They deserve credit for jumpstarting this. The first thing I remember about OWS is that Anonymous was promoting it on Twitter. So I don't know if they are the absolute initiators of this movement, but there might not be protests today or they might've lasted only a couple of days if it wasn't for Anonymous supporting and promoting it, and trying to get as many people there as possible every day.
Think of them in terms of what they threaten, and they seem like a failure. But measure them in attention they've brought to this cause, and they're a pretty significant success. Planned or unintentional?
In addition to the accounting if Anonymous' role in things, this dabbles in a good accounting of the movement that was bubbling from many different places. Good article.
What evidence is there that "anonymous" is an actual group, rather than a label that a bunch of folks self-apply when they want to do things?<p>I'm annoyed at Anonymous because I strongly supported their first action (picketing the Church of Scientology) but every action since then has just been stupid and destructive.
Identifying or targeting individual police officers or bankers or protesters, for that matter, misses the entire point of the OWS concept. The banking, investment, "I got mine" culture is the common target of those occupying Wall St
Publishing the names of police officers and bankers seems to me to be a remarkably stupid idea. If people start getting beaten or attacked as a result of the events in NYC whatever support that protestors currently have will quickly dry up as the news changes from peaceful protest to violent riot.