Did a dozen or so arrests kill off the Anonymous insurgency? Oh, sure

Don't count on all the arrested being one "second in command" after another

Now that the FBI has successfully raided the basements of the mothers of 14 alleged members of Anonymous , arrested the contents and charged them with attacks on PayPal, not to mention arresting two alleged LulzSec'ers arrested in the U.S. and five in Europe on a variety of other charges of cybercrime, the 'net should be safe for secure government data.

[Anonymous claims attack on NATO; posts a gigabyte of data, some marked "NATO Restricted."]

It's a good thing they nabbed those miscreants, too, because you can't trust anyone willing to take risks to protest or retard actions by governments they regard as immoral or unjustified. They'd as soon set fire to your grandmother as steal the candy from a kid.

[Anonymous claimed on its "AnonymousIRC" Twitter handle that it has 1GB of material from NATO but that most would not be published because it would be "irresponsible."]

Huh. Obviously they may have some technical smarts, but their judgment is questionable at best – which is obvious because of the chaos they create and the way they do it.

Just look at the way LulzSec took down The Sun in England, kept it down for most of a night and claimed it had stolen a huge trove of emails from managers there and at its parent company News Corp. , which would deliver great lulz by embarassing and possibly incriminating members of TheSun, editors from News of the World who have been arrested and, possibly, robber baron/media emperor Rupert Murdoch.

"We think actually we may not release emails from The Sun, simply because it may compromise the court case," according to a Twitter post from Anonymous.

They're not even capable of having an open conversation about the kind of ruckus they're dedicated to committing. They're obviously too juvenile to be any further than the nasty snickering of a sneak thief that inconveniences his betters.

As FBI director Steve Chabinsky told NPR, normal people can't put up this kind of nonsense:

"We want to send a message that chaos on the Internet is unacceptable, [even if] hackers can be believed to have social causes, it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts," Chabinsky said.

Even the response Anonymous posted to the arrests showed none of the kind of logic, belief in philosophical or political concepts or courage necessary to turn a bunch of digital graffiti-spraying punks into a legitimate – if often law-breaking – political protest and activist group.

Now let us be clear here, Mr. Chabinsky, while we understand that you and your colleagues may find breaking into websites unacceptable, let us tell you what WE find unacceptable:

 Governments lying to their citizens and inducing fear and terror to keep them in control by dismantling their freedom piece by piece.

  • Corporations aiding and conspiring with said governments while taking advantage at the same time by collecting billions of funds for federal contracts we all know they can't fulfill.
  • Lobby conglomerates who only follow their agenda to push the profits higher, while at the same time being deeply involved in governments around the world with the only goal to infiltrate and corrupt them enough so the status quo will never change.

These governments and corporations are our enemy. And we will continue to fight them, with all methods we have at our disposal, and that certainly includes breaking into their websites and exposing their lies.

Despite their empty bravado, Anonymous was clearly cowed by FBI arrests that will almost certainly turn out to include a large percentage of mistaken identities, fringe players presented as kingpins and wannabes being prosecuted as already-dids.

Anonymous will certainly disappear into thin air, or their little hidey holes or wherever it is that stainless steel rats go when the hunters get too close.

We are not scared any more. Your threats to arrest us are meaningless to us as you cannot arrest an idea. Any attempt to do so will make your citizens more angry until they will roar in one gigantic choir. It is our mission to help these people and there is nothing - absolutely nothing - you can possibly to do make us stop.

They obviously couldn't come up with a reasonable, or even polite response to Chabinsky's justification for the kind of Bill of Rights-violating search-and-seizure tactics the FBI has engaged in for years. For more than a decade, in fact – ever since the hysteria following 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to strip away the protections of the Constitution and give the FBI and DHS powers more appropriate in a George Orwell novel than from a government whose power is limited by the Constitution that defines rights of the individual as being more important than those of the state.

Anonymous certainly couldn't articulate a response to threats from an FBI that violated even the tissue-thin barriers on its power to to tap an Internet connection or hack a Web site or intimidate a phone company into giving away detailed records of the lives of citizens. Not when those citizens had not only the right to be private, but to expect agents of the Government for the People to protect their privacy rather than violating it.

"The Internet has become so important to so many people that we have to ensure that the World Wide Web does not become the Wild Wild West," Chabinsky said

 Let me ask you, good sir, when was the Internet not the Wild Wild West? Do you really believe you were in control of it at any point? You were not. 

That does not mean that everyone behaves like an outlaw. You see, most people do not behave like bandits if they have no reason to. We become bandits on the Internet because you have forced our hand. The Anonymous bitchslap rings through your ears like hacktivism movements of the 90s. We're back - and we're not going anywhere. Expect us.

Oh yeah. They're finished. You can just tell.

ITWorld DealPost: The best in tech deals and discounts.
Shop Tech Products at Amazon