Krypt3ia

(Greek: κρυπτεία / krupteía, from κρυπτός / kruptós, “hidden, secret things”)

Anonymous: Headless, Herd Mentality, or Convergence Theory Driven Entity?

with 10 comments

In my last couple of posts I took a look at what has been going on with Anonymous and HBGary Federal. Within those posts, I began musing on just how decentralised Anonymous really is. By looking at the overall picture of how Anonymous seems to work on the face of it, you might think that they are just a fluctuating group of online personae who sign up for certain operations that they desire to devote time to. However, no matter how many times I look at the big picture, I still see an underlying structure(s) that potentially have more static features that can be analysed and thus, allows for the potential of there being pseudo-anonymity.

Now, this may rankle some within the anonymous camp and likely will cause some comments here but, this is something that interests me as well as really is an academic thought experiment as opposed to Aaron’s little projects. So, you anon’s out there, take this post and my musings as food for thought as you go on about your anonymous lulz. I am not searching you all out to “out” you, just looking at an interesting problem.

With that said, lets move on to my theories.

Motivations, Drivers, Flocking, Herding, and Convergence Theory:

Before I go into the infrastructure of Anonymous as I see it, let me first go into the psychology behind the human side of Anonymous. This bears directly on the infrastructure due to the fact that humans online comprise the entity known as Anonymous. It is the psychology behind that human element, that give rise to the means by which they are carried out in a social media format. (i.e. the internet/IRC/Social media)

Human motivations can and are myriad, however, there are some basic desires that are fulfilled by action as a cohesive group. These desires or goals take shape in differing ways. In the case of Anonymous, they have aligned themselves with a “swarm” mentality, and I ascribed to that at first, but, after thinking about it quite a bit, I have come to the conclusion that a swarm does not really fit the patterns of behaviour exhibited by Anonymous. A swarm implies lack of thought and instead just reaction. The examples used before of bee’s or ants are good ones to use to show in fact, Anonymous does not resemble them. Instead, the Anon’s all have motivations as a whole and on their own individually that motivate them to act as they are. In this simple fact, the aspect of having self awareness and motives, shows that the allusion to swarming is a fallacy.

Instead, I propose that since humans are behind the actions of anonymous, and comprise its ranks, that other theories apply to them that come from a more humanistic approach, much of it being from psychology. The following theories apply as I see it.

From Wikipedia

Herd behavior in human societies
The philosophers Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche were among the first to critique what they referred to as “the crowd” (Kierkegaard) and “herd morality” and the “herd instinct” (Nietzsche) in human society. Modern psychological and economic research has identified herd behavior in humans to explain the phenomena of large numbers of people acting in the same way at the same time. The British surgeon Wilfred Trotter popularized the “herd behavior” phrase in his book, Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War (1914). In The Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen explained economic behavior in terms of social influences such as “emulation,” where some members of a group mimic other members of higher status. In “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (1903), early sociologist George Simmel referred to the “impulse to sociability in man”, and sought to describe “the forms of association by which a mere sum of separate individuals are made into a ‘society’ “. Other social scientists explored behaviors related to herding, such as Freud (crowd psychology), Carl Jung (collective unconscious), and Gustave Le Bon (the popular mind). Swarm theory observed in non-human societies is a related concept and is being explored as it occurs in human society.

Information Cascade:

An information (or informational) cascade occurs when people observe the actions of others and then make the same choice that the others have made, independently of their own private information signals. Because it is usually sensible to do what other people are doing, the phenomenon is assumed to be the result of rational choice. Nevertheless, information cascades can sometimes lead to arbitrary or even erroneous decisions. The concept of information cascades is based on observational learning theory and was formally introduced in a 1992 article by Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer, and Ivo Welch.[1] A less technical article was released by the authors in 1998.[2][3]

[4][5]

There are two key conditions in an information cascade model:
1. Sequential decisions with subsequent actors observing decisions (not information) of previous actors.
2. A limited action space (e.g. an adopt/reject decision).[6

Classical theories
The main idea of Sigmund Freud’s crowd behavior theory is that people who are in a crowd act differently towards people from those who are thinking individually. The minds of the group would merge to form a way of thinking. Each member’s enthusiasm would be increased as a result, and one becomes less aware of the true nature of one’s actions.
Le Bon’s idea that crowds foster anonymity and sometimes generate emotion has become something of a cliché. Yet it has been contested by some critics, such as Clark McPhail who points out that some studies show that “the madding crowd” does not take on a life of its own, apart from the thoughts and intentions of members. Norris Johnson, after investigating a panic at a 1979 Who concert concluded that the crowd was composed of many small groups of people mostly trying to help each other. However, ultimately, leaders themselves identify themselves to an idea.

Theodor Adorno criticized the belief in a spontaneity of the masses: according to him, the masses were an artificial product of “administrated” modern life. The Ego of the bourgeois subject dissolved itself, giving way to the Id and the “de-psychologized” subject. Furthermore, the bond linking the masses to the leader through the spectacle, as fascism displayed in its public representations, is feigned:

“When the leaders become conscious of mass psychology and take it into their own hands, it ceases to exist in a certain sense. [...] Just as little as people believe in the depth of their hearts that the Jews are the devil, do they completely believe in their leader. They do not really identify themselves with him but act this identification, perform their own enthusiasm, and thus participate in their leader’s performance. [...] It is probably the suspicion of this fictitiousness of their own ‘group psychology’ which makes fascist crowds so merciless and unapproachable. If they would stop to reason for a second, the whole performance would go to pieces, and they would be left to panic.”[1]

Edward Bernays (1891–1995), nephew of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, was considered the father of the field of public relations. Bernays was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion using the psychology of the subconscious. He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he felt was irrational and dangerous.

Convergence theory

Convergence theory holds that crowd behavior is not a product of the crowd itself, but is carried into the crowd by particular individuals. Thus, crowds amount to a convergence of like-minded individuals. In other words, while contagion theory states that crowds cause people to act in a certain way, convergence theory says the opposite: that people who wish to act in a certain way come together to form crowds. An example of convergence theory states that there is no homogeneous activity within a repetitive practice, sometimes observed when an immigrant population becomes common in a previously homogeneous area, and members of the existing community (apparently spontaneously) band together to threaten those trying to move into their neighborhoods. In such cases, convergence theorists contend, the crowd itself does not generate racial hatred or violence; rather, the hostility has been simmering for some time among many local people. A crowd then arises from convergence of people who oppose the presence of these neighbors. Convergence theory claims that crowd behavior as such is not irrational; rather, people in crowds express existing beliefs and values so that the mob reaction is the rational product of widespread popular feeling.

My money though is on Convergence Theory. While herd mentality works in many respects, the herd seems less actively motivating the outcome as it is reacting to external stimuli or a certain single entity moving them to “herd” in a specific direction. In Convergence Theory however, we have a more nuanced approach to understanding that like minded individuals congregate together socially and then as a crowd, act out on their collective consciousness. I believe that all of these behaviours and observations play a role in the macro-verse of Anonymous.

I also believe that at times, there are leaders who take up the issue that they feel needs redress and then start that herd moving toward a goal by beating the drum. Thus you have the chats and the boards where people take their digital soap boxes out and speak on the target, the reasons, and the method of attack. If the idea gets enough traction vis a vis the oration of the de facto leader at that time, then, a movement begins. Which brings me to the next topic.

Cells vs Spontaneous Headless Entities:

Anonymous has said many times and rather vociferously, that they are a headless organisation. I have always been of the opinion that no matter how many times they make that claim, it is functionally impossible. There will always be a core group of individuals that will be leading an operation. It is also the case that Anonymous is predicated on infrastructure that must be maintained. The IRC rooms, the servers, the web servers etc, all have people who operate them and manage them. In this respect, those persons would be the holders of the keys to the kingdom would they not? If a person in charge of such functions were to turn (or be turned) on the organisation, they could do massive damage to the org by being in charge of key assets.

I would further like to posit that for each “raiding party” as they may be called, would also have de facto leaders. An incidence of this can be seen in the WBC debacle in the response to WBC that claims 20 people had worked on the document. Those twenty people would nominally be leaders of that cell or operation by my accounts. So, to extend this further, for every operation there must be a division of roles and responsibilities doled out to function, it is just our nature to do this. If Anonymous were truly a chaotic system, nothing would get done effectively.

Cells however, also fit as an modus operandi for Anonymous. When I say cells I mean this from the perspective of cells in terrorism. Al Qaeda, as a functional operation has been winnowed down to the point of only being a titular entity in the jihadi movement. Due to the war on terror, AQ has shifted their operations from being rather linear to a cell mentality. All of the cells out there are pretty much self formed at present. The cells consist of like minded people who get subtle and not so subtle information/mandates from the AQ HQ via things like “Inspire Magazine” or the jihadist boards. The same can be applied to the structure of Anonymous. There are still those people who are making suggestions and or are outright perceived leaders, that can be singled out as targets of interest. This may not be the case every time, but, by using the information above on motivations and crowds, you can infer that it is the case more times than not.

Nick Re-Use as De-Anonymization:

Now, once you consider the motivations and the structures that are created or used, one must then consider how would someone go about trying to determine targets of interest. In the case of Anonymous this allusion had been made (poorly) by Aaron Barr. He went after certain parties that he claimed were in fact the core leaders of Anonymous. I can’t say that any of those names were in fact core leaders, however, I will say that the nicknames themselves could have been used to gain intelligence on said users and indeed prove their affiliation.

My premise is this;

1) The more unique a nick is the easier it is to track

2) Nickname re-use on other sites in tandem with uniqueness makes tracking and expanding on social connections easier

3) With the right foot-printing, one can potentially get enough information not only to see affiliations and actions, but also real names of individuals

So, if you are on the Anon boards and you re-use your nick, AND it is unique enough, I know that you can be tracked. Add to this the notion that you use your nick as an email address, then you are adding even more context for someone to search on and cogently put together patterns for recognition. So, the more data points, the more coherence to the picture if you see what I mean. By using tools like Maltego or even Palantir correctly, one can make those connections. In the hands of a trained analyst, the data can really show a person’s online personae and lead to enough data being revealed to have law enforcement breathing down your neck with warrants.

In looking at the Anon sites, one can see regular names turning up. Using Maltego on some of those names have also given returns that would be a good start on locating those people because the used the same nickname for other uses that are inherently insecure. Which is ironic as Anonymous is supposed to be just that. In fact, one can log onto their IRC session just as “anonymous18457″ etc. I would do this every time I wanted to go onto their servers so as not to have too much residual data for someone to mine.

Aaron was right in that people are inherently lazy at times. We as a species are also ill equipped to delineate long term threats as opposed to near term. In most cases though, many of the Anon’s are in fact young and likely inured to the idea that the Internet is in fact an anonymous space.

It isn’t, unless you take pains to make it so.

Conclusion:

So there you have it. I have been pondering this for a little while now. I am sure there will be more as I think about it a bit. Aaron was a fool, but let me tell you, there are others out there in spook country who aren’t. These techniques are no secret nor are the theories of behaviour. These are common ideas that are used within the psyops realm and you, “anonymous” legions must take that into account. If the authorities cannot get the core members, they will eventually get round to going after the low hanging fruit.

However, with these techniques, even someone diligent about their anonymity can be defeated. Everyone makes mistakes…

Keep your wits about you.

K.

About these ads

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “I have always been of the opinion that no matter how many times they make that claim, it is functionally impossible.”
    I love how often people try to analyze anonymous without actually just participating in a raid. Its easy to do. Try it. Doesn’t hurt. Seriously, there are no de facto leaders. Seriously.

    You can be Anonymous. It doesn’t require any leaders. Do you know how? Just sign your name Anonymous. HOLY SHIT YOU ARE ANONYMOUS YOU ARE A TERRORIST NOW.

    People may offer good suggestions, and then others decide to take that advice. But there is no hiarchy.

    “An incidence of this can be seen in the WBC debacle”
    A lot of Anons are calling bullshit on this, as you may have read recently. But that doesn’t matter. If you and 19 friends sent a document signed “Anonymous” to WBC, saying “20 people had worked on it”, then would you magically become leaders? No, of course not. That’s stupid. You were just 20 anons. That’s the whole point.

    anon

    2011/02/24 at 02:41

  2. These are not the anons you are looking for….

    There IS a paradigm shift taking place, but it’s not in the form that everyone expected it to be. It’s thrown a lot of pseudointellectuals off. Something was born out of the chaos of this mad world, and it’s growing. The ability for the people to have a voice and communicate, to band together in solidarity and demand justice.

    Quite interesting that governments are taking a look at the internet and trying to determine how to regulate and cut it off if required.

    Want to know something fascinating and scary?
    Throughout time, there have always been those who will stand and face adversity head on. This passion has now been born in thousands from all over the world who are united together under one identity.

    Anonymous

    Together, we can make the impossible possible.
    Think of the bible story of the tower of babel, “”They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do.” So God said.”

    I’m not religious, but these words ring of truth.
    Freedom to live is the ultimate destiny of mankind – regardless of religion, status, creed, or color. It’s most glorious and enjoyable when all of mankind can rejoice together and share the victory as one.

    Admittedly, Anonymous does appear to be dissociative at times from wannanons thinking they know what it’s about and wanting desperately to be a part of something bigger, unity is a powerful tool when the end goal is justified, they will learn the ways.

    The sleeping giant has woken…

    anon

    2011/02/24 at 08:20

  3. Hey. To me, I think you are getting it all mixed up but you are so on the right track.

    The reason I think you are getting it mixed up is because I think there’s more than one thing to analyze here.

    I’m very happy that you are thinking in terms of social psychology but when one thinks about herding behavior, and the use of psychological manipulation of large groups of people, it’s best to think about what HBGary was proposing and the military was requesting-perhaps doing than to apply that to Anonymous.

    Anonymous surely has relied on convergence theory. I don’t think there’s any doubt in that. That said, I think that Anonymous is, deep down, a collection of Individuals.
    My sense is that while their most technically capable members stood at the top of the hill, and blew up the beach ball, and pushed it downhill, that the ball is now rolling on it’s own. The force at this point that is propelling it forward is an ideal that EACH INDIVIDUAL in the collective has incorporated, this idea of defending what they see to be right as a MEME.

    In both cases, do not discount the impact of social conformity on the groups. In the first case, the mass production of sock puppets to garner public opinions and sway the masses, and quiet opposition (that may shy away out of fear of nonconformity) and in the second case, desire for social conformity may be reinforcing the meme (which I have said is derived from a culture that venerates “the Hacker Ethic” and this may explain the groups ability to function with cohesiveness, which would indicate structure- when in fact, the ball is now rolling by itself.

    Skullaria

    2011/02/25 at 05:22

  4. I don’t know if sociology or psychology are so useful in understanding Anonymous. It’s more like a franchise, like McDonald’s, and more like a political cult, like the Bolsheviks’ Communist Party in Russia.

    Of course it is not headless, that’s just part of the fictional narrative and legend. It has very definite heads and very rigid subordinate structures with people very rigidly controlled through fierce tribal loyalties, rituals, tests, quests, etc.

    When, in the chatlogs of Manning and Lamo published in Wired.com you see Lamo suddenly confront Manning and ask him why he is following Assange, and seeming to be ordered by him, i.e. one of those Internet calls to “man up,” and you see Manning defensively say “I’m not” and then the elipsis of hesitation — that’s classic. In fact, they are Anonymous; in fact, Wikileaks is Anonymous — all this elaborate fiction to pretend they are separate and not responsible for each other is silly, we know it, and they know it, but they need their alibis in court.

    One of the gravest fallacies of various security experts’ analysis of Anon is when these otherwise intelligent people fall for one of their social hacks by acting like the assertion that Anon isn’t coterminous with WikiLeaks is somehow evidence of lack of sophistication and Internet street smarts. So again and again, knowier-than-thou types fall for this meme, and bossily tell you how they are different. They aren’t. And it’s one of their ruses to claim otherwise.

    The franchise model is more ordinary and practical. There’s the same hamburger, the same fries. The store owner may have some latitude to find some better or faster way to lay out the store or deliver the product, but it’s the same product. The ingredients of the special sauce are cooked up in some central kitchen — the memes used are as rigid as a spelling contest in which some ultimately lose.

    The raiding parties aren’t all dictated from the Center, because some of them are rituals and quests that the Anon members devise, within a framework, to try to fit in and gain credibility in this hierarchical structure. They can level up, just like a MMORPG.

    The reason why cells work for communism or Al Qaeda is because those who improvise in the wrong direction and diverge too much from the orthodoxy are ostracized and killed by their own people. They can be freelancers — because they are fanatic-freelancers. So only those who are already fanatics or at least easily intimidated will join in the first place. The idea that you can just “make an account called Anonymous and go on a raid and it’s just that simple” completely overlooks the grooming that takes place long before, on the IRC channel, etc.

    I think all the triangulation jazz is obvious and possibly useful because they don’t change their nicks, and you also have to watch their groups and haunts, they repeat over and over even on alts. But you also have to watch their gestures, literally in the virtual world or more figuratively in speech patterns. You need linguists and you need to analyze the regional accents that creep through.

    What is the goal in fighting Anonymous? The goal is not to be successful in eradicating them. There is a reason for that: because if you eradicated them, you would have become like them (HBGary’s fatal flaw). Then you would have lost. And in the last scene, one of them would be having the Fly’s baby…The chief task is never to become like them. To always affirm universality, humanity, and human rights in the struggle against them because those things more than anything are antithetical to their relativism, cynicism, and nihilism. In doing so, you can’t fall for the trick that they’ve “reformed” and now “care about Egypt”.

    Again, I wonder if the HBGary story was a sting, and perhaps a sting played on a number of parties, and one in which HBGary was perhaps not a willing participant, but an unwilling one. Because the episode sure garnered a lot of Anonymous spoor to study, that’s for sure.

    http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2011/02/what-if-the-hbgary-story-is-a-sting.html

    Some of my blog items:

    Characteristics of Anon

    http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2011/02/on-anon.html

    On whitewashing of Anon in the media:

    http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2010/12/major-media-white-washing-4chan-anonglobalpr-agitprop.html

    Here’s a good example of a typical Anon psy-ops right here in this thread:

    “I’m very happy that you are thinking in terms of social psychology but when one thinks about herding behavior, and the use of psychological manipulation of large groups of people, it’s best to think about what HBGary was proposing and the military was requesting-perhaps doing than to apply that to Anonymous.”

    What the author seeks to do is distract from the actual facts: HBGary didn’t actually do anything. It um…had a Powerpoint. Yeah, it was evil boo hiss. We get that. But…it didn’t act.

    Meanwhile, Anonymous did act. And hacked people’s servers and stole 50,000 emails and ruined a business. Yet…the liberal congressmen are baying for an investigation of…what? The people who did something — Anonymous — or the people who didn’t?

    I do hope that HBGary still attempts to get an FBI/DOJ investigation of what happened to them, even with their rep in tatters.

  5. Anonymous. Because none of us is as powerful as all of us.

    anonymous

    2011/03/10 at 16:06

  6. “Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name” “My name is Leigon,” he replied “for we are many”

    Anonthegreat

    2011/04/09 at 07:21

  7. Of course he was speaking to a demon….

    Krypt3ia

    2011/04/09 at 12:44

  8. [...] whatsoever. Ryan’s taking over of the servers with a small band of followers just proves out my theories about Anonymous not being a truly headless organisation. In fact, the further fact that a small group has in fact taken over, shows that no action, whether [...]

  9. [...] have written about this before so I will not belabor it more here, I will simply point you HERE and have you read. Once you have, come back and finish out this [...]

  10. [...] have written about this before so I will not belabor it more here, I will simply point you HERE and have you read. Once you have, come back and finish out this [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: