I Am Disappoint: Gabby Coleman and Anonymous
So Schneier, the paragon (most of the time lately) of being behind the curve, has linked a paper put together by Gabriella Coleman (ersatz sociologist and Anonymous cipher) Before clicking on the link and downloading I braced myself for a read that likely would make me want to perform the head—>desk ritual. Sure enough, after reading the 27 pages of mostly histrionics regarding Anonymous I was ready to apply said head to desk with the usual force. Why do I do this to myself? I suppose that I am that person who Einstein referred to as the epitome of insanity by performing a task over and over again expecting a different outcome. Either way, I thought it appropriate to call this into question for the larger audience to look upon and judge post my bile spewing.
HOW MANY YEARS OF STUDY DID IT TAKE TO PUT 27 PAGES OF DRIVEL TOGETHER?
Well Gabby, how long were you following the anon’s around again? I think you would have been better served by reading Parmy’s book and then spewing out some facts and insights after a little digestion than what you have put out there as a scholarly text on the Anonymous movement. Sure, your generalities concerning modus operandi citing the Rand report from 1997 is all super cool and all but really, what audience are you reaching out here to? You neither get into the issue deeply enough for the non novice concerning the net and Anonymous nor do you really put together a usable picture for the un-initiated to follow along as to what is really happening and has been since Anon percolated up out of the pool that is 4chan.
All in all the paper if it be called such, just lays out in florid language, the long and winding road of histrionics around Anonymous but not really touching on the issues of how it/they have been effected as well as are affecting the net/global politics/cyberwar today. There are hints and allegations in it but really, you are a sociologist are you not? Should you not be taking up this kind of inquiry as well? What you do do though is state that they are a not so anonymous and not so leaderless group which sounds awfully familiar to me. *I wonder why? Maybe you should look at my blog posts all these years eh?* While you point out that they have been a force, you do not really maintain what kind of force they are nor do you summarize whether or not you think that they will be a real force in change nor why they would not be? Well nominally I think you allude to the lack of cohesion but then you go on to counter that with all of the amazing things they can do with PR and hive mind. Frankly you just seem muddled there. Perhaps overall it is because they are so amorphous that you cannot really conclude anything at all? Which you again allude to.. It’s like that saying from the Supreme court on porn “I know it when I see it” It’s mighty useless when it comes to actually explaining something.
ANONYMOUS IN THE AGE OF THE PANOPTICON
The one thing.. ONE thing that I would have loved to have seen anything solid about is how today post events with busts like that of Silk Road and the other fallout from the Snowman revelations have affected the anons. You kinda sorta mention it at the end but then drop it. Perhaps it is too early to tell on that account. Perhaps you are just still milking this whole thing to further your drivel writing. I dunno. I just think that there is a far richer picture here that needs to be looked at and you are failing to do so with all your years of allegedly “studying” the anon diaspora. This paper was useless and I sure hope that policy makers aren’t reading it to understand anything other than the history of how Anon was born because otherwise they will be left more clueless and tired eyed than they started.
Oh and yeah so when do you appear on the next Dr. Phil?