Slashdot Mirror
Purported FBI Report Calls Anonymous a National Security Threat
itwbennett writes "According to what purports to be a leaked psychological assessment of the leaders of LulzSec and Anonymous by the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, Anonymous is not only not a collection of individuals, it's a coherent group that poses a threat to national security. Neither the FBI nor the Dept. of Homeland Security have commented on the document, which may well be a fake, but seems to reflect accurately the thinking behind a series of DHS warning bulletins and crackdowns that have resulted in 75 raids and 16 arrests of Anonymous members just this year."
How would they know it is or isn't ??
How long before they finally crack down on all those Anonymous users posting on Slashdot
Anything the government can't understand or control is a security threat.
Money is needed to fight Anonymous. Give us money. More news at eleven.
Please, Wall Street and companies like Goldman Sachs are far greater National Security Risks than any conglomeration of people in their basements DDoSing websites.
"The Anonymous ‘collective’ has risen from an amorphous group of individuals on the Internet to the current state of a potential threat to national security. Due to the nature of Anonymous, they believe that they are a leaderless collective. However, it has been shown that there is a defined leadership group," the document reads. "A thorough assessment of each UNSUB’s online activities, speech patterns, and general writings was collected by the FBI. Each UNSUB was individually assessed by members of the SBU (sic) and a psychological profile created from these datasets."
(emphasis mine)
This is what some people on /. have been arguing for some time.
Regardless, the document itself (linked to in the first article) is kind of fun to read.
For the record, (because I know someone is reading this) I am not, never have been and never intend to be a member of anonymous. But I have to wonder what constitutes membership? To be a coherent group, there has to be leadership of some kind and/or some form of permission or acceptance in the group. I have resisted the curiosity thus far, but what if I learned where the anonymous chatrooms are and joined them just to see what's going on? Does that make me a member? Does that prove or indicate my involvement? What if I decided to 'troll' said chatrooms and started spewing nonsense? Does that make me a member?
I worry about this because of the nebulous way people are grouped and prosecuted. The definitions need to be as clear as possible and words like "beyond a shadow of a doubt" keep ringing in my head.
What worries me more is that they are being classified as national security threats and stuff like that. This sounds like the precursor to adding to the residents of GITMO and denial of rights under the US Constitution as well as human rights violations.
I don't know why I am "worried" though... it's almost guaranteed to happen and I should be accepting of this right?
The FBI is the threat to national security. Anonymous simply reveals how insecure we are.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They are "group" or wannabes and losers. They aren't a security threat, they are a joke.
Gone!
Anonymous makes very public hacks, generally of pretty low impact. Are we to assume that they are the only ones hacking? What about the Chinese government? What about hackers who don't spin around and start bragging about their hacks?
How many times have credit card numbers and personal info been taken with no publication? How many times have organizations like the FBI and CIA been harangued or penetrated without public disclosure? If Anonymous can do it, it indicates a significant failure in security on the part of the hackee. You can't shut down all hackers. It's only going to get worse. Think of this as a wake-up call and start securing your systems/software.
In 20 years, I hope we look back on this era the same way we look back on medieval medicine. Public hackers like the members of Anonymous do more good than harm. Letting organizations (especially the government) keep a lid on hacks for fear of the public's reaction? That's the real threat to national security.
Government shill detected.
And where's your rage at the bankers who tanked the economy, whose actions have affected far more people more drastically than anything Anonymous has done?
Or how about the Tea Party idiots in the House, who played chicken with the economy as well?
The result of Wikileaks/Lulzsec/Anonymous is hurting the US ...
How? They're embarrassing a lot of political office holders and appointees by holding their actions up to the light of day. How does that hurt the US or its citizenry? Why shouldn't US citizens know what their elected/appointed officials have been up to? They're paying for all of it (supposedly), and a lot of them question out loud whether what they're doing is the right thing.
If you don't want to look like fools, don't do foolish things. Smiple.
If you want your voters to become disillusioned with "The American Way", by all means keep toadying up to special interests, ignoring your citizens, and run the country into the ground via back room deals.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
I dunno, everyone I've ever seen mention Anonymous in person mentions the Scientology thing and is at least semi-positive about them. They often don't have a clue what's going on but they know what Scientology is (if only a little) and that they hate it so it must be a good thing.
On the other hand FOX news has yet to say anything positive about Wikileaks so of course they're spinning Anonymous, if they come up, as atheistic anarchistic monsters.
If that's your only measure, that the USA is so full of retards that the propaganda is accepted uncritically by a majority, then yes. But at that level, the majority believes that god exists. But that's not public opinion being against Anonymous, that's your whole fucking nation being addicted to the daily hate and willing to accept any story for blood. As you say, they'll gleefully watch thugs blowing away teenage "hackers" if they've been assured that these kids are against baby Jesus. Yay USA.
If you're going to play "Revolutionary" like the big boys do, you'd better understand what that means: secret jails, warrantless raids, and "shot while resisting arrest". That's how governments... ALL governments...
Yeah, that's pretty much why you're universally despised. One minute you're all like "We're the USA, best in the world", and the next it's "Did you look at me? I'll fucking kill you if you looked at me!"
If you treat harmless protests as terrorism you can expect terrorism because there won't be any enforcement difference. In for a penny, in for bringing down the power grid to fuck the pricks who shot your friend for DDoSing Sony. If that means China invades, oh well - you're gonna get shot anyways.
Think about the message you really want the government to send to our kids.
I know, I know, transparent government and pure democracy -- but transparent government is not realistic and few really want pure democracy. The result of Wikileaks/Lulzsec/Anonymous is hurting the US, and the FBI, as a US institution, is labeling them as such.
Here you have it folks. The anti-Anonymous crowd is plainly anti-democratic.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So where in any of this did I say whether I supported the FBI? This is just a prediction of what will happen, and why, not a position statement. I am not saying whether the FBI should pistolwhip the Mitnick wannabes; I am saying that they will, whether you and I want them to or not. For what it's worth I think that Western law enforcement is completely out of control, but I also recognize that when you bitchslap a lion, you get eaten... and aren't rid of the lion. Anonymous is ineffective at achieving anything but enabling more draconian monitoring laws and strengthening the FBI's hand. They're idiots.
As for this anti-US screed... go ahead, tell me which government doesn't behave exactly like this (or worse) towards internal dissidents which it considers a threat. I don't care which government you name or what YOUR country is. I guarantee that no-knock armed raids without accountability occur when YOUR government (for any and all values of "your") feels threatened enough. The extent to which you believe otherwise is the extent to which you don't understand government and the urge to power. This hypocrisy and naivete is one reason why the term "Eurotrash" exists, and why Americans often think Euros are lazy, weak fools. This "despise" thing you seem to enjoy works both ways. Hatred begets hatred, thus neatly closing the loop.
Very, very few people know anything about the relationship between Anonymous and the Hubbard cult. What they do know is that Anonymous publishes identity-theft-enabling information on ordinary citizens and has spies in the military; chances are that anyone who has heard of Anonymous has done so in the context of "millions of email addresses, names, and physical addresses stolen and published" and "espionage directed at Western governments" (were you even aware that the leaked documents cover the sordid activities of Commonwealth and NATO countries, as well as the US?). Joe Citizen won't believe that Anonymous is defending them; he will believe, and rightly so, that Anonymous is attacking him. Anonymous has royally fucked up in that regard. You can't simultaneously harm ordinary citizens and claim to be doing them a favor. From the point of view of someone who has just had their information leaked and is dealing with the cleanup, Anonymous are anything but harmless, and they will support taking down the people responsible for the leak.
Slashdotters, EFF types, etc. are a tiny majority. You, your friends, and my friends are a tiny minority. We're irrelevant compared to majority popular opinion. A bitter pill to swallow, but the opinions of Slashdotters don't mean shit in the grand scheme of things. We are not the center of the universe.
And again, as for what I want... you have no clue. You're straw-manning.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.