Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
the term "kicking water up hill" comes to mind.
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.
My work here is dung.
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?
Alphanos
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
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Translation: we now have a convenient bogeyman to use as an excuse to exercise greater control over the masses.
Proverbs 21:19
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff