Slashdot Mirror


Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec?

Barence writes "Foreign powers could try to infiltrate hacktivist networks in order to manipulate their actions, according to a security expert who advises governments and businesses on internet issues. Likening the emergence of the hacktivist movement to the arrival of militant groups such as the Red Brigade during the 1970s, government advisor and chair of the International E-crime Congress, Simon Moores, said that hacker groups could eventually be swayed by outside influences. 'If you have a LulzSec or an Anonymous that is perhaps being manipulated by a foreign actor, it takes us back to the days of the Stasi and the KGB, which were manipulating [anti-nuclear campaign group] CND quite easily from Moscow,' he said."

162 comments

  1. Not this shit again. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously!

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Not this shit again. by Xest · · Score: 1

      The headline made me lol, it reminded me of something like:

      WHO IS BETTER, Chuck Norris, or Mr T?

      The summary was at least slightly more intelligent, but still inevitably silly.

      I'd say something about it being a slow news day, but looking at the BBC's frontpage, it's actually not.

    2. Re:Not this shit again. by somersault · · Score: 1

      I was thinking "where are the nuclear wessels?"

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Not this shit again. by camperslo · · Score: 0

      Setting aside for the moment the issue of whether or not any hidden influence is currently at play, some of this hints at being an effort to discredit the legitimate concerns of those being vocal with concerns over nuclear power. (Obviously people range from clueless or misinformed to well informed, and it is a complex issue with pros and cons).

      Over 1500 people were arrested in a September 1981 Diablo Canyon blockade, including over 40 professors from the university at Cal Poly Can Luis Obispo and the entire San Luis Obispo city council. The rally/concert by Camp San Luis in 1979 drew about 40,000 people and included California Governor Brown (the same one that is again governor now) They weren't ignorant sheep led by some foreign government.

      http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/DIABLO1.HTM

      Whatever is going on now, it would likely be foolish to assume that everything going on involves a fixed set of people and that all reporting is true. Some things may be an excuse to push through various legislation, or accomplish something while someone else gets the blame. I think the term is "false flag". The world has been an unstable place with many changes. Hopefully whatever people do, they will not forget core values and will only act in ways supporting positive changes with no harm to anyone. Democracy needs a caring informed engaged public in order to function effectively. Pushing for responsible policies and combating corruption requires that people be informed. We should push for better media reporting in all forms, and real investigative reporting.

      "News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity..." - Bill Moyers, recently a guest on The Daily Show

    4. Re:Not this shit again. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      some of this hints at being an effort to discredit the legitimate concerns of those being vocal with concerns over nuclear power.

      It should be noted that information about KGB backing of anti-nuke groups back in the day were discovered when we got a look at their archives after the USSR went away.

      Note, though, that it was also apparently an unintended side-effect of an effort to promote anti-nuclear weapons fears in the West.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Not this shit again. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      Note, though, that it was also apparently an unintended side-effect of an effort to promote anti-nuclear weapons fears in the West.

      Which bit them in the ass when Chernobyl suffered a minor incident, and their puppets blew it up out of all proportion.

    6. Re:Not this shit again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-nuke as meaning anti nuclear bombs, not anti nuclear power plants. The nuke is a slang term for the bomb, not power plant.

    7. Re:Not this shit again. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I really poo poo conspiracy theories (ignoring the fact the KGB no longer exists) because they don't make any sense.

      This actually seems like a *good* idea if I was in the intelligence community. Why not try and direct groups to behave in a manner that is conducive to your nation's goals?

      1) Become a respected member of the community pulling pranks and demonstrating a talent for hacking.
      2) Find an excuse for lolz to happen that just so happen to coincide with ___INSERT NATION__'s interests
      3) "Innocently" suggest you take out XYZ server in response to __INSERT SEMI-MANUFACTURED OFFENSE AGAINST ANONYMOUS___
      4) Watch the whisper become a shout and a shout become action.

      Inciting rebellion under the guise of the insurgent's own self interest is the MO of intelligence groups the world over. It's not a paranoia to acknowledge that we have concrete and declassified examples of intelligence agencies overthrowing governments through technical consulting, material support and 'helpful' direction.

      Best of all the intelligence group can keep their hands clean from any actual operations that attack foreign governments.

      It wouldn't even be hard to manipulate those little pricks, just hack a low level security site and post a fake press release saying that the DOD has erected an invincible wall against hackers and that they are completely safe from Anonymous. Also post a fake press release about a new offensive operation against 'anonymous' from the DOD. Post some twitter links with Anonymous tags and watch the mob do the rest.

    8. Re:Not this shit again. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      The nuke is a slang term for the bomb, not power plant.

      English, and in particular, English slang doesn't work that way. It's not like FORTRAN77, or ALGOL68
      Here, for instance, is very recent news article:
      Nuke plant still on course

      The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will refuel as scheduled in October, despite its cloudy future.
      Officials from Entergy Corp. of Louisiana, which owns the plant, released a statement today announcing that the company’s board of directors has decided to move forward with a $60 million to $65 million fuel purchase for the reactor, as it prepares to do legal battle with state officials in September over whether the state has the right to deny the company a certificate of public good, which would prevent the plant from continuing to operate past the time when its original federal license is due to expire.

    9. Re:Not this shit again. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Vermont isn't England. You're quoting a second rate hack in a tinpot local rag as an authority on correct usage? Seriously?

      As a native speaker, I certainly wouldn't use "nuke" as an adjective, and if I lowered myself to use it as a noun it means a bomb.

      You seem to be as confused as CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), who apparently never worked out quite what "armaments" means).

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Outdated Headline by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec?

    No, because it was dissolved in 1991. Could the SVR, FSB or GRU infiltrate LulzSec? Sure, why not? I'm sure anyone could infiltrate the group as long as you're willing to play their game.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah even the FBI, CIA, MI6, RIAA, NAACP, SPCA, NCAA, KKK, etc.. could "infiltrate" Anonymous. That's the point, isn't it?

    2. Re:Outdated Headline by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.

    3. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless you live in Belarus, where the KGB is still called just that.

    4. Re:Outdated Headline by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

      But the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) certainly could at 60+Million members at growing. And lets face it, most of the young vibrant hackers are associated with higher education in American and European Universities. Most of which are liberal with a hint of Marxist ideology tied to the Ivory Tower culture (the strongest pronouncement was in the 1960s).

      So I tell you. If anyone political organization with large sums of money to throw around can infiltrate LulzSec, it would be the CCP. The only think holding it back is the language barrier, but many CCP members already speak English out of the 60 million anyways.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best. Comment. Ever.

    6. Re:Outdated Headline by captainpanic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.

      This.

      But instead of hunting for the hackers, I'd be more comfortable if they secured some of the vital systems... Some stuff just shouldn't be connected to the internet.

    7. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAPSI

    8. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But Anonymous could infiltrate "GNAA" thus infiltrating FBI, CIA, MI6, NASA, VALNX and MPAA by proxy

    9. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the hundreds of thousands of newly college grads without a job, what the CCP has to offer is intoxicating. A secure job, wining and dining, and the ability to look down on others.

      For a second there, I thought you were talking about the recruitment programs in America.
      Every country recruits soldiers, some countries even generously employ mercenaries -cough- Halliburton -cough-, it's not like this is a new threat or anything.
      The new world demands an educated soldier; are you producing that in your country?

    10. Re:Outdated Headline by morari · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Educated soldiers are a liability. You wants morons that will follow orders without question, otherwise they might start to reconsider just why they're committing horrendous acts. Here's a hint, to help their employer's bottom-line.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    11. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educated soldiers are highly sought after as well, at least in the US. Recruiters were ready to go at my college graduation and wouldn't stop bugging you (phone calls, mail, etc.) if you showed any interest at all.

      I had one friend, a chemical engineer, join the navy after finishing. He loves it.

    12. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) certainly could at 60+Million members at growing. And lets face it, most of the young vibrant hackers are associated with higher education in American and European Universities. Most of which are liberal with a hint of Marxist ideology tied to the Ivory Tower culture (the strongest pronouncement was in the 1960s).

      So I tell you. If anyone political organization with large sums of money to throw around can infiltrate LulzSec, it would be the CCP. The only think holding it back is the language barrier, but many CCP members already speak English out of the 60 million anyways.

      why would the CCP want to attack the US in any way ? thet own 600 BILLION $ of your dette , just keep on paying the interest , consume and dig your hole further, that will keep them happy , they just need to call up your dette and boom usa is sudently equivalent to somalia

    13. Re:Outdated Headline by DividedByZer0 · · Score: 1

      He means 'can we get crazy conspiracy theorists excited about something new, please'.

    14. Re:Outdated Headline by santiagodraco · · Score: 1

      Wild goose chase.... do you really think it's so far fetched that foreign powers would try to manipulate groups like this? if you do then you are either very ignorant, naive or being manipulated and you don't even realize it.

    15. Re:Outdated Headline by santiagodraco · · Score: 1

      Any good strategist knows you can't just sit in a fortress and remain safe forever. The same applies here.

      That's not to say I disagree with "improving" the security of vital systems (your statement "if they would just secure" implies they aren't, which of course is absurd, our systems are secure... are they secure enough is the question".)

      Of course I'd suggest it's equally absurd to think that we aren't actively working to secure our networks.

    16. Re:Outdated Headline by vajrabum · · Score: 2

      C'mon Communist infiltrators? Really? I can see sophmoric but you seem to think the Lulzsec people are stupid or something. This is cointel PR bs like we saw in the 60s. Your clue, if you decide to accept it, is that the TFA didn't refer to the current foreign intelligence organizations but rather to the great boogie man of the cold war, the KGB.

    17. Re:Outdated Headline by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      without the wars going on, we are still way over cold war era spending. all those businesses leeching of the government's teet, having their politicians funnel funds to useless, unneeded projects to keep useless, unneeded jobs, yet, at the same time, supporters of this kind of bullshit will still find the time to demonize the poor, who take far less in government handouts. pretty pathetic situation we have got going on.

      --
      ...
    18. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The KGB still lives on in Belarus.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Committee_of_the_Republic_of_Belarus

    19. Re:Outdated Headline by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      If you consider a pinky swear that you won't access the system security, things are pretty secure.

      The regularity with which they have broken into the systems shows that they are not secure enough.

    20. Re:Outdated Headline by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      Any good strategist knows you can't just sit in a fortress and remain safe forever. The same applies here.

      Not really. You can't sit in a fortress forever because:

      • You are dependent on food from outside
      • The enemy will travel and pillage as they please on your land
      • The enemy can starve you out
      • Being couped up in a fortress might make your people not like you so much

      None of these apply to a well-secured data center (except maybe some people will be annoyed their password can't be 1234..5).

    21. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could pay off their $600 billion tomorrow if we wanted to. A major majority of our debt is held by American citizens.

      You don't think the people would buy the hell out of U.S. bonds if China actually did that? It might cause a fuss, but it wouldn't tank the economy.

    22. Re:Outdated Headline by Calos · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy.

      Securing computer systems well is a necessary step, but it's not perfect. New exploits are always appearing, sometimes admin screw something up, patches can cause regressions in the code or in the configuration.

      It's not an end-all, be-all. To be truly secure, you need a proactive element, sniffing out what the bad guys are doing, what exploits aren't patched yet or aren't even known about outside of the bad guys, that kind of thing... at a minimum. If you have the authority, trying to actually stop the bad guys - e.g., arrest them - is the next logical step to the tit-for-tat game you play otherwise. That's not a fun game to play, because if you're not going after the bad guys, you're the only one with something to lose. Given enough time, you will.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    23. Re:Outdated Headline by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      Err, when I think of "Hackers" I think anti-establishment, including higher ed. Also, if you have been around higher ed since the 60s, you'd realize it wasn't full of Marxists.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    24. Re:Outdated Headline by smelch · · Score: 1

      Debt can't just be called in. You're an idiot. $600 billion? That's nothing even close to bringing us to our knees even if they could do it. And it's debt.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    25. Re:Outdated Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse Asia with the Middle East. In the ME, people would be happy to kill each other for deep seated religious differences. Asia is different, and a lot more complicated.

      If China could have what they want, they wouldn't want a destroyed America. They would want a subjugated America where the heartland growing critical food and crops would go directly to port cities via armored transports on highways guarded with automated sentry guns, to ensure that Beijing had their food, even if the local population was starving. Think England getting their crops during the Irish Potato Famine.

    26. Re:Outdated Headline by RanceJustice · · Score: 1

      As a young hacker who's dabbled in gray hat pursuits and with a healthy respect for a mixed economy dominated by socialist principles, a strong democratic governmental system with a Trotsky-like Vanguard that separates power from currency, I can say with authority that very few "hackers" with these ideologies will favor China. Most realize that its basically a Stalinist dictatorship that needs to be appeased and so long as they get their pound of flesh, they have a regulation-less economy that exploits the working class and lacks any kind of regulatory body to stop predatory greed. We're not talking about Mao's "Everything is a great communal farm, guys!" here, and anyone who isn't stuck in the 30s can see that.

      China's fervent party believers and power-brokers enable homespun cultivation of loyal hackers who truly believe that the Men of Han should control the earth and are better than everyone else. They don't need to convert left-leaning Westerners and those that do serve Chinese interests are likely doing it for money and would just as easily take money from East European mafias instead for the same kind of jobs.

  3. but anonymous is magic by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    no one can figure out who anyone is in real life, it can never be killed, and never influenced. it is above and beyond the rules that govern any other group of people, because it has internets. right?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:but anonymous is magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could make a movie about anonymous zombies. That would be great.

    2. Re:but anonymous is magic by bberens · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's the proxies.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    3. Re:but anonymous is magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to be a KGB-agent to influence Anonymous. The question is how much, almost insignificant, amount of influence you'll be able to exact on the whole. Will one worker-bee manipulate the whole hive? Doubtful. At best, the little KGB-worker-bee will be told "Dox or GTFO", and if he serves up the dox, then no problem, information is information regardless of pedigree.

    4. Re:but anonymous is magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How should I imagine this? Pale people with eyes in black, deep sockets shambling about in basements and moaning "lulz" instead of "brains"?

    5. Re:but anonymous is magic by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      anonymous is the borg!

      pffffffft

      will you fanboys please shut up about magic anonymous? it's governed by the same simple social hacks everyone and everything is. it's not more vulnerable, it's not less vulnerable. there is no magic pixie dust. it has not reinvented the human social function or the rules by which every group of human beings has always behaved since the dawn of time

      sorry to rain on your parade

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:but anonymous is magic by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Well... to be fair, if "on teh internets" works for patents...

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    7. Re:but anonymous is magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a protip on the definition of Anonymous: It's a subculture. Not a group.

      How the hell do you infiltrate or kill a subculture? You tell me!
      Let's say... Bodybuilders. Or Goth. Or the GNU movement.
      Or even the Jews, for god's sake!

      You close down all locations where they meet, you forbid everything they need, and you forbid the very actions they do.
      You hunt after them and murder them. ...and then? Will that stop them??

      You know the most extreme case. There were turncoats all over the country. And concentration camps to put them. Something far worse than what they try to do to Anonymous.
      And you know it hasn't stopped them, since they are still here. And it never will stop a subculture.

      So maybe you should, instead of trying to sound smart, actually think for a second, before hitting the keyboard...

    8. Re:but anonymous is magic by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      if there were a group of goths who were into firebombing rich people's malls, they can be infiltrated and defeated

      there's lots of environmentalists, i consider myself one, but i'm not into arson to advance the cause. a handful are. they can be infiltrated and defeated

      etc., etc.

      these examples are the proper parallel to who we're talking about here

      so if you're interesting in sounding smart, protip: you don't sound smart if you can't properly define the subject matter before issuing your opinions

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  4. Is it worth it? by RogueRat · · Score: 0

    Do these hacktivist organizations really command enough respect and hold enough power for such actions to be necessary? All I could think when I read this news post was "Why?"

    1. Re:Is it worth it? by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Informative
  5. great fear tactic by alphatel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meanwhile Russia can shutdown the US power grid, successfully leached Nuclear secrets in the 50's and owns most of US Steel manufacturing. Yet some shitty hacker outfit called Lulzsec is "easily manipulated. Har! Is it Pirate Day already?

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:great fear tactic by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meanwhile Russia can shutdown the US power grid, successfully leached Nuclear secrets in the 50's and owns most of US Steel manufacturing. Yet some shitty hacker outfit called Lulzsec is "easily manipulated. Har! Is it Pirate Day already?

      Whoever will take more of my money and more of my civil rights will surely save me.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:great fear tactic by bberens · · Score: 2

      I'm willing to take both.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    3. Re:great fear tactic by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh fuckin' great, the NSA has entered /.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:great fear tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll have to take his civil rights and money from me first. I've had them for quite sometime and are not willing to let go of them. Well, maybe you can take his right to remain silent, he hasn't tried to use that one in years. Also, he doesn't have a firearm so I'll let you have that one too.

  6. What about? by Broken+scope · · Score: 4, Informative

    So could the CIA, NSA, FBI or any of the 20 or 30 Intelligence/enforcement agencies in the US government.

    What is to say that this hasn't already happened and everything we have seen has been... "just as planned."

    Oh look at me! I can speculate too!

    --
    You mad
    1. Re:What about? by multisync · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, hacktivists could probably infiltrate intelligence and enforcement agencies too. Not to mention political parties, movements like the Tea Party, news organizations and other large, influential corporations.

      If I seriously wanted to bring about change to our socioeconomic system, that's how I'd go about it.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    2. Re:What about? by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So could the CIA, NSA, FBI or any of the 20 or 30 Intelligence/enforcement agencies in the US government.

      Yes, LulzSec is clearly commandeered by the Amtrak Police.
      Geohot, on the other hand, is likely under the influence of the Forest Rangers.

      Why this hits /. front page, I have no idea. Whenever someone is doing something controversial, there will always be opponents who will speculate that they're useful idiots, or otherwise try to paint them in a worse light than they already are. I'd be interested in the real source of this one; my bet is you'll find a tinfoil hat reactionary.

    3. Re:What about? by loftwyr · · Score: 2

      Are you saying that someone could join a security or military organization, download key secret documents and give them to an organization, say, like Wikileaks? I don't believe you! America is too strong for that kind of thing!

    4. Re:What about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why this hits /. front page, I have no idea.

      I think they actually do it to troll for "In Soviet Russia" jokes.

    5. Re:What about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is, can they or any other ne'er-do-wells infiltrate LulzSec? The answer is, "trivially".

      "Them": Hm... we need some way to stop US government agents from poking around our actions... oh, wait, forgot, it's easy.
      "Them" posing as some anon: hay guyz y not ddos teh ciaaaaaaaaaaaaa??/??//???
      LulzSec: DURR LULZ AG AGG AGG LULZ *farts loudly* HAAAAAAW HAW LULZ ok lulz
      (one explosion due to distracted investigative officials later)
      LulzSec: DURR LULZ TEHY DIEDZ!1!!11!! TOTLY WORTH IT LULZ
      "Them": Sweet! Who's next on our list...

    6. Re:What about? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Kami, is that you?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    7. Re:What about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the thought of lulzsec as being made up entirely of agents of the world's various governments. Scattered all over the world in secret bunkers, slapping the shit out of Sony.

    8. Re:What about? by xkpe · · Score: 1

      Who says it's not them doing it in the first place?

  7. Yet Another Lack of Understanding by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Law enforcement just can't grasp the concept of Anonymous' lack of a solid hierarchy. Sure they could infiltrate Anonymous, and they'd have as much influence as any other one participant, which is very little. Now if they can flood Anonymous with enough sockpuppets to make up, say, more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Neither can the news media. It's like me just putting flyers up to join a protest rally. It's upto individuals to decide to go or not, and if not I could be the only one who turns up.

    2. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Vectormatic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I will admit i know nothing about anonymous or lulzsec, but it wouldnt surprise if they worked like your basic internet echo chamber. If the right guy starts screaming the right way, all the other members start parroting and going along. I dont claim that this would be easy, but the lack of hierarchy doesnt preclude one person having influence over a large amount of followers.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    3. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's dozens and dozens of wanabe security experts wanabe reporters wanabe infiltrating already.. soo.. what the fuck. what would they influence them to do? it's not like lulzsec or anonymous guys have a magic wand to go through well done code. sure they're swayed by outside influences, it's not like they live in a box with no connections to outside world. meanwhile simon moores is a jackass, he could be hanging around on the channels himself if he were doing his job. but it's easier to push around paper diagrams of paper security.

    4. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if they can flood Anonymous with enough sockpuppets to make up, say, more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.

      Hey, don't give away the FBI's strategy like that. ;)

    5. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Spad · · Score: 2

      The phrase that leaps to mind is "like herding cats".

    6. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If one guy starts screaming the right way and a large number of people agree, yeah they'll go along. But it isn't like, say, a bunch of Fox News viewers where a huge number of members can be mobilized by whatever Glenn Beck spews from his face-anus no matter what it happens to be. There has to be a big consensus among a diverse set of members before Anonymous will get started on anything. They don't even like to use pseudonyms most of the time so until an operation starts there's no trace of hierarchy *at all.* It's a true hive mind. Once an operation starts they do set up a temporary, transient hierarchy, but even if you could hijack an operation leader's PC at that point, it would be like trying to affect a war by impersonating a battalion commander. And if you go against the collective will of the group they're going to know something's up.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the thing. There is no "right guy". Namefags are greeted with derision and without credos to influence others, "screaming the right way" is known as "making an agreeable proposal" or appealing to the mob.

      Sure, you can sock puppet your way to a bandwagon, but this takes time and effort and anonymous are just as likely to engage in civil war as they are to direct their lulz outside their anarchist commune. See: "Boxxy Love" and "My Little Pony" for examples of brutal infighting despite bandwagon appeal.

    8. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

      Law enforcement just can't grasp the concept of Anonymous' lack of a solid hierarchy.

      This sentence relies on a vast web of assumptions. Where does your knowledge of the hierarchy of "Anonymous" come from? It comes from Anonymous. Actually, no, worse-- it comes from spokespersons who claim (without proof) to be representing Anonymous. Is there any actual reason to believe anything about Anonymous, or how it is structured?

      Sure they could infiltrate Anonymous, and they'd have as much influence as any other one participant, which is very little.

      This sentence relies on a vast web of assumptions, the main one of which is the belief that, even in the absence of a hierarchy, all participants have equal amounts of influence. In the real world, some people are more equal than others. So, here's the question: suppose there were a secret organization with vast resources that were pretending to be "just another participant," but in fact had a practical knowledge of politics, which is to say: means and methods of how to influence decisions without overtly seeming to. Would they be able to influence a community of politically naive engineer/hacker/teenager/angry-young-men/prankster/techno-anarchists?

      The answer to that question is: I don't know.

      However, I don't think that you can say a-priori that they would not be able to do so.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    9. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Lord+Grey · · Score: 1

      The phrase that leaps to mind is "like herding cats".

      In the case of LulzSec, it would be more like herding LOLCats. Probably this one, specifically.

      --
      // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    10. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any actual reason to believe anything about Anonymous, or how it is structured?

      Sure. You could, for instance, visit one of their IRC channels. Or something. The point is that anyone can join. Find out yourself if you don't believe them.

    11. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You can investigate Anonymous' hierarchy yourself if you don't want to rely on my knowledge ;-)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Wow. Talk about hive mind.

    13. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you can steer them. They'll only parrot if you say something they want to parrot.

      An example. If you go to some racist group party and start rioting about how much the $minority_group hurts the US and that they should all follow you to burn down a house of said $minority_group, you'll quickly become the leader of that gang in their quest to burn down a house belonging to a $minority_group.

      Now get in there and try the same with an attempt to burn down a White Power clubhouse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by gtall · · Score: 1

      It also relies on the author's dubious, probably out of his ass, statement about what law enforcement can and cannot grasp. Me thinks the author is still living in the 60's. Law enforcement these days is fairly sophisticated, it is the politicians who aren't.

    15. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any actual reason to believe anything about Anonymous, or how it is structured?

      Sure. You could, for instance, visit one of their IRC channels. Or something. The point is that anyone can join. Find out yourself if you don't believe them.

      And why would you think that there is nothing hidden? You seriously believe that 100% of the communication goes through the public channel?

    16. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by steelfood · · Score: 1

      more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.

      They might as well fund their own efforts while calling themselves Anonymous in name. There's no point in "infiltrating" Anonymous.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    17. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by smelch · · Score: 1

      Yeah but what if you go in there and say $specific_target knowing that hitting $specific_target while appearing to be in line with the goals may also cause a huge reaction that will destroy the racist movement because there were $retarded_children inside? Why are you reducing the infiltrators to complete morons?

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    18. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to see a bunch of Russian KGB types try to come up with a meme that resonates with chan kids.

      --
      For great justice.
    19. Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, especially since recent attacks have taken on a partisan anti-American tone.

  8. No by ewanm89 · · Score: 4, Informative

    One, the KGB doesn't exist anymore, 2) neither does LulzSec (technically), but even if it doesn't work like that, every single member (I use this loosely as anonymous doesn't really have members) can decide whether to take part in a particular action or not.

    1. Re:No by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      One, the KGB doesn't exist anymore

      KGB does exist, even though it's not quite the same thing.

  9. My beer is hacker by the CCCP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lulzsec is a vandalism group, with 4 or 5 teenagers ( or 40years old with teenager mentality ). How can the CCCP infiltrate that?, Is beyond me.

    1. Re:My beer is hacker by the CCCP by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      The real question is: why would they bother with such hacker groups? Surely there are enough hackers in Russia to set up a proper strategic hacking division?

      So: yes they can infiltrate. No they probably won't use that method as an important strategic digital weapon.
      Better to rely on your own strength than on some 18-year-old kid in his mother's basement who you've never met before.

    2. Re:My beer is hacker by the CCCP by c0mpliant · · Score: 1

      The real question is why would the Combined Community Codec Pack want to infiltrate Lulzsec?

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    3. Re:My beer is hacker by the CCCP by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The CCCP no longer exists, but the supply of teen vandals is perpetually replenished.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  10. Healthy by eyenot · · Score: 1

    It's good for these little conspirators to have to face reality at some point in time. They make great entertainment fodder for the rest of us, but they also represent unsustainability and social insulation. They're just as prone to injection as any of their targets, and due to human traits (including our major hallmark, error) there's no patching that vulnerability. Everything has its infancy; in the future the major cyberattacks will be undertaken and executed without grandstanding, seemingly developmentally arrested childishness, or motivations outside the accumulation of political and financial power. Given a few more years of this high-intensity cyber bullying and cowboying, large corporations will get the clue that it's no longer a futuristic dream or a super-expensive option and will have undocumented cyber attack teams by rote. Governments will fail to prosecute because the methods will be too slick and professional. So, if you enjoy a good take-down or some shit, might as well keep your eyes glued because years down the line you won't even hear about the attacks as it won't pay to mention them when repecussions can't be brought to bear.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  11. More outdated nonsense left over from the Cold War by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

    I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

    I imagine that this fits the kind of thinking going on here, although it does seem interesting that most of the targets of these attacks are American or corporate allies.

    --
    sig not found
  12. concern about KGB infiltrating lulzsec??? by lkcl · · Score: 1

    why is anyone concerned about *only* the KGB "infiltrating" lulzsec? and as other people have pointed out - it's anonymous - even to each other! so you could actually end up with the hilarious situation that the only significant contributors to anonymous and lulzsec could actually be 95% foreign intelligence agents from different countries across the world, and nobody but those people who can reliably trace 100% of the world's internet traffic would know...

  13. Why would a nation-state want to? by DataDiddler · · Score: 1

    If a country can't figure out how to (or hire someone to) run LOIC to perform DDOS's and do simple SQL injections on their own, then they've got much bigger problems than working out how to infiltrate a group of teenagers.

    --
    Working...
    1. Re:Why would a nation-state want to? by bberens · · Score: 1

      The goal is NOT to infiltrate LULz or Anonymous or anything of the sort. The goal is to diminish the rights of the population in favor of size of government and corporate profits.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  14. (read your own pseudo-sentence) by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Have you ever considered how stupid it is to assume that something like the KGB would cease to exist just because it's no longer officially sanctioned? As agents of espionage and assassination, if anything, they're potentially more powerful, more capable, and more of a threat for not being "really there". It never bores me what a great idea it is to claim your intelligencia don't actually exist, or how easily duped the average, opinionated, modern person really is.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) by bberens · · Score: 1

      WRT KGB actually existing or not.. it doesn't really make a bit of difference in the lives of the easily duped average, opinionated, modern person. It only really matters to other governments and information agencies which likely know the truth one way or the other.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    2. Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The KGB doesn't exist anymore. Russian intelligence agencies do exist but the KGB doesn't. You'd think that someone who remotely knows what they're talking about wouldn't end up writing an article about whether a long-defunct intelligence agency could infiltrate a defunct hacktivist group.

      Had the question been "Could the SVR infiltrate Anonymous?" or "Could the SVR infiltrate LulzRaft?" the article might not immediately look like a bad rehash of a 1980s spy novel. But I guess "LulzSec" and "KGB" are more evocative and thus more suitable for swaying people who have no knowledge of intelligence services or computer security.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) by c0mpliant · · Score: 1

      "The Soviet Union? Did you guys break up?"
      "Yeeees! That's what we wanted you to think!"

      I'm glad to see the satirical aspect of that particular Simpsons quote still holds relevence today

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    4. Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Yes. No one knows what the SVR or the FSB is. And the fact that both of them are made up of former chekists means that calling them the KGB is not completely off base, if technically inaccurate.

      I don't like inaccuracies myself, but I also realize that I may not be the intended audience. Which probably means that the worst offense that the article is guilty of is that it was put on Slashdot. On the other hand, the readership does vote on articles so....

      As for the meat of the article, well, it is a good thing to bear in mind that an organization like this which has gained capital for being independent and anti-establishment, could become a tool of the establishment because it doesn't have strong internal governance. It may be overly alarmist, and even obvious to point that out, but I suppose someone has to state the obvious.

    5. Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) by Mr+44 · · Score: 1

      The KGB doesn't exist anymore. Russian intelligence agencies do exist but the KGB doesn't. You'd think that someone who remotely knows what they're talking about wouldn't end up writing an article about whether a long-defunct intelligence agency could infiltrate a defunct hacktivist group.
      Had the question been "Could the SVR infiltrate Anonymous?" or "Could the SVR infiltrate LulzRaft?" the article might not immediately look like a bad rehash of a 1980s spy novel

      In all fairness, it is only the slashdot summary that talks about the KGB infiltrating anonymous. The (very short) article is speculating that China could be doing something analagous to what the KGB did 40 years ago.

    6. Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, that old line, a favourite of conspiracy theorists of all varieties: it doesn't officially exist, therefore not only must it exist, but it's clearly become more powerful than we can possibly imagine.

      *eye roll*

    7. Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Well, in that case we just substitute "article" with "summary" in my post and stop wondering about whether the author has any idea of what they're writing about...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) by eyenot · · Score: 1

      That's a great point.

      I would agree with others, here, that the author is fairly ignorant of the topic.

      However I still stand by my assertion that just because something is proclaimed dissolved doesn't mean it "went away". That's like saying you threw something "away" therefore it's "gone". Where do you think the trash ends up?

      The agents of the KGB weren't systematically assassinated. Some of them went on to hold office, sure, but I'd guess that others went on to do things of their own choosing, perhaps in pursuit of KGB agendas that would have been best done without any bureaucratic attachments or national affiliations, before they became members of newer, more officially-existing agencies.

      But at any rate, whatever went on, unless the actual agents were somehow made to not exist, there's no way you can convince me that the KGB "went away", in fact their dropping official pretenses would have been a signal that things were about to get dirty.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  15. The Title Of Barence's Post... by mlauzon · · Score: 1

    Is misleading, because the KGB no longer exists!

    1. Re:The Title Of Barence's Post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is misleading, because

      ... it takes the form of:

      Can Scary-sounding group be infiltrated by even Scarier-sounding group?!!!

      and what u said too, obviously

  16. Red scare again by bjourne · · Score: 0

    "If you have a LulzSec or an Anonymous that is perhaps being manipulated by a foreign actor, it takes us back to the days of the Stasi and the KGB, which were manipulating [anti-nulear campaign group] CND quite easily from Moscow,"

    Not true in the slightest. CND and other anti-nuclear proliferation groups were not manipulated by the Soviet Union. In fact, they were just as opposed to Soviet nuclear weapons as Western ones. Though the allegation that they were controlled by Moscow were frequently thrown out by their opponents to avoid debating the insanity of stockpiling more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over. The only ones infiltrating them were the MI5, because apparently the security services had nothing better to do than monitor harmless hippies.

    1. Re:Red scare again by PPH · · Score: 1

      Of course, our intelligence agencies could plant a rumor that LulzSec was infiltrated. It would turn whatever support they have left against them. But more significantly, it will provide these agencies with an argument to fund more cyberwar initiatives.

      Beware of attempts to label plain old criminal activities as acts of war. Prosecuting a war is rarely afforded the same public scrutiny as law enforcement and judicial activities.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  17. Stupidity and paranoia by s-whs · · Score: 1

    I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

    What I'm thinking is this: It's not of much significance that a group can be infiltrated. It is much more significant that it happens from the government side, and especially for organisations that strive for peace. I know of a dutch peace/thinking group in the 1960s (perhaps until early 1970s) that was infiltrated. The group was suspicious of thatone guy immediately btw. and it was later confirmed. What I think is this: Why the hell are these a-holes from teh Dutch secret service bothering to infiltrate peace groups. Are these people insane? Yes, right, they must be bad because they want peace. Absolute morons. Oh they might be infiltrated by KGB or whatever. Who the hell cares! If it's about peace, if they want to change Dutch public opinion against having a hostile opinion towards the then USSR, oh, how awful!

    I also want to tell you that military and secret service types are completely bonkers the higher in rank they are. Paranoid and delusional into thinking the USSR did all the wrong in the world, the USA never did anything wrong. Not an opinion of mine, experience of mine...


    WTF? This was (in the 1980s!!!) hardly a new or interesting idea.

    Colour me unsurprised when anyone talks about outdated set of assumptions. But this is not from a cold war, era, this is from people who are simply stupid and/or paranoid.

  18. Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 by Manip · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but this assessment shows huge ignorance. Not only does he misunderstand how LuzSec and Anon' operate, he also entirely fails to explain either how a foreign government would benefit from infiltrating them or how they would go about doing so in such a spread out group.

    I think a lot of military people are stuck in the past. They don't understand the internet age. They call things "cyber wars" with "cyber armies" and imagine these big well organised forces likely well financed via the normal means.

    Fact is both LuzSec and Anon' are a threat. But that threat doesn't require another government or organised group to exist. It doesn't require millions in military aid. In fact it is just a rag-tag group of people who want to do what they want to do. It is very similar to terrorism, and the military are just as incapable dealing with online threats as they are terrorism threats.

    To be honest I think people like Mr. Moores are part of the problem. Part of the reason the military cannot understand these threats. Fire his and the old guys, hire in some experts who know shit about the 21st century.

    1. Re:Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact it is just a rag-tag group of people who want to do what they want to do. It is very similar to terrorism.

      By that definition, Robin Hood was a terrorist too.

    2. Re:Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Do you know the difference between the terms "is" and "similar to". Hint: they aren't the same.

      And yes Robin Hood would fit into the same basket as terrorism for the feature set being considered. As would many other things. But those other things (and Robin Hood) aren't as useful a comparison because the military isn't trying to fight them.

    3. Re:Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Fact is both LuzSec and Anon' are a threat.

      Threat to whom? The established power structure? Well sure, that's the point. A threat to you and me? No, I'm more concerned about the militarization of the police and the lawlessness of the banking industry than I am anything that happens on the internet.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Yup .... Cosmo (Sneakers) was right (aka The Strawman Has a Point).

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  19. Could the KGB be superior to all us inteligence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either the us don't care about lulzsec or they can't infiltrate the group themselves. I just don't see why any foreign power should be more likely to succeed

  20. Stupidity and paranoia (version 2) by s-whs · · Score: 1

    I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

    Repost because of inconsistency between review and posting...

    What I'm thinking is this: It's not of much significance that a group can be infiltrated. It is much more significant that it happens from the government side, and especially for organisations that strive for peace. I know of a dutch peace/thinking group in the 1960s (perhaps until early 1970s) that was infiltrated. The group was suspicious of thatone guy immediately btw. and it was later confirmed. What I think is this: Why the hell are these a-holes from teh Dutch secret service bothering to infiltrate peace groups. Are these people insane? Yes, right, they must be bad because they want peace. Absolute morons. Oh they might be infiltrated by KGB or whatever. Who the hell cares! If it's about peace, if they want to change Dutch public opinion against having a hostile opinion towards the then USSR, oh, how awful!

    I also want to tell you that military and secret service types are completely bonkers the higher in rank they are. Paranoid and delusional into thinking the USSR did all the wrong in the world, the USA never did anything wrong. Not an opinion of mine, experience of mine...

    And finally about outdated opinions: My dad used to work in a department of the ministry of economics in NL, and he was quite annoyed about the stupidity of some things. For example they had as 'secret' discussions about various ways to respond in a war such as in particular this example: The policy of scorched earth.

    WTF? This was (in the 1980s!!!) hardly a new or interesting idea.

    Colour me unsurprised when anyone talks about outdated set of assumptions. But this is not from a cold war, era, this is from people who are simply stupid and/or paranoid.

    1. Re:Stupidity and paranoia (version 2) by black+soap · · Score: 1

      You think any advocacy/protest group during the cold war didn't have the backing of either the KGB or the CIA? That was one of the biggest methods of action for the intelligence agencies: sending money and training to protest groups, labor unions, student groups, etc., in target countries, teach them how to write newsletters (with hints as to what to write), etc.

      Although I'd be surprised if the Russians had any interest in LulzSec - the intelligence agencies right here at home stand to benefit much more from the outrage over LulzSec activities, which will almost surely lead to new laws and expanded authority, more monitoring etc.

    2. Re:Stupidity and paranoia (version 2) by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      but they had to monitor the peace groups to make sure that they weren't infiltrated by SPECTRE, SMERSH or HYDRA.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  21. Why bother? by Lance+Dearnis · · Score: 1

    Could anyone infiltrate a group such as this? Absolutely; there's few criteria for membership, no real review of members, no centralized leadership to weed out trolls from governments or other sources, and basically no defenses.

    The catch is, because there's no central leadership, there's not too much to gain from 'infiltrating' them. lulzsec does not operate secretly; they operate openly and blatantly. They're a rampaging elephant. And because leadership is decentralized, your careful 'people management' system that you would advertise to use in your 'infiltration' to 'control lulzsec' will be totally derailed the moment they all decide attacking X is cool and run off to do it.

    They organization is too anarchic and open to really be 'infiltrated' by the sense implied here; it's like trying to 'infiltrate' your average recess in grade school. What the hell are you going to gain from it? Maybe assign an intern you pay minimum wage to hang out in an Anon IRC and get a bit more heads-up warning, but it's not gonna be worth more then that.

  22. Obligatory Meme... by cjb658 · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, the government hacks LulzSec!

    1. Re:Obligatory Meme... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No no no. In Soviet Russia, the government is LulzSec.

      That would explain a lot about what happened circa 1937, in fact. All those NKVD troikas handing out 10 year sentences with less than a minute spent per court hearing, and overfilled gulags and body ditches for no apparent reasons? why, it was for the lulz.

  23. An interesting read by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I highly recommend "Comrade J" by Pete Earley. http://www.amazon.com/Comrade-J-Pete-Earley/dp/B002BWQ5PY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311602623&sr=8-1
    This book talks about the genesis of the SVR from the KGB. It also talks about how the whole concept of "nuclear winter" was invented by those agencies and fed to gullible westerners including Carl Sagan who steadfastly refused to believe it when NASA scientists debunked the whole thing. It also talks about what a colossal disaster the UN Oil for Food program was, who was duped, who profited from it, and more importantly who was pulling the strings. Bottom line is that foreign intelligence services don't need to do anything directly. There are plenty of idealists willing to do their dirty work.

    1. Re:An interesting read by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 0

      You know, maybe we should start a nuclear war. It would certainly help put those damn hippies in their place, and it might reinvigorate american Conservatism.

  24. Nuclear Winter valid concept. by FatSean · · Score: 2

    Seems like Pete Earley has a book to sell!

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Nuclear Winter valid concept. by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 0

      If you read the book, you'd know that it's about a SVR defector who described all of this in great detail during his extensive debriefings. Nuclear winter theory as described by Carl Sagan was debunked in 1987.

    2. Re:Nuclear Winter valid concept. by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was debunked in that NASA scientists showed that it would only result in an ice age, (-6 C global temperature cooling, the last ice age was -5) but that it would only last a decade. This totally "busted" Sagan's numbers which had it being colder and longer. Damn commie! Sagan's biggest mistake was predicting cooling in Asia as a result of the Kuwait oil fires, and this mistake there was thinking the fires were large enough to push smoke into the stratosphere. They weren't, so the -10 C cooling stayed fairly localized, and precipitated out eventually. However, studies of large scale fires do in fact confirm that large enough smoke plumes can make it that high, and persist for much longer as a result. The only actual debate over nuclear winter is whether or not nuking a city would actually result in large-scale fires, or if modern cities are too fireproof to be ignited. Call the Mythbusters, sounds right up their ally.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    3. Re:Nuclear Winter valid concept. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      At least according to a widely read survivalist author who had an axe to grind.

    4. Re:Nuclear Winter valid concept. by QuantumSam · · Score: 1

      Actually, the global warming computer models were flawed and the temperature change was wrong. I belive at one point it was shown by some models that the temp would increase up to 1 degree. Same thing with the ozone layer -- the theory defied physics (what do I mean: UV radiation is the source of ozone. Ozone depletion causes more UV radioation which increases production of ozone. It's a self balancing equation. Carl Sagan was very stubborn. I got to debate Nuclear WInter and the computer models with him in 1984 at my university. HE could talk nuclear winter, but he didn't know what was in the models or want to really discuss their (faulty) assumptions.

  25. could the kgb by nimbius · · Score: 1

    infiltrate a well documented, structred and purposed organization comprised of heirarchially ordered members, a mission statement and a
    sem-closed forum in which ideas are traded back and forth? sure.

    can they infiltrate a global syndicate of decentralized professional hackers and free thinkers bent on protecting freedom and exposing the truth? no, probably not seeing as theyre one of the targets anyhow.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  26. Can the NSA or GRU or FSB be attacked by LulzSec? by kubitus · · Score: 1
    as long as they connect to the Internet - why not.

    Richard Feynman showed the ignorance of military blockheads towards security.

    But they have heavily recruited and may get some ideas from those newby-geek-militarists

    until they are fed-up and realize in what a fucking insititution they have landed.

  27. FPSRussia by DanCentury · · Score: 1

    Well, FPSRussia was able to infiltrate a recent episode of Epic Meal Time, so.. maybe?

    http://youtu.be/kMyPD1VKk60

  28. So that's the next play? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "They're evil hackers!" didn't seem to stick. The public laughed off "they're terrorists!" Now the powers that be are hoping "they're communists!" will sway public sentiment? That's so... cold war. Who's afraid of the KGB these days?

    I'm surprised they didn't go straight for "they sell kiddie porn". That would achieve the desired bloodlust a lot more quickly.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  29. cyber mercenaries? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    Rather than infiltrating it, surely the american way is to try and buy it? Just offer enough members enough money and just like any good band of guns-for-hire they'll be persuaded to do your bidding. And if the carrot doesn't work, the other good old american tradition of the "big stick" in the shape of a photo of a Predator UAV posted to some members home addresses, can be even more effective.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  30. (obligatory) In soviet russia... by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    LulzSec infiltrate KGB!

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  31. This is silly on so many levels by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Ok, I'll try to get some order into it, starting with the most obvious one.

    1. The KGB (or rather, its successor, or whatever organization you'd think) isn't interested in such petty things. They have their own guys, and they can more easily steer them in the "right" direction. Why? Because that guy is sitting right there and you can cap him if he doesn't.

    2. They also have the money to simply buy such people. And then put them under the gun for a "hack that or else".

    3. They also have no need to "hide" anything so they'd profit from people doing it who are not in Russia. Russia is one of the biggest perpetrators in the world when it comes to cybercrime, do you want to blame all of that on the KGB or the Russian government? Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia, you're probably wrong. Think they'd bother to "hide" that there's yet another Russian hacking something on the planet for fun an profit?

    4. But even assuming they'd have any interest in Anonymous: Anonymous is the equivalent of an internet mob. They are not an organized system with a hierarchy and whatnot. Steering a mob is possible to some degree, you can convince them to trash something belonging to company A instead of something belonging to company B, provided they hate both companies at similar levels, but turning them around and making them a neighborhood watch or at least convincing them to trash a place they'd actually like is something you will not accomplish. You can essentially only steer a mob into attacking something they already hate. If you're that thing they hate, it's kinda hard to steer them.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:This is silly on so many levels by martas · · Score: 1

      Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia...

      You bet your ass I do. You think the US government is corrupted by corporate interests? What do you think would happen if you removed most transparency measures from the US government, crippled the "checks and balances" on power, handcuffed the media, gave most of the money in the country to even bigger criminals than it already belongs to, and left things like that for about 20 years? Yeah, that's what Russia is today.

    2. Re:This is silly on so many levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're that thing they hate, it's kinda hard to steer them.

      Incorrect, they are all the more easily steered.

      And, yes, they are.

    3. Re:This is silly on so many levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I'll try to get some order into it, starting with the most obvious one.

      1. The KGB (or rather, its successor, or whatever organization you'd think) isn't interested in such petty things. They have their own guys, and they can more easily steer them in the "right" direction. Why? Because that guy is sitting right there and you can cap him if he doesn't.

      2. They also have the money to simply buy such people. And then put them under the gun for a "hack that or else".

      3. They also have no need to "hide" anything so they'd profit from people doing it who are not in Russia. Russia is one of the biggest perpetrators in the world when it comes to cybercrime, do you want to blame all of that on the KGB or the Russian government? Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia, you're probably wrong. Think they'd bother to "hide" that there's yet another Russian hacking something on the planet for fun an profit?

      4. But even assuming they'd have any interest in Anonymous: Anonymous is the equivalent of an internet mob. They are not an organized system with a hierarchy and whatnot. Steering a mob is possible to some degree, you can convince them to trash something belonging to company A instead of something belonging to company B, provided they hate both companies at similar levels, but turning them around and making them a neighborhood watch or at least convincing them to trash a place they'd actually like is something you will not accomplish. You can essentially only steer a mob into attacking something they already hate. If you're that thing they hate, it's kinda hard to steer them.

      Recently, it's claimed that Anonymous has a leader, Hugo Carvahlo, and directs attacks through the various Anon groups via twitter, etc.. Using people from various countries would benefit an organization like the KGB by deflecting attention from the real "source". Lately, Anon's online tactics have become more boastful, threatening, and bullying leading some to believe that is on the horizon. The taunts against the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies are particularly virulent.

      Sorry . . . 1, 2, 3, 4.

      Silly Willy

  32. Anonymous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is not your personal army, KGBfag

    1. Re:Anonymous... by martas · · Score: 1

      I lol'd. This is probably what would happen.

  33. All hacker sites will eventually be infiltrated... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    by various governments. Many of them will fail due to excessive lameness and other obvious tell-tale signs. A few will succeed. Some will be double-agents and information will flow both ways. Some will be discovered by hacks. All of this this is pretty darned obvious.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  34. What a country! by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they'll fit right in.

    "Let us hack together this NSA for lulz, comrade."

  35. Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nature of the "group" is such that any time an idea gets out there that a lot of people like, there will be a certain set of people who will join in. "Infiltrating" them is no different than "infiltrating" a public forum and suggesting some ideas.

  36. Re:NuclearCognitive Winter valid concept. by vajrabum · · Score: 1

    So if I read your post then I'd know that the western agencies (CIA, FBI or maybe the John Birch society, hmm?) invented the whole idea of the KGB inventing the whole idea of nuclear winter that was fed to Carl Sagan because everybody knows that famous physicists with PHDs are likely dupes of communist agencies?

  37. well well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lulzsec can't be infiltrated.
    they have th3j35st3r on their asses and he couldn't do anything too...
    not mentioning FBI, CIA and all that crap trying to stop them. As they said, "you can't arrest an idea".

  38. Could the XYZ Infiltrate LulzSec? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There, fixed that for you. /s/XYZ/yourfavoritespookagency

  39. RED BRIGADES? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Informative

    They were subverted manipulated, alright.

    By US and NATO operatives. Not godless commies.

    The kidnap and murder of the Italian Prime Minister, Aldo Moro, was an orchestrated event, calculated to drive Socialist-leaning Italy to the right. This was done through direct and indirect instruction by CIA managed "terrorists", according to a design by Henry Kissinger - among others.

    "In 1949, the CIA helped set up the Italian secret armed forces intelligence unit, named SIFAR, staffed in part with former members of Mussolini's secret police. It later changed its name to SID. At the end of World War 2, a former Nazi collaborator, Licio Gelli, was facing execution for his activities during the war, but managed to escape by joining the US Army Counter-Intelligence Corps. In the 1950s, Gelli was recruited by SIFAR. Gelli was also head of the P2 Masonic Lodge in Italy, and in 1969, he developed close ties with General Alexander Haig, who was then Assistant to National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. Through this network, Gelli became chief intermediary between the CIA and General De Lorenzo, Chief of the SID."

    "The Red Brigades were a leftist Italian terrorist organization that was formed in 1970. In 1974, Red Brigade founders Renato Curcio and Alberto Franceschini were arrested. Alberto Franceschini later accused a top member of the Red Brigades, Mario Moretti, of turning them in, and that both Moretti and another leading Red Brigade member, Giovanni Senzani, were spies for the Italian and US secret services. Moretti rose up through the ranks of the Red Brigades as a result of the arrest of the two founders."

    "The Red Brigades worked closely with the Hyperion Language School in Paris, which was founded by Corrado Simioni, Duccio Berio and Mario Moretti. Corrado Simoni had worked for the CIA at Radio Free Europe, Duccio Berio had been supplying the Italian SID with information of leftist groups and Mario Moretti, apart from being accused by the Red Brigades founders as being an intelligence asset, also happened to be the mastermind and murderer of former Italian Prime Minister, Aldo Moro. An Italian police report referred to the Hyperion Language School as âoethe most important CIA office in Europe." "

    I guarantee you, behind Anders Breitvik is a NATO clandestine operation. The use of Freemasons is a good tipoff. It introduces incredulity when introduced to investigations - while actually providing a secret organisational structure and ritual omerta to enforce obedience.

    You've seen this picture, right?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:RED BRIGADES? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The Mitrokhin Archive has very good documentation of KGB, Stasi and other Soviet Bloc manipulation of the Leftist movements in NATO countries.

    2. Re:RED BRIGADES? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2
      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:RED BRIGADES? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Take it easy Francis. The CIA is either the largest collection of incompetents on the planet or the smartest depending on who you talk too. It's probably a mixture because they have to get lucky once and awhile. The KGB has always been better at infiltrating the US then the CIA efforts of infiltrating Russia. Russia's tightly controlled society was always harder to infiltrate when compared against the relatively open US society. But claiming a handful of Americans can carry out the amount of manipulation needed to bring down an entire country is an exaggeration supported with shallow inferences with a touch of conspiracy theory added for flavor. Their large scale operations would never succeed if the countries leadership and political leaders they were trying to manipulate did not acquiesce and carry out the actual policies supported by the CIA. Forcing country wide changes would have to come down the CIA "do it this way or ELSE" with the "ELSE" usually meaning the money tap gets turned off. On the original qeustion I think any security service is capable of infiltrating any of these groups. It would not even be that hard to do. However I think the government security services will more likely just keep an eye on these groups because they have not really caused to much trouble. I'm sure the government has their hands full with other more important cyber based attacks that require more than SQL Injection or negligent system admins several security patches behind.

  40. umm by superwiz · · Score: 1

    KGB has not existed for about 20 years now.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  41. What for? by Aceticon · · Score: 1

    The only reason for a sovereign power to infiltrate an organisation made mostly of script-kiddy types that is mostly shaming private companies is to stop them.

    Russians (and Chinese) almost certainly have their own info-espionage groups which are bound to be just as good as the best LulzSec types only much better funded and with access to things such as Windows source code, info on government mandated backdoors on software and hardware, custom hardware (think USB sticks with custom firmware or even PLAs for brute force hacking into WiFi networks), inside information obtained by good old field-work (think everything from physical violence & blackmail to pillow-talk) and even physical delivery of anything anywhere in the world (think dropping custom USB flash disks in the parking lot of a company you want to hack into).

    The only reason this people might have to infiltrate the likes of LulzSec is to stop them from showing to the world some low-hanging-fruit-security-hole or other they might be exploiting to get access to some basic info.

  42. FOREIGN powers. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Its all ok while cia does it and shits around then ....

  43. Bullshit! Damn "security" experts trying to justify their salaries with bogus fears about foreign governments. Especially this crap about the Soviet Union manipulating social movements.

  44. CNDers Were Fun To Watch by DougF · · Score: 1

    They were camped outside of RAF Upper Heyford for years. We used to read their chalkboard sign that they would post the Slogan Of The Week on. Usually it was good for a laugh or two. The camp slowly dwindled down to one old guy in a ramshackle camper. The only serious incident happened when the CNDers got enough people to have a protest that would be covered by the Press (I think it was their annual march). They approached the fence surrounding the base, cut enough links to shove a baby through, and then screamed at the top of their lungs, trying to fool the MOD police into cutting the rest of the fence so the mother could reclaim her baby. The idea was to rush the fence at that point, overwhelm the MOD police, and then run about the base, causing mayhem and havoc (and getting good press). They were foiled when the MOD police picked up the baby (the screams really ratcheted up then), and took it around to the nearest gate to hand back to the mom.

    --
    Impetuous! Homeric!
  45. Re:NuclearCognitive Winter valid concept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, try reading the book. The Soviets were engaging in a FUD campaign in an attempt to keep NATO from placing nukes in western Europe. Some people were willing to believe it because of their inherent fear of a nuclear war. Others were willing to scrutinize the theory and saw gaping holes in it. As smart as some people are doesn't mean they know everything. Having a PhD only means that other PhDs thought your thesis was well-presented.

  46. How many cats can KGB herd if KGB could herd cats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with that KGB!

  47. Replace spies with terrorists and you have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice the wording of the article. Replace spies/KGB with terrorists, Hamas, AQ...but of course it would be politically incorrect for them to say it outright, so they said KGB. Anyone noticed Sabu's icon on the Tweeters lately? And why else would that Jester guy be so opposed to them? He generally only targets terrorists and their affiliates. You people are smart or you would not be reading /. Always remember to look beyond the obvious meaning of things.

    -Jigs

  48. Could the KGB infiltrate LulzSec? by moneybabylon · · Score: 1

    Have you considered the (not unlikely) possibility LulzSec was Russian intelligence to start with?

  49. The summer of love by doccus · · Score: 1

    Was most assuredly a leftist plot

  50. Useful idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KGB always had what is called useful idiots - those communist, leftist, activist movements those destroy their own countries. It is not necessary to have them on the leash. Sophisticated cultural indoctrination is enough - and useful idiots will do everything you dreamed about.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

  51. Headline - stoopider then stoopid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

    So could the La Leche League of Breast-feeding Mothers

    So could the Church of Scientology

    So could the Mid-South Ugandan Underwater Tiddlywinks Association

    Sheesh!