Re: Simple

I agree. This does not serve their avowed purpose of freedom of information particularly freedom of information over the internet, and rather directly contradicts it. Whatever else you think about KP, it is not exempt from what makes freedom of information so.

But like Baldur said, Anonymous doesn't really exclude members, at least not before they commit some offense. Its structure and features are such that it either is impossible or would be counterproductive. However, this is not the first time someone spots that there are serious issues with accountability and public service in an outfit which has by nature a structure that is neither democratic nor republican (SMALL CASE BOTH!). In normal environments, they would end up splitting up, spinning out or generating viable competitors, and industry competition would regulate all of them. However, since their activities are secret and many of them illegal (whether or not they are fair, and more often than not I think they are), this just doesn't happen - ironically, the crackdowns entrench their market position, much like the drug war crackdowns entrench the market position of the largest cartels.

But hacktivism is here to stay. And I would say it's generally speaking good that it is so.

Btw, another large incumbent in the same sense is Wikileaks - and it has already spawned competitors and spinoffs and seen itself damaged by the leakage of the password to the life insurance and the unauthorized autobiography. But leaks themselves are not illegal, even though part of how they are gotten or released might be.