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.'"

7 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. good luck by Nihn · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. Acts of War by Alphanos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Acts of War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Re:Persecuting your own citizens by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Translation by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  6. Re:Persecuting your own citizens by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.