Anonymous Breaches Another US Defense Contractor

JohnBert sends this excerpt from and IDG report: "The politically oriented hacking group Anonymous has released 1GB of what it says are private e-mails and documents from an executive of a U.S. defense company that sells unmanned aerial vehicles to police and the U.S. military. The documents were publicized in a post on Pastebin, with links leading to the actual material on another website. The material purportedly belongs to Richard Garcia, a senior vice president at Vanguard who was a U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent for 25 years. Anonymous took special delight in the breach, as Garcia is director of InfraGard, an organization that liaises between private sector companies and the FBI. A group affiliated with Anonymous called LulzSecurity, or LulzSec, breached and defaced one of InfraGard's websites belonging to its Atlanta chapter in June."

Comments

Why?

[i kan reed]

One thing that I've increasingly lost track of is why people would put themselves in so much risk to attack these organizatoins. The pathos reminds me of suicide bombers, throwing their own lives away to attack a group they don't like. What anonymous doesn't have in common with those people is crippling poverty and religious conviction, that are given as the underlying cause. I don't understand the mentality involved here.

Re:Why?

[Opportunist]

Ya know, George Washington wasn't really starving either...

Re:Why?

[TehNoobTrumpet]

They do it because they think it's funny. For the lulz, or whatnot. I certainly see the humour in a bunch of mostly inexperienced people cracking into the data of a security firm. If legal action was taken against individuals involved, I wouldn't be able to guess if any future attacks would be happening.

Re:Why?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect that most of anonymous/lulzsec score low on the religious convictions metric; but they probably score quite high on some combination of 'feeling of invulnerability/untraceability'(whether well founded or not) and 'political conviction that going down the road of myriad sinister quasi-private spooks is a bad thing'...

You don't actually have to be an impoverished nutjob clinging to the crudest flavors of some barbarous Abrahamic death-cult to take ideologically motivated risks.

Re:Why?

[couchslug]

That's the only way left so expect it to become "normal". Peaceful change won't happen so anyone wanting to fight must do so under less-traditional conditions using less-traditional methods.

When an opponent has overwhelming conventional forces, the only to negate that deterrence is to refuse to be deterred.

Food for thought:
This is the least expensive way to fight. The effort to PRESERVE ones troops can become a handicap.

Re:Why?

[JoshuaZ]

What anonymous doesn't have in common with those people is crippling poverty and religious conviction, that are given as the underlying cause. I don't understand the mentality involved here.

Actually, many of the suicide bombers don't have crippling poverty. They are more likely to be literate and have college degrees than the general populations from which they spring. One fact that might be particularly interesting to Slashdot is that there's a disproportionate number of terrorists who are engineers. See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html and http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/at-work/tech-careers/why-are-terrorists-often-engineers. There's an associated idea known as the Salem Hypothesis which is the observation that in the US, anti-evolution proponents with advanced degrees are disproportionately engineers - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis). Engineers in the United States are also more politically conservative and religious than scientists. There's something weird going on here. But regardless, attributing "crippling poverty" as a major part of why people engage in suicide bombing seems to be off.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand that our government throws tons of money at these contractors and we don't get any results from all that money?

They're clearly showing how useless these defense contractors are at security.

It's called a check on how our tax dollars are being improperly spent on the incompetence of these security "specialists".

I hardly see this as a pathos, tunnelvision more please.

Re:Why?

[AHuxley]

People in 1940's-90's Eastern Europe risked loss of work, jail time i.e. "throwing their own lives away" for telling jokes or joining a peace groups, asking questions about loved ones, handing out a pamphlet...
With Romas/COIN now Odyssey - peace group is joke on you.

Re:Why?

[EvilStein]

Low hanging fruit.

I wish they'd take out that Red Light Camera scam company called Redflex and ATS. Do something useful, lulzkids.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Engineers could be more likely to observe and then conclude that something is designed when in fact it isn't at all. Ie. Everything that falls within the realm of biology (well other than genetic engineering)

Re:Why?

[obarthelemy]

Actually, they are performing a service for the community: I'd much rather have security loopholes exposed in peacetime (well, relative peace) by Anonymous et seq. than exploited by more shadowy organizations and/or governments, especially by surprise during a serious war.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet you still hang out and read our stuff...

Re:Why?

[drinkypoo]

One thing that I've increasingly lost track of is why people would put themselves in so much risk to attack these organizatoins.

Yeah, it's almost like they lack all common sense.

Re:Why?

[drobety]

I lose track of how strapping dynamite sticks around your torso to kill people and blow up stuff is the same as anonymously (i.e. NO intention of being caught I'm sure) and giddily hacking into a web site and releasing information -- which might or might not be of public interest.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Anonymous = Founding Fathers?

If this is what you got out of that comment, you are officially too stupid to use Slashdot.

Re:Why?

[JustNiz]

I'm thinking because of their focus and achievements they can hardly be the picture you paint, kindof inexperienced skript kiddies just doing it for lolz.

It seems to me its much more likely they are actually a well-educated group at least funded by, if not set up by a competitive government or terrorist organisation.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

/b/ not your personal army

Re:Why?

[hawkinspeter]

So are you posting anonymously because you are one of anonymous or to discredit them?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously equating the actions of these jackasses with those who were under the brutal oppression of Communism?

Next thing you know, Obama will be comparing himself to Martian Luther King...oh...wait.

Re:Why?

[jeffmeden]

I lose track of how strapping dynamite sticks around your torso to kill people and blow up stuff is the same as anonymously (i.e. NO intention of being caught I'm sure) and giddily hacking into a web site and releasing information -- which might or might not be of public interest.

Do you think suicide bombers have an intention of getting caught? While certainly the outcome is wildly different, that doesn't stop the mentality from being similar. Anon doesnt do anything for their own gain nor do they do anything that they intend to be "under the radar" so their entire mission (at least from the public's perspective) is to carry out visually stunning acts upon those that they have a disagreement with... In the end, they do face incredibly serious consequences (certainly not comparable to death but life-shattering nonetheless.)

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the same idiot from up above who doesn't understand how comparison works?

One time, I walked across the street. I hear Martin Luther King also walked across the street once. OH SHIT I JUST SAID I'M EXACTLY THE SAME AS MARTIN LUTHER KING IN EVERY WAY

Re:Why?

[i kan reed]

Yes, that's absolutely true, but washington was an aristocrat, who already had power, authority, and wealth. The founding fathers parallel doesn't work well either, beause that had some underlying similarity to a coup. There was a power structure in the colonies that was fuctionally(by way of distance) independent of the government, and thus ripe for rebellion. I honestly don't think there's ever been a non-fictional organization with the same nature as anonymous.

Re:Why?

[i kan reed]

The similarity is they are striking a monolithic government in an illegal way. Just because one is brutal and violent doesn't removing the underlying similarity in the tactics. Individuals without organizational support enaging in private war against a government. The mentaility is similar, not identical.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading in Super Freakonomics that actually suicide bombers tend to come from better off middle class backgrounds, are often well educated and living well above the poverty line. The theory was that the absolute poorest are too busy putting food on the table to be idealistic, while once you have enough that you are comfortable, your mind starts turning to philosophy/religion and the reasons why there is disparity in society. Sounds to me like Anonymous falls into this bracket nicely, they probably come from reasonably well off middle class background so they have a liberal-mindedness coupled with just enough technology to think they can get away with trying to redress the balance.

Re:Why?

[hierophanta]

yes, anonymous = revolutionaries = founding fathers.

your presence here is making the community worse, please leave

Re:Why?

[delinear]

I agree - it's interesting that all the talk is always about what they're going to do to shut down Anonymous/Lulsec and nothing about what they're going to do to beef up security so that when a genuine threat appears they can't just drive a truck through the security loopholes. I'm not saying Anon is right, but removing them from the equation alone isn't going to fix the problem.

Re:Why?

[Press2ToContinue]

it's for the lulz. they do it BECAUSE it's dangerous. same as jumping out of a plane - it's dangerous, and if ur smart u can keep doing it. Erog, it's proof of elite intelligence, with bragging rights, et al. Tarzans beating their chests, 2011-style. Blame it on testosterone, and addicting adrenaline rushes.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

./ get your ass back to /b/ dipshit

Re:Why?

[drobety]

Do you think suicide bombers have an intention of getting caught?

Oh you! "Caught" as in "put oneself in harm's way". Hackers I am sure want to stay out of harm. Also, I see hackers who release creepy government or corporate secrets as working toward a freer society, where free flow of information is a requirement. I just can't see blowing random people and stuff as having such a higher purpose, and less so when it is done in the name of some dogmas with built-in censorship. So associating hackers with suicide bombers doesn't ring well to me. I even find the attempt at association a bit suspicious.

Re:Why?

[X0563511]

I'm pretty sure that putting explosives on your person with the intent of detonating them (while still on your person) indicates that they expect to die*.

Anonymous doesn't even expect to get caught, let alone die for it.

* I'm not talking about those poor kids who are being tricked/coerced into doing it. They don't do it willingly (or are entirely mislead and don't expect to die).

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What anonymous doesn't have in common with those people is crippling poverty and religious conviction"

Wow, you know the religious details and the financial situation of Anonymous?
Call the Feds then.

Re:Why?

[SuricouRaven]

It's largely luck. If you have a thousand script kiddies all screwing around with half an idea of what they are doing, there is a chance that one of them will have the luck to stumble upon a weakness they can exploit. Lulzsec were rather more sophisticated than is generally the case with Anonymous though.

Re:Why?

[GameboyRMH]

It seems to me its much more likely they are actually a well-educated group at least funded by, if not set up by a competitive government or terrorist organisation.

You're giving them more lulz!

Re:Why?

[TehNoobTrumpet]

This is definitely a possibility, but from interacting with supposed participants in Anonymous and such attacks, I'm more inclined to believe that these security firms are really that incompetent. Maybe a well established sense of cynicism at the U.S. government is contributing to my judgement there xD

Re:Why?

[SuricouRaven]

Just throwing out a wild guess with no evidence behind it, but could it be because engineers are less able to hold simutainous contradictory beliefs? Most religious believers have to some extent an ability to ignore large parts of their holy book - they can believe that all nonbelievers are going to burn in hell while simutainously advocating religious freedom for all, as an example. They can ignore the sections of the book that command the stoning of adulterers. They can talk about the sacredness of the one-man-one-woman marriage while paying no attention to the frequent polygamous marriages of the old testament that God endorsed. Engineers are trained to think in black and white - either a fact is true, or it isn't. It can't be true while you are in the church and false as soon as you step out the doors. So when they read the bit where the holy book says to destroy those who worship at false idols, that is exactly what they do.

Re:Why?

[microbox]

While certainly the outcome is wildly different, that doesn't stop the mentality from being similar.

You mean, not conforming to existing power structures? You would have done well in Nazi Germany. Very conformist.

Re:Why?

[Hatta]

Because it's the only power they have to effect any kind of change.

Re:Why?

[synapse7]

Who's to say they are not starving?

Re:Why?

[Bob9113]

One thing that I've increasingly lost track of is why people would put themselves in so much risk to attack these organizatoins.

I suspect that is because you are doing it wrong. When you find some people's actions to be irrational, you can do one of two things: Form an opinion that they must be crazy, judging them by your perceptions and values, and start telling others they cannot be rational, pointing out the bits that you see as inconsistent. Or, you can operate on the assumption that for people to do something so alien to your way of thinking there must be some motive and seek to understand what that might be.

You are taking the first approach, which can only ever lead to estrangement. This practice is common. For example, it is often encouraged by nationalists regarding enemies of the state or by political parties in a two-party system seeking to reinforce the duopoly. If your objective is to remain confused and upset, or to keep others so, that is the right thing to do -- but then I somewhat wonder what you are doing here. We're not really much on ostriches here. Lots of illusions get shattered here. Which only leaves the motive of influencing others to fail to understand, which seems dickish.

If you take the latter approach, it really seems like it is not that hard to understand why these people are doing this. You haven't mentioned any of the reasons that people might do this, so it really seems like you are not trying to get it. That seems odd to me. If you are not trying to understand them, why submit a post that makes that fact so apparent? It is not very impressive -- it is far easier to not understand non-standard people than to understand them. Again the only good reason I can come up with is wanting to influence others to share your lack of understanding, rather than a genuine expression of your personal desire to understand.

crippling poverty and religious conviction, that are given as the underlying cause.

While those things are often given as the underlying cause, they are not always so. Religion, sure, sometimes. Crippling poverty is much less often the true motive (never?).

Typically (always?) when poverty is cited, the true motivation is a perception of bias in the distribution of money and/or power. Poor people very rarely incite revolution if those in power are just as poor and have no ability to change things. Really it wouldn't make much sense, would it? More often they are attacking a system in which they perceive an unhealthy concentration of wealth and/or power.

You have pointed out, probably correctly, that the members of anonymous are less likely to be focused on the money side. That can be seen somewhat in the fact that they use advanced technology that implies some degree of affluence (relative to global monetary distribution), but even more so in their choice of targets -- almost all (at least in recent months) have been about power.

So: Can you see any kind of power imbalance between the kinds of people that might be in Anonymous and a guy who is a liaison between the FBI and private sector companies that sell high-tech devices? Have you heard any stories in the past 10 years that might make some people perceive an increasing misdirection of concentrated power. or of an increase in the degree of concentration of power?

P.S.:

As I go through and edit the above, I am struck by another thought. This is well documented. The notion that people don't just do things like Anonymous is doing, given the risk of their actions, for no reason. And it is one of my all-time favorite sentences:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

If it seems like Anonymous is doing something way out of the ordinary, that is because they are. If the goal is to use the mechanisms of society to destroy them, then keeping people confused and upset is a fine (if disingenuous) path to that end. If the goal is to understand them, it is not hard.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying Anonymous are funded by a government or organization to attack servers is like saying hippies were funded by a government or terrorists to get together and smoke pot.

Anon is a culture. It's people who stand for some principles and who are willing to defend these principles. They don't necessarily ALL share the same principles, just like all hippies did not smoke pot, but in general they have a lot in common, hence why they get together.
Anyone can opt in and out of Anon at any time. You don't need much money to start hacking. You don't need to be an expert either. You can just hang around on websites where 'members' of Anon hang around too, get to know some of them, then plot an attack together.

There is no evidence to suggest Anon works for anyone, and moreover Anon has no need to be guided by a bigger group. They don't need money, they don't need help selecting targets. I'm not saying a government can't 'infiltrate' Anon (i.e. pretend to be just another average Anon guy) and suggest a few targets, hoping others will follow, but if such a group could select the majority of Anon's targets in this fashion, then that group would necessarily compose the majority off Anon. In essence, that group would be Anon.
The USA need to realize something: every government is not out to get them. And if these attacks were organized by one of the USA's enemies, like Iran, then they would not hack for e-mails, they'd go for information on how to build weapons. The USA also need to realize that they are now a tyranny, that they are comparable to Nazi Germany, and that this is necessarily going to piss people off and make them want to resist somehow. People have always resisted oppression, and this is no different.

It's also sad that when Americans see Arabs take arms against their own government, Americans immediately call it a revolution against tyranny. But when the same thing happens in the USA, except instead of an armed conflict it's an electronic one (i.e. it is much less violent), Americans call it terrorism or vigilantism.

Re:Why?

[tnk1]

In fairness, it was stated pretty clearly that the events of the New Testament trump the laws of the Old Testament. So, although some Christian sects do heavily promote a distinctly Old Testament worldview, they are really pushing a number of rules and ideas that were were officially deprecated by the issuing authority in the latest edition of the standard.

I'm surprised that more people don't take the fire and brimstone people to task over that.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is a wannabe rebel?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Anonymous = Founding Fathers? Way to show the world that username "Opportunist" has a skull full of pig shit.

I've said for years that geek filth are a bunch of pampered Western wannabe rebels, and your idiot sentiment just proves it.

Moron.

Yes, a bunch of pampered Western wannabe rebels - just like the Founding Fathers.

Re:Why?

[INT_QRK]

Either way, neither political nor personal disagreement is a moral justification for crime. Today they may disagree and target someone you also don't like, the next day they or someone else might also disagree with you. I hope the justice system finds and holds these criminals to proper account.

Re:Why?

[Mr. Freeman]

It has nothing to do with luck. All the script kiddies in the world won't be able to get into a server unless it hasn't been patched in 5 years or the root password is "password".
Lulzsec, anonymous, etc. are all structured the same way. There's a huge group of extremely vocal script kiddies and a very small group of people who actually know what they're doing. The script kiddies are the ones running tools like LOIC to ddos websites and making statements to the press. This serves little purpose except to distract everyone from what the real hackers are doing. These are the ones that get arrested because even the most incompetent investigator can figure out who is sending a bajillion HTTP requests to a web server.

The people who actually know what they're doing don't get caught because, well, they know what they're doing. These people take the time to research their target, identify possible methods of attack, and then plan what they're going to do. They don't just attempt to break into random servers with whatever the vulnerability of the month happens to be and then somehow stumble across a metric shitload of confidential information.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very obvious conclusion here is that engineers think that world and human beings were engineered.

Re:Why?

[Gideon Wells]

Hmm, reminds me of another study I saw. It's premise was that suicide bombs tended to be middle class. The poor were too busy "living" to get serious enough about their faith to actually die for it. The middle class had the time and money to sit around and become "serious" enough in their faith to see suicidal blaze of martyrdom as a good thing.

Query: How many engineers tend to be middle class and lacking wives/kids?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not like suicide bombers at all.

A suicide bomber throws his life away - even when he succeeds. (And if he don't, he either gets shot or blows up only himself.)

Not so with anonymous. If they succeed, they take no damage. And usually not when they fail either. When they fail, they merely get no material of interest - and perhaps they loose access to the compromised third-party system from which they were attacking. Only rarely do they get caught.

They are much more like a superpower that fly over simpler people and drop a smart bomb from time to time. Sometimes they achieve what they want, sometimes they miss - but they take no damage themselves either way.

The mindset? Using advanced techniques, they can achieve what they want with very little personal risk. Not hard to understand. And even if they get caught, it probably won't be violent.

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

"The USA also need to realize that they are now a tyranny, that they are comparable to Nazi Germany, and that this is necessarily going to piss people off and make them want to resist somehow. People have always resisted oppression, and this is no different." You are a fucking idiot. Your moral equivalency arguments denigrate and minimize the true horrors that existed during the Nazi era as well as the atrocities taking place across the world today. We have already reached the point where people honestly believe that Gaza and the West Bank mimic the conditions of Auschwitz death camps and ethnic cleansing is taking place. Ethnic cleansing is supposed to reduce the population of the target group but the Palestinians have increased their population 5 fold over the past 20 years. If ethnic cleansing is happening the perpetrators need a new washing machine. The US is called fascist and totalitarian which lets the truly totalitarian governments in the world off the hook for the atrocities they commit on a daily basis. Atrocities they do not even attempt to hide while telling anyone who complains to fuck off and mind their own business. The US has been and still is the country that the people living under true tyranny go to extremes to migrate to. Last time I checked there were no US military tanks rolling down main street threatening people with arrest and death because they want to openly state an opinion on the government. I have not seen any online bloggers or activists being arrested or prevented from publishing their opinions complain about the government.I have mot seen or heard of people being arrested in the middle of the night and made to disappear. Sadly you are not alone is creating this phenomenon of redefining history and using extreme moral equivalency, absurd conspiracy theories, and total ignorance of what the word tyranny actually means to support your short sighted and often ridicules opinions of society. The reason there is not an armed uprising in the US is because the media and people like yourself judge the entire country on the small minority of extremists on all sides of the political spectrum Any success that ANON and similar groups have achieved is not because of any technical genius on their part it is because of sloppy system admin on the sites being attacked. ANON has only exploited known vulnerabilities that have been patched for over a year. If they were really smart they would realize that hunting them down is child's play for groups like the NSA no matter how many proxies or data encryption keys they hide behind. So far they have just not been worth the effort. If the US was a tyranny these guys would already be either in jail or dead. Investigate what happens to people caught creating online vandalism or complaining about their government in countries like Iran, Syria, and N. Korea.

Re:Why?

[wierd_w]

I disagree. There are very important times where one should disobey the government. (Aka, break the law/comit a crime).

At the risk of a godwin, the nazi inquiries about jewish persons living in the neighborhood are a very strong example. (Note, that is all the further down that hole I want to go. I am NOT IMPLYING that any current government is nazi like, only that the historical existence of that government style sinks your argument. There *are* times when it is morally justified to comit crimes.)

Weather or not anonymous is pulling a godwin is not discernable at this time, but that is not relavent. Anon's motives are likely too disperate to properly describe anyway. All that matters here ia that they are doing this, and what the consequences will be.

Rather than asking why anon is doing these things, we should be asking why the government is reacting the way it is.

Re:Why?

[Majik Sheff]

Congratulations on insulting both engineers and the average religious person.

Perhaps the reason for the disproportionate number of creationist engineers has to do with the fact that engineers spend their waking hours combating entropy. They understand better than just about anyone exactly how unlikely the spontaneous formation of life really is.

Re:Why?

[Mashiki]

Yeah, except most suicide bombers when these things start out are well educated, and affluent.

Re:Why?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

AC is right! Here's the corrected statement:

So Anonymous == Founding Fathers?

Re:Why?

[Xaositecte]

They both share the core concept of being angry, disorganized young people (usually men) desperately searching for a purpose in life, who can be easily whipped up into a frenzy by someone charismatic. Attacking the "bad" people without regard to consequences is MUCH easier than actually building yourself up through hard work, study, etc. The actual leaders are often insulated by virtue of being better at hiding their tracks, or simply not taking a direct role in the attacks at all.

The main difference is the members of Anonymous don't believe they're going to get caught, so they don't need the level of despair it would take to convince someone to willingly commit suicide.

Re:Why?

[diersing]

While I agree they are of the well-educated variety, what makes you think they are setup or funded by a terrorist organization or government?

Their objectives don't seem consistent with those of terrorists and if funded by a government, I would think they'd be keeping a much lower profile. They seem to me to be exactly what they advertise to be, hacktivists.

Most of their targets (with any group that hides it's identity, you'll have rogues) have an easily identifiable reason/policy that would draw the ire of reasonably-minded people (PayPay stopping Wikileaks payments, Facebook's privacy practices, and BART's shooting/cell phone blocking come to mind). I just don't see the benefit of terrorists or a foreign government making those topics their focus for covert attacks.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unlikely"??? .... UNLIKELY?!

As opposed to a singular, supernatural (by definition, no less), omnipotent, omniscient entity which demonstrates the very epitome of conceited, megalomaniacal, obsessive-compulsive caprice and simultaneous apathy and hypocrisy?

On the front page of /. there is right now a story about fossils possibly dating to -billions- of years of age, and you and I (forms of life) are here to discuss them. But you know who is conspicuously absent from this discussion about Life, the Universe and Everything? The very same all-knowing, all-loving, infinitely-merciful, all-powerful entity who claims to care so very much about what we think and feel... so much so that he threatens the most extreme punishment imaginable (or unimaginable) for failure to take his word for "what really happened". He cares so much about what we think about him, and yet embodies (or is it... disembodies?) every virtue (which themselves only he has the authority to define...). Which would not include, I hope, the despotic horrors of thought-police, legalism, torture, genocide and ego-centrism.

You'd better believe, against all evidence, against all intuition, against everything we know about how the universe actually works, you'd better believe that the world (indeed, the universe!) is somewhere around 6k years old and that whatever contrary proof you may find is simply a (loving) test of your faith, or else you'll spend the rest of eternity in unimaginable suffering.

And he loves you.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here I just figured that it was more one the following two things:
1) Engineers are 'better' at it, that is, they have the know-how to design and perpetrate such an act. (Create the needed parts, etc.)
2) Engineers are more apt to see a problem and attempt to 'fix' it than normal people, its just what we do.

Re:Why?

[Majik Sheff]

*sigh* There's a reason I went to the effort of using the word unlikely instead of the word impossible. The trolls are thick lately and I fear I just fed one.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I never really thought of that. But, now that I do, I remember my one crazy religion teacher from Catholic high school (by the way, she was *way* more zealous than the priests or nuns):

"We're supposed to teach you that, as long as you are truly sorry, God will forgive you. But I don't believe it. I don't think it's fair that I spend my life avoiding sin but a sinful person can get the same reward as long as they're sorry enough. So I have decided, it's not true. "

Keep in mind, the Pope is also never wrong (according to her), even though he (referencing John Paul here) repeatedly said that any sin could be forgiven. Class with her was like trying to divide by zero.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) run every anonymous story hot and heavy, constantly highlight risk to US citizens of information from cyber attacks

2) take down facebook
(america shits a brick)

3) pass strict new "patriot" laws governing acceptable internet usage, facebook restored, "national emergency" over

4) profit, big time

Re:Why?

[badboy_tw2002]

Why bother arguing with someone like the GP? The people that go to the lengths necessary to justify hyperbole like "USA == NAZIs!, one in the same!" obviously have some other need or fulfillment being met by such statements, and have worked themselves into a corner that any example of authoritarian abuse proves the point. You can't win such an argument because anyone believing such a ridiculous statement can't possibly be reasoned with. The same goes for the other end of the political spectrum: there's a point of irrationality you don't come back from with logic, or if you do its only to flip completely to the other side. If this guy wasn't shouting "USA == NAZIS" he'd be shouting "USA == LANDING PAD FOR JESUS, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT". Really just depends on life experience and who his parents were, the genetics are going to push him to one end or the other.

Re:Why?

[MarkvW]

Anonymous as an agent for change?

That's a joke. They're nothing more than vandals.

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

I try my best to stay far away from either extreme and I probably should not have responded to the post but I can only take so much blatant idiocy and end up losing my temper sometimes.

Re:Why?

[Grygus]

Your choice of the word implies that the alternative is not unlikely; it's not trolling to point out that this is flawed.

Re:Why?

[GooberToo]

The fact that you're confused between revolutionaries and founding fathers and thumping your chest about it wonderfully highlights just how far down slashdot has fallen. There is a world of difference between "founding father" and revolutionaries. The so fucking disgusting and pathetic you don't know the difference.

your presence here is making the community worse, please leave

Please understand what it is you said. Now realize you are projecting and that slashdot absolutely would be better if you left. So yes, please leave. Its probably your only chance to ever make the world a better place.

Re:Why?

[Grygus]

To be fair, there have been multiple studies done that suggest most of us would have done well in Nazi Germany. The truly horrifying thing about that is that most of the people were just regular folks. There is no Nazi gene; we're all capable of such things, regardless of what we tell ourselves. Sometimes I think the relentless vilification of Nazi Germany has robbed us of an important lesson.

Re:Why?

[stms]

I've been trying to get this point across for a while on now /. so let me take another crack at it. People need to understand that just because their beliefs aren't founded religion doesn't inherently make their beliefs better/worse or even more/less crazy than those founded in religion. Look at Nazism it was founded in some of the best science of the time. Personally I'm an atheist but that doesn't mean I don't need to completely understand then carefully consider what I believe in. The truth is it's much easier to believe in what someone tells you to believe in rather than to figure out this world for yourself. This is what allows religion (Republicans) and Democrats to get away with everything they get away with. It's also what makes seemingly intelligent people do crazy things.

Re:Why?

[he-sk]

Just throwing out a wild guess with no evidence behind it, but could it be because engineers are less able to hold simutainous contradictory beliefs?

No. Knowing that people hold contradictory beliefs doesn't stop anybody from holding contradictory beliefs themselves. It's how we're wired.

Re:Why?

[he-sk]

The law does not define what is right and what is wrong. Only people can do that. If you think a law is unjust -- and are prepared to live with the consequences (!) -- then it is morally imperative to defy and break the law.

Re:Why?

[he-sk]

Lots of illusions get shattered here.

I have apparently a completely different perception of Slashdot than you do. People come here to have their beliefs confirmed, do they not? Either that or they come for comic relief. Why else would you go to a site that posts inflammatory summaries of articles that nobody bothers to read? It's rare to find a comment that shows as much empathy as yours.

Re:Why?

[lennier]

Anonymous as an agent for change?

That's a joke. They're nothing more than vandals.

Vandalism is change. Might not be progress, but it's change.

Sometimes, even a broken status quo is better than trying to fix things badly.

Re:Why?

[lennier]

Just throwing out a wild guess with no evidence behind it, but could it be because engineers are less able to hold simutainous contradictory beliefs?

It might also be because in their day to day jobs, engineers are actively pitted against the forces of evolution, which tend more to be destructive than creative in their sphere of experience. They use their hearts and minds to build stuff, and random undirected change does its best to knock it down. Perhaps that background makes one less likely to assume that random undirected change on its own could do better than what smarth humans are trained and employed to do - otherwise, why do engineers have a job?

Re:Why?

[lennier]

Poor people very rarely incite revolution if those in power are just as poor and have no ability to change things.

"Powerful" and "poor" are kind of opposites by definition, aren't they?

Re:Why?

[laurelraven]

There is a world of difference between "founding father" and revolutionaries.

In the literal sense, yes, that is true; however, based on the current context, the US American founding fathers, especially George Washington, were revolutionaries. That's why they called it the American Revolution.

You may not like it being compared with what is going on now, but it in not technically inaccurate.

Either that, or you're just trolling...hard to tell at the moment.

Re:Why?

[INT_QRK]

OK, I get your point, which has some obvious merit. In U.S. military justice, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) defines a concept of a "legal order or regulation," as opposed to an illegal one. Military members are required to obey all legal orders and regulations, that it is their duty to obey, under Article 92. However, if the order is illegal, one is likewise obligated to disobey, also under penalty of law of having carried out an illegal act. That said, disobeying an order or regulation is seriously non-trivial, and one had better be damned certain of ones conviction that the order was in fact illegal, vice, say, unpleasant, inconvenient, distasteful, etc., else one risks being seriously screwed.

Re:Why?

[causality]

You're right that the USA is not like Nazi Germany. We're making our own brand of tyranny. We're more like Germany during the 1920s, setting the stage for some real tyrants to move in.

Nazi Germany did things the old way. The old way means some government thug waves a gun in your face and demands that you shut up and obey. Most people can see what is wrong with being bullied and threatened and harassed and harmed bodily by thugs acting under color of law. Most people will look for ways to either resist it or to stay under the radar. That's why this is the more difficult way to enact tyranny.

We're pioneering the new way. The new way does not involve much physical force against people's bodies. It involves control of information, the ability to frame all debates concerning serious issues, and the ability to ridicule and marginalize alternative (unapproved) points of view. If what you want is compatible with Left-Right politics and mainstream thought, you stand a decent chance of being heard. If you realize that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans truly represent your interests or you want things that might mean a few monied interests make less profit (like copyright reform, legalization of marijuana, or no more pointless wars of aggression) then you're portrayed as a nutjob, a fringe lunatic, a conspiracy theorist, etc, and none of your views have any representation in major media.

From the perspective of a tyrant, the problem with the old way is that when you point a gun at someone and demand they comply, they know you are controlling them and they will hate you for it. But if you are a master of propaganda and can determine what does and does not become an "issue" in the media, those who support you are making the best choices they could make based on the (artificially limited) information available to them. They think their decisions and affiliations are really their own original ideas. The fact that there is so little diversity of thought and philosophy just makes them feel like their favorite ideas are the only correct ones. People who can't see past this will embrace their controllers.

If the US was a tyranny these guys would already be either in jail or dead.

If the US is a smart tyranny, these guys will be used as an excuse to pass more laws regulating the use of the Internet and giving government more surveillance powers over same.

Investigate what happens to people caught creating online vandalism or complaining about their government in countries like Iran, Syria, and N. Korea.

This requires very little investigation to understand. They create martyrs and eventually erode their own ability to control. Smart tyrants don't do that. Those are the actions of rank amateurs, small-time bullies who have control at this moment but not in any long-term sense.

The USA is not a military dictatorship. It is a corporatocracy or a plutocracy. As such, we have the very best, finest tyrants money can buy. Our tyranny is different. It is subtle. It is soft. When the average person doesn't know anything except what the TV tells them is important, and thinks that broadening their horizons and learning new things would be a terrible burden, well then the matter is sealed.

The reason you don't think the USA is headed towards tyranny is that the rulers (not the ones you see on C-SPAN but the ones behind the scenes, the real decision-makers who don't like the limelight, the old-money families who put Presidents into office, the ones who make and break legislators and judges) of the USA actually study history and they actually learn from it. They know that when a dictator rules by the sword, they eventually die of old age and the nation plunges into utter chaos or they get overthrown and are usually replaced by someone at least as bad (cf. Battista and Castro in Cuba). They know that openly ruling with an iron fist invites resistence. They have seen what happens

Re:Why?

[microbox]

You just made my point, but in a different way. Conformity is part of the human condition, and so is jingoism and authoritarianism. I believe that we should call them out for what they are.

Re:Why?

[causality]

*sigh* There's a reason I went to the effort of using the word unlikely instead of the word impossible. The trolls are thick lately and I fear I just fed one.

With that you just dismissed a truly thoughtful and elegant post. It's too bad it was an AC. I would like to have at least known what the author calls themselves.

There's something in it I recognize. Whoever wrote that post respects the subject enough to have put a lot of thought into it. In all likelihood they have also invested time and energy into searching for real meaning and the view with which it could be interpreted and understood. You can also sense some hurt or some woundedness in it. Even exceptional trolls have difficulty faking that.

You didn't feed a troll. You inspired a thinking person. At first glance they can look similar.

Re:Why?

[Yosho-sama]

I think what this whole Anonymous situation is saying is that you don't need to be an elite hacker to break into a website with top secret information on it. All you really need is a set of instructions a lemur could follow.

It doesn't matter that Anonymous isn't sophisticated, what matters is that they're effective.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have mot seen or heard of people being arrested in the middle of the night and made to disappear."

Then you have not been reading the news. CIA has been kidnapping and torturing hundreds of europeans, for example in Poland.

Iraq war alone killed 3 million people. And keeps killing hundreds every month. And that's not the only illegal war of aggression over resources USA has launched and is waging. But whatever.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In your list of countries at the end of your incoherent ramblings, you forgot to mention Saudi Arabia, Egypt under Mubarak, Libya under Qaddafi, Iraq under Saddam, Chile under Pinochet, etc, etc.

Why is that?

Maybe because all of them were (and some still are) loyal puppets of your good ol' USA.

Count the deaths and unnecessary suffering caused by all these dictatorships over the many years that they were in power and you might see that "moral equivalency" to the number deaths and unnecessary suffering caused in WWII.

By the way, if the US could catch them they would be in jail (or dead), just like Bradley Manning who is being tortured while in solitary confinement. This guy is a hero, or at least he would be if he was a Chinese dissident in China.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever decide to hit enter, I'll consider reading your post. :P

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that I've increasingly lost track of is why people would put themselves in so much risk to attack these organizatoins. The pathos reminds me of suicide bombers, throwing their own lives away to attack a group they don't like. What anonymous doesn't have in common with those people is crippling poverty and religious conviction, that are given as the underlying cause. I don't understand the mentality involved here.

for the LULZ!!! duhhh

Re:Why?

[sprint907]

and he needs money!!!

Re:Why?

[ticktickboom]

its quite simple, their exposing liars that are held in the public trust. you know, the people who screw us over, outta another tax dollar. then lie when the reason is asked.

Re:Why?

[xtieburn]

Theyre the only ones who can get the bombs working...

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

Why should I give 2 shits about what happens in Poland or anywhere else for that matter? The international community have made their animosity towards the US very clear. I see no reason the US should not return the favor. The discussion was about US citizens being subjected to tyrannical domestic rule. "

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

"you forgot to mention Saudi Arabia, Egypt under Mubarak, Libya under Qaddafi, Iraq under Saddam, Chile under Pinochet" I provided a few examples hoping someone with intelligence could identify the others. "loyal puppets of your good ol' USA" This is the BS excuse everyone uses to avoid taking responsibility for their own incompetence and failures. One example. The US is constantly accused of bringing down the government in Iran back in 1953. However, it was the British who were fighting with the Iranian government at the time over the nationalization of the oil infrastructure that England had built over the years. They sent a Navvy task force to prevent Iran from exporting any oil to pressure the Iranian government to reverse course on nationalizing their assets. So what part did the US play to bring down the Iranian leader? I want details not speculative bullshit based on innuendo, theories, and possibilities. Did they kill anyone who disagreed? Did they mass troops at the Iranian border? Did they launch air strikes? In order for that government to fall it required a substantial number of Iranians working towards the same goal. If the Iranians themselves did not want this change they could have prevented it from happening. Instead I imagine the new government was offered favorable trade deals and other US assistance if the Shah was put in power and the British nationalization decision was re-considered . The US might have made the offer but the Iranians accepted the offer. This tactic has been SOP in international relationships since there were nations to have relationships with. What would have happened if the Shah had not been put in power against US wishes? Would the US have launched a war? And don't make the mistake of thinking the US military at the time was as dominate as it is today. Russia and China had large standing armies and posed the greatest threat to the US during that time period so launching a military action against Iran while still heavily engaged in Korea, Japan, and Germany was not an option. Bradley Manning broke the law and is being held responsible for his actions. He has been provided with legal counsel and will face his charges in a military court of law. He is no longer in solitary confinement and just being detained in jail does not constitute torture. He is solely responsible for throwing away his own life by making a very stupid decision. While I don't believe he deserves to spend the rest of this life in prison he does deserve some punishment if convicted.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

My point was that you only happened to identify official enemies of the US and none of its many allies who also are dictatorships. That is very convenient and when I bring it up you cowardly say "I provided a few examples hoping someone with intelligence could identify the others" Please, don't insult my, or the Slashdot reader's intelligence. It is not BS to point out US hypocrisy, however much you seem to want to.

Re. your Iran BS, it was both the US and the British who worked to overthrow the parliamentary system and impose a brutal dictator. Contrary to your ridiculous statement, the US enjoyed unparalleled power after the WWII. And I can't believe your next statement: "If the Iranians themselves did not want this change they could have prevented it from happening." Well, in 1979, the population finally overthrew the dictator and the US has been punishing Iran ever since. First it tried a military coup. Then the US supported Saddam Hussein during Iraq's invasion of Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Then, after that was over, the United States started imposing harsh sanctions on Iran.

The evidence that you seek is overwhelming...you should be asking yourself how a person who is completely free could be so indoctrinated as to not see what is in front of them. It takes effort not to see it.

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

"Please, don't insult my, or the Slashdot reader's intelligence." You have not shown any intelligence to insult yet. Your answer to my question regarding the Iranian example is the standard response which is 100% unsupported bullshit fortified with a big dose of self-righteousness. Again, what specific actions did the US take to over throw the Iranian government? Actions that are supported by facts rather than your poor attempts of analysing historical events based on your jaundiced views you evidently have indoctrinated yourself with. "US enjoyed unparalleled power after the WWII" Another fine example of your ignorance. After WW2 the US military was deployed in Germany and Japan overseeing the rebuilding of those countries while at the same time keeping the Soviet Union from grabbing more territory. China provided millions of armed peasants to fight for North Korea against UN forces with Russia supplying the arms and the first jet fighters to the North Koreans while the US was still using WW2 era propeller based aircraft. This situation required another large deployment of US military assets just to prevent a total rout. The US had an intact military after WW2 but it was already over committed to the point where the US seriously considered using nuclear weapons in Korea. The Russian military at the time was just as large and powerful as the US especially after demonstrating their own nuclear capabilities. That hardly sounds like the US was an unparalleled military power at the time. And those good ole Iranians sure got the government the wanted after the 1979 revolution didn't they? Those weekly "Death to America" rallies were a treat for the whole family weren't they? I bet you are just angry because you didn't get a chance participate in those rallies yourself. The harsh dictator they removed was definitely harsh but nobody seems to remember who he was treating harshly. Surprise, surprise, it was the religious extremists preaching Islamic rule who were constantly being targeted by the Iranian government not the average citizen in the street. The 1979 revolution was fronted by liberal university students with support from other liberal minded political groups and Islamic religious parties. However the religious parties were in the clear minority when the revolution began. The liberals who fronted the revolution decided to concentrate all their efforts on sticking the US in the eye with the hostages instead of organizing a new government to replace the Shah. The Islamic party took full advantage of this distraction and organized themselves and take control of the government themselves. Over throwing a government is relatively easy if you don't mind a few deaths but the hard part is uniting all those who brought the old government down. The Iranian revolutionaries are a good example of what can happen when you let jingoism and revolutionary fervor to override common sense. Even the revolutions in the middle east and N Africa today are following that same pattern. The Egyptian government fell and now the military is in charge and there has been no real progress made in determining the fate of a future government. Promising elections is fine but Saddam Hussein had elections all the time and he won 99% of the vote every time. There has been little of no change in Tunisia and now that Gaddafi has been brought down that country is in for one hell of a cluster fuck when they attempt to put things back together. The US only supplied Iraq with 2% of their overall military assets during their war with Iran. It was the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese who armed Saddam Hussein as well as Iran. If Iraq wanted to go war with Iran why would the US government give a damn? The Iranians had made their opinion of the US plain and clear so why would the US do anything to help them? I still don't understand the logic behind the US providing Iran with some advanced missiles towards the end of the conflict. The Iran-Iraq war was a monumental example of military incompetence on the part of Iraq and that is all that saved Iran. Although st

Re:Why?

[improfane]

There are no words to describe your posts.

Re:Why?

[improfane]

I wouldn't take heed to what he (cavreader) says. He is not making any coherent arguments and he refuses to read a history book.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh... Patriot Act is soooo close to Totalitarism.

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

Please point out one incorrect or unsupportable statement I made in the previous post.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't need to read because he has lived in "9 foreign countries over the past 25 years" and has "seen" it all ;

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, after going through your undocumented verbal diarrhea, I will back up my statement that the US had unparalleled power after WWII, which you seem to find exception to. If you cannot even admit this most basic fact, I see no reason to respond to your other baseless claims.

Here is a direct quote from George Kennan who was the head of the State Department policy planning staff in the late 1940s. He is referring to "The Grand Area", a region that was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy, which was a good chunk of the planet. In the following document, PPS23, February 1948, he outlined the basic thinking:

"We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.... We should cease to talk about vague and..., unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

Remember, at the time this was a Top Secret document so the general public did not see it. The propaganda system gave a much more benevolent version which you seem to accept. Incidentally, I quoted George Kennan because he was one of "the most thoughtful, humane, and liberal of the planners"; the others are a lot worse.

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

I don't have time to go back through the entire thread right now but I believe I was refuting your suggestion that the US military was unparalleled at the time in question which is not true. Your response here seems to concentrate on US economic power which is another matter entirely. However, backing up your argument with a statement from one policy wonk in the State Department is pretty weak. It's true the US economy was the leader of the world at the time but US military power was checked by the USSR and to some extent China after the communists took power. Because of this the US military defense expenditures had en effect on that economic power just like it does today. The relationship strategy you referenced no doubt referred to all the money and military protection the US provided to Europe and Asia after the war which helped stabilize the world economy and eventually allowed the US to increase it's economic power even further because of this policy. And they were investments first which had the added benefit of providing humanitarian assistance but if there had been no obvious or substantial economic returns expected on those investments I seriously doubt the US would have contributed as much as they did. That same basic strategy is still practiced today. If the US had not helped Europe or Asia rebuild the US economic growth potential would have been basically confined to the US domestic markets so overall it was a good strategy. Especially compared against what those morons in Europe came up with in 1919 after WW1. And finally I tend to dismiss anyone who refers to liberals, progressives, conservatives, communists, socialists, or any other politically ideology when discussing historical events. You can debate and interpret the "meaning" of these events from any perspective you chose but the actual events themselves should stand on their own and distorting the facts of the actual events to support a political ideology does nothing but lead to historical revisionism and ultimately ends up creating animosity based on lies and deception. One example of this historical revisionism and it's effects would be that the citizens of most middle eastern countries, and even some uninformed US, citizens actually believe they defeated Israel in the 1973 war. I have seen Egyptian schoolbooks stating as fact that Egypt and it's allies decisively defeated Israel and took back the Sinai. The fact is Israel not only defeated a well coordinated and well equipped military attack on 2 fronts they eventually ended defeating the Syrians and ended up surrounding 1000's of Egyptian troops in the Sinai desert and cutting off their supply lines which helped push Sadat into negotiations with Israel. Israel even provided water and food to the Egyptian soldiers until the situation was resolved. I seriously doubt that if the situation had been reversed there would have been a single Israeli survivor walk out of that desert.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I talking to a kindergarten kid here?

BTW, you used the world "liberal" in your own initial spew. Here is the exact line you wrote:

"The 1979 revolution was fronted by liberal university students with support from other liberal minded political groups and Islamic religious parties"

Hypocrite.

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

The fact is the revolution happened. As I stated in my post you can't change the facts with political ideology but you can interpret the event by whatever ideology you support. And it is also a that the leaders of the revolution were University students. The were not 100% responsible for the revolution of course but they got the ball rolling and were the public face of the revolution. And you still have not presented any facts of your own disputing anything I said in this thread. Your "kindergarten kid" jibe and previous insults just show the high level of personal insecurity and historical blindness you are burdened with.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I respond to your initial garbage that you have not cited? Anybody can make statements...that is easy and that is what I expect from a kindergarten kid. You have not made one attempt to show me documented evidence to back up your claims. Further, when I back up what I said using an official internal government document from an insider whose job is was to report on his observations you dismiss it as "weak". You call him a wonk and expect me to simply ignore evidence and listen to a much more credible source: you. Right. Who the hell are you? Why should I believe anything you write? That is why credible evidence is important in any claim that is made, especially if you are a nobody! Have I spelled it out enough for you? Maybe, just maybe if you get this we can move to grade 1 material.

Re:Why?

[cavreader]

So you can't produce anything to refute my statements and want me to cite sources to support my statements? This is a tech forum not a history forum and I am not writing a dissertation on the subject but if I was I could most certainly provide the sources of my information. The fact you still have not refuted even one of my statements with facts is a clear sign that you rely solely on the "facts" you read on the Internet. Facts usually disseminated by partisans of the particular cause they are trying to justify. Fact omission's, outright fabrications, and conspiracy theories is how most of these people justify their beliefs. The document you mentioned to refute ny statements is beyond reproach because it was offered up by a honest to god government official? If that's the case I assume you believe anything a government official says or do you just cherry pick those that lend credence to your particular point of view? History is constantly being used to justify and excuse actions taking place today but the history being used is often compromised and slanted to support someones particular viewpoint. The Internet is the ultimate tool when it comes to spreading dis-information to large groups of people and too many people never question this. If you go to a website that does not offer support for your beliefs you can just go hunting for one that does where you will most likely end up in an echo chamber capable of providing the justification you seek . Here is one small example of how this methodology impacts us today. I am the not trying to justify or support Israeli actions with this example. I am only using it as an example of how distorted historical facts can be used to raise the animosity level between both sides of the conflict. A large number of people rail against Israel for stealing Palestinian land and if confronted with alternate opinions they often start marching back through time looking for anything, usually anecdotal evidence, that will strengthen their point of view. However, these folks never admit that there were both Arabs and Jews living in Israel at the start of the conflict. Even before Britain the UN got involved there was a growing number of armed confrontations between the 2 sides. Confrontations that are very similar to the Shia/Sunni and tribal conflicts taking place throughout the middle east and Africa today. Today's pro-Palestinian factions never acknowledge and often minimize any facts that might interfere with their righteous indignation and attempts to demonize Israel. Facts such as Israel accepting the proposed UN boundaries in 1948 while the Arabs did not. Instead 5 Arab countries chose war to push out the Jews. A large number of Palestinian "refugees" left their homes voluntarily on the urging of the attacking Arab forces who told them the war would be over in a few days and then they could go back home. Things did not go according to plan to say the least. If the Arabs had won the world would have most likely witnessed a continuation of the slaughter the Jews faced in Germany. There would have also never been a Palestinian state created. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan would have just formalized their rule over the portions of land they were already occupying. The Palestinians are just a tool used by the defeated Arabs to fight and demonize Israel in an effort to rid themselves of the humiliation they feel from being militarily defeated by the Jews on 3 occasions. It has been tool in their arsenal that can be used to fight Israel without getting the shit kicked out of them once again which would increase that level of the humiliation they already feel from earlier defeats. Another ignored fact is that there was no Arab recognition of "Palestinians" until the early 60's in preparation to justify the 1967 war Nasser was determined to wage. The pro-Palestinian factions also avoid or dismiss the 1973 surprise attack on Israel which ended up with Israel claiming additional territory. This land was not stolen, the Arab's forfeited it due to their offensive being defeated just like 1967. Very rarely do countries that lose an offensive war get a do over. Denying the territory lost in 1973 is a direct result of their aggression and asking for it back seems a bit silly if you ask me. Now here are more statements you can refute with facts if you chose.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a tech forum not a history forum and I am not writing a dissertation on the subject but if I was I could most certainly provide the sources of my information."

But you won't, will you?

I am not participating in your nonsense anymore...bye.

I was under the impression

[ccny_anderson]

that Anonymous as a collective whole viewed LulzSec as an inferior group, and now they're being listed as affiliates? I'm sure there are some crossovers between the group but as a whole I don't think they much care for each other...

Re:I was under the impression

[Anonymous Coward]

LulzSec branched OFF from Anonymous to separate their attacks from "Anonymous" as a whole.
They are but one of the many, many sub-groups of Anonymous.

Re:I was under the impression

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah some people insist on believing that anon is a "group."

ORLY?

[Legion303]

"The politically oriented hacking group Anonymous"

Hey, guess how long it took me to realize TFA had zero credibility?

Re:ORLY?

[kevinNCSU]

Perhaps you should re-exam the axioms you cling to when dealing with Anonymous. The group is highly politically motivated and while you can spurt a bunch of ideological crap about legions and everybody acting separately in different directions according to their own interest, when you look at the group as a whole the actions line up pretty well in one direction and while not the only factor, political motivation seems to be an incredibly strong driving force for the selection of targets in the majority of cases.

Re:ORLY?

[Duradin]

When you don't have a central command and control structure the actions of anyone acting under your flag become the actions of the organization, so if someone hacks a political target for activism and says they are Anonymous, then Anonymous is a politically oriented hacking group.

Re:ORLY?

[cultiv8]

The group is highly politically motivated and while you can spurt a bunch of ideological crap about legions and everybody acting separately in different directions according to their own interest, when you look at the group as a whole the actions line up pretty well in one direction and while not the only factor, political motivation seems to be an incredibly strong driving force for the selection of targets in the majority of cases.

That is one really long sentence that doesn't say anything at all.

Re:ORLY?

[postbigbang]

Politically-oriented? WIthout a doubt, not that I disagree with their politics, rather their execution. They're using the Wikileaks formula, and using it to their advantage. They're fighting government, ranging from simple stuff like BART to embarrassing astroturfers like the USCoC. I'm guessing that they operate in a cellular-like structure that tends to isolate the group to keep it from being easily cracked. That said, at some point, even THEIR trail can be picked up. Small mistakes will eventually out them. They can out me in seconds, I'm guessing. But when they find out it's just me, they'll be disappointed. Juicier targets, however, are vulnerable.

Re:ORLY?

[Oligonicella]

If that was a snark, it's a big fail. Sounds like you couldn't handle a run on sentence.

Allow me:
One can say they're a bunch of people acting as individuals.
The actions of Anonymous show a strong political motivation in the targets they select.
This makes the first sentence pedantry more than anything.

Re:ORLY?

[biodata]

There you go again with this 'the group' thing. I don't think it really works like that.

Re:ORLY?

[kevinNCSU]

While I agree it was poor sentence structure I think the point is put forth rather clearly in the first 6 words:

The group is highly politically motivated...

Beyond that I'm trying to dispel the claim that Anonymous has no "direction" because of it's definition as a bunch of individuals with no central control. Clearly based on the majority of the targets selected, and the reasons for those selections, one can see a trend of political motivation that can be applied to the group as a whole.

Re:ORLY?

[tnk1]

Anonymous is nothing more and nothing less than a mob. Just like a mob will have a general direction and general mood, so does Anonymous. In South Central after Rodney King, you'd probably be black and a resident of an impoverished area in LA and very pissed off in general about the way you were treated by the LAPD (and maybe life in general) if you were a mob member. That's not what you might call conventionally "politically motivated", but there are definitely some politics involved.

Obviously in a mob, there's people who are just yelling and marching, there are people burning cars, and of course, there's probably a few organized criminals who know how to use the cover of the mob and have actual skills and firepower to do some real damage. Since those groups are often part of the mob, but are much more effective, their actions can increase the perception that a mob has a certain motivation. Your LulzSec type groups are more skilled and effective, and by their initial association with Anonymous, they enhance the image of Anonymous as hackers and at the same time, lend some sort of pattern to Anonymous in the minds of observers, but Anonymous is still a mob and has a much looser membership than any component group.

Executive != contractor

[Baloroth]

It's one thing to breach the private emails and documents of an individual, even if he is an exec with a major defense contractor. Breaching an individual's computer is fairly easy, and it very much looks like that is what they did. It is totally another thing to breach the company itself. Assuming the company is somewhat competent, the exec might have a few sensitive but not classified documents. All classified material will be on company computers. Again, that looks from TFA like exactly what they got.

So no, Anonymous didn't breach another defense contractor. They breached an individual who helped run a defense contractor. The two are very, very different. Looks like the highest thing they got was a few documents marked "law enforcement sensitive." An embarrassment for the exec and somewhat his company, but not as bad as a breach of the company itself. Not to say the company couldn't be breached, of course, just that that isn't what seems to have happened.

Re:Executive != contractor

[Sycraft-fu]

That's because unless someone fucks up, you can't get at classified documents from your mom's basement. Classified data is supposed to be kept only on separate systems and networks. They don't intersect with the public Internet. You can't hack in to them as normal, regardless of what security flaws they might as, because you just can't get at them.

Remember that the reason Wikileaks got classified data was because it was provided to them by someone who had access. Manning not only had Top Secret clearance, but was a communications guy. He had authorized access to the systems, which he was then able to use to make an unauthorized copy he gave to Wikileaks. There was no super-hacker who somehow 0wned SIPRNet and JWICS, it was a guy who had access.

Re:Executive != contractor

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that "classified" and "secret" documents are two different things. You can find lots of classified documents on systems that connect to the Internet in some way. Classified documents are sensitive but not that sensitive. You will find these documents on regular 'ol employee's computers (used to browse the Internet and such).

Secret and top secret documents are a different story.

Re:Executive != contractor

[wmaker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNET

Re:Executive != contractor

[wmaker]

Also, for TS stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWICS

Re:Executive != contractor

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because unless someone fucks up, you can't get at classified documents from your mom's basement.

Oh yes you can. Apart from the fact that UNCLASSIFIED is a classification you only have to look at Amazon's latest offering to see that there's an open market for this stuff.

Re:Executive != contractor

[Anonymous Coward]

Human political consequences are controlled more tightly than ACK and NACK signals. What if Wikileaks received the information from other sources that would have been compromised by its publication because they worked with Americans and that was the only reason they had access to classified information. Wikileaks has not released many documents which it says it has access to. In politics, when the party leader wants an up or a down vote to make the president look good or bad, he/she gets it - very little of that process is connected with how well-informed the electorate or constituency is, because a lot is riding on figuring out a compromise.

Is punishing whistleblowers the answer?

From a certain perspective, PFC Manning was the only soldier who took his oath of service, not just his duty to follow orders, seriously. Every other, of the possibly millions, granted access at some point, either wanted job security or a higher rank. Given knowledge of the USB drives security protocols in use by the contractor forces during the years before PFC Manning's deployment, I would not be surprised if the soldier in the brig is a very large scapegoat for a much larger leak. Which, again, brings the prescient opinion of the respected Mr. Crowley back into focus - why did we all accept torture? Was it worth it?

Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally we found evidence of a Merrill Lynch wealth management advisor giving private advance notice to Garcia about upcoming S&P US credit rating downgrades.

This could be big if S&P leaked their intention to downgrade US credit rating to other investment institutions in order to financially benefit from the news. I wonder if the mainstream press will follow up on this? Sure as hell won't expect Obama's SEC, or parent DOJ, to investigate.

Re:Bigger story here?

[ehiris]

The news organizations should pick on that and carry out the blow as the legal system won't be able to prosecute using information that was gathered through illegal means.

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the news here? Big players running a giant scam called "the market" behing the scenes, on the back of everybody who's not in on it? That's just business as usual and you're not rich enough to make anybody listen.

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/18/eveningnews/main20094307.shtml

So the DoJ is already investigating S&P (likely as payback for the downgrade). I wouldn't be surprised if this is added to it.

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that S&P has been under investigation for about a year now, right?

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

That generally only applies when it is law enforcement doing something illegal. The judge can allow it if it was found through an illegal means and was done by someone else. At least that is my understanding.

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I regard it as perfunctory gesture to the plebes. They'll investigate, they'll come to find some irregularities, a few unintentionally legal transgressions, and impose a minor fine which hardly counts a blip on S&P's bottom line. That's pretty much the way these investigations have gone in recent times. The recent expose of the SEC destroying evidence for over 10 years of possible Wall Street crimes indicates that the core of the US financial regulatory system is rotten and incapable of fixing itself.

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was an e-mail from April 25 2011 and was based upon speculation, no real advanced knowledge:
"
Federal Reserve

        * To: "Gloria Newport"
        * Subject: Federal Reserve
        * From:
        * Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:08:54 -0700
        * User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.4.06

Hola,

This is the person who provided me with information regarding the "Economic Threat" to the Federal Reserve.

Cindy Cook, CFM
Wealth Management Advisor
Merrill Lynch Wealth Management | A Bank of America Corporation

512-397-1833
cindy_cook@ml.com

Merrill Lynch
111 Congress Ave, Suite 600
Austin, TX 78701
877-456-4643
FAX 512-879-1100

She advised that Standard and Poors, http://www.standardandpoors.com/home/en/us may lower the credit rating of the US Government which could cause a run on US Banks that will affect the Federal Reserve. They give the US Govt. 2 years to correct the current situation, which they believe both the Republican and Democratic solutions do not do enough and both parties may make this a political situation for the 2012 Presidential election and never come up with a answer to correct the situation within the two years set by Standard and Poors. She did not see any real Cyber issue that could change the situation.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Regards,

Richard T. Garcia

Senior Vice President

Vanguard Defense Industries, LLC

http://www.vanguarddefense.com

Mobile: +1 281-734-7967
Office: +1 281-298-6672 Ext-227
Fax: +1 281-298-5886

25003 Pitkin Road
Suite F-600
Spring, Texas 77386

rtgarcia@vanguarddefense.com

"

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally we found evidence of a Merrill Lynch wealth management advisor giving private advance notice to Garcia about upcoming S&P US credit rating downgrades.

This could be big if S&P leaked their intention to downgrade US credit rating to other investment institutions in order to financially benefit from the news. I wonder if the mainstream press will follow up on this? Sure as hell won't expect Obama's SEC, or parent DOJ, to investigate.

Which means we (the "little people" citizens, not the corporation citizens) are well and truly fucked.

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The news organizations should pick on that and carry out the blow as the legal system won't be able to prosecute using information that was gathered through illegal means.

This is false, as long as the law was not broken by law enforcement. Once it's public information, it's admissible.

Re:Bigger story here?

[kevinNCSU]

Is this actually a leak or even a big deal? I thought the S&P was threatening and warning about the downgrade for like weeks beforehand? How do we know this isn't just an adviser pointing out that the blindly obvious is going to happen?

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Advance notice? Really? Unless you actuall bought into the crap that the administration, house, and senate were spewing and the talking heads were repeating everywhere from CNN to FOX, then we all had advance notice. We have known this was coming, we knew that the "debt deal" would probably not fix it, and now we act suprised when it actually happened.... geez...advance notice....

Re:Bigger story here?

[dkleinsc]

It's one thing to say to the press "We're likely to do X". It's another thing entirely to say privately "We're definitely going to do X, no question about it." In the first case, everybody knows at the same time, and it's a statement of likelihood, not fact. In the second case, insiders have information that is different from the world at large that gives them an unfair advantage in the markets. By comparison, imagine what would have happened if S&P had been screaming to the press that they'd be downgrading, but telling their buddies that they weren't actually going to do it and were just blowing smoke.

Re:Bigger story here?

[men0s]

This would be a big deal. There was someone who put up nearly $1 Billion on the fact that the US would lose it's AAA rating. The US did and they made ridiculous money.

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Obama's SEC"? What, he runs it personally?

Your utter ignorance of how the SEC is run can mean only one thing: you are a Republican.

Re:Bigger story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't say they were likely to. They said "we are going to do this unless X happens". X did not happen and they delivered on their promise. Not exactly inside information.

Re:Bigger story here?

[purpledinoz]

This should be no surprise to anyone. The banks, rating agencies, and the government officials are all in bed together. Otherwise the sub-prime crisis would have never happened. There are two sets of rules, one for the rich, and one for the rest of us.

Hah

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty amusing that they adverts on this page are trying to get me to enlist in the defense force.

Yay! More engineer bashing!

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet in 25 years involvement in an engineering career, IEEE and other professional organization activities, I can't find a creationist if my life depended on it. The whole thing on the wiki page seems based on Internet postings. SOLID SCIENCE, baby!

Re:Yay! More engineer bashing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have met a lot of females. Some people say that all lesbians are female but none of the females I have met are lesbians.

For all I know 100% of all suicide bombers are engineers but how would I know, suicide bombers are so far between that it is unlikely that I will ever meet one.

Re:Yay! More engineer bashing!

[Culture20]

And yet in 25 years involvement in an engineering career, IEEE and other professional organization activities, I can't find a creationist if my life depended on it.

You're not looking hard enough. Specifically, you're not asking them in a non-confrontational way or in a non-hostile setting. Ask to join your coworkers to their churches a few times. You'll get a feel for their convictions once you experience how they worship.

Re:Yay! More engineer bashing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have met a lot of females...none of the females I have met are lesbians

I'm sorry, but yo' momma doesn't qualify as "a lot of females". A lot of something, maybe, but females ain't it. And you should probably get out more often.

Jingoist

[microbox]

You know, there are some people out there who don't buy into the jingoist thing. Afterall, it is you guys that start most of the wars.

Re:Jingoist

[Anonymous Coward]

Afterall, it is you guys that start most of the wars.

If you mean the USA then you are sort of correct, more accurately it is the Wealthy that start most of the wars for fun and profit. The fact that they use the US military is incidental. Most Americans don't support the wars the elite start.

Using an .onion site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Very smart. They should have put the .torrent file directly on the onion site though, if they put it on TPB, sockpuppet armies can mark it fake and effectively remove it.

So when do I get my own ShadowHawk drone?

[cvtan]

I promise to only blow up bad people.

They are no "Rosa Parks"

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that all these attacks will accomplish will be to provide an excuse for politicians to further attack what we have left of our online privacy and 4th amendment rights.

obligatory xkcd

[ZombieBraintrust]

http://xkcd.com/932/

Re:obligatory xkcd

[Thing 1]

Thanks for that! $50 is a lot to pay to protect a poster...

Find these assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

And SHOOT Them.

Anonymous is a complex organism...

[RanceJustice]

I see many posts trying to distill Anonymous into a single paradigm that can be judged authoritatively from an outside point of view; this is in error. Anonymous, in their construction, goals, and skills, has grown into a complex multi-celled organism that, without having a predicable growth cycle or direction, acts - sometimes in what appears to be indirect opposition to itself.

Take for instance the "Doing it for the lulz" element. There are those within who basically seek to undermine the exploits of other members (while, totally adverse to outside influences doing the same. Something of a "I can beat up on my brother, but anyone else who tries gets his ass handed to him) in indirect ways. They appear to mock the "We Are Legion" elements that undergo targeted political actions and instead co-opt some of the group's resources for more chaotic endeavors. These can range from humorous forms of trolling (ie. creating a certain avatar at Habbo Hotel and blocking the pool, announcing it is "Closed due to AIDS") to more malicious attacks on individuals, usually through the release of embarrassing personal information. Now, within this subgroup there are those that only expose those that "deserve" it, be it some member of their own community who harmed the organization, and those that take a more random approach (Hey, I found this guy's credit card, lets order a dozen pizzas!). Making it even more complex, there are many who ridicule the "newfags" who have morally directed action to seem "cool, like an oldfag" harkening back to a mostly fictitious time when their actions were entirely chaotic and based exclusively upon a narrow definition of lulzy. However, these same individuals also take part in "moral" campaigns that interest them, and apply their skills towards various ends.

That's only one tiny sub-sub-sub categorization of Anonymous, so you can see how far-reaching and complex this societal-organism has grown. Add in things like "COINTELPRO" attempts by private and occasionally documented public interests to perform damaging "agent provocateur" attacks (for instance, one of their tiers of Sony CC hacking initially tried to represent themselves as Anonymous, but were rebuked by "proper" Anonymous (and how exactly that authority is gained is an entire post in itself) and shown to be linked to groups directed by various governments to take advantage of the breech to provide a fear-climate during to crack down on the internet, when so many bills were up to provide corporate control. There are of course, rogue elements that grow from, or use the mantle of Anonymous of its own as well, but tend to fall under a system of self-policing when they overstep certain bounds - for instance, when someone tried to rally Anonymous to hack, protest, and even bomb abortion clinics, they were not only turned down, but faced the wrath of the organization themselves! . This is to say nothing going into the various tiers of loose structure within Anonymous itself and all the tasks, skills, ideologies, and command structures working in parallel, often invisible to one-another save in certain occasions - going into that would make this long post even longer, but definitely warrants a level of respect.

Overall, "proper" Anonymous has likely done more good than ill in its years of operation. Besides being nearly totally responsible for exposing Scientology as a corrupt and dangerous cult and changing their perception in the media from "That weird thing celebrities do" to "Oh, that's the crazy H-Bomb volcano alien thing that costs millions of dollars to level up and makes you cut off ties to your family" (and the subsequent loss of CoS tax exempt status in many jurisdictions - Texas and Germany come to mind in specific), they've provided tons of evidence of the corruption of Western (and especially American) governments who act as nothing more than puppets for corporate interests. Take for instance the Bank of America leaks, plus the HBGary Federal exposure, and the work of many who unveiled acts of c

What a crock of shit

[cHiphead]

Bullshit all the way around. Smear campaign against the very concept of Anonymous by associating it with specific politics and Lulzsec, its an attempt to paint Anonymous in a subtle light of a terrorist organization. Enough reporting in that style and folks will eventually look at Anonymous like another Al Qaeda (or was that El Queso) mishmash of random groups.

Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

While I may or may not approve of anonymous' actions, their Target, at least in this case, seems quite worthy of some scrutiny. This partnership between an ex-fbi spook and who knows what other wealthy executives of major corporations is ominous. It summons images of the Mega-corps of sci-fi lore, who have ultimately replaced the governments they spawned from. This may be our future, at least here in the US.

Re:Why? It's like tagging.

[MarkvW]

It doesn't seem too unusual to me. Look at the vandals who deface property, often at great physical risk to themselves, and also risk prosecution just so they can put their (often very ugly) tags on some buildings.

Anonymous is like a band of taggers.

Tired of the BS

[utkonos]

When was the last time these losers actually released anything? All I've been hearing for months now, is Anonymous claims to have documents from X. Or Lulzsec breaches Y and has lots of their data. But I think it's just a bunch of hot air. Just like tits or GTFO. Dox or GTFO.

Re:Tired of the BS

[Anonymous Coward]

you understand the /. post links to a pastebin post which gave a link to the entire email archive, right?

http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/vanguard/

Anonymous does what FOIAA cant do.

[unity100]

can you imagine ?

You god damn idiot.

[Pseudonym Authority]

Were you born this stupid or did you get this way in a meth lab? Just how the fuck can people fighting a revolutionary war not be revolutionaries? Why don't you wait an hour, then come back and read what you just wrote back to yourself and see how amazingly stupid you sound. Did that? Good, now go eat a dick and die, you retarded motherfucker.

Re:You god damn idiot.

[smellotron]

Did that? Good, now go eat a dick and die, you retarded motherfucker.

Surely you've seen this before.

Re:You god damn idiot.

[Pseudonym Authority]

Indeed, GooberToo is an Internet Fuckwad. Thank you for your reply.

I don't think Anon folks should

[Anonymous Coward]

Mess with LAW ENFORCEMENT, or governments, OR defense oriented companies... @ least not HOW they are doing it currently! Those guys are, for the MOST part, imo @ least?? The "GOOD GUYS" (at least hopefully!).

Instead, when they find a "hole"? Well - They SHOULD be telling them (as they did with NHS, not abusing what they found (admin pwd file wide open to anyone), but telling them "houston, YOU have a problem!", instead of burning them, exposing innocent's info., & making BIG enemies most of all... the wrong kind to make!

That's right - It's bad, Bad, BAD business to "step on these guys' toes" for 1 thing, that's the mistake K. Mitnick made really (he pissed off the cyber samurai & made a FOOL of him quite a few times, but kept @ it (dumb - you WILL get caught sooner or later is why & his example proves it pretty much!)).

Now, personally, as to "anonymous/lulzsec/antisec" & their other "factions/splinter groups"?

WELL...

Yes - I think it's a bunch of impressionable young kids that learned that the RIGHT Google Query can expose an SQLInjectable site for one thing, & that ANYONE can abuse DDoS/DoS on MOST sites!

That is, unless they're "overbuilt" like Microsoft &/or Amazon are in their telecom infrastructures & monitoring vs. that + settings in the IP stack that can detect for it & turn it aside! E.G. -> SynAttackProtect (in combination with the other parms that establish the "turn aside" packet amounts for invalid/unresolvable responses... ).

APK

P.S.=> Personally? Well - I TRULY suspect these kids are being USED, that's right, USED, by far more "nefarious" types that realize kids are easily swayed & want to "stick it to the man"... dumb!

A line from my FAV. film, LAYER CAKE, perfectly describes this for me:

"Know and respect your enemy! It is only very very stupid people who think the law is stupid" - XXX

Wrong men to stick it to in the case of law enforcement &/or defense contractors imo as imo, again: THEY ARE NOT "THE ENEMY"... not really!

(Especially if they're using anon. proxies or TOR, because put it this way - IF you think those are NOT "honeypots" in a large %-age of them by now? You're off... way, Way, WAY of (because that'd be one of the 1st things I'd be setting up were I on the side of telecommunications & signal law enforcement people!))...

... apk