[jballanc]

No, not even close. While it is difficult to come up with a concrete definition of terrorism, let's at least acknowledge that it involves some form of fear/terror among the general public.

I am confident that I have nothing to fear from Anonymous. Do you?

Rather, the description (attackers aren't big...specific domain knowledge) sounds a hell of a lot more like classic guerrilla tactics. It's also worth noting that guerrilla tactics are most successful when used in defense of home territory, and I think that fits the analogy as well. The government, big media, and others are invading "the internet" which is, for all intents and purposes, anonymous's home territory.

[xp84]

> I have nothing to fear from Anonymous. Do you?

Thanks to whoever was calling themselves "Anonymous" one particular day, my full name, physical and email address, and credit card number was posted publically on the Internet, merely for being a customer of a company who some misguided "Anon" thought was working for The Man (not even close by the way). This means that anyone I have ever given my address to will now be able to find out my precise address and full name. For me it is an annoyance, but I have been exceedingly careful not to associate anything controversial online with my real-life identity. Someone who had enemies, or even expressed opinions online that were controversial--to ANY segment of the population--would have a lot of reason to fear for their lives thanks to that irresponsible act.

"Anonymous" are criminals who directly target random civilians and use them as pawns to try to scare those who are in power. The people in power are sure that "Anonymous" will never tilt the balance of power away, but that doesn't stop them from trying, and leaving a devastating trail of identity theft in their wake.

Furthermore, the fact that they are so antisocial they won't show themselves means there can be no accountability for them, so the true good idealists among them are operating in an opaque cloud of others who have proven to have no insight, no judgment, and no sense of ethics or fairness (a phenomenon that anonymity often leads to in humans). These bad seeds use the public perception of "Anonymous" as a force for "Good" and "Openness" in order to commit petty crime such as charging things on other people's credit card for purely selfish reasons. We will probably see the same people exploiting "Anonymous" to commit more and more serious crimes.

Sorry for the novella. My point was just that the public has a great deal to fear from these people.

EDIT: I agree with a lot of things ascribed to that group -- I've marched with OWS before. However, their apparent mission that no one, no country, no company should have any privacy or confidentiality ever, coming from a group that refuses to identify themselves, is just making them look like hypocrites.

[InclinedPlane]

Terrorism: guerrilla warfare largely against civilian targets.

[jbooth]

I'd say "political violence against civilians", in which case we're 0-for-2 with this being neither violent nor aimed at civilians.

[xp84]

How are Anonymous's typical shenanigans (dumping user databases and posting millions of people's personal data online in an attempt to "shame" the site owner) not aimed directly at civilians? It's like rigging the elevator cables in a building to fail. Sure, the company responsible for the elevator maintenance looks bad, but you also kill people.

Sure "Anonymous" has mostly remained nonviolent, but they regularly harm innocent people to attempt to acheive their goals.

[InclinedPlane]

Oh sure, this isn't terrorism, and calling it that is just silly.

"Political violence against civilians" isn't quite right, because "civilians" can nevertheless wage war. What happens when two nations fight against each other with the full backing of their "civilian" populations, who actively provide all of the funding and materiel to fight the war? Is it off-limits to attack civilians? Should that sort of warfare be lumped in with terrorism?

[AJ007]

Has there been a war in history where civilians were not fair game?

[abk]

Non-combattants should be off-limits imo, yes. However war and terrorism are completely different. It's generally accepted that there may be civilian casualties in a war zone, and that is clearly not terrorism (intimidation, maybe).

Unprovoked, unilateral attacks seem to be the more traditional form of terrorism (basically using fear to try and influence behavior), in particular when performed by groups not (officially) affiliated with a specific government.

[InclinedPlane]

Let's take an example from history. You have a country like Britain during WWII. It is a democracy, it has elected a government which has chosen to make war against Germany. There is widespread public support for the government and for the choice of making war against Germany. More so, the civilian economy is in high gear supporting the war effort (supplying food, clothing, arms, ammunition, vehicles, etc.)

I can understand being apprehensive about violence against non-combatants, but in the above situation what exactly is the justification for excluding attacking civilians?

[jbooth]

Well, that's a bad example because there've been dozens of papers regarding strategic bombing in WWII, and almost all of them concluded it was a failure as far as affecting production capability of the bombee, and a worse failure as far as morale.

So on the efficacy front, it didn't make sense, and on the honor front it's on some pretty shaky ground. Of course, it happened, so there's that.

[arguesalot]

That definition doesnt make sense. Guerilla warfare by definition attacks an army. Terrorism has to do with fear and coercion. Plus i don't think terrorists make any distinction in their targets.