"Anon"

It came to my attention a couple of hours ago that Anonymous is on the prowl once again.
Now it is the major creditors who are the victim of their DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks.
As it happens, Anonymous has been one of the major focuses of my recent research paper, so I just had to write something about these new activities they are involved in.

The Guardian wrote today that Anonymous is a set of individuals, who number around a thousand people, tied by their same ideological preferences. This is more or less wrong.
The Guardian had in some unknown way gotten a hold of a representative for Anon, which in itself is something that is close to impossible to do, because "the group"/Concept is driven by "the many" and not a person.
This individual, who called himself Coldblood, said that "We're against corporations and government interfering on the Internet,"and "We believe it should be open and free for everyone. Governments shouldn't try to censor because they don't agree with it.".

First of all; A spokesperson from Anonymous would call himself "Epic fail guy", Anon or Anonymous, not a "closetonormal" alias  you find in almost every forum out there. This person has obviously misunderstood the concept of Anon in itself, even thought he claims to know how it work, and therefore speaks on its behalf.

Based on my research into Anonymous I would presume that the range of people engaged in Anonymous is much more than a thousand people. Simply by looking at the range, randomness and the efficiency their actions have had over the years, since 2003, shows that it is a far larger group than what The Guardian or Mr. Coldblood may think.

"Anonymous is supporting WikiLeaks not because we agree or disagree with the data that is being sent out, but we disagree with any from of censorship on the internet. If we let WikiLeaks fall without a fight then governments will think they can just take down any sites they wish or disagree with."
                                                                                            - Coldblood
 
In this he may be right. Anonymous started as a reaction to censorship, and will continue to be so.
When it comes to the contents of the article, I could not do anything more than smile as I read. I applaud Anons activity in this. In my personal view creditors or car-companies, like MasterCard and Visa, cannot be the ones who decide where we wish to put our money/give our money to or where we wish to make investments.
Even though the methods of Anonymous through their DDoS attacks is more or less successful, I feel obligated to note that there are other ways in which to disrupt or harass online corporations. The information, spread around online, about projects like "Chan0l0gy" is a very effective way in making people aware of a problem.
By going straight to DDoS attacks they effectively focused the medias attention on the "dark" side of the concept of Anon. They are now again associated to 4Chan, which is only a small portal of their operations and forums, which will again make people believe they ARE 4Chan... which they are not.
So I think its probably a good idea that they are moving away from DDoS and over to mirroring tactic instead.

Having said this I hope to have made some points more clear about the concept of Anon: It is not an organization, it is more a concept than a group, they room more than 1000 people in their ranks and are NOT predictable in their agendas, attacks, or ideology.

If it were up to me I would think of Anonymous the same way theorists think about the concept of Hegemony, with a few twists; A dominant web-based concept, reproduced in culture, media, and arts, that lacks full understanding and theoretical basis.
I base this on the fact that the people who are the most knowledgeable about hacking and the like, does not work for any government as far as we know to this date(based upon research done into several national hacking incidents around the world), therefore are fully capable to be members, or promoters of groups/concepts such as Anonymous.

I would guess that the only persons who really know how Anonymous works are the more active people engaged in it. But who these people are is still irrelevant, since the concept in it self says; "None of us are as cruel as All of us", that is to say, that they play on the concept that anyone of us are potential members of Anonymous.
Don´t misunderstand. You do not have to be morally deprived or a super hacker in order to be a part of Anonymous. Indeed, most of the actions done by Anonymous is done on the basis of something I would call a strong sense of responsibility. But when I say that, I do not count the Hacking of the national epilepsy organization, or the personalized attacks on a range of individuals, into the equation.

DB, a Norwegian newspaper also covered this story.

Anyway. I hope Wikileaks keeps doing what they do best; Deliver us information. And I am glad that Anonymous have taken an interest, because CARD-COMPANIES ARE CONSUMER SLAVES, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

Here are some videos posted by Anonymous, mostly regarding their project of Chan0l0gy.