crikkett wrote:Harvey wrote:Just a question from a wholly disinterested party, has Anonymous ever delivered, well, anything at all?
Anonymous gave us the story of HBGeary and the Bank of America plan to harass reporters. That's huge.
Apart from its ability to do technically difficult hacks, and losing the occasional well signposted foot soldier along the way? (Remember the inexplicable 'topiary' reference in the News of The World hack which led directly to low level arrests?)
There's a pastebin (I can't find now) where Anonymous members wrote about their exploits. The most memorable to me was a young (man?) who wrote about helping people who were on the run in the middle east. Heartwrenching stuff.
Let me also ask, if you wanted a sexy, high-value, counter-cultural, decoy, disinformation agent, what would it look like? Yes, and it probably would do ten impossible hacks before breakfast as well.
Not sure.
Thanks Harvey and crikkett for this exchange... what strikes me having read both of these is a rather axiomatic progression of thoughts:
There is no THE Conspiracy. After a decade of studying modern conspiratology in all its forms, the thing that's become the most crystal clear to me following RI over more recent years is that there simply is not a single one monolithic, centralized conspiracy. There are several. Some collaborate, some engage parasitically with each other, and others battle for control, for hearts and minds, and for resources, in a wide variety of theaters. Sure, they have commonalities such as complex multi-layered security constructs to protect their criminal enterprises from scrutiny, subjugation of the majority through callous deceit, and a general powerlust, but clear distinctions are often drawn here among their histories, scope, motive and modus operandi.
Anonymous is a counter-conspiracy. The most obvious way to operate a formidable counter-force to
serious and secretive centralized power and increasing control is obviously a
cheerful and public de-centralized circumvention of power and increasing chaos. This non-organizational non-structure is the only defense against neutralization through infiltration by their opponents.
There is no THE Anonymous. By nature of it being essentially an open-source brand, "Anonymous" can obviously be used rather effectively by any interests to further their agenda, including double-agency or even counter-double-agency. All the public can do is follow the wake of a public announcement to get a sense of Anon consensus, which as we've seen recently isn't necessarily a given, which is incredibly instructive. Ultimately, we will know Anonymous on any given day by their actions on any given day. In the modern nanny-police state, without this double-edge of the Sword of Anonymity, successful large-scale anti-fascist operations could not occur repeatably due to destructive infiltration, and the collateral cost of the new mass-action capabilities afforded by this built-in resiliency is that we can't surmise intent by the identity of the actor as we are accustomed to as non-anonymous social beings, and must instead rely upon the quality of the actions and their aftermath, weighed against any compelling counter-arguments denouncing said actions by other Anons.
Let's hear it for the vague blur...