Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Hack One Gigabyte of Data From NATO
GeekTech.in writes "The AnonymousIRC hacking organization have claimed this afternoon that they have hacked into NATO servers. As one of their tweets says: ' Yes, #NATO was breached. And we have lots of restricted material. With some simple injection. In the next days, wait for interesting data :) '"
This is happening so often that better make a hack.slashdot.org and just add the site that was hacked and when... this is getting old...
Really if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers can do!
Of course it is! The US Govt commands such things all the time!
I certainly don't want to provoke anyone, but I wonder how long it will take until they hack gmail and other cloud-based services, and put all the data into the open?
Thanks to these guys, I'm not so sure anymore whether I like this idea of the cloud.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
They arrested a few people stupid enough to use Low Orbit Ion Cannon to participate in the DDOS attack against PayPal and MasterCard/Visa sponsored by Anonymous. The mainstream media probably does think that's all of them.
To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?
One gets the impression that this new hack is a direct response to the arrest reports. It certainly makes the feds look foolish claiming to have nabbed them.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Makes you wonder though... what would the world be like if people were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do things anonymously. Wouldn't that mean that Anonymous should eventually be self exposing?
(I'm not saying it's right/wrong/etc. Just wondering.)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I know you're AC, but seriously, the US government kills innocent people every day of the week. And yet people are concerned about whether the release of a given set of information (perhaps about said killing) will get one person killed. Can I get a re-working of priorities up in here?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Plenty of people join with nothing but the best intentions; if you think the guys actually pulling the trigger in that video don't lose sleep over it I don't think you know many soldiers. If you simply must condemn someone for that video, by all means - go after the people who attempted to cover it up. Not the poor guys who had to find out after watching the news that they killed innocent men.
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. - William T. Sherman
Seeig as this data is probably along the lines of how many crates of dried parsley some air base is requisitioning doesn't strike me as a life or death matter.
You need to read up on Bletchley Park and Ultra. Mundane information about military units and individuals turned out to be amazingly useful.
For those of you who don't understand the military's networks. And there are a lot of you, it seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigint
A reasonable state should provide for decreasing levels of privacy as your power increases. For example, those with significant power to sway opinion—politicians, celebrities, etc.—should have much less right to privacy than Joe Random. Indeed, this is the way our privacy laws are structured today.
Where our privacy laws break down is when it comes to corporate privacy and government privacy—the privacy of large groups acting as a single hive mind. These groups should have almost no privacy because they have much greater power than the average citizen. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case, and this is the problem that needs to be fixed—not reducing the privacy of individuals, but rather reducing the privacy of individuals in their official capacity while working together in large groups. That's not very easy to do, though, at least without decreasing their privacy as individuals, which is why things go horribly wrong (whether because you gave them too much privacy and got corruption or too little privacy and got MonicaGate absurdity).
I tend to lean on the side of targeted laws in this area—sunshine laws, open records laws, open meetings laws, etc. When these are insufficient, the flaws should be corrected. When these are ignored, the perpetrators should do jail time to serve as an example to others. If this were happening consistently, we'd have a lot fewer problems with our democracy.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Of course the majority of people have nothing "but the best intentions" at heart.
However, my point was if we're going to start attempting to make these "anon" people start owning up for their actions let's start with the ones committing actual atrocities. You know the ones covering up the things Anon uncovers.
And I'm not sure if we watched the same video, but the boys in that one firing the guns didn't seem too hesitant about killing those people. I don't think they're losing any sleep.
My boyfriend is in the marines (gay), so I know a few people in the forces (now that that's out of the way).