Should Cyber Vigilantes Be Cheered Or Feared

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Ted Samson raises several challenging questions in the wake of HBGary, first and foremost being, should the cyber vigilante acts of 'hacktivists' such as Anonymous be embraced? No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling, Samson writes, 'but also troubling is how quickly some members of Congress seek to use illegally acquired information to further their own political agenda.' The underlying message seems to be that cyber vigilantes may have more leeway than those who engage in equally illegal, though decidedly nontechnical methods to expose their targets."

Comments

none of the above?

[bhcompy]

Maybe they do something worthwhile sometimes, but maybe the consequences of that results in a less free internet. I'll withhold cheering

Re:none of the above?

[FriendlyLurker]

"No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling..."

Troubling? That's an understatement... "The Obama Administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker [Three military contracting 'cyber-security' companies] to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists" Corporate America, the Military Industrial Complex and the Government all in bed together to operate outside the law inside the US and without any checks, balances or semblance of respect for the law... and this Ted Samson character is more worried about the civil disobedience group Anonymous... Hellooo... threat assessment!?

Re:none of the above?

[causality]

"No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling..."

Troubling? That's an understatement... "The Obama Administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker [Three military contracting 'cyber-security' companies] to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists"
Corporate America, the Military Industrial Complex and the Government all in bed together to operate outside the law inside the US and without any checks, balances or semblance of respect for the law... and this Ted Samson character is more worried about the civil disobedience group Anonymous... Hellooo... threat assessment!?

It's simple really. This is mainstream (i.e. lowest common denominator, bottom of the barrel, that which is easiest to sell, what has style but no substance, etc.) thought on the matter: if you are concerned about the government or members of the government acting completely outside of the law, with impunity, well then you're just another paranoid tin-foil hat-wearing insane nutter conspiracy type. You will be dismissed and ridiculed without ever testing the veracity of your claims. That's because we just don't like the way you sound, and that tie you're wearing pisses us off too.

But, if you're concerned about a group of online vandals who cause a lot of inconvenience to a few people, but nothing on the scale of abusive government with no effective checks and balances... well then, we approve of that. Those damned vigilantes. It's definitely okay to believe that a bunch of people with little no no association, organization, or preperation can conspire to bring down a Web site.

It's those insane morons who believe that a bunch of people who are from the same social class, who play golf with each other, who are in bed with the same special interests, who work similar jobs, who all benefit from a more powerful government, why it's madness to believe that they are anything other than saints who are acting in our interests. MADNESS I TELL YOU. What kind of idiot would believe a story like that? Clearly we must ridicule them immediately. We absolutely must, at all costs, ignore every historical precedent for such abuses of power, every self-interested motive of any authority figure involved, every precedent for past abuses of power our own government has perpetrated, and every lack of oversight and basic competency any public official has ever shown. After all, we have some nutters to ridicule.

Re:none of the above?

[shentino]

The consequences are nothing but a pack of powers that be that are looking for a convenient excuse for something they are hell bent on imposing anyway.

They have the motive and means. The hacktivists only provide opportunity.

Re:none of the above?

[shentino]

I am anonymous.

Re:none of the above?

[marcello_dl]

Maybe they have some hacker among their ranks. I am dubious when I see the choice of targets for their attacks. Some justified ones, but a lot of evildoers were not target of any campaign. Looking at the past years`events and correlating them to attacks seems to me that anonymous does not often read newspapers- which might be good - and not even alternative media. Strange.

Re:none of the above?

[EdIII]

Those that wish for an Internet without Freedom, Privacy, Anonymity, Choice, or Competition do not need the existence and actions of Anonymous to create the foundation for their arguments.

I am cheering Anonymous for their actions with HBGary. However, I am cheering for the specific people that did this specific act.

Cheering for Anonymous is like modding an AC on Slashdot as +5 Insightful and then wondering why he was being such a dick two posts later.

Re:none of the above?

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe they do something worthwhile sometimes, but maybe the consequences of that results in a less free internet. I'll withhold cheering.

Do you hear yourself? Are you saying they shouldn't do anything worthwhile because there will be crackdowns on the rest of us? Have things gotten that bad?

The old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" only applies if you're not already in hell.

Re:none of the above?

[mattib]

Quick! Add the tags before they notice!

Re:none of the above?

[mwvdlee]

If anonymous did unreasonably illegal things with total lack or respect for anybody and anything involved, people wouldn't believe it either.
The fact that they're mostly out doing relatively harmless things keeps it within the realm of believe.

They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[Debello]

If the government didn't embrace corruption and breaking their own laws.

Re:They wouldn't need to be embraced at all...

[AlamedaStone]

Agreed. No one ought to have sympathy with the corruption of a government. However, if so-called vigilantes have impunity then they could become a new oppressive regime.

Wow. You're right. If the government doesn't protect us, Anonymous will RULE THE COUNTRY, banishing all women from the internet and compelling people to put things in other things so that they may do things while they do things.

I guess having national ID cards and internet licenses is a small price to pay. I mean, I don't mind putting things in things, but I'll be damned if I'll then go do things while I do things. Where would it end?

False dichotomy

[Local ID10T]

None of the above.

Re:False dichotomy

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Agreed. In the end, the appearance of vigilantes is a symptom of something else; I won't go so far as to say it's inevitable, but if it takes vigilantes before things come to light, your country got problems.

Re:False dichotomy

[Darinbob]

How about "jeered"? A vigilante, regardless of motivations, is a vigilante. And I'm pretty sure many of these poeple are doing it for the lulz rather than to do any sort of meaningful protest that will accomplish something.

Re:False dichotomy

[russotto]

Agreed. In the end, the appearance of vigilantes is a symptom of something else; I won't go so far as to say it's inevitable, but if it takes vigilantes before things come to light, your country got problems.

The appearance of a few vigiliantes, despised by most, means little. The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill. The government condemns them regardless, because the government claims the privilege to dispense justice to be solely its own, but when the government claims that privilege then fails to fulfill the implicit duty, what do you expect?

Re:False dichotomy

[cheekyjohnson]

The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill.

I don't quite understand how a large number of people believing something makes it right. I mean, it might indicate that the government has angered them, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the people are 'in the right.'

Re:False dichotomy

[jmorris42]

> A vigilante, regardless of motivations, is a vigilante.

More like common vandals. If you wouldn't cheer em rampaging in a mob with fireaxes and making off with file cabinets you shouldn't be cheering them doing essentially the same smash and grab and sticking an i, cyber- or some such hip prefix that boils down to the same ol 'take something ordinary stick "on the Internet" on and call it new and fresh. (And probably patentable but that is a rant for another thread.)

They aren't vigilantes anymore when they attack someone for the sole reason they were investigating them. That is so clearly across the moral line the only reason more people don't see it is they agree so strongly with Anonymous's stated political goals it blinds them. Gotham PD gets tired of Batman's vigilante tactics and decides to track him down and arrest him. He shoots Gordon in the face when he shows up at Wayne Manor with a warrant. Goodbye Batman, hello Supervillan looking for a new name.

Re:False dichotomy

[Ruke]

But in this case, the vigilantes are addressing behavior that the government is turning a blind eye to, not behavior that the government had addressed and approved of. It would be quite a different story if there had been a criminal investigation of HBGary and they were found innocent; however, certain parties within the government would seem to have known that they were acting illegally, and chose to do nothing.

And again, it still doesn't mean that the vigilantes are in the right. It just means that they're addressing (for better or for worse) a problem that the government should be addressing, but has failed to.

Re:False dichotomy

[c6gunner]

Exactly. Individuals make stupid decisions, and hold stupid beliefs, on a regular basis. But when they become a giant mob, I'm supposed to believe that they're acting rationally and doing the right thing? Good luck with that. There's a reason most modern republics aren't direct-democracies. Constitutions don't just exist to protect "the people" from "the government" - they exist to protect the people from themselves.

Re:False dichotomy

[kevinNCSU]

I thought the time tested method for creating vigilantes was blaming problems on a small group of people that the majority doesn't like anyways and so can get behind stringing up to work out their anger issues.

Re:False dichotomy

[kevinNCSU]

"Vigilante" is an idiotic term to use here. These people are protesters, nothing else, no different than people who block entrances to government buildings or bombard politicians with mail and phone calls. Why is it that when something happens on the Internet, it suddenly becomes something more than the same act happening in real life?

By your very argument then Anonymous would be common thieves and vandals for breaking into HBGary property, stealing documents, defacing their website, and destroying property (backups). If you want to make it "the same thing as if it happened in real life" they would not be protesters, but common criminals.

Re:False dichotomy

[westlake]

The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill.

The problem here is that it is far too easy to delude yourself into believing that the people are on your side. That you - and only you - have the right to speak for them.

Re:False dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the police didn't come after batman, a (as-yet-unhired) mercenary was after them, proposing to use illegal means themselves.

The act of self-preservation does not make one a criminal. What was likely to happen to those HB Gary noted as being part of Anonymous? (And would they target a: social engineer griefers, b: those who had actually engaged in cracking or script-kiddee-hood or c: everyone period on 4chan making them all possibly unemployable and/or through gross misrepresentation putting every last person there on sex offender lists?

Also, Batman didn't shoot Gordon in the face, he uncovered some of Gordan's illicit dealings in the red light district after campaigning to clean it up. (And suggesting that Batman was a pimp, which he was but no more engaged in it than Gordon.)

HB Gary wasn't looking for their identities to debate them, but to silence them (Anonymous plus all stated opponents of their client) whatever it (shy of physical violence) took.

When you're looking to organize a clandestine smear campaign to perpetrate a cover-up worth spending such massive amounts of money on... there's no pretense of being the good guys.

What we have here is two groups both ranging from amoral to immoral fighting each other, both of whom would rather the proper course not be taken.

Unfortunately both political parties have mastered "forget what you just caught us doing, look at what they MIGHT be doing!" and used it so much that those looking to believe in their chosen party have an automatic response to dismiss evidence against their side upon being presented with that situation.

While it would be nice to believe that government contractors are on the side of law and order, the evidence so far does not bear that assertion. After a few of the matters uncovered by Wikileaks (and some by the regular news during the war proper in Iraq) it's pretty obvious that the contractors have much to hide (some of which has been public-ally released but didn't stay in the papers very long...)

It sure would be nice if we could blanketly agree with you, but if you read Slashdot with any regularity you'll note that for large companies, proper legal consequences don't seem to apply. If anyone fights a large corporation, it's fair game to ruin their life. If a large corporation does something heinous (perhaps losing lives through cheapness and incompetence, oil rig?) they get off with NO threat of dissolution or those responsible having their lives ruined.

Given the relative dangers to each side, I can't condemn any who thought they might be identified as Anonymous (correctly or not) for doing whatever it (also without violence or going further than the other side intended to) took to neutralize the threat to themselves.

It would be really nice if we cleaned house in government and had a clear-cut situation where we could all shake our heads at Anonymous, but at this point with the president himself working to aid and abet the (likely continued) defrauding of Bank of America's customers (the people he should be looking to protect), with the highest public office directly opposed to doing what's right you can rest assured the law will not properly investigate the matter and hold BoA responsible for what the documents contain, but rather punish any who try to spill the beans.

This is what we've earned for ourselves by voting along party lines. One of our most important founding principles is checks and balances to prevent any one group from being able to get away with corruption. The entire purpose of a political party is to get around those checks and balances. Perhaps active membership in one should be considered an attempt to sabotage the country?

This is likely to come up more and more in the near future. It will become trendy to uncover wrongdoing, when this involves anyone in the government expect more "you're with us or against us" nonsense trying to convince people that you're not American if you don't support whoever is in a position of power, even

Re:False dichotomy

[AlamedaStone]

They aren't vigilantes anymore when they attack someone for the sole reason they were investigating them.

I think that is only half true. The reality is they uncovered some Serious Wrongdoing. Whether or not that was any one individual's intent, the Anon cloud seems to employ the Streisand effect to broadcast some major inequities.

On the other hand, they also go after kids on "the facebook" and hassle random people in video streaming and god knows what else. I find it very peculiar that these types of actions never make the big media coverage. If my tinfoil hat was not at a jaunty angle, but rather attached by my tinfoil chinstrap, I might wonder who's interest that serves. I mean, the news networks would get tons of eyeballs for a story like that, wouldn't they?

Curious.

Depends on the specific case, of course

[ron_ivi]

In the case of HB Gary - they did everyone (especially those who pay for HBGary's services - meaning mostly taxpayers) a great service by exposing a security company apparently so fraudulent it had no business in the computer security field.

If it were my own web sites, I'd very much hope that if someone found an exploit, they'd let me know by visibly defacing my homepage, rather than just ignoring the vulnerability and leaving me vulnerable until some less scrupulous hacker finds it next.

I hope the law would take intent into consideration a lot in those cases. If the intent was to inform HB Gary and HB Gary customers that their security knowledge sucked, IMHO they did a service to all by demonstrating that. OTOH, if their intent was to steal people's credit cards or something from HB Gary, they should be gone after just like any other credit card thief should.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[MrEricSir]

But HBGary is not a fraudulent security company. Claiming that just because they did several things wrong makes them "fraudulent" is absurd.

The uncovered e-mails suggest HBGary is quite good at finding and exploiting Windows bugs to provide various forms of security and/or spy services. Creepy, yes, but not fraudulent by any means.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[airfoobar]

Creepy and illegal and unethical.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[lostmongoose]

Are tank manufacturers unethical?

At the point where the tanks (exploits and security holes, in this case) are used to harass and subdue opposition amongst the citizenry and the manufacturer has no issue with it, they are. The gov't answers to the people, not the other way around. When the people are angry enough to start speaking out, you don't turn your arsenal on them. Unless you wanna live in China or Libya or Bahrain or Iran....I can go on, but I shouldn't need to.

Re:Depends on the specific case, of course

[Runaway1956]

Sorry, but Arron Barr is a fraud and a con man. Sure, he and his buddies knew a lot of Windows exploits - but that doesn't change the fact that he was a fraud and a con man. All con men have SOMETHING shiny to show the victims, to get the victim's interest piqued. Barr and associates had a few Windows exploits, and a huge bag of empty promises.

Didn't we use to call them Journalists?

[rsilvergun]

Now their Cyber Vigilantes. Should be asking if Upton Sinclair should be cheered or feared?

Re:Didn't we use to call them Journalists?

[antdude]

Their? :P

Sometimes cheered

[Yaa 101]

Sometimes cheered and sometimes booed, better question is why the press is always so binary and void of grey areas.

Re:Sometimes cheered

[Em Adespoton]

...and the answer is that that's what the readership wants.

Re:Cheered

[Duradin]

Police investigating a murder?!? What is this world coming to? Will no one think of the murderers?

No worse...

[Jessified]

It's no worse than using evidence collected by torture...

Re:Depends on how quiet they stay

[barrtender]

Knowing WBC's past it's fairly likely that the entire thing was fabricated by them. That said, I don't see anything of value being lost if that organization is actually attacked and taken down.

Both?

[techoi]

Maybe a little of both - cheers and fears. I think they fill a void that isn't being addressed by any existing group in this day and age. And just maybe they will help bring a balance back to the notion that governments need to fear the people (seemingly lost on most western leaders) more than people fearing their government. If Anon (et al) shine a much needed light on that, then cheer away I say.

As far as WBC goes, never forget that anyone (literally) can claim something in the name of Anon (think of literal free speech), but only if it fires up enough other members (lacking a better word) will much in the way of any action occur.

Nothing has changed in 30 years.

[Lead Butthead]

It's always "their (cyber) terrorist" and "our (cyber) freedom fighters/freedom watchdogs." Whenever it's not serving the agenda of those in power, it's always "theirs." When it does, it's always "ours."

Re:Nothing has changed in 30 years.

[DMoylan]

much more ably illuminated in blackadder :-)

Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...
General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!

Information is information.

[Jane Q. Public]

Once it has been exposed, it has been exposed. The toothpaste is out of the tube. There is no putting it back.

So why is the fact that some people made use of that information "troubling"?? I would be troubled if they didn't.

Is anybody complaining that people shouldn't use information that was exposed by WikiLeaks? No? Why not? How is that different from information that was exposed by anybody else? WikiLeaks did not commit any crimes, but somebody did.

Re:Transparency is always good...

[Cwix]

Be less interesting to read thats for sure though.

Unfortunate

[sjames]

I would LIKE to not feel a need to cheer for them. I would like to have police and courts interested in the best interests of society and individuals within it, but apparently that's not the case, so I just have to be grateful for anyone willing to fill the vacuum. The press used to do some of this for us when something fell through the cracks, but they don't seem all that interested in hard core investigation any more.

So, I guess as long as DOJ, DHS, FBI, et al are too busy working for the mouse and the *AA to take care of these things and the press are too afraid they might not get invited to the next ball, it'll have to be Anon and Wikileaks.

Re:Cyber?

[betterunixthanunix]

There was an article a few months ago about "cyber" -- it basically said that you should be wary of anyone who chooses to use the word "cyber" to describe anything.

In any case, Anonymous is not a vigilante group; that description is more fitting for a group like perverted justice. Anonymous is just a bunch of protesters who are using the Internet for their protest. I see no difference between Anonymous and a campaign to bombard politicians or businesses with mail and telephone calls (especially since the attacks Anonymous is performing are pretty low level in terms of the skill that is needed -- these people are not writing the next stuxnet). The fact that it is happening online is nothing more than an artifact of 21st century life.

Re:Transparency is always good...

[kevinNCSU]

There's no functional difference between an AC and a pseudonym account. If real names were enforced here there'd be a lot fewer douchebags.

Says the AC. ^Real Name^ And just to spite you about there being less douche-bags this way? - Suck it ;)

Well, let's weigh their motivations

[mykos]

I fear people who want to take away life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those who expose truth.

I cheer people who support truth-bearers any way they can.

So I cheer the vigilantes.