
Hacker group draws increased scrutiny from feds - gibsonf1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/09/11/national/a083107D28.DTL&tsp=1
======
wccrawford
It was inevitable that they would go after hackers that do illegal things, but
I wonder if they are prepared to handle what Anonymous really is? It's not
enough to prove that someone is in Anonymous... They have to have prove the
person actually did some hacking for it. Anyone can -say- they are in
Anonymous without having any idea what others are doing under the name.

The article notes they have no leaders... But they also have no member list or
any real organization at all, beyond what pops up spontaneously for each
cause. You can't say any 2 hacks are related to each other unless you can
prove the same people were in on them... Which is the opposite of how they
usually do it.

It's going to be ugly.

------
mentat
Anonymous is just a label for people who are fed up with the government.
Seeing the posters and the real impact in San Francisco, you can't just call
it a "hacker group". At least in some areas they are approaching "movement".

~~~
sliverstorm
_Anonymous is just a label for people who are fed up with the government_

I get the impression that often 'being fed up with the government' is just a
label for 'people who want to cause trouble'.

~~~
nitrogen
Contented people usually don't cause trouble.

~~~
dredmorbius
Psychopathy excepted.

C.f.: certain violent criminals, backstabbing co-workers, banksters, and the
like.

~~~
nitrogen
I'd like to know how much psychopathy is caused by traumatic experiences
during formative years, genetic factors, exposure to toxic substances, and/or
physical brain damage. I'd also like to know how much crime is motivated by
psychopathy vs. discontent, retaliation, lack of education, and cultural
differences. Knowing these things would significantly inform my opinions on
Anonymous, terrorism, criminal justice, etc.

~~~
dredmorbius
Lots of all of the above. I'm only vaguely acquainted with the literature
myself.

One of the more interesting reads I've had is of studies of leaded white paint
and childhood brain development pathologies leading to numerous psychological
problems, including criminal tendencies. This was known in at least part
(similarly to health effects of smoking) for well over a century, but it
wasn't until the 1970s and 80s that lead paint was outlawed. Subsequently
there's been a dramatic decrease in associated crime rates. Much of the
advertising and iconography of paint companies (the Little Dutch Boy of the
National Lead Company, a/k/a Sherwin-Williams) was aimed at making the public
comfortable with the idea of using lead paint in areas used by children.

Unfortunately, slow housing/building stock turnover means that there are still
many buildings with significant lead toxicity, though the problem is slowly
getting better.

And this is one of only very many environmental factors. Other contaminants,
psychological trauma in infancy/childhood, and genetic factors do all appear
to play a significant role.

