>A curious thought: are false-flag operations even possible with Anonymous, which is a label anyone can take, not an organisation?
Meh. Ultimately Anonymous does describe a particular cluster of people and behaviours, however loosely affiliated - and rightly or wrongly, they do have a reputation to discredit. When one incident is an outlier both in terms of action and (alleged) perpetrators, I think it's fair to call it a false-flag operation.
>hacking to troll and upset some group of people is certainly within the usual motivations of Anonymous activity.
Absolutely, but hacking to cause actual physical injury is far less so IME.
Meh. Ultimately Anonymous does describe a particular cluster of people and behaviours, however loosely affiliated - and rightly or wrongly, they do have a reputation to discredit. When one incident is an outlier both in terms of action and (alleged) perpetrators, I think it's fair to call it a false-flag operation.
>hacking to troll and upset some group of people is certainly within the usual motivations of Anonymous activity.
Absolutely, but hacking to cause actual physical injury is far less so IME.