NATO Report Threatens To 'Persecute' Anonymous

Stoobalou writes "NATO leaders have been warned that Wikileaks-loving 'hacktivist' collective Anonymous could pose a threat to member states' security, following recent attacks on the US Chamber of Commerce and defence contractor HBGary — and promise to 'persecute' its members." From the article: "In a toughly-worded draft report to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, General Rapporteur Lord Jopling claims that the loose-knit, leaderless group is 'becoming more and more sophisticated,' and 'could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files.'"

Comments

Motivation

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they mentioned they're just doing it for the lulz.... xD

Re:Motivation

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Anonymous is that their attacks tend to distract rather than draw attention to their original cause.

It seems the group is more interested with publicity than the message. That's unsurprising given their decentralized nature: hard to attack/confront, but hard to stay consistent.

Anon/Lulzsec events end up highlighting the wrong thing: flash mobs (instead of Scientology abuse), credit card security (instead of Sony's abuse of the legal system), and corporate/government vandalism (instead of MSM bias on Frontline).

They get alot of attention and their causes are just, but they are losing in public opinion. To the extent that the public may ignore their message because of the messenger.

good luck

[Nihn]

the term "kicking water up hill" comes to mind.

Re:Good Luck

[GreyLurk]

What it might do is cut off recruitment. There's a spectrum of Anonymous folks, from the script kiddies who downloaded LOIC, and have it running on their parent's computer, all the way up to the serious folks who actually designed and architected the attacks. The serious folks know how to protect their anonymity well, and it's unlikely that any significant portion of them will be caught and tried. The script kiddies are pretty vulnerable though, and are going to get picked off by prosecution.

Thing is, there's an evolution, from LOIC downloader, to someone who understands the security concepts better, to those who are able to plan and mount real attacks. If you cut the script kiddie population down drastically, and make it hard to recruit people into Anonymous, then it's going to diminish the population of higher-up members.

The strategy ends up being just like a real war: attack and pick off off the soldiers, until the generals are exposed, then go after the generals.

Re:good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the phrase Anonymous likes to use is "pissing in an ocean of piss."

Re:Good Luck

[N0Man74]

Yeah, this was kind of along the lines of my thinking.

I can definitely foresee a witch-hunt which will result in the lives of many who are low-hanging fruit that are actually pretty harmless, or even mistakenly identified altogether, while simultaneously not being effective in curbing any real damage from those that might be "harmful".

Gee... does this sound familiar to anyone? Haven't we seen this in at least one or two areas already?

Re:good luck

[elrous0]

In other news, a large group of hackers were arrested today after sexually assaulting their maids...

Re:good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a much more apt statement as you're adding more volume to the ocean. Seeing as Anonymous tends to grow its causes towards any perceived threat, any retaliation will likely increase the number of people working as "Anonymous." Anonymous always seemed like a personification of some group's social outrage. It's size has always depended on the amount of people who gain joy/vengeance on whomever the attacker is. It steam rolls too, because as the group gets larger, the chance of any one individual getting caught drops (granted, a user's role in the attack can increase this).

Re:good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're fishing for information, trying to observe a reaction. If NATO really wanted to go after Anonymous, it would IMHO be a strategic blunder: The whole point of Anonymous is their asymmetric approach. Not only that, but NATO doesn't even have superiority online. Another more likely scenario is that NATO wants to extend its mandate and uses Anonymous as an example "cyber" threat. I mean, who wants to guarantee that Anonymous isn't a false flag operation in the first place?

Re:good luck

[Bill Hayden]

like pushing a string...

Re:good luck

[guyminuslife]

How about a "War on Anonymous"?

Re:Good Luck

[marcosdumay]

"There's a spectrum of Anonymous folks, from the script kiddies who downloaded LOIC, and have it running on their parent's computer, all the way up to the serious folks who actually designed and architected the attacks."

You mean, the serious people that designed a bot that gets links from an IRC channel and does a bandwidth based DoS against it? Yeah, only geniouses could do that, they are irrepleceable.

Re:good luck

[Darinbob]

When the become "more sophisticated" they will naturally have to reduce their anarchic organizational structure. Right now Anonymous only does stuff for the lulz and any poltiical signals it has are purely accidental, but there are signs that some people are trying to wrest some sort of control over it or direct it in certain ways. The worry is that one or two people might have an idea of hacking something vital and they've got an army of "ooh, me too" people they can to influence into helping.

Re:good luck

[shish]

Depends what their goal is. If their goal is being handed a free pass to arrest anyone on any charges, then a mission statement of "persecute Anonymous" seems pretty successful to me; it's even more vague and harder to defend against than "persecute terrorists".

Re:good luck

[Jane Q. Public]

"When the become "more sophisticated" they will naturally have to reduce their anarchic organizational structure."

They are already falling victim to this. It is the same old story, which I publicly predicted:

(1) "Activist" group takes pride in their ad-hoc, "anarchic" nature, and claims they "can't be caught" because of it.

(2) Eventually, in order to coordinate major "projects", an hierarchical structure of some sort becomes necessary, even if only to facilitate planning or organize resources.

(3) Members become resentful of the "leaders" (after all, it is supposed to be an "anarchy"), and the leadership is attacked from within (as happened just recently).

(4) Repeat. For as long as the organization exists.

It has always happened that way, and probably always will, unless some better way can be developed to coordinate projects by "anarchic" organizations, which is a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

Re:good luck

[nagnamer]

(2) Eventually, in order to coordinate major "projects", an hierarchical structure of some sort becomes necessary, even if only to facilitate planning or organize resources.

This is not true.

If you put a lamp out in the dark, insects gather around it. It's not organized, or coordintated in any way, but all insects go the same destination. When applied to humans, if you have an issue that enough people feel strongly about, a chaotic mass will move together towards is as a disorganized mob, and the sheer size of the mob will accomplish the goal. It has worked in many cases throughout history (starting with the more recent Serbian "democratic uprising" of 2000, and earlier communist revolution). The issue for the mob to feel strongly about doesn't have to be real. It can be injected from outside using propaganda, too, which is a very effective method, and very cheap.

Re:good luck

[nagnamer]

And the accompanying "Chauvinist Act", which enables the same capabilities as the "Patriot" but online. Right?

Re:good luck

[WNight]

I'll explain how Anonymous works. Hopefully you'll understand why "gaining control of it" is ridiculous.

If you wish to direct them simply find an appropriate target - anyone whose behavior leads you to say "It'd be fun watching them get their own medicine". If you find a proposed hack funny, chances are other people will too. You then go to IRC - ANY channel, and tell people about it. Some demographics are more into it than others. If they find it funny and wish to run a similar attack around the same time, you have recruited an anonymous accomplice.

But they aren't your army. They are all independents and if they aren't enjoying themselves they'll simply not be there anymore. If you redirect your attack, instead of kicking abusers like scientology or sony, to a less fun target you'll be alone all of a sudden. Everyone in the group will have independently decided to ignore that bossy guy.

There is no structure. There's not just not a lot of structure as most people imagine, there is none. The only directions the group obeys are ones that most of them decide to follow for themselves, having read/participated in the discussion. If you aren't even involved but point out that staggering the attack in a certain way would increase its effectiveness, your suggestion will be followed to the letter. And if you're the guy who started it and you changed your mind or were bribed/threatened and try to call it off, you'll be ignored by everyone.

Of course some people involved in any actions will know each other. In fact, they likely heard about it from each other, so they could have secure channel, but they can't invite others into it anonymously, and so remain just a piece of anonymous, not a structure within it.

The thing about anonymous is that it's perfect cover and distraction. Like a parade would let people wear clown masks up to a bank without suspicion, any attacker can work under the cover of Anonymous DDoSing the game servers and hack other systems. Because of this they can be blamed for anything, even if it never actually happened, or was unrelated to the actions/knowledge of the masses.

Any Anonymous action can have agent provocateurs, sent to make the reasonable participants (protestors, etc) look unreasonable. For instance, wear a Guy Fawkes mask near a scientology event and mug someone. Bonus points for using slurs towards them as if they're scientologists. Then the legitimate actions and message of the group are drowned out by the invented message.

When reading about anonymous you need to know what's reasonable for a bunch of disconnected people who like to see justice served (picket scientology and make them miserable, DDoS hypocritical corporations, etc) and what isn't (organized hacking, physical attacks, etc) to know what anonymous and what's opportunistic criminals, lazy corporate security, or enemy misdirection blaming them for everything happening at the same time.

Re:good luck

[Jane Q. Public]

Sorry, but history proves you wrong. Look at the history of just about every underground movement, and you will see what I mean. It has *always* happened that way, and I don't see any recent changes in human behavior that would cause anything to change.

Re:good luck

[Jane Q. Public]

"It has worked in many cases throughout history (starting with the more recent Serbian "democratic uprising" of 2000, and earlier communist revolution)."

You are talking about something else here. I was referring to any kind of long-lived anarchic group. These are very different things.

In the first place, the Serbian uprising was a relatively short-lived affair. So it need not apply.

As for the communist revolution: it was neither "anarchic", nor was it "unorganized". I fail to see how that is even remotely a counterexample to anything I wrote.

Re:good luck

[nagnamer]

You don't see recent changes in the way modern 'revolution' is organized, because you don't want to see, or you don't know how to see. I've had a first-hand experience of one of these, and the mechanics of it seem to date at least as far back to the Nazi revolution and Communist revolutions. I am talking about revolutions, massive stuff, where a majority of citizens arise to change whole countries, overthrow regimes, etc, not small underground movements lead by a handful of idealistic people, that usually becomes labelled as terrorism or something along those lines. When you are dealing with huge crowds, it's a different story. Point is, the more massive the scale, less effective organization becomes. For maximum effect with large masses, you want the exact opposite: disorganization and chaos.

Re:good luck

[Jane Q. Public]

"Point is, the more massive the scale, less effective organization becomes. For maximum effect with large masses, you want the exact opposite: disorganization and chaos."

You argue against yourself here. "You," in the above quote, being whom? A leader of a movement, who wants disorganization and chaos? Think about that for a moment.

You are confusing the common effect (a chaotic mob) with the organization (someone who incited a chaotic mob). Again, they are two different things. One is an ad-hoc occurrence... even though it was almost certainly planned by somebody. The other is the somebody who did the planning.

You keep referring to the former, while I have been discussing the latter.

Re:good luck

[Jane Q. Public]

And I want to add, since you have brought it up twice now: the communist revolution was not anarchic at all, nor was it "unorganized".

Keep in mind that I did not say that anarchic "organizations" will necessarily fail. Only that by their very nature they suffer internal turmoil.

Re:good luck

[nagnamer]

You keep referring to the former, while I have been discussing the latter.

If you were referring to the 'Anonymous' in your original post, which I presume you were, I am arguing that it is not something that needs an organization to run it. An organization (or even an individual) can incite its movement, but once the wheels start rolling, it doesn't need any coordination or anything of the kind. It will chaotically coordinate itself. Point is, 'Anonymous' itself doesn't have to have 'hierarchical structure of some sort', and especially not at the level of military organizations. Also, this phenomenon may invalidate point 3, because there is no need for anyone to take leadership. There is a complete disconnect between those who incite the movement and the ones participating in it. The reason for your point 1 in this case is precisely the fact that the movement has become out of chaos the way I've already described, and that it has no definitive leadership that keeps members in check and orchestrates the movement.

Think of it as of a social hack on massive scale.

Re:good luck

[Jane Q. Public]

"If you were referring to the 'Anonymous' in your original post, which I presume you were, I am arguing that it is not something that needs an organization to run it."

And yet it DID have an "organization" to run it... just as they always have and always will. Or at least a loose organization of "leaders" or "elite" who tend to run things. As described in the recent news about how Anonymous attacked itself from within. Which is what I have been talking about all along.

You can argue that it does not need such organization all you want, but your arguments fall flat because it did and does have an organization. It may be a loose organization, and it may be an informal organization, but it is still an organization.

"There is a complete disconnect between those who incite the movement and the ones participating in it."

That was MY point. What is yours?

"The reason for your point 1 in this case is precisely the fact that the movement has become out of chaos the way I've already described, and that it has no definitive leadership that keeps members in check and orchestrates the movement."

If by "the movement", you are referring to Anonymous, then you are simply wrong. It does and did have "organization", which is proven and documented, and has even been in the news recently.

Seriously... I don't know why you're still arguing. Saying that they don't need an organization is pointless because they have had one, so there is no evidence for your argument. And I can say exactly the same about your comments in regard to the communist revolution.

I guess we'll find out...

[cold fjord]

I guess we'll find out if "Anonymous" is as anonymous as they think they are, if it is truly as chaotic as some people claim. I have my doubts on both fronts.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[Captain.Abrecan]

"as anonymous as they think they are" As a bunch of 15 year olds using the same proxy to look at 4chan, I'm guessing their true anonymity is quite non-existent. On a related note, how would one go about actually being 'anonymous' on the internet? I don't think you can get 100% safety.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me know how that works out for you.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/hacker-builds-tracking-system-to-nab-tor-pedophiles/114?tag=col1;post-5351

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[betterunixthanunix]

I don't think you can get 100% safety.

Of course not; it is always possible that someone has put a camera in your room, or that there is a keystroke logging program that shipped with your motherboard, etc.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[betterunixthanunix]

Note that that attack relies on the user allowing an applet to run on their system; a user who is serious about anonymity is probably not going to allow applets to run (or they are uninformed; the point is that this attack is fairly easy to defend against).

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[localman57]

That's the whole thing, though, about the whole cops and robbers game. You gotta evade the cops forever. They only gotta catch you once.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck, I'm behind seven proxies.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[trewornan]

You can't get 100% but you can take your laptop down to Starbucks and spoof the MAC to cooe close.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Just subpoena Amazon for the list of people who bought those Guy Fawkes masks.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Use a pedophile as a relay. Anybody tracing you back will stop there and have a field day without looking any further, because who is going to believe a pedophile?

I'd say the hard part would be finding a pedophile, but most states provide a convenient map of their locations. Although you'll probably need to crack another neighbor's wireless router for them because they often aren't allowed to have internet access. And, since they don't have internet access, and therefore neither a computer or a wireless router of their own for you to relay through, you'll also need to install a wireless repeater(with a thumb drive of questionable photos) in the pedophile's attic(preferably without their knowledge).

The fact that they don't have a computer but still have a network storage device full of photos they can't actually see will be used as evidence of just how cunning the pedophile is.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[Wyatt Earp]

Ever have people you know disappear into Extraordinary Rendition? Die mysteriously from "robbery gone bad"?

End up in trials where the evidence is secret because of a FISA warrant?

Thats where the hacktivist world is going, Manning was just the start, what will happen to people who piss off governments and militaries enough will make Mitnick and Manning's times in jail look like a vacation.

Piss them off enough and its "an act of war", then the courts can't help them.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[TooMuchToDo]

Dude, it's not an organization, it's an idea. Hell, *I* could be part of Anonymous for a day. Anyone can be, and then the next moment, be done.

Anonymous and Al Queda are structured vary similarly. I leave it up to each person to decide the morals of each group.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously laughed as I read this. The sad fact of the matter is it's probably 100% accurate.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[Alex Belits]

No.

In Soviet Russia Anonymous buys a dog to protect himself from you.

Re:I guess we'll find out...

[randomencounter]

I find it sad that NATO is scared of a bunch of random Joes off the Internet.

The military has gotten lazy about IT and let OPSEC standards slip if things have really come to this, and if things have really gotten that bad then the military won't be able to win because they don't even understand the battlefield.

Persecuting your own citizens

[Hatta]

Let us know how that works out for you!

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[dgatwood]

Hey, NATO,

What's the matter? You've been telling us for years that if we didn't do anything wrong, there's no need for privacy. Welcome to our world.

Sincerely,
Everyone

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[Kenja]

Who else are you going to persecute? Other peoples citizens are kind of out of reach.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[drpimp]

Haven't you heard of Seal Team 6?

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[Jonner]

Let us know how that works out for you!

Prosecuting crimes and defending national infrastructures are definitely valid activities for a state to do, but would probably be characterized as "persecution" by Anonymous. To be more cynical, many brutal regimes throughout history have also shown that true persecution is often very effective in achieving their goals.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[gstoddart]

What's the matter? You've been telling us for years that if we didn't do anything wrong, there's no need for privacy. Welcome to our world.

Which, according to their logic is still true.

If they're taking the position that the members of Anonymous have crossed the line to doing something wrong ... then there's still no need for privacy.

Expect them to say now that the only way to prove you're not a terrorist is to relinquish any form of anonymity. Oh, and don't expect them to see the difference to people protesting against oppressive regimes they don't like and this -- they might have to arrest you for pointing out their logical failure.

Of course, their own usage of the word persecution is interesting in this context.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[dgatwood]

No, no, no, you misunderstood me. If the NATO member nations were doing nothing wrong, then they would have no need for privacy, and thus by their own logic, the actions of anonymous are ethical and reasonable.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[gstoddart]

Oh, well then ... carry on ... I agree completely. :-P

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[MikeB0Lton]

Seal Team 6 does not persecute or follow their own agenda, they follow orders.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[Kenja]

Yea, its a Disney copy-write. Some sort of animated movie I guess.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[localman57]

I don't think you just end up in Seal Team 6 by accident. It takes a lifetime of work and dedication. Their agenda is to promote a certain vision of society, where what is vision is determined by their superiors, who in turn (hopefully) derive their vision from the values of the collective American Hive Mind. And the individuals in Seal Team 6 are anonymous. Sound at all familliar?

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[cold fjord]

Persecuting? You’ve got that wrong. Prosecuting is spelled P R O S E C U T I N G.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[drpimp]

Pardon me I forgot the /sarcasm ... and you meant copyright correct?

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[Kenja]

What I mean and what the spell checker produces are often at odds.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[MikeB0Lton]

It sounds like a stretch. Seal Team 6, like all US military units, follow orders from their leadership. Ultimately this is guided by the Commander in Chief (Obama), and Congress. The agenda of the president and of congress is to promote a certain vision of society who in turn (hopefully) derive their vision from the values of their constituency (sound familiar?). Cracking into secured networks and servers to prove a point just constitutes anarchy and vigilantism. It is in direct opposition to the ideals of law and order that have been established over time in this country. Society would be much better served if the people of Anonymous would step up and participate in public service. We need representatives who are willing to buck the system and look past partisan politics to affect change on core issues.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[formfeed]

Haven't you heard of Seal Team 6?

the new Disney movie?
- Can't wait to find out how that turns out.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[GameboyRMH]

I can't wait to see cartoon terrorists dancing in elaborate musical scenes.

In typical Disney style, Osama's death will be shown in silhouette form, and to make it a Disney Righteous Death, Osama will raise a gun to a Team 6 member who will say with big sad eyes, "Osama, DOOOOOONNN'T!!!!" and then the grizzled old member will shoot him and they'll all cringe and look away.

And I hope Robin Williams and Jack Black get voice roles.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens

[Pseudonym Authority]

Read The Fucking Title

Great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's worked great against al-Qaida. Ten years and we finally caught/killed the closest thing to a leader they have and the war still continues.

Anonymous had no real leader or command structure. Pursuing this course of action would be a huge waste of time/money and only rile up a bee's nest that loves to fight back when provoked.

Re:Great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Because nobody else in al-Qaida has been caught/killed. Especially no other leaders. Idiot.

Re:Great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent announcement that the Pentagon will regard cyber-attacks as acts of war? Does that mean that Anonymous folks can be sent to Gitmo to face torture Military Tribunal as enemy combatants?

Re:Great idea!

[localman57]

Probably. We've backpeddaled pretty far from what was promised in 2008. My buddy Kenny had two unpaid parking tickets and failed to show up for a drunken-disorderly charge court date. Then, BAM! He's in cuba.

Re:Great idea!

[creat3d]

I think what you're looking for is the comment section on FOXnews.com, you'd be a better fit over there...

Re:Great idea!

[Thud457]

I'd bet money that there's some on Government payroll that will be paid to track down themselves.

Do you have a properly filed form 27B-6 ?
Harry Tuttle is obviously a member of Anonymous, he makes unauthorized modifications to the tubes...

Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Spartacus!

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Spartacus!

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Spartacus!

Man, that movie would've been a lot funnier if they just started slaughtering every smartass who spoke up just to teach the rest a lesson.

Wait, did I say "funnier"? Sorry, I meant "more true to what would actually happen if there was anything like this demonic evil fascist dictatorship going on that everyone keeps talking about".

Re:Good luck with that

[localman57]

I am Spartacus!

I am Spartacus!

I am Spartacus!

Very funny. But seriously let me...BLAM!...BLAM!...BLAM!...

Ok, assholes. This isn't the Bronze age anymore where I gotta hack you to bits, one stabbing at a time. Anybody else got anything to say? Wanna end up like those three?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I think one of those guys was Spartacus. You got him. You can let the rest of us go.

Re:Good luck with that

[antdude]

/me stands up. No, I am Spartacus.

Re:Good luck with that

[kevinNCSU]

I am Spartacus!

Man, that movie would've been a lot funnier if they just started slaughtering every smartass who spoke up just to teach the rest a lesson.

Wait, did I say "funnier"? Sorry, I meant "more true to what would actually happen if there was anything like this demonic evil fascist dictatorship going on that everyone keeps talking about".

You're that same kid that read the first few pages of Lord of the Flies and then wrote a report on how great it was with all the kids living on an island make making Robinson Crusoe like shelters aren't you? At the end of the movie every single one of them is literally crucified along the road, cross after cross down the road, hanging there to teach everyone else a lesson.

Re:Good luck with that

[Hijacked Public]

But it doesn't end up being everybody, or at least it isn't going to.

Anon obviously has or has ready access to computers. That means they probably have reliable electricity. And probably HVAC and a nice bed or couch or something to sleep on at night. Clean water and something to eat.

There are always a few who buy into the idealism too much who end up as the execption to the rule, but generally people with all their basic needs well met and some bread and circuses on top of that aren't likely to revolt against tyranny. At least the kind of tyranny you refer to.

A bunch of people showed up to 'support' events like Ruby Ridge and Waco but did anyone stand in front of a tank there? Or throw themselves in front of Lon Horiuchi? Even when they do stand in front of tanks, how much do they accomplish? There are some recent notable examples, especially in the middle east, of populations withstanding force but honestly, that was amateur night force and most of those people were far worse off than anon seems to be.

I was born in South Africa so I certainly don't believe that a government can hold power against overwhelming numbers, but I see a huge difference between the will of those people and the will of people I've met in the west.

Re:Good luck with that

[Peter Trepan]

I am Spartacus!

See, he is Spartacus. Could you get your boot off my head now?

Re:Good luck with that

[SuricouRaven]

Works for Saudi Arabia. 0% tax rate - almost the whole country runs off oil money. High unemployment, but people don't care because the benefits are so fantastic. All paid for by the legions of car-drivers around the world.

Re:Good luck with that

[Artifakt]

It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I don't remember the kids from Lord of the Flies being crucified at the end, at all. They probably deserved it after stabbing Janet Leigh in the shower, but 'Lord of the Flies' ends with the first bomber getting through to Moscow so the president has to order another bomber to nuke New York, right?

Re:Good luck with that

[surveyork]

I am Sportacus! www.lazytown.com

Re:Good luck with that

[pantaril]

but 'Lord of the Flies' ends with the first bomber getting through to Moscow so the president has to order another bomber to nuke New York, right?

Fail Safe from from Sidney Lumet ends this way.

Re:Good luck with that

[baerm]

FWIW considering we're fairly far off topic at this point and of course the 'I am Spartacus' line is a Hollywood invention. But Spartacus was assumed to have died in the final battle without his body being found/known. His 'I am Spartacus' followers that lived were not very lucky either, six thousand of the slave army that Spartacus led were crucified after the battle (and placed all along the main drag into Rome). I don't think they (the man?) had any qualms about dealing with large groups of 'anonymous' people, even in the Bronze Age.

Re:Good luck with that

[hexagonc]

Epic comment fail by GP.

General Rapporteur Lord Jopling

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his parents named him after consulting once of those "What's your Star Wars name?" pages.

Re:General Rapporteur Lord Jopling

[Crasoose]

Looked like one giant title to me, did they even say his name?

Re:General Rapporteur Lord Jopling

[creat3d]

As a native french speaker, I find it especially hilarious since "rapporteur" essentially means "snitch".

Re:General Rapporteur Lord Jopling

[thomst]

Looked like one giant title to me, did they even say his name?

They did. It's "Rapporteur Jopling". He's a general. And a lord. And, apparently, a major tool.

Any other brief questions? Or questions about some other text editor?

Re:General Rapporteur Lord Jopling

[RMingin]

I think three of those are titles.

Re:General Rapporteur Lord Jopling

[thomst]

Looked like one giant title to me, did they even say his name?

They did. It's "Rapporteur Jopling". He's a general. And a lord. And, apparently, a major tool.

Any other brief questions? Or questions about some other text editor?

Upon further research, I was mistaken about "Rapporteur". It, too, apparently is some kind of gay NATO title. And it's held by Michael Jopling, a Conservative member of the House of Lords.

Still, a major tool - oh, but I already said he was a Conservative member of the House of Lords, so I'm simply repeating myself here ...

Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[eldavojohn]

The group demonstrated its capabilities in February, says the report, when it hacked into US-based defence contractor HBGary.

I neither defend nor condone Anonymous' actions but I take issue with this statement. Indeed, upon reading the report I get a little more accurate of a description:

Observers note that Anonymous is becoming more and more sophisticated and could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files. According to reports in February 2011, Anonymous demonstrated its ability to do just that. After WikiLeaks announced its plan of releasing information about a major bank, the US Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America reportedly hired the data intelligence company HBGary Federal to protect their servers and attack any adversaries of these institutions. In response, Anonymous hacked servers of HBGary Federal’s sister company and hijacked the CEO’s Twitter account. Today, the ad hoc international group of hackers and activists is said to have thousands of operatives and has no set rules or membership.[36] It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths. The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted.[37]

(Emphasis mine). I don't know how certain members of Anonymous found themselves on the receiving end of Aaron Barr's maligned attacks on them but I don't see their reaction to such as all too out of line. Barr went after Anonymous and it's not entirely clear to me why persecution of Anonymous is sought. What would I do in that situation? Would I lash back out at this person tracking you? Probably although I might have taken a more litigious route (and I hope those named by Barr do, regardless of any possible involvement in Anonymous).

Whoever leaked these documents is at fault here, be it Bradley Manning or anyone else who had access to the documents and leaked them. I'm guessing they signed something saying they wouldn't do that so they're at fault. Wikileaks, the press, Anonymous, the whole internet, etc are not to blame for coming into possession of them through legal means. Attack the person who broke the rules and fix the problem from its source. Whether Manning was whistle-blowing or breaking his promise of national security will be decided by what he leaked. NATO should be telling the nations to deal with their own problems and not trying to enforce more ridiculous global control.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[kevinNCSU]

(Emphasis mine). I don't know how certain members of Anonymous found themselves on the receiving end of Aaron Barr's maligned attacks on them but I don't see their reaction to such as all too out of line. Barr went after Anonymous [wired.com] and it's not entirely clear to me why persecution of Anonymous is sought.

Really? You honestly can't think of ANYTHING Anonymous might have done to make people interested in finding out who they are? I feel like Barr was stupid in the same way someone is stupid if they decided to shout "You're a Pussy, and I'm going to pwn you with all my evidence which I have currently on me with no copies!" at a crime lord in front of his gang with no one else around in the middle of the night. But it's still illegal to shoot stupid people. Likewise, DoS attacks, defacing websites, stealing emails and deleting backup servers are all illegal actions regardless of whether the stupid person "deserved" it or not.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[VortexCortex]

Well, considering cyber attack is now an act of war, HBGary, an unrelated 3rd party, attacks the privacy of Anonymous, they have every right to retaliate.

Look at it this way -- PEARL HARBOR. WWII.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[Anonymous Coward]

After WikiLeaks announced its plan of releasing information about a major bank, the US Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America reportedly hired the data intelligence company HBGary Federal to protect their servers and attack any adversaries of these institutions.

False. Read the emails, the Chamber of Commerce and BOA requested ideas about how to combat the threat of wikileaks. HBGary Federal put together a presentation about methods that could be used. No one actually hired HBGary Federal, and in fact, HBGary Federal never won any government contracts. Probably because they suck, but the main point is that the Chamber, BOA, and the US government never employed them.

I don't know how certain members of Anonymous found themselves on the receiving end of Aaron Barr's maligned attacks on them but I don't see their reaction to such as all too out of line. Barr went after Anonymous and it's not entirely clear to me why persecution of Anonymous is sought.

Anonymous had already launched major attacks against many different targets, so they were obviously on the shit list of many people. Barr was apparently trying to social engineer his way into the group and gain insight into their identities. He put together a powerpoint about it and was scheduled to talk at a conference about how p2p/proxies/irc/etc doesn't hide your identity as well as you think. His initial press release indicated he wouldn't put any names in the paper.

Anonymous then took it upon themselves to hack him. They found some random draft of his powerpoint and published it, claiming it was all wrong... but when they leaked his email spool they quickly found out that he had actual names and locations... you should have seen the shit storm in IRC with people freaking out about their real name being in the emails. This was the beginning of a major divide in Anonymous, and it has caused a splintering among various AnonOps factions.

I have zero doubt that many members of AnonOps were picked up by the FBI. I also suspect that some of them have been forced into a double-agent role and are now FBI spies. And this is why I no longer participate in Anonymous: They have been compromised.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[VGPowerlord]

Well, considering cyber attack is now an act of war, HBGary, an unrelated 3rd party, attacks the privacy of Anonymous, they have every right to retaliate.

You use the term "unrelated" but were they?

My understanding is that Bank of America hired FBGary after Anonymous was causing them problems. This makes them a related third party.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[SilentStaid]

Wikileaks, the press, Anonymous, the whole internet, etc are not to blame for coming into possession of them through legal means.

I'd like to point out that according to appendix B of 18 U.S.C. 793 - they are indeed guilty. But that's just an example of a law that despite (or because of) best efforts is ridiculously broad in scope.

"Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense"

Source.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[batquux]

It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths.

They really have no idea, do they?

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[kevinNCSU]

Really? You honestly can't think of ANYTHING Anonymous might have done to make people interested in finding out who they are? I feel like Barr was stupid in the same way someone is stupid if they decided to shout "You're a Pussy, and I'm going to pwn you with all my evidence which I have currently on me with no copies!" at a crime lord in front of his gang with no one else around in the middle of the night. But it's still illegal to shoot stupid people. Likewise, DoS attacks, defacing websites, stealing emails and deleting backup servers are all illegal actions regardless of whether the stupid person "deserved" it or not.

Do you even understand the difference between the charges of "assault" and "aggravated assault"? They vary greatly by locality but I assure you that they come with completely different punishments.

Yes, but I get the feeling you don't. Aggravated Assault doesn't mean you assaulted someone because they aggravated you and they deserved it if that's what you're thinking. Aggravated Assault is actually the more serious of the two offenses. It means you assaulted someone in an even more serious way, like with a gun or with intent to murder, maim or rape the victim rather then just slapping them upside the head in a bar fight. If you did already know this perhaps you could make your point more clear because I really don't see how this applies to the situation at all.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[DrJimbo]

... it's not entirely clear to me why persecution of Anonymous is sought.

This is just a guess but I suspect it may be part of an effort, outside of any laws, to destroy Wikileaks and anyone who might defend them.

The power structure is threatened. The power structure Strikes Back.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[sjames]

Likewise, DoS attacks, defacing websites, stealing emails and deleting backup servers are all illegal actions regardless of whether the stupid person "deserved" it or not.

Unless it's done by federal authorities under color of law, even when no evidence of wrongdoing is ever discovered.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident

[Raenex]

HBGary Federal put together a presentation about methods that could be used.

The information in that presentation alone is good evidence for conspiracy to commit crimes by HBGary. If the tables were turned, and that presentation was directed against government targets, you could bet your ass there would be people going to jail.

Acts of War

[Alphanos]

Oh. When we saw the story the other day that the US had declared that hacking and similar online attacks could be considered acts of war, I didn't understand the purpose of such a statement. Now I understand.

I think we might be seeing the start of America's next war on a general concept.

Any bets as to what the target will be stated as? Anonymity? The Internet in general?

Re:Acts of War

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be a war not fought to be won, but to be sustained; sustaining the military-industrial-security complex.

Anyone can be a suspect.

Re:Acts of War

[Jonner]

Oh. When we saw the story the other day that the US had declared that hacking and similar online attacks could be considered acts of war, I didn't understand the purpose of such a statement. Now I understand.

I think we might be seeing the start of America's next war on a general concept.

Any bets as to what the target will be stated as? Anonymity? The Internet in general?

Yeah, you thought the "War on Terror" was vague? How about a "War on Anonymous?" Anyone and everyone could be an "enemy combatant."

Re:Acts of War

[berashith]

you have scared me...

Re:Acts of War

[GreyLurk]

And they could be shipped off to Gitmo for torture^H^H^H^H^H^H detainment in preparation for a military tribunal.

Re:Acts of War

[betterunixthanunix]

This is just "the war on terror," with a new target: scary hackers who can magically take over computers, control nuclear missiles by whistling into a phone, and make your entire identity disappear.

Re:Acts of War

[djdanlib]

Yeah, you thought the "War on Terror" was vague? How about a "War on Anonymous?" Anyone and everyone could be an "enemy combatant."

Yes, that is an enormous problem. Following this to its logical and historically-proven conclusion: The police could randomly arrest anyone who had an opinion contrary to or offensive to the state's position, with great impunity. Your spouse or best friend could be walking down the street or across a parking lot, on their way to buy groceries, when suddenly two officers escort him/her away potentially never to be seen or heard from again.

Just like China and a lot of other nations, especially communist states and dictatorships. I was hoping we could somehow avoid going that route but the more corporation-influenced we supposed first-world countries get, the more we align to backwards ideologies like this. The wheels are in motion, and the momentum has built. We are not at critical mass yet, but it's not far off.

These are certainly interesting developments... What a dangerous edge we tread as a society that's supposed to be more enlightened than that. I would hope that given due process of deliberation and voting, this notion is defeated, because of the potential (and looking at the entirety of human history, completely inevitable) consequences.

We all see the problem, but who's doing anything? It's time to move beyond reactionary debate and into political action. What do we do now? Without joining or eschewing "anonymous", which can potentially be a red herring in a political arena anyway since it's by definition not an identity or entity, what can be done?

Re:Acts of War

[j-stroy]

My country is a member of NATO, yet I am not held personally accountable for bombing raids that kill civilians. Am I supposed to be accountable for what some anonymous people do, simply because I too expect and implement privacy of identity?

I suggest the term "NANONYMOUS" for those who wish to be unknown, but not confused with the "Anonymous". PS: I for one welcome our hiveminded and unknown overlords.

"Bana" - nanonymous

Re:Acts of War

[Steauengeglase]

It isn't even about hacking or anonymity or even the United States. Those terms simplify it too much. History is just repeating itself and and has been since the Greeks.

Anonymous is just the modern day version of the Bomb Wielding Anarchist. They really weren't the huge threat they were often made out to be, but they committed one massive, unforgivable sin, they insulted the validity of the law.

Re:Acts of War

[formfeed]

Yeah, you thought the "War on Terror" was vague? How about a "War on Anonymous?" Anyone and everyone could be an "enemy combatant."

That's the beauty it.
Anything against any company, civil disobedience, the on-line equivalent of a sit-in, and you're an unpatriotic enemy agent.

Re:Acts of War

[Av8rjoker]

Any bets as to what the target will be stated as? Anonymity? The Internet in general?

They'll call it whatever they want, but the target will, again, be our freedom.

Re:Acts of War

[surveyork]

America is on a path to perpetual war (if it's not there already). There's always a reason to intervene in faraway countries lest they jeopardize American interests (tm). There's always an enemy out there, somewhere, trying to harm America. Anyone who questions/disagrees/demands accountability on America's constant war/support of wars/cuts on constitutional rights is anti-American, un-patriotic, probably a Communist and possibly a pedophile.

Re:Acts of War

[AmiMoJo]

But how do you wage war against hackers with bombs and tanks? Maybe they can get away with it in Iraq but I don't think they will be flying cruise missiles over the suburbs of Manchester or firing artillery at up-sate New York basements.

They will have to find someone who they can really fight because there isn't any money in a war against hackers.

Re:Acts of War

[JigJag]

that's why it is now that the unwashed masses (us) need to get prepared and build our own mesh-internet or join TOR or stuff like that before it becomes difficult.

"The tighter you grip ...

[DaGoodBoy]

... the more systems will slip through your fingers."

Re:"The tighter you grip ...

[spun]

"... the more you risk a serious chafing and subsequent desensitization of the glans, leading to increased frictional requirements, leading to a tighter grip in a terrible downward spiral that ends up with something that resembles a hot dog stricken with leprosy. "

Re:"The tighter you grip ...

[gstoddart]

Oh ... you evil (yet funny) bastard. ;-)

Re:"The tighter you grip ...

[geminidomino]

It should be pointed out that shortly after that line was spoken, her entire planet was blown the fuck up.

Perhaps a war of attrition isn't the right tactic...

Re:"The tighter you grip ...

[thebigmacd]

Is there some official time limit to the relevance of a quote? Does this mean that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," is automatically irrelevant just because it is old?

Yes, I know, the OP is a movie quote, but still....seriously?

New hunt :D

[vikisonline]

Well Bin laden is dead so we need the next witch hunt! So lets invade the country where most of these "anonymous" live. Oh wait, we are invading usa?

Re:New hunt :D

[Alain Williams]

Well Bin laden is dead so we need the next witch hunt!

Mod parent up. There seems to be a need to have some bogey men to keep the population afraid and thus subservient. Communism (well, the Soviet Union) died so paedophiles and Islamic terrorists were pronounced the enemy. Now there is a danger, with Osama murdered, that one of them might go -- so prepare a new enemy.

Why is NATO Involved?

[techsoldaten]

Unless I completely missed some mostrously epic hack - wtf is NATO doing chasing these guys? Where in the NATO charter does it say track down delinquents engaging in electronic forms of protest?

I could understand Interpol or some law enforcement agency, since the worst of what Anonymous accomplishes seems to be network intrusion. But I thought NATO was all about stopping aggression against member states. When did Anonymous graduate to that level?

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Well, let's see here: NATO basically exists because The Evil Empire was super scary back in the day, and the prospect of a zillion Ruskie tanks rolling across Europe was kind of disheartening. Since then, they've had some penny-ante villains; but nothing like the good old days.

What better way to ensure continued institutional relevance(and throw a bone to a disproportionately influential member) than issuing toothy statements about the terrifying threat of, and terrible retribution awaiting, those who have been rooting through the American underwear drawer?

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[techsoldaten]

Actually, their mission and charter are quite clear and they have been very active in combat zones throughout the world for a long time. Most recently, they have been dealing with combat in Sudan.

I just don't understand why they are going after anonymous specifically, of how the actions of that group applies to their charter. What is so special about Anon that they get targetted like this?

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[jd.schmidt]

The real reason NATO is involved is because for one of the few times in a long time, you have a vital resource, the "Internet" that literally can't be controlled and regulated by government entities effectively. Certainly not merely by physical force (unless you say no "Internet" at all) Worse yet, the people who run and understand the thing don't all buy in on national agendas and see their world, the "Internet" again, as largely without boarders and have a much higher belief in personal freedom (both of the liberal and conservative variety)

However it turns out no one can live without this "Internet" thing, of if you try you are just cutting of your nose to spite your face.

Needless to say, government are pretty terrified and perceive this as a huge threat to national security (agenda).

A wiser path would be to understand what you can and can't control and take steps to protect things you really care about within what you can do.

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the elites of this world recognized that all of their secrets could be exposed to the world by a guy sitting in his basement located on another continent with an internet connection. They're really terrified of a"Project Mayhem"-like group of hackers comprised of IT sysadmins, programmers, etc. that work in various industries, law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, financial institutions, governments, etc. that could develop a common ideological, nihilistic view that in order to affect change, one must destroy powerful institutions from the inside. Doesn't matter what the change is, just that it must occur. It's the "burn the village down in order to save it" type of thinking.

Anonymous isn't hierarchically structured and it's members have diverse viewpoints which probably would prevent the adoption of a particular ideology leading to organized, unified action. Unless, of course, taking down governments, corporations, the powerful is all done just for the lulz. Those beautiful, epic lulz...

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[blair1q]

Ask Sony what "electronic forms of protest" now means to them.

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, their mission and charter are quite clear

Indeed. NATO is a military alliance, and its charter is strictly defensive - "attack against one is attack against all".

Whatever the hell they're doing in Sudan, it certainly doesn't fall under their charter. But then that hasn't been true since, what, 1999 (Kosovo)?

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[techsoldaten]

Kosovo certainly falls under their charter, because that war threatened the stability of member nations.

Sudan is a little different. It's possible I am confused and thinking about UN troops, but I have been told that NATO is involved in the split over there.

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[shutdown -p now]

Kosovo certainly falls under their charter, because that war threatened the stability of member nations.

I'm sorry, but that's BS. It was a nasty piece of ethnic cleansing for sure (though it was made largely worse by the bombings), but refugees were going mostly to Albania, and a few to Macedonia, neither country being a NATO member at the time.

In any case, there's a far cry from "threat of stability" to "military aggression", and the point of NATO is to defend against the latter. With definitions as vague as that, it would seem that it could justify military intervention in sovereign countries where there's no warfare at all, just politics it doesn't like (suppose communists take over in Greece thru popular support? that would sure as hell "threaten the stability" of some NATO members!).

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[marcosdumay]

Except that Anonymous does DDoS, they don't steal credit card numbers.

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[formfeed]

Unless I completely missed some mostrously epic hack - wtf is NATO doing chasing these guys? Where in the NATO charter does it say track down delinquents engaging in electronic forms of protest?

Well, IBM used to make typewriters. As typewriter sales plummeted they branched out into related fields.

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[blair1q]

Anonymous stood up a DDoS network that any of them can use for any reason. Say, as a screen for stealing credit cards.

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[catchblue22]

I'm sorry, but that's BS. It was a nasty piece of ethnic cleansing for sure (though it was made largely worse by the bombings), but refugees were going mostly to Albania, and a few to Macedonia, neither country being a NATO member at the time.

What is missing from your analysis is an appreciation for the dynamics of this region. Historically, wider wars have a tendency to start there. It is a hub where large powers meet. Serbia has ties with Russia. Turkey also borders the region, and has interests in, for example Macedonia. And Turkey is a member of NATO. Greece also has interests in Macedonia. With a rogue Serbian leader throwing his military weight around the region, there was always a risk of a wider conflagration. Balkan stability is definitely within the interests of NATO.

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[shutdown -p now]

So, did NATO tell UN that vague "ensuring stability" is a legitimate reason for military aggression against a sovereign state (which is a crime against humanity per UN Charter, to remind)?

I mean, seriously. Using the same argument, e.g. Russia could steamroll over Georgia tomorrow, claiming "regional instability". Or invade and secure Transnistria. China, say, could take over North Korea. And so on, and so forth.

The reason why it's generally not considered a good idea is because such attitude makes everyone twitchy, as they don't know when someone is going to come after them under such pretense. This means universal militarization of any likely future targets "just in case", and a generally cold, treacherous climate of international relations. So this arrangement is really only beneficial to the guy with the biggest stick, who knows that, in any scenario, they wouldn't be on the receiving end... but ah, that is precisely what NATO is.

But heck, even Bush had to come up with some better arguments for why he invaded Iraq. Sure, the WMDs were as real as pink unicorns, but at least that bullshit was more specific than some unspecified "threat to stability".

Re:Why is NATO Involved?

[marcosdumay]

You can't steal credit card numbers with a DDoS attack.

Still stings?

[jimmerz28]

HBGary still paying off people to try and stick it to Anon after they revealed how useless all the money going to HBGary was?

Huh...

We should certainly be fearful of people who are able to hack into systems taxpayers paid for. Maybe the government should start hiring them!

It's always scary when there are motivated people who will expose just how worthless you are.

What if?

[ArhcAngel]

What if the individuals they employ to do the persecution are members of anonymous? What if members of anonymous worked for Sony? Everyone seems to assume anonymous is made up of script kiddies with no real jobs or responsibilities. Granted what I have heard about their behavior on 4chan could lend credence to that presumption but don't we all get a little emboldened when we think we are "anonymous"? What if your co-worker is actually a member of anonymous? It could explain why your PC crashed after you pissed him off the other day.

Re:What if?

[creat3d]

We cook your food. We pick up your trash. We are your doctors and sysadmins. We manufacture your weapons and security bunkers. We are your IT and shipping departments. We distribute the mail and clean your cum-stained hotel rooms. DO NOT FUCK WITH US.

Re:What if?

[TheSpoom]

We cook your food. We pick up your trash. We are your doctors and sysadmins. We manufacture your weapons and security bunkers. We are your IT and shipping departments. We distribute the mail and clean your cum-stained hotel rooms. DO NOT FUCK WITH US.

^ This is Anonymous, only they have no actual leadership. It's a bunch of random people doing whatever the fuck they want, and occasionally one of them has an idea that the others like, and they roll with it.

Treating them like they're Al Qaeda or something is just looking for trouble.

Re:What if?

[creat3d]

I haven't ate at a McDonald's since I was 16, so cum all you want!

Re:What if?

[creat3d]

It was a (altered) reference to Fight Club you idiot.

Re:What if?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Treating them like they're Al Qaeda or something is just looking for trouble.

Actually, Al Qaeda (translation "the base") is probably the closest well-known organization there is to Anonymous. "Al Qaeda" is a essentially a brand-name that anyone who wants can use for themselves. For example "Al Qaeda in Iraq" initially had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. They just took on the name, probably to intimidate the Americans. It was only after they were pretty succesfull that they linked up with Osama's branch.

Re:What if?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I work at McDonalds, I cum in your McFlurry. I don't give a fuck.

Seems to me that is pretty close to the literal definition of giving a fuck.

Re:What if?

[TheSpoom]

Interesting. If true, they probably are like Anonymous, and it's still just as stupid to think that one can kill a label with military force.

Re:What if?

[creat3d]

You seem like a man of strong confidence, please tell us more.

Re:What if?

[Xest]

I think this is precisely the problem the likes of NATO and so forth face.

Any people they employ as "cyber soldiers" or whatever they call them nowadays are most likely to be much more closely aligned to anonymous' mindset than the mindset of NATO.

NATO is used to starting wars with people it is far stronger than and can steamroll. This time it may be making a mistake, the number of people supportive of anonymous and the average level of skill of it's members is almost certainly going to be way above anything NATO can muster. NATO may well find that this is a war that it will lose, hard.

The problem is likely further exacerbated by the fact that many militaries are embedding their "cyber soldiers" into the military structure itself, and well, good luck finding any decent number of highly intelligent geeks willing to put up with the same crap a bunch of grunts would.

They think Bradley Manning is a one off, unique, a blip. They do not realise that Bradley Manning is emblematic of his generation- they're sick of the greedy mindset of the baby boomers and they want a better world- this is also why the Arab Spring revolutions have been led largely by the young.

The world is changing, the old administrations are looking woefully out of date, they're picking a fight with the people they will need to look after them and protect them as they age. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to do.

another quote from a NATO official

[Tikkun]

"Anonymous penetrate and ravage delicate public and privately owned computer systems, infecting them with viruses, and stealing materials for their own ends. These people, they are terrorists."

Re:another quote from a NATO official

[creat3d]

They also make vans explode, from what I heard on TV.

Re:another quote from a NATO official

[AngryDeuce]

I heard they can hack your microwave!

Re:another quote from a NATO official

[nstlgc]

Oh hi there, agent Gill!

Epic

[creat3d]

So, is this a declaration of war against Anonymous? Because if it is, I'm gonna need some popcorn for this. Epic war is gonna be epic. Or not. We'll see...

Re:Epic

[Jaysyn]

Can't wait till I hear about some high level NATO officials get Swatted.

Re:Epic

[Spritzer]

I can't wait till some jacktard decides it's OK to drop a JDAM into a house where some 15y/o is jerking off to pr0n and hacking PBS.....because he's committing "an act of war".

Re:Epic

[VortexCortex]

I agree. I can't wait to see hundreds of teenagers behind bars, and whether the public will realize:

1. This is ridiculous.
2. They are next.

Re:Epic

[creat3d]

Any move towards even more of a dystopic, fucked up Orwellian state gets us that much closer to mass awakening and revolu... OH SHIT, NUDE SARAH PALIN PICS??

Re:Epic

[tnk1]

I can't wait until some jacktard decides it's OK to drop a JDAM into a house where some 15y/o is jerking off to pr0n..... because another 15 y/o DDOS'ed PBS and spoofed the IP to make it look like it came from the first 15 y/o.

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "Personal Army", doesn't it?

I think the correct answer is both

[Timmy D Programmer]

That's the problem with 'collectives'

Re:I think the correct answer is both

[blair1q]

It's more the problem with "ad hoc".

I have no doubt a few of them can organize more synergistically than the undefined mass of them can.

And with the internet's designed-in anonymizing and scapegoating features, there isn't much a larger group can do to stop them.

Re:"persecute" != "prosecute"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It does seem atypically honest to admit that they are going to persecute them, rather than simply claiming to act under color of law and then persecuting them anyway... Now that our frenemy Mubarak is on the outs, who do we outsource torture to?

Great, a new war

[Lord Juan]

So now we have the war on anonymous, as if we didn't have enough wars on abstract things already. Next we are going to see the war on obesity, the war on atmospheric carbon dioxide, the war on everyone, and the war on wars.

Re:Great, a new war

[yahwotqa]

No, it's time that an abstract war on wars on something abstract started.

Re:Great, a new war

[Noitatsidem]

Not abstract enough.

NATO just declared war on Anonymous.

[elucido]

Anonymous is in deep shit now. NATO has all sorts of agents everywhere willing to detain them by any means necessary.

Rape charges, entrapment, any means.

Re:HA!

[Script Cat]

If you get rid of Anonymous are they really gone?

Re:Or It Could Just Be A Typo

[creat3d]

You're only the 30th person to correct it.

Re:HA!

[gilleain]

Toughly worded, you say? Goodbye Anonymous!

Not _just_ toughly worded. Toughly worded by someone called "General Rapporteur Lord Jopling" - what even IS that title? From this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapporteur

I learn that there are even "shadow rapporteurs" - sounds like a bureaucratic assassin...

Wars on ideas

[Iamthecheese]

The whole purpose and background for each of these wars is to provide politicians with money and power. It's time to recognize this and stop playing the game. Don't rally against the "war on anonymous", rally against would-be tyrants.

Re:Wars on ideas

[cpghost]

So let's start a war on wars (metawar?)?

Translation

[wcrowe]

Translation: we now have a convenient bogeyman to use as an excuse to exercise greater control over the masses.

Re:Translation

[creat3d]

Since when do they need one?

Re:Translation

[calderra]

WE ARE AT WAR WITH (name not available). WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH (name not available).

Re:Translation

[creat3d]

Of course, convenient villains and false flag attacks have always been par for the course... but it seems they don't even try anymore, like they don't even have to convince the masses anymore. I would've been less surprised if NATO came out with "We are going after random people door-to-door" than them actually fingerpointing yet another entity/group... "Anonymous", no less!

How about...

[pasv]

How about you start prosecuting nations actively participating in cyber attacks on your countries? Surely it's more of a threat!

The 'Anonymous' name gives crackers that already were hacking before a name to go under. Basically anyone who can quote "We are legion" and is already hacking can now put up a sweet little front.

So NATO: stop chasing ghosts. Sure they could make a few arrests but I imagine there are more sects of anonymous than there are nations. The terrible truth to this situation is that once they start openly prosecuting who they think is "Anonymous" every blackhat will be given an excuse to start their campaigns on them. "Provoking the wrath of anonymous" actually means "painting targets on hackers and paying the price". Anonymous wants to stay anonymous they shouldn't go provoking an enemy they don't know or understand.

The quintessential example is HBGary; learn from history.

Re:How about...

[smelch]

You're a complete idiot and clearly you don't understand the situation. When it gets to the point that hacking is bringing down multi-million dollar networks, doing millions of dollars worth of damage and people are flippant about it of course you are going to catch some attention. The fact that these people are loosely bound together and there is no better term for them than "anonymous" (as they call themselves, even) means we need to get a network of nations aligned to make the internet safe. Not unlike an area overrun with gangs. Oh my god don't they know that anybody can be a gang just by saying "hey, we're a gang"?! Yes, they do, you moron. So what's your answer, do nothing, don't call them gangs since anybody can be a gang? So what they're going to do is just what they do with organized crime that may or may not have one leader or one command structure. They find the active people that are doing the damage and they take them out.

It's not like they haven't done the same kind of stuff with almost every political movement, every form of organized crime, every illegal cartel, even the civil rights movement. Learn from history. Oh wait, I forgot, stupid word play was the heart of this matter. Ignore everything I just said. Don't they know what "anonymous" means? DER HERRRR HERRRRRRRRRRRR HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Re:How about...

[sjames]

How about you start prosecuting nations actively participating in cyber attacks on your countries? Surely it's more of a threat!

But, that's haRRRRRRddd!

Not rocket science

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't understand the purpose of such a statement

War is the most profitable sector in the business of government. The more "acts of war" you can point your finger at, the more spending, borrowing, and taxing you can justify. The bigger your budget, the bigger the profit when you leverage that cash flow for personal gain. (Not directly, of course, but indirectly via your associates in the "private" sector.)

You're not in the business of government, are you?

If...

[RdeCourtney]

If Anonymous have the potential to hack in, then China, North Korea and the NATO's other "non-allies" could hack... The US and NATO should use this opportunity to toughen up their systems and defences rather than fight a war with lawyers and words that are likely to provoke rather than fix..

Governments should be afraid of their people

[Omnifarious]

I can only hope that Anonymous exceeds their expectations. Right now, it looks like they think Anonymous is a threat they can crush. I dearly hope that it isn't. My government should be quaking in its boots at the thought of angering a significant minority of those it governs. "Government by consent of the governed." has meant far too little for far too long.

Re:Governments should be afraid of their people

[creat3d]

I would agree with you but I'm too scared of what would happen if I did so publicly.

Re:Governments should be afraid of their people

[VortexCortex]

I can only hope that Anonymous exceeds their expectations. Right now, it looks like they think Anonymous is a threat they can crush. I dearly hope that it isn't. My government should be quaking in its boots at the thought of angering a significant minority of those it governs. "Government by consent of the governed." has meant far too little for far too long.

Don't worry, it's not a threat they can crush. It's a hydra. Cut off the head, two more angst filled teenagers replace them.

Re:Governments should be afraid of their people

[inKubus]

I always like to replace the word Anonymous in these stories with the phrase "The Internet".

E.g. "I can only hope that The Internet exceeds their expectations. Right now, it looks like they think The Internet is a threat they can crush. I dearly hope that it isn't. My government should be quaking in its boots at the thought of angering a significant minority of those it governs. 'Government by consent of the governed.' has meant far too little for far too long."

There, that sounds better.

Re:Governments should be afraid of their people

[Omnifarious]

I always like to replace the word Anonymous in these stories with the phrase "The Internet".

Yes, that's an insightful way of seeing things.

I do not participate in Anonymous in any way (though, of course, I would be a fool to admit it if I did). But I am working on trying to improve the technical infrastructure of the Internet to make it even harder for governments to meddle with than it already is.

I think Iran's toying with the idea of a 'private Internet' is very telling. The Internet is so very corrosive that it's tempting to create an internet that's missing 99.9% of the value of the real Internet just to try to limit the scope of the corrosion. I doubt it will work.

Re:Governments should be afraid of their people

[Mattsson]

Not to mention that a government has no business keeping secrets from its citizens.
In fact, there should be international laws against governments keeping secrets from its citizens.

If people in my government don't like me knowing what they do, they shouldn't be doing it!

Oh yeah?

[AngryDeuce]

What's the line I keep hearing when I complain about the TSA and being freedom fondled??

Oh yeah, "If they have nothing to hide, what are they worried about??"

Meanwhile, states left and right are giving police the right to search cell phones without a warrant...

Streisand?

[Unequivocal]

Is anyone else seeing the Streisand effect here? Seems like Nato has just done a ton to help legitimize Anonymous and help with their recruiting and organizing efforts?

I'm not going to get into value judgments about Nato v. Anon in terms of right/wrong, but isn't Nato going about this wrong?

Re:Streisand?

[blair1q]

Or they've kicked off a campaign to make the public aware of the threat such that political action can take place to institute overbearing controls against it.

Re:Streisand?

[Unequivocal]

Good point! Seems like those two strategies often go together, which is maybe a self-regulating principle for society in general..

Re:Streisand?

[plsenjy]

Well, they can't just go around accusing that many people of sexual assault, right? How else are they supposed to discredit them?

Re:Streisand?

[Unequivocal]

Ha ha only serious right? Well said.

Re:Again, in English?

[GrumblyStuff]

Perhaps a Freudian slip?

Re:how tough is anonymous

[creat3d]

Cop spotted.

Re:right. sure.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Why don't anon just topple the jerks in Georgia for fun? Then? On to the criminal regime in Bahrain!

Then NATO can really worry and wonder.

Anonymous or not?

[RCC42]

I thought the PBS hack group was distinct and separate from Anonymous? I mean, obviously the lines are a little muddy, but didn't the hackers basically say "We're not the Anonymous you're thinking of." when they did the hack? It would be like everyone blaming Al-Qaeda for a terrorist attack that Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out just because they're both interested in calling themselves islamo-terrorists and have ideas and goals that at a glance seem similar with outward appearances that might be confusing for an uninformed observer.

I can imagine a southerner saying "Them thar' terr'rsts" in one breath and "That them anonamouse" in the other.

Re:Anonymous or not?

[BurzumNazgul]

Pretty much. PBS and Sony hacks were done by lulzsec.

I've mentioned that a few times in various posts but it's usually modded to oblivion.

lulzsec also spent yesterday taking down 2600.org, a rival blackhat group's hangout.

Re:HA!

[theshowmecanuck]

I think he was in the second star wars movie, but was cut from the final release.

All your snarky comments...

[FlyingGuy]

wont amount to much when someone slips up and stays connected a little to long and they are detected right down to the DSLAM.

When that happens, and it will happen, they are going to be made an example of in a big nasty public way.

And after they are "de-briefed" the group will start to unravel as one by one they will be found and made examples of as the thread continues to unravel and more and more information is gathered as each in turn is made an offer of "You can cooperate and we can be nice, or you cannot cooperate as we will ruin your life, you kids lives, your wife's life, you parents lives and pretty much anyone else you know and care for. We will give you a few minutes to think it over".

This is what you get when you start seriously fucking around with companies, individuals and governments.

I think planting the bogus news story was the tipping point. Tupoc was of course a bit silly but what if it had been something different, something far more serious that had implications that caused people to take financial or other action, then is it still funny ha ha? People take what they see on websites of places like PBS as serious and authoritative. Rightly or wrongly they do because everyone has pushed to make the web authoritative.

Re:All your snarky comments...

[PraiseBob]

"You can cooperate and we can be nice, or you cannot cooperate as we will ruin your life, you kids lives, your wife's life, you parents lives and pretty much anyone else you know and care for. We will give you a few minutes to think it over".

Not to stereotype, but Anonymous members do seem to rank as some of the most misanthropic people on the planet. When somebody doesn't have kids, or a wife, and hates their parents, how much leverage does that threat have? The only people they actually care about are the ones they are being asked to rat out...

Re:All your snarky comments...

[Lehk228]

Each anon is as likely to attack another anon as s/he is to help another anon, you can't "flip" people who don't know enough about each other to do anything to each other and who, given the chance, already do turn upon their own for any or no reason. Anonymous is more like the Eminem lyrics "Every single person is a slim shady lurking" than it is a group. Anons do not trust each other and do not trust the sites they post to, they do not share common goals and do not have a common philosophy. There are communists, facists, moderates, republicans, democrats, muslims, christians, atheists, discordians, pastafarians, rastafarians, hindus, wiccans, satanists, all who call themselves anonymous, and they are all hackers on steroids.

Not NATO nor anyone else can destroy that which can hardly be said to exists, there is already no guranteed continuity, no leadership, no management, no network, no cells, nothing to attack. Using statistical models and infinite information you could attack the top 1% most Linfuential" anons, but since we don't know who each other are that would be a retrospective measurement only, every post on an anonymous board is judged on it's own and so identity does not matter.

Re:All your snarky comments...

[Noitatsidem]

I wish I had mod points for you, I really do.

Re:All your snarky comments...

[FlyingGuy]

I take your point. The other possibility is that the web will become less authoritative and people will not believe what they see since they will not know if it is a "planted" story or not. Given that the nation as a whole is drinking the "cloud" koolaid and governments at all levels are publishing "official" information is this really a good thing?

Huh??? and Duh???

[sgt_doom]

"..'could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files."

Gee whiz, since so many other countries (China)...(China)...(China)...have been doing this thanks to US, Euro and Japanese multinationals offshoring all that technology along with the jobs to a bunch of totalitarian countries (much like Police State Amerika) this forein intelligence hacking is a given.

I'd say be highly worried about all those anti-democracy multinationals......

"infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted.[37]"

[Browzer]

from the NATO document: http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2443

[37] Reducing Systemic Cybersecurity Risk, OECD/IFP Project on “Future Global Shocks”. ”. By Peter Sommer and Ian Brown. January 2011.

“Reducing Systemic Cybersecurity Risk”

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/44/46889922.pdf

I think the NATO paragraph is supposed to paraphrase this quote on p32:

"The main practical limitations to hacktivism are that the longer the attack persists the more likely it is that counter-measures are developed and put in place, perpetrators identified, and groups penetrated by law enforcement investigators."

propaganda

[anonieuweling]

The security they speak of is an illusion. It always has been.
It is all man-made thus can be broken by man.
So by hyping the anonymous this way they create an Osama-like image of just normal yet skilled people.
Hunting them down will not stop the people.

Re:right. sure.

[countertrolling]

Well there you go.. Most of the members are actually agents of those (and others) respective governments, trying to motivate the 'west' to develop better censorship and tracking software/hardware for them

Re:right. sure.

[WrongSizeGlass]

I am sure all the Anonymous members are shaking in their boots now. Scary U.N. is coming to to get them carrying black bags with their names on them.

NATO != U.N.

* NATO has guns and bombs, "Oops, we're sorry" immunity and sometimes enforces decisions the U.N. finally gets around to.
* U.N. has no guns or bombs, and usually no spine or balls either.

Sorry

[Translation Error]

The nickname 'Sparatcus' is not available.

Don't make them angry

[Agent0013]

the loose-knit, leaderless group is 'becoming more and more sophisticated.' and 'could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files.

So the smart thing to do would be to tell them you are going to go after them. Isn't that what HBGary did before they were brought down. This does not look good for NATO.

Re:Don't make them angry

[xyourfacekillerx]

Hahaha ... right, they're going to take down NATO! LOL

oh wait, that was PANDERING...

[Thud457]

Anonymous is in deep shit now. NATO has all sorts of agents everywhere willing to detain them by any means necessary. Rape charges, entrapment, any means.

Just plain old computer crime charges will do just fine. No need for that other sort of nonsense.

That's how they silenced Bob Lazar !
/jk
?

Mr Anonymous, would you please stand up?

[Ukab the Great]

As everyone is an anonymous combatant, this demonstrates the importance of not being seen.

Re:right. sure.

[Wyatt Earp]

NATO has things like the SAS, SEALs, Delta, USAF Cyber Command, Fleet Electronic Warfare Center, you know a real mix of people that kill and people that defend against information and electronic warfare.

NATO wanting to go after cyber activists and terrorists coupled with the announcement yesterday that the DoD considered cyber attacks to be an act of war could result in military action, both overt and covert, against people that piss off the US and EU.

Remember that the big members of NATO are also big members of the EU - France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Holland. Per the NATO alliance, an attack against one NATO member is an attack against them all.

Re: NATO just declared war on mosquitoes !

[Wyatt Earp]

Because NATO and the Gulf states are only flying 30-50 sorties a week with very limited ground forces involved.

just following orders

[Thud457]

Bradley Manning has instigated more positive change in the world than the whole CIA in the last 30 years.
His handlers should let the cat out of the bag and accept the kudos they deserve. Talk about bang for the buck!

Re:just following orders

[Ihmhi]

I agree with you on that, but you're comparing Apples and Oranges. The CIA's job isn't to bring about positive change in the world. It's to serve the best interests of whoever happens to be in charge of them at the time. Kill this guy, destabilize this country, get this person to defect, etc.

Re:just following orders

[Kagura]

Has there been any change from Manning's document release, aside from a new clampdown on interdepartmental information sharing within the U.S. government, reminiscent of pre-9/11 days?

Re:how tough is anonymous

[SilentStaid]

Really? Your reasoned and rational use of force as suggested is that someone (hopefully you meant cop) kicks in a **SUSPECT**s door for... taking a server offline?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

War on Cyberterrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Any bets as to what the target will be stated as? Anonymity? The Internet in general?

War on "Cyberterrorism".

To counter against the "lone wolf", as per the renewed and improved Patriot Act, ALL communication will be recorded for later review. ALL connections across routers will have to be logged. Any state that does not follow suit will be deemed as supporter of Cyberterrorism.

You are either with us or against us.

I see a witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever governments declare war on shadows you get innocent people burning at a stake. It becomes all too useful as a universal scapegoat for all misfortune. An escape from accountability. This omnipotent demon becomes a catch-all excuse for incompetence. ALA: "Snowball" from Animal Farm.

This is EVERYONE's problem.

disincentivizing Anonymous

[presidenteloco]

My favourite term in this sort of area is "disincentivize" as used in the British mini-series "MI-5"

"Confirmed. Subjects have been disincentivized."

I'll leave it to your imagination as to what that's a euphemism for.

Be careful out there.

Re:PS3 Account Information Breach

[eviljolly]

Either my sarcasm meter is malfunctioning, or you're actually serious.

Do you really expect government action in this matter? As much as you might think otherwise, your PSN account isn't a matter of national security. Not to mention that killing someone over theft is ludicrous.

Sony is responsible for keeping their servers secure.

Re:HA!

[peragrin]

You do realize that NATO is based on the countries that make it up and as such the ranks come directly from the home countries in question.

Which means your making fun of US Imperialism using British, German, French, military ranks.

Knight Grand COmmander is a rank in the Britain, bestowed by the Queen.

Learn some history before you make fun of someone so you don't look like an idiot. As right now you look dumber than most American's.

Re:PS3 Account Information Breach

[Mister Whirly]

Killing someone over theft is ludicrous of course, but suggest the same killing for a spammer and suddenly you have almost unanimous support on Slashdot. Makes me really glad that the people who post here are not actually in charge...

An-Ominous

[Kamiza Ikioi]

This is supposed to be an ominous threat to anonymous? FYI to NATO, not only is nobody and everybody "anonymous", but they are and aren't at the same time. Some people might have hated Scientology, but could give a shit about Sony, and vice-versa. Even if you could put names and faces on anonymous, it would be an old list within a few months.

They're not terrorists like Al Qaeda. They're not organized, have no purpose, have no leader, have no aims, and have no "members". Anonymous is a group of people who find a like minded cause, go do whatever, then break back up. They take the name "Anonymous" for the time being, for the mystic and FUD it produces, and drop it for someone else to pick up. Saying you'll go after them is as absurd as saying you're going after "The Boogie Man". It's just a name of a group of people who have no name and don't exist as a group except when it forms and acts.

There are people that heard Anonymous was doing X, did something they thought helped, called themselves Anonymous... and hadn't even HEARD of 4chan or Chanology. And yet... they're Anonymous too!

It's like ice. Ice can form under certain conditions in a lake. But you can't say to the lake, "Hand over your ice and no innocent water gets hurt!" The lake is the ice, the ice is the lake. You can't dip your glass into the lake, pull out water and go, "A-ha! I've captured the ice!"

I really don't know how many fucking metaphors we have to go through to explain this to the technophobes.

Re:An-Ominous

[Noitatsidem]

I wish I had mod-points for you.

Public Enemy Number 1...Again

[krinderlin]

Oh look at that! Hackers are the new homosexual! They are a group with an agenda that is far more insidious than any member could imagine, much less perpetrate.

Now they are scaring whole parts of the world. Wow

[TheRealQuestor]

I'm even afraid to use anonymous ftp now. One slip up and you have a whole army at your door.

Re: NATO just declared war on mosquitoes !

[catchblue22]

More than two months and NATO can't topple Gaddafi.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Gaddafi is dead meat. His military is slowly being put through a meat grinder, and he has a determined locally based opposition movement against him. They will eventually increase in strength, as they are trained and equipped. If you expect this change to happen overnight, you clearly have no concept of the strengths and limitations of military force.

VIRTUAL OPERATION NORTHWOOD

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It's a knockout
If looks could kill, they probably will
In games without frontiers-war without tears

Huh

[xyourfacekillerx]

So... basically everyone here is in favor of Anonymous, and opposed to citizens/organizations/states/nations defending themselvse against cyber terrororism?

I don't know if you have been paying attention to the war on terror, but the guys with the missiles? They bomb pretty much whoever they want. Along with the collateral damage, they generally also get their target. But you get bombed. Whether you're a real terrorist or not. They just have to think "oh that's the target" and BOOM you're dust.

Now imagine (by your standards) these morons fumbling through their computer forensics data, eventually identifying YOUR computer as a source of an attack by Anonymous.

If you live in America, you're probably safe except incarceration. Live elsewhere? Remote missile defense pattern. You're gone, dude.

And anonymous may seem imposing against individuals and small companies. But nation-states take their security very seriously. They WILL retaliate. You'd have to be an 8-year old sociopath to delude yourself otherwise.

Re:Huh

[Noitatsidem]

Anonymous isn't a group, stop trying to treat them like one. Also I believe you're retarded. -This applies to many other posts, please don't take it personally, this was just the one I happened to click on the reply button for.

Rich people afraid of the truth will kill you.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

All this translates to is "If you fuck with the rich royalty of the world, we will kill you because how dare you expose the truth"

This is better known as "The world is made up of bullshit and lies, if truth and honesty were valued, we wouldn't be afraid of it"

Re:PS3 Account Information Breach

[manicb]

How do you know that they aren't? Powerful people are generally required to disengage their sense of humour when speaking publicly. On Slashdot, it's better to check that it's turned on...

Whoosh

[_0xd0ad]

The NATO report actually said "persecuted".

It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths. The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted.

loose-knit, leaderless group

[munky99999]

>General Rapporteur Lord Jopling claims that the loose-knit, leaderless group is "becoming more and more sophisticated", and "could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files".

How does he go about measuring this exactly?

>A policy document released last month and signed by President Obama issued an oblique threat of military retaliation against hackers, if legal and political measures prove fruitless.

Yes because the actual governments really arent hacking each other and if they are.. they do it in such small ways it's irrelevant. You then have a group of people at most who might not actually be geographically close to each other and the only way to catch these peoples will take very sophisticated and intelligent police... but those dont exist. In the random occurrence that cops even manage to figure out who the guilty people are... your next step is to just drop a bomb on them? wtf?

Lets play a game. Russian organized crime have themselves a german based botnet because their money source is german based advertising. They then lose the source and now ddos the root american dns servers for the lulz ofcoarse. Pentagon just goes to President Palin... "Palin, Germany is ddosing root dns servers. We need to nuke germany." Palin: "Sure why not?"

Easier said than done.

[elucido]

If the hackers are really skilled there wont be any evidence to use to connect them to computer crimes.

What then? Thats when all that other sort of nonsense will come into play.

Gustation

[AliasMarlowe]

the term "kicking water up hill" comes to mind.

Verily, he that pisseth upwind in a Strong Gale Force 9 shall keep his mouth closed, lest he be an avid gustator of his own urine.

Enjoy the acrid flavour when you swallow, Lord Jopling...

Because

[elucido]

nothing stops the feds from saying you are a member when you aren't.

What about George Bush, and Obama's mother?

[Mistakill]

.'..could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files.'"

I put it to you that with the right tools, anyone could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files, hell the Queen could do it, so could Obama's mother, and George Bush, well... with some assistance

It 'potentially' is all that is needed to 'persecute' someone, then i shake my head

Re:PS3 Account Information Breach

[Mister Whirly]

How do you know that they aren't?

There would be no SPAM, and a lot of dead spammers.

Re:PS3 Account Information Breach

[Nikker]

Anonymous is targeting people and companies that I don't particularly hate, and it's starting to piss me off.

Nuff said.

My advice to NATO...

[Andy_R]

...is to think very carefully before you put the general public in the position of deciding which side of this 'war' they are on. I have no idea how big anonymous is now, but I have a pretty good idea that it would be a LOT bigger if the guys with nukes and uniforms declare war on ordinary teenagers who are trying (in the only way they know) to right a few percieved wrongs.

The problem for NATO (if they are anything like the journalists and politicians I've spoken to) is that they are incapable of understanding decentralisation. The idea that Anonymous is leaderless just does not compute to them. They will jump to all sorts of wild positions (including insisting they must follow an IRA-like cell structure, or even on more than one occasion telling me I must be in charge of them because I used to lead the Pirate Party here in the UK) to avoid coming to grips with the lack of organisatonal structure. Like abundance in the copyright 'wars', it's a concept that people who've lived in a rigidly top-down organisation for their whole lives can't deal with.

Re:PS3 Account Information Breach

[elsurexiste]

You have a sarcasm meter? Boy, mine exploded after reading your post and parent. :)

How many Federal laws did HB Gary break there?

[leftie]

How many US Federal felonies counts should HB Gary personnel be getting charged with in that incident? 12-13?

The more you tighten your grip

[Deaths Proxy]

...the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

persecute?

[circletimessquare]

did this fucking moron actually use the word persecute?

someone tell this gasbag all he does is inspire more people to join anonymous with that kind of rhetoric. anonymous is a reaction to a certain kind of arrogant abuse of power. this asshole is acting like the poster child of arrogant power, what motivates anonymous

fucking genius

this dude is going to get hacked, personally. he is MOTIVATING them

seriously, what a raging moron this guy is

ossified, sclerotic puffed up self-important poobah figureheads of power, and anonymous, they deserve each other

i see better behavior in kindergarten classrooms

pathetic

come and get it...

[Cito]

Awe anonymous shaking things up obviously they haven't seen anything yet.

(probably not) For the last time

[Noitatsidem]

Anonymous: It's not a "group." It's barely even a collective. It's a bunch of people who post Anonymously (read, without an account/name/etc) on an imageboard. If someone claims to be "in" Anonymous, they're just the opposite as they've given away their identity. In short, this "group" the news keeps talking about doesn't exist, never did, and the only reason why this fact is so obscured is because of a bunch of 12 year old's screaming "we are legion!" to enlarge their e-penis. Calling Anonymous a group is very much like... Some analogy is supposed to follow, but I really can't think of one right now.

Persecute?

[sjames]

I hope that doesn't mean what they think it does! What NATO country's government thinks it has a mandate to persecute anyone?

Perhaps they think Anon is the new Messiah?

Transparency is good, m'kay?

[Behrooz]

Whoever leaked these documents is at fault here, be it Bradley Manning or anyone else who had access to the documents and leaked them. I'm guessing they signed something saying they wouldn't do that so they're at fault.

Because bureaucracies handling security classifications operate solely in the public interest, and have no need or desire to censor information which might cause policy-makers to look bad or provide evidence arguing against current policy trends.

The burden of proof should be on the government to demonstrate that releasing specific information about government activities is clearly and presently dangerous to the interests of the country as a whole before classifying it. Right now, secrecy is the default state because all information can be used for or against policy makers' pet projects, and government employees who risk their lives and freedoms to publicize abuses should be treated as the heroes they are.

The continuing expansion of government secrecy and opacity is one of my biggest gripes with Obama's administration. Change has to come from the top, because the natural inclination of bureaucracies is to hide everything so they can evade external oversight.