideya, Farai (June 30, 2008). "Hip Hop Sites Attacked by Hate Groups". News & Notes. NPR. Retrieved July 19, 2008. (Radio broadcast)
  62. ^ Rogers, John (January 15, 2009). "Teenage founder of No Cussing Club under siege". Ventura County Star, The Associated Press. Retrieved January 21, 2009. (...) a group calling itself Anonymous launched a viral No Cussing Sucks campaign across the Web.
  63. ^ Potter, Ned (January 16, 2009). "'No-Cussing' Club Attracts Followers – and Thousands of Hate Messages". ABC News. Retrieved January 21, 2009.
  64. ^ Davies, Shaun (January 18, 2009). "'No cussing' teen faces net hate campaign". Nine News. Retrieved January 20, 2009. Anonymous appears to be behind the attacks (...) Anonymous appears to be planning (...) [the earnestness of Hatch's campaign] may have drawn Anonymous's ire.
  65. ^ a b Cheng, Jacqui (May 20, 2009). "4chan, eBaum's World carpet bombing YouTube with porn videos". Ars Technica. Retrieved June 2, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  66. ^ a b Pornographic videos flood YouTube Siobhan Courtney, BBC News dated May 21, 2009. Retrieved on May 21, 2009.
  67. ^ a b Iran.whyweprotest.net
  68. ^ Jack Hawke Internet underground takes on Iran Thu Jun 18, 2009
  69. ^ Iranian Support Site http://iran.whyweprotest.net
  70. ^ Turner, Adam (July 13, 2009). "Conroy named Internet Villain of the Year". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  71. ^ "Rudd website attacked in filter protest". ABC News. September 10, 2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009.
  72. ^ See:
  73. ^ Neighbour, Sally (March 17, 2010). "Terror moves into the digital age". The Australian. A Plus section, p. 13. Retrieved May 8, 2010.
  74. ^ Gifford, Nick; Raghu, Arun (May/June 2010). "Cyberterrorism: Are we there yet?". Security Solutions. No. 65. pp. 64–66, 68, 70, 72, 74. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  75. ^ Asher Moses (February 10, 2010). "Operation Titstorm: hackers bring down government websites". The Age.
  76. ^ "Media Release – Attacks on government websites must be condemned" (Document). Stop Internet Censorship group. February 10, 2010. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
  77. ^ John Leyden (February 11, 2010). "Aussie anti-censor attacks strafe gov websites: Operation Titstorm DDoS more of a bee sting". The Register.
  78. ^ a b Leyden, John (September 22, 2010). "4chan launches DDoS against entertainment industry". The Register. Retrieved October 22, 2010.
  79. ^ Correll, Sean-Paul (September 17, 2010). "4chan Users Organize Surgical Strike Against MPAA". Pandalabs Security. Retrieved October 22, 2010.
  80. ^ "Hundreds of WikiLeaks Mirror Sites Appear". Retrieved December 6, 2010.
  81. ^ Uploadr.com
  82. ^ "Un grupo de hackers lanzó la "operación venganza" a favor del creador de WikiLeaks". lanacion.com. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  83. ^ Posted on 12/6/10 by Sean-Paul Correll (December 6, 2010). "Operation:Payback broadens to "Operation Avenge Assange" | PandaLabs Blog". Pandalabs.pandasecurity.com. Retrieved December 15, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  84. ^ "Hackers take down website of bank that froze WikiLeaks funds". Retrieved December 7, 2010.
  85. ^ "WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates". Retrieved December 7, 2010.
  86. ^ "Paypal.com is down! And yes we are firing now!!! Keep firing!". Retrieved December 7, 2010.
  87. ^ "PayPal, PostFinance Hit by DoS Attacks, Counter-Attack in Progress". Retrieved December 7, 2010.
  88. ^ Associated Press (December 8, 2010) Hackers Strike Back to Support WikiLeaks Wall Street Journal
  89. ^ Adams, Richard (December 8, 2010). "The Guardian". The Guardian. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  90. ^ "Assange wanted by US for 'espionage offences'". Retrieved December 8, 2010.
  91. ^ http://www.operationanonymous.org/
  92. ^ "Anonymous activists target Tunisian government sites". BBC. January 7, 2011. Retrieved December 12, 2010.
  93. ^ "Anonymous activists target Tunisian government sites". BBC. January 4, 2011. Retrieved January 7, 2011.
  94. ^ Evan Hill (03 Jan 2011). "Hackers hit Tunisian websites". ALJAZEERA. Retrieved January 7, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  95. ^ Bilal Randeree (04 Jan 2011). "Violent clashes continue in Tunisia". ALJAZEERA. Retrieved January 7, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  96. ^ Screenshot of the message
  97. ^ Ryan Rifai (04 Jan 2011). "Timeline: Tunisia's civil unrest". ALJAZEERA. Retrieved January 7, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  98. ^ Yasmine Ryan (06 Jan 2011). "Tunisia's bitter cyberwar". ALJAZEERA. Retrieved January 7, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  99. ^ Gavan Reilly (January 9, 2010). "Fine Gael website defaced by Anonymous 'hacktivists'". TheJounral.ie. Retrieved January 9, 2011.
  100. ^ Ravi Somaiya (February 3, 2011). "Hackers Shut Down Government Sites". The New York Times. Retrieved February 3, 2011.
  101. ^ Martin, Kaste (February 16, 2011). "E-Mails Hacked By 'Anonymous' Raise Concerns". NPR. Retrieved February 17, 2011.
  102. ^ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars/
  103. ^ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/how-one-security-firm-tracked-anonymousand-paid-a-heavy-price.ars/
  104. ^ Lundin, Leigh (February 20, 2011). "WikiLicks". Crime. Orlando: Criminal Brief. CEO Aaron Barr thought he'd uncovered the hackers' identities and like rats, they'd scurry for cover. If he could nail them, he could cover up the crimes H&W, HBGary, and BoA planned, bring down WikiLeaks, decapitate Anonymous, and place his opponents in prison while collecting a cool fee. He thought he was 88% right; he was 88% wrong.
  105. ^ http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201106/6798/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack-against-WikiLeaks
  106. ^ http://firedoglake.com/tag/hb-gary-federal/
  107. ^ http://crowdleaks.org/anonymous-retaliates-against-hbgary-espionage/
  108. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/hacktivists-take-control-of-internet-security-firms-2207440.html
  109. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/hacktivists-take-control-of-internet-security-firms-2207440.html
  110. ^ Fantz, Ashley (February 23, 2011 5:45 p.m.). "Anonymous vows to take leaking to the next level". CNN. Retrieved 2011-02-23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  111. ^ http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=449
  112. ^ "Hackers warn Westboro Church: Stop now or else". CBS. February 19, 2011 2:45 PM. Retrieved 2011-02-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  113. ^ Peter, Finocchiaro (Sunday, Feb 20, 2011 13:12 ET). "Anonymous warns Westboro Baptist Church to stop with the hate" (Salon). Retrieved 2011-02-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  114. ^ http://i.imgur.com/nh1kR.png
  115. ^ "Westboro Baptist Church targeted by Anonymous". BBC. 21 February 2011 Last updated at 08:51 ET. Retrieved 2011-02-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  116. ^ a b c John, Leyden (21st February 2011 11:30 GMT). "Westboro Baptist Church taunts Anonymous over supposed attack plan God hates fags and 'crybaby' hackers". Retrieved 2011-02-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  117. ^ Message to the Westboro Baptist Church, the Media, and Anonymous as a whole
  118. ^ a b Emma, Woollacott (02/21/2011). "God hates hackers, says Westboro pastor". TG Daily. Retrieved 2011-02-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  119. ^ a b http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=492
  120. ^ http://www.siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/20514-hacktivists-deny-attack/
  121. ^ Goldman, Tom (21 Feb 2011 11:16 am). "Westboro Baptists Stage Fake Anonymous Threat". The Escapist. Retrieved 2011-02-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  122. ^ Robbins, Martin (February 20, 2011). "Anonymous: Defending freedom of speech one blocked website at a time.: The self styled 'super-consciousness' of Anonymous has turned on Westboro Baptist church. Are they going too far?". Guardian. Retrieved February 21, 2011.
  123. ^ Raywood, Dan (February 21, 2011). "Anonymous hits Westboro Baptist Church websites after online verbal trade-off". SC Magazine. Retrieved February 21, 2011.
  124. ^ "Performance Charts and Statistics for www.godhatesfags.com". Retrieved February 21, 2011.
  125. ^ Phil Shuman (investigative reporter) (July 26, 2007). "FOX 11 Investigates: 'Anonymous'". MyFOX Los Angeles. KTTV (Fox). Retrieved August 11, 2007. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
  126. ^ Ryan Singel (July 27, 2007). "Investigative Report Reveals Hackers Terrorize the Internet for LULZ". Wired News. CondéNet, Inc. Retrieved February 23, 2008.
  127. ^ Bryan Seymour (reporter) (February 11, 2008). "Anonymous takes Scientology war to streets" (newscast). Today Tonight. Seven Network. Retrieved February 20, 2008. {{cite news}}: External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  128. ^ [http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/02/this_weeks_show_feb1408.html Search Engine | CBC Radio | This Week's Show (Feb.14/08)

Wikisource logo Works by or about Anonymous (group) at Wikisource Media related to Anonymous (group) at Wikimedia Commons

Activist websites used by Anonymous

ar:المجموعة المجهولة (إنترنت) ca:Anonymous (comunitat) cy:Anonymous (cymuned) de:Anonymous (Kollektiv) es:Anonymous fa:گروه ناشناس fr:Anonymous (communauté) gl:Anonymous (colectivo) it:Anonymous nl:Anonymous (groep) ja:アノニマス (集団) no:Anonymous pl:Anonymous (grupa) pt:Anonymous (grupo) ru:Анонимы fi:Anonymous (ryhmittymä) sv:Anonymous (grupp) te:అనామక (సమూహం)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anonymous_(hacker_group)&oldid=415965990"