Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Releases Restricted NATO Document
angry tapir writes "Anonymous has released a document marked 'restricted' from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The 36-page document, which is dated Aug. 27, 2007, appears to be budget and equipment outlays for what was termed a new 'HQ ISAF JOINT CIS CONTROL CENTRE.' NATO's press office could not be immediately reached. Anonymous claimed on its 'AnonymousIRC' Twitter handle that it has 1GB of material from NATO but said that most would not be published because it would be 'irresponsible.'"
"The Anonymous"?
If anything, it seems that this person/group acting under the guise of the Anonymous logo thinks it would be irresponsible. That doesn't mean that "The Anonymous" thinks that way. Because the next "Anonymous" hacking something might be someone completely different with a different set of morals. If any.
There is no "The Anonymous". When will people stop to act as if Anonymous is a hierarchic group of people, organized like an average crime syndicate or nation? But then, I shouldn't be surprised, after all "The Al Qaida" has been a staple of the terrorist craze for a decade now without anyone wanting to know that it's mostly a very loosely connected network of people acting. But they at least had a figurehead, Anonymous doesn't even have that.
And before someone starts crying, no, I don't equate terrorists with Anonymous, I just didn't find a better example. If you have a better parallel for an "organization" without a strict hierarchy, one that is an organization mostly by name rather than concerted, centrally planned action, I'll gladly replace it for that one. The only common ground I can see in Anonymous is a fondness for certain message boards.
Anonymous is by no means more a group than "the hippies" or "the hackers". Ok, maybe they at least communicate with each other more, I don't know for sure. The point is, yes, they have a more or less common definition of what's right or wrong, with even more lenient edges than the aforementioned groups maybe. I wouldn't even dare to say that they have a common goal. But there certainly ain't no entity that sets a policy or defines rules the others have to adhere to to be part of "The Anonymous". There is no code of conduct or a contract to sign.
And I wish people would finally realize that. You are not dealing with a homogeneous group of people. At best, you have a lot of individuals and groups that share maybe a more or less common ideal. And even that's something I'm rather unsure about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's interesting if Anonymous is actually taking that stance about the docs. I understood they were being sarcastic. The documents should be published in their entirety or Anonymous would appear to support the militarist and secretive paradigm they claim to oppose.
Releasing secrets is often good, as many secrets just protect the asses of corrupt vested interests. But why do we see no releases of secrets from potential threats to free societies? Like China, various idiot countries like N. Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc? Just sayin'...
I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.
I'm not sure that a million Iraqis have actually died in the conflict. Too damn many for sure, but I'm not so sure it's a million. In any case, you give the current and previous operators of this particular war far too much credit. Oil? Dollar supremacy? That would actually be some sort of goal. A terrible way to achieve that goal, but a goal nonetheless. Personally, I'm going for arrogance as the root cause of the war with a side order of finishing his father's business and the bullshit "stay the course" nonsense as to why it is still going on in another administration.
SSC
Maybe they got better security in place?
A lot of the Anon hacks seem to rely on simple SQL injection and other exploits. Could it be that these countries (aside of NKor, which probably is not connected to the internet at all) have better security standards in place?
They might not consider a budget that big of an issue when dealing with petty things like security.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's an interesting idea that it would be 'irresponsible' to release these documents in full.
I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afganistan irresponsible. I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible. If you are going to use conventional, State / MSM thinking to restrict and control your actions, then apply this thinking evenly; the State is dropping bombs on people for the 'greater good' (to 'spread peace and democracy') and so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths is completely justified and not at all irresponsible. It is in fact, the only responsible thing to do, since more people will be spared a horrible death for no reason, than could possibly be harmed by the release of the information.
You're being very assumptive by saying releasing these documents would save lives they could just as easily get people killed. Don't get me wrong I support more freedom of information but neither of us have any idea whats in these documents.
I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.
I'm not sure that a million Iraqis have actually died in the conflict. Too damn many for sure, but I'm not so sure it's a million.
You're probably right. Figures vary a lot but most of them are far below 1 million. Only the "Opinion Research Business Survey" reports more than 1 million deaths. The controversial Lancet survey reported 601,027 deaths while the extremely well-confirmed minimum figure of Iraq Body Count lists 101,906 civilian deaths. (Notice that Iraq Body Count only counts cases with multiple sources of evidence from the international press, though. So the actual number of deaths is very likely significantly higher and could be well in the range of the Lancet survey.)
However, there doesn't seem to be any reliable source about violent deaths of Iraq military combatants. I've seen estimates ranging from ten thousands up to several hundred thousands, but nobody seems to know for sure.
Anyway, considering all the evidence, it seems likely that less than one million people died in Iraq as a result of the US intervention. (not taking into account the first Gulf War)
If you have a better parallel for an "organization" without a strict hierarchy, one that is an organization mostly by name rather than concerted, centrally planned action, I'll gladly replace it for that one.
How about sports team fans? I hear Yankees fans gather in message boards, declare a unifying ideology, and even have a logo/banner that they identify themselves with, even in public. There are several official clubs, and spokesmen often issue their rants and decrees on a network of blogs and twitter accounts. They are like a multi-headed hydra. You can try to stop some of their leaders, but other Yankees fans will just pop up to take their place!!!