Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Sony Games

Anonymous Denies Sony Claims of Disruption, Credit Info Theft 275

Posted by timothy
from the singular-or-plural-dammit dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday, in a letter to Congress, Sony detailed the steps they were taking to resolve the issues that have been plaguing them since the PlayStation Network and SOE online components were hacked, claiming to have found evidence linking the crime to Anonymous. Now, Anonymous has responded."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Denies Sony Claims of Disruption, Credit Info Theft

Comments Filter:
  • No they havent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OverlordQ (264228) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:22PM (#36042600) Journal

    Now, Anonymous has responded.

    No, one person has responded. As has been touted many many many times by people on Slashdot whenever news organizations do it, there is no central authority, there is no registered list. So yes, while that clique may not have done it, does not mean another clique didn't.

    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:27PM (#36042638) Journal

      In other words, some part of the infantile emotionally-retarded "collective" didn't penetrate Sony's network, but some other part of the infantile emotionally-retarded "collective" did. But, maybe they were forced to do it while John Travolta held a gun to their head and Halle Berry gave them a blowjob.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by anomaly256 (1243020)
        call them whatever names you want, they've still done a lot of good work bringing to light corruption and lies our governments feed us. The means might not justify the ends but I dare say they do..
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          If they did any good it was purely a side effect that occurred while they were getting their lulz.

          • by Fluffeh (1273756)

            Which doesn't detract from the good itself.

            One sides lulz (like busting Gary for example) might well be a laugh, but for me it shows a wonderful insight that many more people need to see.

            I don't care what the reason is for a good action with a good outcome. The end result is the same.

          • Re:No they havent (Score:4, Insightful)

            by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday May 05, 2011 @11:54PM (#36044300) Homepage Journal

            If they did any good it was purely a side effect that occurred while they were getting their lulz.

            Which makes the good they do that much sweeter.

            Noble intent is fleeting and often unreliable as a motivation. Lulz are forever.

        • Re:No they havent (Score:5, Insightful)

          by schnell (163007) <meNO@SPAMschnell.net> on Thursday May 05, 2011 @10:13PM (#36043872) Homepage

          they've still done a lot of good work bringing to light corruption and lies our governments feed us.

          I thought this was about Anonymous, not Wikileaks. Anonymous in particular and 4chan in general has not brought to light anything I'm aware of except tentactle porn torrents.

          Or have all Slashbot favorite entities merged into one? We can call it GNU WikiBuntuDroidNonymous. Like "Muad'dib" becoming a killing word, its very name will become a nerd totem of +5 Righteousness and +20 Defense Against Potential Girlfriends.

          • Perhaps you're forgetting the blatant fraud and forgery HBGary were guilty of, the underhandedness and blatant lies from The US Chamber of Commerce, The Bank of America, others.. the conspiracies HBGary and Palantir enacted. The way the US Government in general has approached the issues of 'Rights' (or lack thereof) Management. Bringing public awareness to the mishandling of Sony's trials and their intent to violate the principles of capitalism at large.
          • by AmiMoJo (196126)

            Anonymous released material that ACS:Law accidentally posted on its web site, which saved thousands of people in the UK from being intimidated and threatened with bogus copyright infringement claims. It lead to the fall of a borderline criminal (Andrew Crossley). How is that different from the stolen material that Wikileaks publishes? At least the ACS:Law material has had real tangible benefits to ordinary people.

      • by gandhi_2 (1108023)

        Halle Berry gave them a blowjob

        Insha'Allah

      • But, maybe they were forced to do it while John Travolta held a gun to their head and Halle Berry gave them a blowjob.

        Where do i sign up?

        Bonus points if Samuel L. Jackson is also in the room screaming " motherfucker, do you type it?"

      • by vegiVamp (518171)

        No, some other part might have done it.

        Apologies if this rapes your fanboi sensitivities, but Sony offering "proof" means precious little to me until independent, competent entities have reviewed it.

    • Re:No they havent (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ruke (857276) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:39PM (#36042762)

      This brings up some interesting questions about the Anonymous collective. If some Serbian hacker who wanted credit cards, and does not participate in any of the IRC/BBS/etc that "Anonymous" hangs out in, claims to be Anonymous, is he? Do you need to hold any of the (loosely defined) common values that Anonymous tends to, in order to be properly considered Anonymous?

      I understand that the implication in this case, however, is that some members of Anonymous are claiming that this was done by a person or group who would not self-identify as Anonymous; rather, this person or group merely wants to make it look like the loose-collective "Anonymous" performed the hack in order to shift attention away from themselves and towards others who would self-identify as Anonymous.

      • Re:No they havent (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Legal.Troll (2002574) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:46PM (#36042814) Journal
        This is a rather predictable consequence of forming a "group" based on anonymity and total absence of central authority. Anyone who claims to be Anonymous is Anonymous. Anyone who says "Anonymous" did something is lying if and only if the thing was NOT ACTUALLY DONE. Wonderful message-spreading platform you've got for yourself, kids.
        • Anonymous was never really about spreading a message anyway. It's just for amusement. The chief past-time of the group is pulling elaborate pranks and sharing jokes and stories.

          I found it particularly annoying when people started referring to Anonymous as a group that was formed to combat Scientology. Making fun of Scientologists is amusing, but pretending that Anonymous has some sort of credo or mission or organization of any kind whatsoever is just annoying and wrong.

      • Re:No they havent (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mug funky (910186) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @08:11PM (#36043056)

        i'd contend that if nobody shared their intention with others, then there was no acting as a group.

        even if "the leader of anonymous" performed this data grab, if they didn't tell anybody there's no way you can say "anonymous did it".

        so IRC chat logs, postings on anonops or whatever they call it, etc. it's a trivial matter to look this stuff up if you want to find it.

        if there's no sign of these places discussing hacking into PSN and stealing member's details, you can be pretty sure that Anonymous didn't do it.

        i believe they've actually stated early on that their DDoS was hurting PSN users, and they didn't want that - they wanted to hurt Sony, but not gamers. so they changed their strategy (or at least, issued a statement saying "if you're DDoSing PSN, plz stop lol kthxbai", which is as much authority as anon can have over its own members).

        of course, some internet tough guy might have got in during the anon attacks, who identified as anonymous, and decided to take it upon him/herself to steal shit and leave a calling card on behalf of his group. remember there's a lot of misfits out there.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126)

          So all Sony has to do is post a few messages in /b/ claiming to be Anonymous hackers, throw in a bit of insider knowledge just to add credibility, and they have an instant scapegoat. Internet terrorists did it! We are the victims!

          All this tells me is that Sony either has no clue who did it and is tying not to look totally incompetent, or does know who did it and doesn't want the fact that it was professional criminals who are bound to use the data to commit mass fraud on millions of people's identities and

      • Re:No they havent (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Nethemas the Great (909900) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @08:17PM (#36043126)

        If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series.

        With respect to this case, the entire body of evidence linking Anonymous with this intrusion is nothing more than a single file that Sony "claims" to have found on their system. Even "if" this file actually existed, and was found rather than "placed" by Sony employees, it's is analogous to finding a business card on the bank floor after a heist has taken place.

        Regardless of who actually penetrated Sony's systems, there is a serious issue that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves. Sony wasn't minding the shop. Independent researchers informed Sony of their vulnerable systems and Sony ignored them. If a very attractive girl decides to strip naked and run around inside a men's prison should the girl not be at least partially responsible for anything that happens to her. Now in the case of Sony it isn't much different, except for them they aren't just opening themselves up for abuse, they are opening up everyone of their customers whom entrusted them with their exploitable financial data.

        • Re:No they havent (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2011 @10:11PM (#36043860)

          "If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series."

          And you need to re-watch it. The name "Stand-Alone Complex" comes from the fact that there was no Laughing Man. All the "Laughing Man" attacks were all actually inside jobs, corporate attempts at scamming insurers and securing government bailouts. They were all "copycats" for which there never really was an original.

          Anonymous isn't trying to recreate "Laughing Man" here, Sony is, and for the same reasons.

          • Perhaps we watched two different versions...? There was an actual hacker that committed the first incident--the kidnapping of the head of Serano--named Aoi who was inspired by the discovery of a file deep within the net detailing rampant corporate corruption. Aoi put a voice to what might be considered the original Laughing Man, the author of that file. He manipulated (puppetted) some and inspired many others to take up the cause of truth becoming a Laughing Man type. A corrupt group in the government t

          • "If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series."

            And you need to re-watch it. The name "Stand-Alone Complex" comes from the fact that there was no Laughing Man. All the "Laughing Man" attacks were all actually inside jobs, corporate attempts at scamming insurers and securing government bailouts. They were all "copycats" for which there never really was an original.

            Anonymous isn't trying to recreate "Laughing Man" here, Sony is, and for the same reasons.

            To my knowledge the imagining of "Stand-Alone Complex" was to use the same plot as that present in the OAV, but this time the mystery hacker was never caught and never truly identified like he was in the movie (although there he merged with the Major rather than being "caught" in a strict sense). The team only ever found copycats of the Laughing Man, but there was an actual true Laughing Man -- which is why they talk about the Original Laughing Man Incident so much. He (it?) was real. He just got away.

        • by Orffen (1994222)
          Or, if a very attractive girl sits naked in her car with her wallet sitting on the dash, and somebody reaches in through the open car door and swipes the wallet, surely she's at least partially responsible for her wallet being stolen. I'm not sure I got that car analogy quite right.
        • If a very attractive girl decides to strip naked and run around inside a men's prison should the girl not be at least partially responsible for anything that happens to her.

          No, a stupid victim is not responsible for the immorality of their attacker. If think what you are trying to say is that Sony failed to apply due dilligence, which AFAIK is yet to be proven.

          • Re:No they havent (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Nethemas the Great (909900) on Friday May 06, 2011 @01:12AM (#36044592)
            I beg to differ, a stupid victim is in part responsible and so do in a manner of speaking by your statement about Sony failing to apply due diligence. Which of course they hadn't. Researchers months prior discovered that they not only did not have a firewall, but also, unpatched server software. These researchers notified Sony [time.com] of this vulnerability but Sony ignored them.
        • by exomondo (1725132)

          If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series.

          No it isn't, in a stand alone complex there is no 'us' unlike with Anonymous who's media releases reference 'we' or 'us' and the actions of participating individuals are far from being unrelated like they are in a stand alone complex.

        • by Random2 (1412773)

          Actually, Durarara! Is far closer to the story of Anon (and specifically moot) than GiTS or GiTS SAC.

          Other than that I share the same sentiment.

      • "Anonymous" as a targetable group? There's sort of an interesting semantic fan-out here. It's kind of like calling a movie "Closed For Repairs".
    • Re:No they havent (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @08:15PM (#36043110)

      Sony alleges that 'Anonymous' did it; that clearly implies the flavor of the group that has become surprisingly centralized for such a decentralized organization. That core group is presumably the one that responded. Within this context, 'Anonymous' must mean the somewhat centrally led version, otherwise the central question ('Did Anonymous do this?') isn't even well posed.

      Put another way, if the allegation itself can't even be properly bounded, it doesn't really need to responded to. And if Sony can't do better than 'Anonymous did it', they certainly won't get to issuing subpoenas, asset seizures, or criminal charges anyway, making the point moot anyway.

      Basically, put up or shut up, Sony. You need better evidence than 'Kilroy was here'.

      • by bane2571 (1024309)
        Basically what sony are saying is "[someone] Anonymous did it!". IE: we do not know the name of the person/people that did it.
    • by meerling (1487879)
      Anonymous is known to have a core group that decides upon and coordinates their activities, as well as provide "spokesmen" for the media and make press releases.

      What did you expect, something that large and coordinated is just a random flash mob?
    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      We don't know if this was the response of just one person: the linked article was purportedly written by a company called Anonymous Enterprises LLC (Bermuda). Now I'm too lazy to do any more research on that (I leave that to the experts) so I can't tell who is behind that company. But somehow, somewhere one or more individuals have apparently set this up, and the same or other individual(s) wrote this press release.

      This whole "Anonymous" movement, apparently largely concentrated around 4chan, is, well, ano

    • So what? The kind of people who know that Anonymous can't disclaim involvement with certainty also didn't buy Sony's accusations in the first place.

      The kind of people that would be fooled by Sony's baseless accusations are also clueless enough to demand "official" word from Anonymous.

      The one thing we can be sure of is that the people behind the DDoS and the people behind the break in weren't the same since a DDoS makes breaking in next to impossible, with the service being denied and taken offline and all t

    • by Tolkien (664315)
      Actually, I don't believe just one person has responded. I believe Anonymous has. I've read that these sorts of press releases are always discussed at length by those involved in their writing. Many people contribute thoughts and ideas about what to write and how it gets written.
  • Deflection (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trip6 (1184883) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:23PM (#36042604)

    Blame your own incompetence on a well known public entity. A trick as old as the hills.

    • Re:Deflection (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shish (588640) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:49PM (#36042846) Homepage
      And made all the easier by Anonymous' nature -- it only takes one member (or one mole) to say "we did it", and even if all the others say "we didn't", the media can still point at that first voice as an authoritative one...
    • by drb226 (1938360)
      In (conspiracy theory) reality, Sony is secretly behind Anonymous. They are just playing a game of cat and mouse with themselves now to confuse everyone. Because really Microsoft secretly owns Sony and is trying to make itself look better by throwing Sony's reputation in the toilet. But then they realized that they can still make tons of money off of Sony products anyways.
      • So, Jimmy Hoffa killed John F. Kennedy?
      • by Mashiki (184564)

        You know what? That's more plausible than anonymous doing it. I suppose it's because Sony has no credibility with the general public.

        • No credibility with the general public?

          The general public, and their customers, have largely complained about Anonymous hacking PSN. This is one of the main reasons that this "sect" released a press release. The general slashdot crowd may not believe a word Sony says, but that is not representative of the general public.

          It's also not hard for the general public to believe they are behind it, because they have heard of the HBgary hack and the DDoS on Sony, don't know or don't care of the motivations.

          Also, yo

  • Derp (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lysander7 (2085382) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:26PM (#36042624)
    People need to research more before assuming anything. Sony explicitly stated they found verifiable evidence it was Anonymous, as the files the hacker had left behind said "We are Anonymous. We are legion." How that can be confused for anything else is beyond me.
    • Re:Derp (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lysander7 (2085382) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:30PM (#36042670)
      Also, Anonymous is more than a well-known public entity. Many are trolls, whiteknights, immature children, and sophisticated hackers. I know, as I'm one of them. Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground. I don't agree with the hackings, but just because Anonymous officially denies it does not mean their word is to be trusted, or that it wasn't a member doing it independently of the organization.
      • by mark-t (151149)
        If you are one of them, why aren't you posting as AC?
        • by Ruke (857276)
          I believe he is responding to a sibling, rather than a parent:

          I'd like to think that this has come about due to someone at Sony saying that the act was done by "an anonymous hacker" being misunderstood as "an Anonymous hacker".

      • by Nyder (754090)

        Also, Anonymous is more than a well-known public entity. Many are trolls, whiteknights, immature children, and sophisticated hackers. I know, as I'm one of them. Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground. I don't agree with the hackings, but just because Anonymous officially denies it does not mean their word is to be trusted, or that it wasn't a member doing it independently of the organization.

        Sure, so you claim. Mr. Anonymous.

        We'll take your word that Anonymous can't be trusted, because obviously, you can be trusted. After all, you admit to being the man inside.

        Nice try, but you didn't impress anyone here, 'cept the stupid mods who don't know any better.

      • Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground.

        Soooo.... you post on 4chan.

    • Re:Derp (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:31PM (#36042684)

      $ echo "We are legion" > Anonymous.txt

      Should I call the FBI now and get them to investigate an "intrusion perpetrated by Anonymous"?

      Seriously, if you think a text file left behind is proof of anything, I hope you never get called into jury duty.

      • by xMrFishx (1956084)
        What he said.
    • People need to research more before assuming anything. Sony explicitly stated they found verifiable evidence it was Anonymous, as the files the hacker had left behind said "We are Anonymous. We are legion." How that can be confused for anything else is beyond me.

      I just searched my trash can and found a piece of paper proving you broke into my house. It said, "I am Lysander7. Derp." I'm not going to produce the paper, but I think I'll point it out in a press release and accuse you of breaking into my house.

    • by jd2112 (1535857)
      Police! Arrest Lysander7! He is Anonymous, the proof is in the parent post.
    • by JWSmythe (446288)

      And being that you posted the same phrase, that means you are part of the group "Anonymous". Congratulations, now we know who the evil "Anonymous" group is.

      In other news, the tide goes in, the tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. There is an invisible being in the sky who will torture your soul for all of eternity if you don't talk to him, but he really loves you. And if that isn't clear enough, it was God who did it. God hates Sony and the Japanese, and especially all those heathe

    • This is no proof at all, a one liner on the command line produces such a file.

    • So when there is a murder and you find 'Osama was here' written in blood on the wall it's an open and shut case?

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      A text file containing a well known meme is verifiable evidence that Anonymous, a random mob mostly consisting of /b/tards and script kiddies, hacked not only PSN but other Sony on-line services in a way that went undetected for some considerable period of time and which was apparently so sophisticated that fixing the hole is taking weeks? And once inside rather than engaging in epic lulz they quietly stole personal data and credit card details, and then unlike every other hack Anon ever did failed to post

  • by poity (465672) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:30PM (#36042666)

    They're like-minded individuals who coalesce to serve a shared whim at a particular time. If so, then it is indeed difficult to pin any particular action or crime upon its body for prosecution, but at the same time it is equally difficult, if not more so, to unpin any accusations. I think we're seeing here one of the downsides to organizations whose structure of responsibility is nearly flat, where not only does the left hand not know what the right is doing, each hair on each finger doesn't know what the rest are doing. In light of their historic antics, those who align themselves with Anonymous fight an uphill battle to shed themselves of ill-repute whenever any such indictments surface. But they get no remorse from me -- it's a choice they've made and a reality they have to deal with.

    • by poity (465672)

      oops, i meant they get no sympathy. I knew I shouldn't have been typing that fast :(

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Yet for many other attacks they do claim/admit responsibility. They sometimes even announce it in advance. Their communication channels are no secret, anyone can listen in if they like to do so, to keep track of what Anonymous is up to.

      Credit card theft doesn't go together with loosely banded idealistic movements. That is for professional thieves, usually operating alone or in tightly closed small groups, as there is profit to be made for them. Those thieves may again align themselves with Anonymous of cou

      • by Ash-Fox (726320)

        Yet for many other attacks they do claim/admit responsibility. They sometimes even announce it in advance. Their communication channels are no secret, anyone can listen in if they like to do so, to keep track of what Anonymous is up to.

        Maybe for AnonOps, but that most certainly isn't the only 'Anonymous' group out there, there are quite a few that aren't public and are secret.

        Credit card theft doesn't go together with loosely banded idealistic movements

        Not everyone in anonymous has this magical morale compa

  • by bluemonq (812827) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:32PM (#36042700)

    I was under the impression that *anyone* can be Anonymous. If that's the case, Anonymous can't prove that Anonymous didn't do it.

    • by PhilHibbs (4537)

      They have communication channels that they use to co-ordinate. If there was no mention of it on the Anonymous channels, then it's not an Anonymous activity. According to the article linked, they invite journalists into their channels.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by exentropy (1822632)
      Innocent until proven guilty.
    • If Anonymous did it, you would have heard about it at the time. Anonymous relies on a public call to arms to mobilize its sleeper agents among us. There would have been battle calls and if it was taken up by a significant number Sony would have cried foul and Anonymous would have gloated like there was no tomorrow. It didn't happen. That is all the proof it takes. Anonymous cant operate secretly, its just not possible. If there is a legion marching, you will know.
      • by Ash-Fox (726320)

        You seem to think that everyone who is apart of "Anonymous" operates and thinks in the same way. You are mistaken, anyone can be Anonymous. Not everyone who is Anonymous feels the need to call on others or gloat about it. Not everyone who is apart of Anonymous has the best of intentions either.

        • Anonymous is just like the public, it contains people of all sorts. But its not a group of people with a label. It's a phenomena. It happens when assorted people, strangers, act with a common goal. For that to happen the goal needs to be known and agreed up on and to do that the vision needs to be forwarded to as many as possible. You cant be loud, even obnoxiously so, and secret at the same time. It just doesn't work. No matter what your intentions are.
  • WHO responded? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by melikamp (631205) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:33PM (#36042706) Homepage Journal
    If the response was anonymous, how do we know that the people who responded were the same as those who DDOSed? This, in a nutshell, is the idiocy of treating Anonymous as a group of people, however loosely organized. It would be better to call them what they are in this particular instance: Sony customers who are really pissed off.
    • by Nyder (754090)

      If the response was anonymous, how do we know that the people who responded were the same as those who DDOSed? This, in a nutshell, is the idiocy of treating Anonymous as a group of people, however loosely organized. It would be better to call them what they are in this particular instance: Sony customers who are really pissed off.

      If your DDOSing the server, wouldn't it make it a little hard to hack into that computer? How are you able to hack in the computer when it's being overwhelmed with fake requests?

      • by bane2571 (1024309)
        I think the idea is to Ddos after the fact, to cover your tracks and to tie up the resources that would otherwise be responsible for noticing your breach.
        • by Nyder (754090)

          I think the idea is to Ddos after the fact, to cover your tracks and to tie up the resources that would otherwise be responsible for noticing your breach.

          ah, yes, didn't think of that.

          thanks.

  • Anonymous is the ultimate form of democracy. It is the unwashed masses, taking a whim upon themselves, and challenging the remainder of society to vote with (or against) them. They are the power of the masses, and at the same time, they have the mentality of a mob.

    Take a look at recent events. American SEALs assassinate OBL despite a 30YO executive order banning such actions. No trial, no jury. Just straight to the execution. The legality of it is worthy of being questioned - but the vast majority o
  • 'Anonymous' (at least in this article) refers to the group AnonOps Communications, who host the numerous IRC channels, have a loose leader base, publish various 'flyers' of propaganda, and are the people behind 'Operation: Payback'. There is a difference between the group itself and an anonymous hacker, even if the anonymous hacker was acting out in the 'name' of anonymous.
    what this article is saying is that the 'AnonOps' group had no involvement in the stealing of sony data, even if an anonymous hacker did
  • They said they found a file called "Anonymous" with "We Are Legion" inside. They didn't draw conclusions. At question 7 when asked if they know of the individual(s) responsible for the break-in, they say "no".

    Please stop misreporting this just to troll your readers.

    Sony gave factual answers, when the allegedly well-informed tech press can't even read it without stating information that wasn't in the release, what chance is there for accurate info to get out?

  • The worst part of this whole thing is that something like 1 in 10 people in North America at the very least probably have SOME motivation in their background to do something like this to embarrass Sony without having to get Anonymous involved.

    Generally a higher portion of those 1 in 10 would be tech savvy folks. I would expect 50% or greater(almost all of the people I know that boycott sony would be in the "tech savvy" group, based on that anecdotal evidence I'd estimate 90%+ but since I'm pulling numbers o

  • “We discovered a file [newstechnica.com] making a clear reference to ‘Username unknown,’” the company said in a letter to the US Congress on Wednesday, “and a blank user icon which therefore was ... anonymous! D’you see what that means? It means George Hotz and his hacker friends are loathsome criminal masterminds! So obviously we can’t be held liable for negligence in the face of forces like these. In conclusion, give us money.”

  • Not that Anonymous are terrorists -- far from it.

    But one of the challenges in making peace with loose organizations like Hamas, Mahdi Militia, or the IRA -- just to give a few examples -- and while the leadership of the organization legitimately wants a cease fire, they're not in control of their members. If some guy becomes disillusioned by a peace deal and wants to bomb something, he's going to and the organization he or she is part of can't stop them.

    I wouldn't put it past them to be the same thing here

  • I haven't been able to log into EQ in days. Clearly, this "Anonymous" is a terrorist organization that seeks to strike at core American values. Seal Team Six is on the way.

    Ooops...does this mean I've blown my anonymity? Guess I'll just have to confiscate /.

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long

Working...