That's the thing with anonymous. You get notoriety for being a collection of douche-bags on the internet and sure enough people will blame you for stuff. I don't know or really care about who did this, but I am tired of people saying how unsecured the PSN was, they're making it sound like on the second day of its creation everything was suddenly broken.
Sony finds "proof" Anon was involved in PSN hack
- Thread starter StriderShinryu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
inside Sony's security think-tank...
Johnson: Sir, we've finally made a breakthrough on the case.
Baines: Well what is it?
Johnson: We've discovered an anonymous file left anonymously on our systems claiming anonymously that the responsible party is an anonymous group named Anonymous...
Baines: ...
Johnson: ... anonym-
Baines: Outstanding Johnson!!! Alert the FBI to our findings. I want every anonymous person out there lined up for questioning IN 24 HOURS. MOVE MOVE MOVE!!!
Johnson: Sir, we've finally made a breakthrough on the case.
Baines: Well what is it?
Johnson: We've discovered an anonymous file left anonymously on our systems claiming anonymously that the responsible party is an anonymous group named Anonymous...
Baines: ...
Johnson: ... anonym-
Baines: Outstanding Johnson!!! Alert the FBI to our findings. I want every anonymous person out there lined up for questioning IN 24 HOURS. MOVE MOVE MOVE!!!
Proof? Alright.
1) Anonymous isn't a strictly defined organization. The people who did it could have thought they were Anonymous when they really weren't, depending on what you consider Anonymous to actually be. From another perspective, I could go do anything at all right now and then claim I was Anonymous, and if that's how you define it then you see that it's not a very sensible position to take. In any case, arguing over whether this was done by Anonymous or not is just plain stupid and gets us absolutely nowhere, unless we end up with evidence that the people who did this are exactly the same people that did something in the past for Anonymous, that we were proud to have happen.
2) I highly doubt Anonymous would deny any part in this attack, just to later go do something as stupid as post a note saying they were responsible. This is pretty obviously either made up by Sony or planted by whoever really did the hacking.
3) The Anonymous that I know, the Anonymous that destroyed HBGary federal and everything before that, would not go steal and sell credit card numbers. The Anonymous that I know has a specific mindset and a specific handful of goals. The Anonymous that I know takes credit for its work. This does not look like Anonymous. At all.
1) Anonymous isn't a strictly defined organization. The people who did it could have thought they were Anonymous when they really weren't, depending on what you consider Anonymous to actually be. From another perspective, I could go do anything at all right now and then claim I was Anonymous, and if that's how you define it then you see that it's not a very sensible position to take. In any case, arguing over whether this was done by Anonymous or not is just plain stupid and gets us absolutely nowhere, unless we end up with evidence that the people who did this are exactly the same people that did something in the past for Anonymous, that we were proud to have happen.
2) I highly doubt Anonymous would deny any part in this attack, just to later go do something as stupid as post a note saying they were responsible. This is pretty obviously either made up by Sony or planted by whoever really did the hacking.
3) The Anonymous that I know, the Anonymous that destroyed HBGary federal and everything before that, would not go steal and sell credit card numbers. The Anonymous that I know has a specific mindset and a specific handful of goals. The Anonymous that I know takes credit for its work. This does not look like Anonymous. At all.
Let's get something straight here: Anonymous no longer means the same thing that it originally did, and we should be talking about the term's modern meaning.
Let's look at this two ways, "Old Anonymous" as it was originally as a meme on 4chan, and "New Anonymous", the Anonymous we've been seeing in the news lately.
Old Anonymous was just the idea of anonymity. It's really not any more complicated than that, and if things were still that way, then yes, anyone could claim to be Anonymous and that claim would be true.
New Anonymous, however -- the Anonymous that did all the recent hacks and is getting all popular -- is NOT JUST ANYONE. New Anonymous refers primarily to AnonOps, a gathering on IRC and social networks. Attacks from AnonOps do not occur individually, but are rather discussed and planned by the hive. If New Anonymous denies their involvement with the Sony hack -- which they did -- then you can't call this "offshoot" Anonymous with a capital A anymore. AnonOps has, to my knowledge, always taken credit for their endeavors, because their entire goal is to raise awareness and get people to revolt against corruption. AnonOps has morals. That's why they didn't attack Amazon during December last year over Wikileaks. That's why they didn't steal credit card numbers or shut down financial services when they had their beef with Mastercard and Visa.
That all said, I do seriously suspect that whatever hacker was responsible for this either misunderstands the above concept, believing themselves to be part of AnonOps' Anonymous just because they want to be, or they did it on purpose to frame Anonymous. Perhaps the hacker had something against Anonymous themselves, or perhaps they just wanted to throw investigators off in some small way.
Or, you know, Sony could have made it up.
Let's look at this two ways, "Old Anonymous" as it was originally as a meme on 4chan, and "New Anonymous", the Anonymous we've been seeing in the news lately.
Old Anonymous was just the idea of anonymity. It's really not any more complicated than that, and if things were still that way, then yes, anyone could claim to be Anonymous and that claim would be true.
New Anonymous, however -- the Anonymous that did all the recent hacks and is getting all popular -- is NOT JUST ANYONE. New Anonymous refers primarily to AnonOps, a gathering on IRC and social networks. Attacks from AnonOps do not occur individually, but are rather discussed and planned by the hive. If New Anonymous denies their involvement with the Sony hack -- which they did -- then you can't call this "offshoot" Anonymous with a capital A anymore. AnonOps has, to my knowledge, always taken credit for their endeavors, because their entire goal is to raise awareness and get people to revolt against corruption. AnonOps has morals. That's why they didn't attack Amazon during December last year over Wikileaks. That's why they didn't steal credit card numbers or shut down financial services when they had their beef with Mastercard and Visa.
That all said, I do seriously suspect that whatever hacker was responsible for this either misunderstands the above concept, believing themselves to be part of AnonOps' Anonymous just because they want to be, or they did it on purpose to frame Anonymous. Perhaps the hacker had something against Anonymous themselves, or perhaps they just wanted to throw investigators off in some small way.
Or, you know, Sony could have made it up.
Aren't Anonymous the group that hacked into an Epilepsy support website and made a java script so that the screen would suddenly flash at random with potentially lethal results because... well because it would be funny? Who vandalize websites that dare to disagree with them seemingly at random? Websites that don't disagree with them but would just be a fun 'prank' target?DarthFennec said:
Anon is just a fad, a label for people who want to do self-righteous stuff online and pretend to be part of some big movement. As cute as it is to think there's some masked and shadowy central organization guiding everything... there isn't. Just a bunch of internet trolls having fun, for better or for worse. That's all.
with anon being so... anonymous... how can they be sure they weren't involved? LOLStriderShinryu said:
Technically, since none of you know my name, am i not Anonymous? Shit, does this mean Sony are coming for me?
If someone presents evidence on their case and you disagree with it you must have evidence also. Stronger evidence. Otherwise, they are the only reliable source of information.
Also, Anon is a leaderless organization. Anybody could have hacked it and claimed they were "Anon" and nobody could disagree with them. Maybe it was an Anon, but he worked alone while the others knew nothing. Maybe somebody planted it to distract Sony. Don't know. Don't care. Hackers deserve prison in my opinion. I don't give a crap about showing users how unprotected Sony is or some other bull, all databases can be broken down. They need to stop being self righteous, egotistical ass holes and get a life.
Also, Anon is a leaderless organization. Anybody could have hacked it and claimed they were "Anon" and nobody could disagree with them. Maybe it was an Anon, but he worked alone while the others knew nothing. Maybe somebody planted it to distract Sony. Don't know. Don't care. Hackers deserve prison in my opinion. I don't give a crap about showing users how unprotected Sony is or some other bull, all databases can be broken down. They need to stop being self righteous, egotistical ass holes and get a life.
Tchnically, anyone can be part of Anonymous since they have no membership requirements and are, well, anonymous. If Adolf Hitler was alive today he'd be able to join Anonymous and no-one would be any the wiser until Anonymous claimed responsibility for the latest invasion of Poland. That's the problem with being an anonymous organization, you can be blamed for ANYTHING and you really can't defend yourself since you have absolutely no idea what your own members are or aren't doing.
Let me just ask you guys saying Sony are lying.
What do they have to gain by doing so?
They want to capture the hacker/s responsible for this as much as anyone else considering if they do it'll go a long way to mending the relationship with their customers and it will also save them a hell of a lot of money too.
What do they have to gain by doing so?
They want to capture the hacker/s responsible for this as much as anyone else considering if they do it'll go a long way to mending the relationship with their customers and it will also save them a hell of a lot of money too.
Why didn't they just graffiti their names and IP addresses onto the wall of the server? I'm not going to believe Sony on any of their blaming of Anonymous; if some other professional group says it was Anonymous, I may believe it.
Bullshit. Why would they ever leave a file with their name on it there? Because they wouldn't.
To quickly get a scapegoat at wich people can get angry instead of at Sony. To not seem incompetent that they haven't found a suspect yet. To not lose customers and shareholders.TheAbominableDan said:
The way I understand it is that there is Anonymous, the "could be anyone anywhere", and then the loosely defined group "Anonymous" that have their own defined calling cards and attack styles. The latter is the one that's organized and usually featured in the news, as they have the technical prowess to actually get things done.Generic Gamer said:
What you are complaining about isn't really Anons fault. Even Anon hates other Anons for "not being true Anons" :/ You're just upset about the justifications and such from onlookers. Anon is Anon: the scum of the earth and the hidden guardian angels, all hidden behind a mask of anonymity. Like how voting is supposed to be. Only some of these "voters" wield virtual AK-47's and either defend the weak or fuck up the world, whatever fancy strikes them on a person by person basis. Hate em for what they do wrong, love em for what they do right, then go back to being neutral. Best way to handle em :/
Is there any reason not to believe in the posibility of anonymous getting there, leaving the file as a warning, and then someone else getting there and stealing the info???
Because the one solid fact we have is that sony's defenses were crap.
Because the one solid fact we have is that sony's defenses were crap.