I'm sorry if it appears that I am ignorant of such things. I'm simply ignoring the things I don't agree with or have already addressed.

1. Sony couldn't have done it because CIA and homeland security would find out about it. They certainly wouldn't use it to lie to congress either. Yes, there would be motivation to do it, but there isn't the ability to do it. Everything loaded onto the server has a "birthdate" (and to counter the other guy) an "upload" date. I can say with 100% confidence that everything this guy did, was done at the same time, within a span of minutes. Additionally, date changes can be tracked, so they're not capable of changing the date to alter the data. I'm sure you know what the penalties are for tampering witha crime scene, as well as the penalties for lying to a congressional body.

2. This is the issue I'm having with your argument; this is my problem with your logic.  You say things, but you don't explain the "how". You just say broad generalizations like, "lead them away from the actual hacker". If someone were to casually read your point, they'd say, "that makes sense". But, my problem is deeper, and it's something you've yet to address within context. That problem....that question, is, "how exactly does framing an anonymous, bodyless entity, nay, idea help the hacker not get caught".

You say, "more time spent hunting anonymous". That is like saying "more time hunting the public", or "more time hunting internet users". Anonymous is a concept, it's an idea. It's not an organized group. Anonymous IS some douche in an Eastern European country. Anonymous IS a company CEO. Anonymous is everyone and anyone. So when you make it seem like it's redirecting, you're wrong. Like I said previously, it's not like saying, "Al-jafira claims another victory against imperialists". CIA can look at Al-jafira, take the information they have on the group, and investigate using operatives. This is not the case. THAT would be leading the CIA in the wrong direction, because what is actually a tangible group with a regional presence that can be outlined, with communication pathways that can be tracked.

So, that also cannot be the case. You may argue that he is too dumb to understand that, and just did it without thinking it through. Well, I'll admit that I can't really counter that argument. A fools actions are hard to justify.

The last paragraph (which I editted to be a paragraph) makes sense, but then the question becomes, "why leave anything at all".

Look, if you're out to not get caught, and you live in one of those countries, why leave any message at all? Anonymous is anyone. Anonymous can be someone from the Netherlands, or Australia, or China, or Nicaragua. If anything, claiming Anonymous allows for a broad interpretation. It does not make it smaller. It doesn't point away from your home country. "We are anonymous, we are legion" is a saying known throughout the world in the online communities.

So, I don't really understand you point about the message being left to somehow "point away from themselves". It simply doesn't. And while I've asked before, you can't explain how it makes sense. That takes away substantially from your position.

Just be reasonable, it's easier than you think. Put yourself in their shoes. You just hacked into a mainframe with 100+M CC numbers. Do you leave a text file? If so, what do you write? (in all honesty, if you please)

1. Yes, but is your text file on a Sony mainframe?

2. It's only been discovered this morning, and I've seen literally a dozen threads on 4chan saying "WE ARE LEGION".

If I was logged onto a Sony mainframe, yes it would be.

So wait, are you implying that Anonymous wouldn't gloat until the victims found out it was them? If not, then there is no point to yoru argument.

One can say, "the hacker's version of 4Chan" because Anonymous had origins from 4Chan.  Started as idea there and then morphed and grew to different individuals collaborating on the internet under the Anonymous banner, adding things like the V for Vendetta angle.  Now you will get guys going in public where V masks.

1. Then that's a "no"

2. My point is nothing. You're correct. I just felt that you had no point either.

You just made this huge speech about how anyone can come and go and do whatever and be in anon, and then a second later not be in anon.......and then you say Anon (the representative body/ capitalized for distinction between the representative body and the memberless, casually-affiliated concept) would've been gloating if they did it, evidencing past anon-sanctioned actions.

You correctly explain the structure of anonymous (the concept) and then make the case that because Anon (the actual representative body) didn't claim credit, then they did not do it.

I just don't understand how you guys can correctly identify what anonymous is in one sentence, but then treat it like they all know what each other is doing in the next.

Wow, and Batman uses a shotgun and automated weapons!

The costume CLEARLY gives it away.

yeah, but this is a gaming website, so I figured people might know a little more about gamefaqs than any of the #chan sites. Yes, Anon does come from 4chan. To anyone not in the know, 4chan is a message board with no membership. No email ties, nothing. Everyone's default "name" is anonymous. This gives people incredible freedom. You can go online and spout complete nonsense one day, which would normally tip people off about you IRL, and then the next day pretend you never said it. There are no strings, no anything, and it results in a lot of underground illegal activity, like posting snuff, file uploading, virus software (to create viruses), etc etc.

They do raids on people, like, someone will post a picture or a guy holding a dead cat, explain a story of how they killed the cat, and anon (this is what you call a poster in 4chan) will say "WE R LEGAY'N" and they'll hack people's facebook accounts, and use tons of other methods to find exactly where the picture was taken. At that time, they'll find the persons friend-circle, his schedule, his family's schedule, where he lives, get people to dumpster dive, steal the identities of the family etc etc etc. There is no ORGANIZER, or LEADERSHIP there. It's chaos.

BUT, I do have to admit that legion is 90% of the time, morally right (in a renegade cop kinda way).

The question becomes then, do we kill the chaos so it has no chance of existing.  I would find it of concern if being anonymous is no longer possible.  This could likely be a greater threat than having what happened with the PSN, which in no way do I support happening.  It does sicken me that gamers would have to go through this.

1. However if I was on the security team of Sony... come on now, use your head some, no need for me to spell it out for you.

2. My statements are not mutually exclusive, and therefore your entire point is absolutely void, yet again. You just have to look at the most recent Gawker Network deal to see what I mean by Anon gloating. Or the part wehre the completely fucked that one security firm. Or the one where they fucked the DDoSing anti-piracy company in India. The list keeps going and going.

It's a conundrum really. It's just one of those things where we have to accept the good with the bad. All in all, Legion; ie, Anonymous is altruistic, and very very powerful. They stand for public interests, and they stand for justice. It would be a sad day if they disappeared, but realistically, they never will disappear, because it's an idea, and not an organization.

However, if they were an organization, they'd be even more powerful. They could actually get things done. However, as a huge consequence, they would be controllable. Control the neck and you control the body.

So, anon MUST exist in a body-less form.

The major consequence of that though is shown by the PSN hack. It's shown on the disgruntled faces of the people anon claims to represent, those people who just want to play their games that they legally paid for.

It's a very complex situation. I for one, wish that anon would just back off. The demographic they are currently supporting is extrememly small compared to the install base. Anon "members" need to look at the situation and decide whether what they are doing is for the majority  (for the people) or for the minority (for the private). But this is only one situation out of many that I disagree with them on, and by them I obviously mean, "that random guy who thinks he understands what the people want".