lol look at me I changed this (); parameter to include a 3 in it i'm a true hacker now....freakin script kiddies can't stand the little [censored] stains.

Glad that lulzsec got outed by one of its own members none the less. Can understand some "fighting the power," but what they did was crossing the line imho.

Pfft, if my total sentence was potentially 125 years and I thought that helping the FBI could stop me from rotting in prison for the rest of my life, I'd squeel like a piggy. Loyalty? To some internet geeks? Hardly worth life in prison.

Why though, it's not like they have life enhancing drugs that can make you serve all 125years
Plus some hacker/computer geeks end up working on stuff for goverment services in some cases which is a much better turn over.

Yes, most people in anonymous or who associate with anonymous are little more than anolysts and maybe IT technicians, while there will be a large number of people who understand and utilise the tools of hacking, not all of them will as it is often made out. Alot of them are merely investigative journalists with a mask, some are just people who believe in the idea of anonymous.

I've been doing a lot of research on anonymous recently, I've been given them as a subject for a feature piece to showcase, It's hard remaining impartial toward them, as sometimes they do seem like the selfless activists they like to play as, while at others they seem like little more than vigilantes or criminals (the latter applies to the few who actively steal credit card information etc) In order to stay impartial for my article i've been treating anonymous and it's activities more as a social experiment rather than a politically driven activist movement.

Anonymous as a group though, on my own personal level, is hard to judge in absolution and totality, as it does stand firmly on some very agreeable values. Since it's a faceless and very very loosely knitted organisation one can't simply judge on the head of the group as you would with a political party or company (for example, alot of people judge Lionhead on Peter Molyneux, alot of people judge bethesda on Todd Howard etc ) So it's both easy to be objective since they are not fronted by a likeable or dis-likeable character or person, but on another level it's hard to be objective because there is so much activity to judge on coming from different members with different agendas.

As for Anonymous's message, well I wont talk about that but I really think that their videos are really unbalanced in terms of sending a message, they often use a "news room" format, comprising of a suited reader behind a desk wearing the Guy Fawkes mask, and even an introduction sequence. All well and good for those who want to be taken seriously, but when combined with two amalgamated electronically generated voices which give a multi-tonal resonant effect possibly to emphasise the fact that the reader is speaking with more than his own voice (I.e the voices of the people) and coupled with both stirring and tension building background music and a (lets face it) bad ass mask associated more with an anti-hero than a historical figure, the message begins to feels more like something, an invitation maybe, designed to appeal to a rebellious nature or to speak to those people who feel they need a cause regardless of what it is.

It's a masterfully composed piece of propaganda when you think about it.


I hope this post made sense. I tend to ramble on without my notes at hand.

Are you doing this of your own accord or as something officially academic?

Officially academic. I was given a choice of politics and current events, sports, celebrity culture and music. I chose the one subject that doesn't make my brain melt.