Anonymous en Anonymous: Wie spreekt er namens wie?

Anonymous neemt afstand van Anonymous. Het liet zich afgelopen week van meerdere kanten zien. Dat ligt voor de hand bij een collectief waarvan niemand de eigenaar is en dat iedereen kan kapen. Anonymous moet het idee van onbeperkte vrijheid loslaten om zich tegen zowel idioten als politieke tegenstanders te beschermen. Anonymous dreigt sowieso een sleets merk te worden. Geen wonder dat Nederlandse media het niet konden vatten. En checkten. Het leidde tot berichtgeving die journalistieke codes overboord zette. Alsof Anonymous niet al sinds de actie tegen de Scientology Church begin 2008 wereldwijd aan de weg timmert en zich bekend heeft gemaakt in haar anonimiteit. Maar de verwarring is begrijpelijk. Wie spreekt er namens wie?

Op 19 oktober gaat de documentaire ‘We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists‘ in première. Het schetst de kern van de beweging. Volgens het idee van vrijheid werd de film van Brian Knappenberger gelijk op internet gezet. Zodat het van ons allen werd. Hier te bekijken. Verder ergerde WikiLeaks Anonymous omdat de klokkenluiderssite een betaalmuur had opgetrokken die de toegang ernstig bemoeilijkte. Omdat dit haaks staat op de transparantie die Anonymous voorstaat regende het op twitter kritiek: ‘The attempt is fishy, wrong, outrageous and WTF. Whoever thought of this!?‘ Met een ondertoon dat dit dient om dure advocaten voor Julian Assange te betalen. Waarbij velen in naam van Anonymous over het verraad van WikiLeaks spraken.

In Nederland wist De Telegraaf het afgelopen vrijdag zeker: ‘De beruchte hackersgroep Anonymous dreigt zaterdag een grote aanval uit te voeren op Nederlandse internetproviders en de overheid. De doelen zouden onder meer de stichting BREIN, KPN, Ziggo, Tele2, UPC en XS4All zijn.’ De krant baseerde zich op een video. Het Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum van het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie stond klaar voor een cyberaanval. Het had de mankracht verdubbeld. Er kwam geen aanval. Nu blijkt volgens Wim Takkenberg van de High Tech Crime Unit van de KLPD dat de dreigvideo van een individu kwam. Die niets met Anonymous te maken had. Dit toont opnieuw de kwetsbaarheid van Anonymous. Anonymous reageerde met de tegenfilm.

Foto: Why We Protest

6 gedachten over “Anonymous en Anonymous: Wie spreekt er namens wie?

  1. het wordt tijd voor een niet aflatyende cyberaanval op de NL overheid.
    Zij hebben onze samenleving stelselmatig en systematig verpest.
    Zie zorg
    Zie wonen
    zie sociale uitkeringen
    zie oorlogen waarin we zitten
    zie lidmaatschap NATO


  2. Verklaring dd 11 oktober 2012 van AnonymousIRC over WikiLeaks en Julian Assange:

    Statement on WikiLeaks

    Tweets are not a good way to explain why we are angry about the recent developments in Wikileaks, so here is a summary of the situation and an explanation why we are so appalled.

    Since yesterday visitors of the Wikileaks site are presented a red overlay banner that asks them to donate money. This banner cannot be closed and unless a donation is made, the content like GIFiles and the Syria emails are not displayed.

    We are aware that the donation advertisment can be circumvented by disabling Javascript. However, this is not the point. Neither that Wikileaks is asking for donations. However, we do see a serious problem in the way Wikileaks is implementing this for several reasons. First of all, the casual user (which is the majority) usually has Javascript enabled and thus will be blocked by the donation banner and denied the content. Additionally, the casual user does not know that he needs to disable javascript to get to the content without paying – sorry, donating. He may not even know what javascript is, let alone how to disable it. Lastly, regardless of any workarounds, the fact remains that a meretricious banner is placed for the majority of visitors that cannot be closed. The obvious intention is to increase donations.

    We have been worried about the direction Wikileaks is going for a while. In the recent month the focus moved away from actual leaks and the fight for freedom of information further and further while it concentrated more and more on Julian Assange. It goes without saying that we oppose any plans of extraditing Julian to the USA. He is a content provider and publisher, not a criminal.

    But Wikileaks is not – or should not be – about Julian Assange alone. The idea behind Wikileaks was to provide the public with information that would otherwise being kept secret by industries and governments. Information we strongly believe the public has a right to know. But this has been pushed more and more into the background, instead we only hear about Julian Assange, like he had dinner last night with Lady Gaga. That’s great for him but not much of our interest. We are more interested in transparent governments and bringing out documents and information they want to hide from the public.

    As far as money is concerned, we understand that Wikileaks lives from donations. And it is fine to ask for them as long as this is done in an unostentatious manner. This is clearly not the case anymore, even though the overall situation cannot be that bad: According to the Transparency Report of the Wau Holland Stiftung**[1], Julian received 72.000 Euros only for project coordination in 2011 – this does not include travel costs. And 265.000 Euros were spent on “campaigns”. (Note that the 139.000 Euro in donations only accounts for the funds that went through the Wau Holland Stiftung, it does not include any donation to Wikileaks directly).

    The conclusion for us is that we cannot support anymore what Wikileaks has become – the One Man Julian Assange show. But we also want to make clear that we still support the original idea behind Wikileaks: Freedom of information and transparent governments. Sadly we realize that Wikileaks does not stand for this idea anymore.

    We also like to point out that of course we cannot speak in the name of Anonymous. This is merely one of many twitter accounts, albeit an established one over the recent years. But we know that we are certainly not alone within the Anonymous collective with this assessment of the situation. We have talked with many people on twitter, IRC and other communication platforms and the vast majority was appalled by this intrusive form of solicitation.

    We will continue to fight for free information and support anyone who pursues the same ideal.

    ~~ Anonymous

    Verklaring dd 15 oktober 2012 van Julian Assange over de controverse tussen Anonymous en WikiLeaks:

    Basic solidarity in WikiLeaks & Anonymous.

    By Julian Assange

    Freedom isn’t free, justice isn’t free and solidarity isn’t
    free. They all require generosity, self-discipline, courage and a sense of perspective.

    Groups with unity flourish and those without unity are
    destroyed and replaced by those who have it.

    Traditional armies gain unity through isolation, ritualized
    obedience, and through coercive measures applied to
    dissenters up to and including death.

    Groups who do not have techniques of unity derived from
    solidarity and common cause will be dominated by groups with coercive unity.

    In the end it is the techniques of unity that dominate our
    civilization. Unified groups grow and multiply. Groups which lack unity imperil themselves and their allies.

    It doesn’t matter what principles a group espouses. If it
    is not able to demonstrate basic unity it will be dominated
    by alliances that do.

    When a group grows large the public press becomes a medium through which the group talks to itself. This gives the public press influence over the groups self-awareness. The public press has its agendas. So do insiders who speak to it.

    For large groups, group insiders who interface with the public press are able to lever themselves into a position of
    internal influence via press influence.

    Because Anonymous is anonymous, those who obtain this or other forms of leadership influence can be secretly decapitated and replaced by other interests.

    This is exactly what happened in the Sabu affair. An
    important part of Anonymous ended up being controlled by the FBI. The cooption of its most visible figure, Sabu, was then used to entrap others.

    FBI agents or informers have subsequently run entrapment
    operations against WikiLeaks presenting as figures from

    According to FBI indictments the FBI has at various times
    controlled Anonymous servers. We must assume that currently
    a substantial number of Anonymous severs and “leadership”
    figures are compromised. This doesn’t mean Anonymous
    should be paralyzed by paranoia. But it must recognize the
    reality of infiltration. The promotion of “”
    and similar assets which are indistinguishable from an
    entrapment operations must not be tolerated.

    The strength of Anonymous was not having leadership or
    other targetable assets. When each person has little
    influence over the whole, and no assets have special
    significance, compromise operations are expensive
    and ineffective. The cryptography used in Friends of
    WikiLeaks is based on this principle while WikiLeaks as
    an organization has a well tested public leadership cohort
    inorder to prevent covert leadership replacement.

    Assets create patronage and conflict around asset
    control. This includes virtual assets such as servers,
    Twitter accounts and IRC channels.

    The question Anonymous must ask is does it want to be
    a mere gang (“expect us”) or a movement of solidarity. A
    movement of solidaarity obtains its unity through common value and through the symbolic celebration of individuals whose actions strive towards common virtues.

    Assessing the statement by “@AnonymousIRC”.

    In relation to alleged associates of WikiLeaks. It is
    rarely in an alleged associates interest, especially
    early in a case, for us to be seen to be helping them
    or endorsing them. Such actions can be used as evidence
    against them. It raises the prestige stakes for prosecutors
    who are likely to use these alleged associates in a public
    proxy war against WikiLeaks. We do not publicly campaign
    for alleged associates until we know their legal team
    approves and our private actions must remain private. This calculous should be obvious.

    Several weeks ago, WikiLeaks began a US election related
    donations campaign which expires on election day, Nov 6.

    The WikiLeaks campaign pop-up, which, was activated weeks
    ago, requires tweeting, sharing, waiting or donating once
    per day.

    Torrents, unaffected even by this pop-up remain available
    from the front page.

    These details should have been clearer but were available
    to anyone who cared to read. The exact logic and number of
    seconds are in the page source. We are time and resource
    constrained. We have many battles to deal with. Other than
    adding a line of clarification, we have not changed the
    campaign and nor do we intend to.

    We know it is annoying. It is meant to be annoying. It is
    there to remind you that the prospective destruction of
    WikiLeaks by an unlawful financial blockade and an array
    of military, intelligence, DoJ and FBI investigations,
    and associated court cases is a serious business.

    WikiLeaks faces unprecedented costs due to involvement
    in over 12 concurrent legal matters around the world,
    including our litigation of the US military in the Bradley
    Manning case. Our FBI file as of the start of the year
    had grown to 42,135 pages.

    US officials stated to Australian diplomats the the
    investigation into WikiLeaks is of “unprecedented scale
    and nature”. Our people are routinely detained. Our editor
    was imprisoned, placed under house arrest for 18 months,
    and is now encircled in an embassy in London where he has
    been formally granted political asylum. Our people and
    associates are routinely pressured by the FBI to become
    informers against our leadership.

    Since late 2010 we have been under an unlawful financial
    blockade. The blockade was found to be unlawful in the
    Icelandic courts, but the credit companies have appealed
    to the Supreme Court. Actions in other jurisdictions are
    in progress, including a European Commission investigation
    which has been going for over a year.

    Despite this we have won every publishing battle and
    prevailed over every threat. Last month the Pentagon
    reissued its demands for us to cease publication of
    military materials and to cease “soliciting” US military
    sources. We will prevail there also, not because we are
    adept, although we are, but because to do so is a virtue
    that creates common cause.


    Julian Assange
    Embassy of Ecuador


  3. Pingback: Project Mayhem « George Knight

  4. Pingback: Anonymous Netherlands informeert en assembleert de waarheid « George Knight


  6. Pingback: #OpUSA en Anonymous: Hacked door wie en waarom? | George Knight

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen. logo

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s

Deze site gebruikt Akismet om spam te bestrijden. Ontdek hoe de data van je reactie verwerkt wordt.