Posted by
Steve Smith on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Urgent-skype-vulnerability-tp7583763p7583851.html
Marcus -
> Steve wrote:
>
> ``Anonymous has *nothing* to offer *anyone* as an organization IMO. What
> it offers, as a concept, is an inspiration and an awareness that a
> large, almost completely decoupled group of people can have a big effect.''
>
> An individual that knows they are passing a critical threshold of danger
> doesn't need inspiration.
Hmmm... I'm probably reading you 180 degrees out of phase somehow.
What I *hear* is that you are suggesting either that Anonymous members
(whatever it means to be a member of a non-organization) are operating
out of fear or awareness of danger? I see them acting out of a
combination of an anti-establishment aesthetic (like the many movements
of the 60's, early 70's) and a certain righteous indignation ("that is
just WRONG!"). I could be wrong but I think most of the Anonymous folks
are relatively privileged middle-class youth with a peppering of
underprivileged high functionings and some older, more seasoned folks
not unlike the demographic of *this* list.
> ``I don't fully appreciate your Adrian Lamo reference... are you saying
> that the Mannings (and Snowdens?) of the world need to think about the
> Lamos of the world when they act?''
>
> Besides the possibility of spies within the group, there's the possibility
> that the group itself is an illusion. People have different values and
> cope with fear in different ways.
I don't think either Manning nor Snowden started out acting out of fear,
though I'm sure there was plenty of fear available to both of them at
different times. I suspect their actions were spurred by something like
righteous indignation (which might be a good cover for fear?).
I think you are referencing Lamo's similarity to Anonymous affiliates
but with his insular perspective having no affinity or loyalty to
them? Again, I'm probably reading you all wrong.
> There's less confusion in the case of governments or criminal
> organizations: They will be ruthless in circling the wagons on people that
> act unpredictably and threaten the group purpose.
Well, they do have their own factionation and internal power struggles,
but I think I agree in principle that their *overt* organization
allows/supports this.
> Anonymous can't do that.
To the extent that Anonymous *has* no group purpose, I think you are
correct. But Anonymous *does* clearly mount temporary "Operations".
Isn't their attack on HBGary an example of this? I am sure I'm missing
something here.
Maybe a simple statement of what you are arguing against might clarify
for me, I might be missing your fundamental point?
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com