Anonymous Isn't Anonymous Anymore

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently some small security firm has been able to determine the real identities of several key Anonymous hackers which is resulting in a ton of arrests. From the article: 'An international investigation into cyber-activists who attacked businesses hostile to WikiLeaks is likely to yield arrests of senior members of the group after they left clues to their real identities on Facebook and in other electronic communications, it is claimed.'"

identity's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Plurals are not denoted by apostrophes. Apostrophes are for possessives and contractions. 3rd grade stuff, that.

Re:"Identity's"?

[presidenteloco]

Anonymous is a concept, not a group. It is an intensional definition of a set, not the set extension.

So is Al Quaeda, Earth First! etc.

Some authorities tend not to get that.

Re:Senior member of Anonymous?

[Goaway]

It did not appear out of nowhere -- someone had the idea and a small group of people liked that idea and it grew from there. We can call the person who had the idea a "founder" and the people who are deeply involved with the movement "senior members".

No, really, you're just showing you don't know what you're talking about here. "Anonymous" isn't some "small group of people", and never was. It's a name for posters on 4chan. That's pretty much it. Some of these people do things, sometimes. They use the name "Anonymous" when doing so, sometimes. Sometimes people who don't even post on 4chan use the name. There is no organization, and there is no membership.

Sometimes some people might organize behind the scenes to do something, while using the name "Anonymous". The next week, someone else might also organize something. It might be the same people, or it might not. This doesn't mean they are somehow more representative of "Anonymous" than anyone else on the planet, or any more than you or me.

The name existed long before anyone was actually trying to use it for direct actions. It used to just be a name for people who looked at porn on 4chan. This group of people was not "small". There was no "founder", other than moot and his helpers, and he has absolutely nothing at all to do with what people do under the name "Anonymous" nowadays.

Re:"Identity's"?

[Gerzel]

No they are groups rallied around a concept.

You can't have a group without a concept but you can have a concept without a group as a concept can be grasped by a single individual.

In any case the authorities only really care about those that break the law/disrupt things so the concept is beside the point, a link only and nothing more.

Re:Probably a bad choice of title...

[tmosley]

Actually, come to think of it, it's like a bunch of bees that each have their own colony. When one stings, others are likely to follow up, until the victim dies, runs away, or concedes whatever point the original attacker wanted. Or until they get bored. Also, they can sting multiple times, and often do it just for fun. Even if they could easily elucidate the identities of each and every attacker, do you really think anyone has the ability to go out and smash each individual hive? I sure don't. Instead, they try to make an example of a few, as they are doing here, and try to use fear to stop the others. Sometimes it works (more or less, don't mess with football), other times it doesn't.