Anonymous; bad and good

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3645ac3c-e32b-11e0-bb55-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YtbhqST3

"Opinion was divided. At one panel, professional analysts suggested ways the mob might improve on itself, such as by setting criteria for responsible behaviour for security firms that wish to avoid being attacked. At another meeting, former Anonymous member Jennifer Emick railed against what the organisation had become and fended off hecklers, including one in a Guy Fawkes mask."

* * * *

http://www.socialtextjournal.org/blog/2011/09/is-it-a-crime-the-transgressive-politics-of-hacking-in-anonymous.php

"Instead of merely depicting hackers as virtual pamphleteers for free speech or as digital outlaws, we need to start asking more specific questions about why and when hackers embrace particular attitudes toward different kinds of laws, explore in greater detail what they are hoping to achieve, and take greater care in examining the consequences."

* * *

These two articles discuss what some people within Anonymous are doing.  The problem with Anonymous is that it is so unstructured that anybody can give themselves that monicker and put their actions under its banner.  It is good that the history of Anonymous is being hashed out, hopefully so the accurate story can be forwarded.