Re: Possible Interview

1. Your relationship with Anonymous has been described in many different ways -- advisor, spokesman, and even occasionally, propagandist and leader. How would you describe/define your role in the group?

I am not the leader of Anonymous and there are no titles within the entity. My function is equivalent to that of propagandist, strategist, and theorist. My influence over the movement is up for debate and is at any rate fluid.

2. You aren't a hacker exactly, so I am curious how you got involved with Anonymous. How did you initially encounter the group, and did you have an interest in hacktivism before making contact with them?

I've been involved in the Anonymous culture for six years now but aside from writing about it upon the advent of Chanology and participating in dadaist pranks, I was not involved with those who provide the momentum until a year ago when I was contacted by Gregg Housh after writing Anonymous, Australia, and the Nation-State. We spoke for a year while I meanwhile set up Project PM, which was intended to pursue a couple of objectives including bringing people closer to Anonymous. It was not until Tunisia started that I "activated" and began working at Anonops.ru. I've been an anarchist since my early teenage years and have always been interested in destroying/reforming systems of various sorts.

3. I suspect Anonymous would define themselves as a grey-hat organization, as in, a group whose actions may be technically illegal, but still ethical and in the interest of "the good." However, as they become more widely known, they are becoming increasingly controversial. Where do you think Anonymous falls on the white-hat/black-hat spectrum, and how would you address accusations that their actions remain illegal?

Grey hat is pretty accurate. Participants within Anonymous have committed crimes but the same can be said for the Catholic Church, FBI, and the Boy Scouts. We target those who have themselves done wrong and our results have increasingly begun to speak for themselves. Anonymous is not a politician; we do not need the support of the foolish, and that is one of our advantages over governments.

4. Anonymous' goals are getting broader, and I find it more difficult to picture their "vision statement," if you will. What are the main goals of the group right now, both concretely and abstractly? Who are they targeting, and what are the values they stand for?

I can only speak for myself on this, but I would note that you'll see a clear pattern among our targets; that pattern represents the collective mentality of our active participants. Currently, we are investigating several issues related to the intelligence community and the goals of its various de facto factions, and this will become more evident soon.

5. How would you describe leadership within the group? How many members are there, and do they vote or reach consensus before going through with any hacking? I'm also curious if their statements are written collaboratively or by one person.

Statements are generally the product of at least five or six people, although on a couple of occasions I have written them myself. Anyone can write a statement on behalf of Anonymous; its validity is tied in to the extent to which Anonymous agrees with it. We do not have members, but rather participants, and it is impossible to determine the number and that would depend upon how you define an Anon. There are definitely personalities that drive the movement by virtue of certain skill sets and general soft power, and this causes resentment among many of those who would prefer to pretend that all Anons are equal. The hackers hack, the writers write, the media brokers dole out interviews. It only takes a few people to run an operation, particularly if it's a finesse operation. That we are being probed and infiltrated by so many parties has prompted some of us to keep our own collective counsel.

6. Although I haven't seen it in print, some of Anonymous' attacks sound like they were accomplished using botnets, and I've heard rumors that they have a version of Stuxnet in their possession. Can you address this rumor, and can you talk about where they stand on designing malware? Do they create it, use "found" malware, or a combination of both?

A voluntary botnet composed of Anons is used for DDOS attacks. We acquired a form of Stuxnet from HBGary during our investigation but it does not interest us that much since the right information is a better weapon than any virus and we have the capability of acquiring that information.

7. Is there anything else you'd like to share?