The Global Cyber Insurgency By Parmy gaalmapat.site [BOOK]. We Are Anonymous: Inside The Hacker World Of. LulzSec, Anonymous, And The. Parmy Olson's book We Are Anonymous – Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous,. and the Global Cyber Insurgency, is a very readable synergy. PDF | Anonymity, the stealth mode of public communication, challenges Download full-text PDF Olson, Parmy (): We Are Anonymous.
- We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency
- See a Problem?
- LulzSec - the computer hackers who brought chaos
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions.
We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency
Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. A thrilling, exclusive expose of the hacker collectives Anonymous and LulzSec. WE ARE ANONYMOUS is the first full account of how a loosely assembled group of hackers scattered across the globe formed a new kind of insurgency, seized headlines, and tortured the feds-and the ultimate betrayal that would eventually bring them down.
Parmy Olson goes behind the headlines and A thrilling, exclusive expose of the hacker collectives Anonymous and LulzSec. Parmy Olson goes behind the headlines and into the world of Anonymous and LulzSec with unprecedented access, drawing upon hundreds of conversations with the hackers themselves, including exclusive interviews with all six core members of LulzSec. Other targets were wide ranging-the websites of corporations from Sony Entertainment and Fox to the Vatican and the Church of Scientology were hacked, defaced, and embarrassed-and the message was that no one was safe.
Thousands of user accounts from pornography websites were released, exposing government employees and military personnel.
Although some attacks were perpetrated by masses of users who were rallied on the message boards of 4Chan, many others were masterminded by a small, tight-knit group of hackers who formed a splinter group of Anonymous called LulzSec. The legend of Anonymous and LulzSec grew in the wake of each ambitious hack. But how were they penetrating intricate corporate security systems?
Were they anarchists or activists? Teams or lone wolves? A cabal of skilled hackers or a disorganized bunch of kids? Get A Copy. Hardcoverpages. Published June 5th by Little, Brown and Company first published More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about We Are Anonymousplease sign up. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews.
Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Jul 11, Jason rated it really liked it. I'm going to talk about the book, but then I'm going to riff on the subject. Olson's deft narrative of how Anonymous organized out of the chaotic prankishness of 4chan and eventually--in some ways obviously--fragmented and fell apart is deceptively accomplished. The book runs chronologically, helping us newbies "newfags" in the language of this community get a handle on what happened when and where, neatly tracking a linear path from early dickishness on discussion boards to a more organized I'm going to talk about the book, but then I'm going to riff on the subject.
The book runs chronologically, helping us newbies "newfags" in the language of this community get a handle on what happened when and where, neatly tracking a linear path from early dickishness on discussion boards to a more organized ethos against any constraints on internet freedom that aligned--sort of--with politics from Wikileaks to the uprisings of the Arab Spring.
We've all seen this movie. Yet that clean arc belies the real breadth of the history captured by Olson. In particular, she's expert at the expository aside--contextualizing 4chan while describing its birth, for instance--and the skeleton of the book's "plot" is a very, very smart way to give shape to all this information.
Olson also had amazing access to many of the central players who were, um, anonymous--and generally derisive of outsider interest. Thus her history is more richly-detailed, yet also more widescreen, than any I'd seen before. Her insights are generous yet rigorously critical--her accomplished account of who these folks are and how they worked is complemented by nuanced assessments of motive, philosophy.
But it's unfair to wish the book was everything, when it already so damn good on its own terms.
See a Problem?
I still think it's a little over-stuffed with detail, too bound by its own structural focus on chronology. But these are minor quibbles. That's why I picked it up, though. I'm fascinated by, a fan of, pranks--the disruptive energies of rule-breaking, from the pettiest acts of childish disruption to the "important" stuff that gets the "moralfags" all hot and bothered. I'm interested in rule-breaking. And one of the things that fascinates me--about 4chan, or Reddit, or Anonymous, Lulzsec, or predecessors like Alan Abel, Andy Kaufman, Sasha Baron Cohen, and the Yes Men--is the way the prank's unexpected intrusion into public spaces reveals in disregarding all those social conventions we implicitly or explicitly demand allegiance to.
The prankster comes along and may just fart in church, or may come in all dressed in her Sunday best, sitting down in the pew, paying careful attention to the service before--say, mid-sermon--laughing loudly, and frequently.
Maintaining a perfect face of reflection and engagement--she's really paying attention to the preacher! Events like this make us uncomfortable: they violate the social contract governing behavior. And that's where I get so excited: by intruding on and disrupting the oft-unexamined, or intensely-protected rituals of acceptable behavior, the prank provokes some reflection on those behaviors and that unexamined ethical code.
Often the response is intensified policing of those behaviors. The response to Assange and Anonymous illustrates this to a T, eh? But there's an opportunity for subversion there--an opportunity, when the rules aren't simply behind-the-scenes but are made visible, to imagine some other way of behaving with one another. A cheap sociologist's way to experience this: walk on to an elevator, and stand facing the wrong side. Or sit in a public bathroom stall and try to strike up conversations with people in the next stall.
Jimmy Kimmel had a wonderful bit where he offered the guy in the stall next-door a plate of brownies. But what I love about the prank is what's dangerous about it. The prankster isn't standing outside, throwing stones--they're in the mix, and subject to consequences.
Further, the "subversion" is not necessarily driven by moral purpose--or at least one can't bank on the moral outcomes. The problem with rule-breaking like this is that all rules go up in the air.
We could stop here and address the 4chan love of the "-fag" tag. Yet the usage became a neat tool for driving away the prudes--join in the game, or take your scolds somewhere else.
And the new usages--perhaps--attained new semantic functions in the community; the "external" rules of culture were rewritten "inside" the chatroom. And, as Olson carefully and intriguingly defines in a thread throughout We Are Anonymousthere was an inclusivity to gender and sexual fluidity in these spaces.
The breaking of that cultural rule--don't say the word "fag"--is not mere subversion nor simple bullying.
LulzSec - the computer hackers who brought chaos
It's a lot more fucking interesting, and to my mind suggestive of why breaking rules matters so much. Adherence to rules is often a way NOT to think about the messiness of our values. The downside is obvious: the breaking of the rule might be a vicious, overt attempt to maintain other rules.
This is at the heart of the problem of the prank. Sometimes you're being a [lovable] jackass; sometimes you're an asshole. We might turn this around on Goodreads culture, and maybe the recent kerfuffle about the "bullying" of authors, the site's attempts to define and control behaviors and image.
And I think this improvisatory play is more 'organic' to social media community; anything goes, and the rules, such as they are, form and constantly reform depending on what the mass of users will accept. It leads to a constant rule-breaking and -setting. Goodreads, like lots of social networking sites, is constantly grappling with this tendency for "open" conversation to evolve through bouts of jackassery and assholishness.
Reviewers here aren't bound by some of the constraints imposed by newspapers or print sources -- we can let it rip.
We can write reviews that ignore the book entirely, and just throw mud. Authors could pipe up--and throw mud back, or game the system what rules? I'll get my ratings by making up profilesor go out on the internet and start attacking the "attackers. I think that on a social-networking site largely driven by readers, the assholish writers trying to control how people write or talk about their works would have their asses handed to them.
And ought to. But my point is: I would be fine with letting the shitstorm rage. If there appears to be a user behaving in a way that other users find inappropriate, I think the visceral response is just fine. For example, trolls will troll, and will usually spark mobs of fire-wielding friends to attack. I wouldn't censor trolls--I'd assume the mob will get 'em.
But mobs are dangerous, too, right? I wouldn't censor mobs, either, but things can get uncomfortable. A while back--some eons ago in internet time--another kerfuffle on GR was about "reviews" that attacked the problems of predatory behavior on sites like this.
Some felt like the mob had gone vigilante.