I find this very interesting, because it reveals some level of hypocrisy on the part of Anonymous, IMO. They demand openness and transparency from the companies they hack, but react badly when that same transparency is demanded of them.<p>If I'm going to support OWS, why can't I see all the communications involved in organising it? It's a democractic, open protest after all.
I find all this confusion about Anonymous' involvement kind of odd. It seems pretty transparent that they have been heavily involved in pretty much every way you could think of, that much seems self evident.<p>FWIW there has been a delegation from "Anonymous UK" in attendance at the Occupy London camp since it started on saturday. They are providing the internet uplink there, and perhaps other support.<p>Here's a photo of some of them, but there were more, lots of them in quite nice suits.<p><a href="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02028/occupypa_2028705i.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02028/occupypa_2...</a><p>They've been present at many protests of this nature in the UK for a couple of years now.
> He gained access to the September17 list merely by adding his email to a paper sign up sheet that was being distributed at an early organizing meeting by what would become the OWS.<p>So Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Dylan Ratigan, etc. are emailing on a listserv that join by just adding their email address to a signup sheet? I find that hard to believe.
It's not like he decrypted emails and published them, he republished emails from a publicly accessible mailing list. What's all the huffing and puffing about?<p>Sounds like a lot of smoke and no fire, topped off with a heaping helping of hypocrisy. It did tickle my funny bone though hehe.