[djtumolo]

You may be exaggerating. I visited the #opsony room, and at one point they were broadcasting how many LOICs were in operation. Millions? Thousands? No. <100. Less than 100 people in this mob of internet justice. And fewer still doing more nefarious stuff like stalking down execs.

[falcolas]

If < 100 people can cause this level of disruption, I think it adds to, instead of detracts from, GP's point. Ye' olde pitchfork mob couldn't even think of causing this kind of disruption, even at similar numbers.

[mattmanser]

You've got to look at it from the other side too though, it only took a handful of people at SCEA to decide to make geohot's life hell.

There's a lot of general life getting in the way out there, how many people agree with a topic compared to how many will work their ass of to stop it?

[nwmcsween]

From what they've taken down in the past I don't have a doubt that one or more 'anonymous' have access to a botnet. This is probably what the FBI is after and is why no action has been taken.

[DanielBMarkham]

Yes, I am purposely overstating and glossing over certain details, mainly because I'm attempting to extrapolate.

Thanks for pointing that out, though. Perhaps if we're lucky (?) tools to monitor and control mobs will evolve faster than tools to communicate and collaborate securely.

Anonymous is working at the basest level of security -- just drop by and jump in. I imagine what we'll see soon, what we see already in organized crime, is a combination of better ways of vetting while still integrating to the wider net in order to attract new recruits. As they say in the movies, the night is still young. If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems (once again, I'm overstating for effect)

Having said all of that, even if it's only 100 people, and even if it's always 100 people are less, that's a problem. Smaller groups that fly under the radar are more problematic than large noisy ones. How many people did it take to dump all the secure embassy traffic of the United States government?

[cabalamat]

> If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook? We're going to have problems

We are not going to have problems. Governments and corporations who want to take away our rights are going to have problems.

[krakensden]

It's all fun and games until you discover that you're working for today's bad guys, your address is posted up, and there are cocks drawn on your face on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

[ahi]

>If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook?

For the record, I don't see a problem with any of those things, and I doubt I'm the only one.

[makmanalp]

It's useful to mention that you're overstating when you do it (like you did in this post) so that people don't fall into the trap of believing that what you're saying is actually the status quo.

[pdaviesa]

Although you may be right, if the hackanery gets too bad the gov may have no choice but to step in. I wonder how long it will be before a special ops team from the newly formed Ministry of Information is banging down these kids' doors.

[bluedanieru]

If we get something with the moral foundation of wikileaks, the activitst appeal of Anonymous, the secure communication system of Tor, and the virality of Facebook?

What's wrong with that? That would be terrific.