Lone Gunman Claim Surfaces in Palin Hack

A new account of yesterday's big story about Sarah Palin's e-mail being hacked has surfaced. An insider at the site where the Anonymous group meets has posted an account of the story to Michelle Malkin; a 'lone gunman' account, so to speak.

This account contradicts all the major media accounts, as well as blog posts such as my own, which credit the group Anonymous with the hack. The AFP and the wire services reported the group "claimed responsibility," and I haven't seen that changed in the news. Perhaps they are referring to the anonymous 4chan poster who took credit, perhaps not. The e-mailer begins by telling Michelle that she was wrong about who Anonymous is:

There are several misconceptions and errors in most accounts of this story, including your post. Most significantly, the perpetrator(s) were not members of an infamous group of hackers. I don't blame you for misunderstanding this, because in all the media coverage regarding the war with Scientology the media has completely failed to explain what Anonymous is.

Anonymous is not exactly a group. It is people using the umbrella of a web discussion board for cover to be as offensive, funny, strange, or whatever as they want.

Members of Anonymous, as well as insiders such as the person who emailed Malkin, are adamant about Anonymous being neither a group, nor ideologically motivated. A number of them have contacted me suggesting that the protest group Anonymous, as seen in my photo and video, is completely separate from the online groups. This is bolstered by a blog post at Firedoglake which has a denial of responsibility from the protest group.

Both incarnations seem to operate without central planning or leadership. Nevertheless, gatherings are arranged, protests organized, and group efforts are undertaken. There are insiders and outsiders. Clearly this an identifiable group, or a group of groups, just not coherent in the sense of, say, the Rotary Club. The group, or perhaps individual, who hacked Palin's account, while obviously part of the Palin pile-on, may have acted independently. The Malkin emailer is certain of it:

Sarah Palin's email account was hacked by one person. Not a group.

Folks with Anonymous are also adamant that it is not a left-wing group. Although social anarchy is most definitely and clearly on the left, it is also true that a large cross-section of Anonymous are in it for the thrills, or lulz, and not with a consistent ideological goal in mind. So, whether it was a left wing sub-group, section, or individual, new reports are indicating that, contrary to yesterdays major reporting, the overall group Anonymous may not have 'claimed responsibility' ... at least, not in the way an offline group would have.

I haven't seen the major media pick up Malkin's blog yet. The email she posts is compelling and well worth reading. Perhaps the press, and we in the blogosphere, really don't understand the group (or groups), "known" as Anonymous. Whatever the case, it seems clear someone is going to pay a price for the hack.

I can only hope that, after this, the Palin bloodlust and feeding frenzy, or as Camille Paglia referred to it, the "witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks," will at last have the volume lowered a bit. We'll see.

I co-host the blogtalkradio show "Unusable Signal" on Friday at 11pm. I'd love to be able to explore what "Anonymous" is with any guests who are part of "Anonymous." Just click on the link for more info.