Slashdot Mirror
FBI Warns Congress of Terrorist Hacking
An anonymous reader writes "Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), yesterday warned Congress of terrorist hacking. He believes that while terrorists haven't hacked their way into the U.S. government yet, it's an imminent threat. Mueller said, 'To date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent. Terrorists have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they may seek to train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward pursuing cyber attacks.'"
Terrorism is already a funding black hole. This reeks of inter agency rivalry.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Congressman: How do you suggest we proceed in fighting this threat?
Mueller: We need to shut down all torrent sites and arrest anyone posting copyrighted clips on YouTube.
Congressman: Would my very generous constituents at Sony like to comment?
Sony: We think this is an excellent approach to fighting the muslim horde, Congressman. We'll wire the usual campaign contribution to your super PAC.
Congressman: Well, that settles it then. Would anyone like to offer an opposing view?
EFF: Uh, Senator, we would like to point ou...
Congressman: Well, since there is no opposition, looks like you have your funding Director. Happy hunting.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yet another reason to give up all of our civil rights, privacy, and freedoms in the name of catching these "terrorists"!!!
Plus, over the past ten years, $500B/year on "black" programs to catch "terrorists".
And all because ten years ago 3000 people died (that's an average of 300/year) and two buildings were taken down: tragic, but a very small one compared to the 30,000 people who die every year in automobile crashes in the US - and we don't see $500B/year being spent on that!
Terrorism is just an excuse to usurp our freedoms and enable the government to take control of us. The threat is just not as big as they make it out to be - certainly not big enough to justify the massive reaction to 9/11 and the loss of all of our freedoms and privacy.
Look, I actually have been on counter-terrorism ops back in my Army days.
The problem is the FBI has a tendency to label people who hack music as terrorists, in addition to the Dangerous Killing People terrorists who ARE the real threat.
Giving up your Rights and Freedoms won't make you safer, only less.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Always get nervous when reading stuff like this - I'm sure they'll use it an excuse to regulate the Internet for everyone, not just so-called terrorists. Remember: freedom isn't free. Also: war is peace, ignorance is strength, etc.
Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
No, Congress critters are trying to ruin the internet. Anonymous or not, anyone with a clue could see this coming from a mile away, it was only a matter of time.
Also, Anonymous has been around a while and my internet was never any different until corporations and congress people started fucking with it.
How many dozens of 9/11's happen each year as a result of smoking and alcohol?
Where is the public outrage, political focus and trillions of dollars in ad campaigns and treatment to avert a 9/11 that more or less occurs on schedule every month of every year over the past century?
Stop wasting our money chasing boogymen and use a small fraction of it to help real people...
Hey man looks over there those Afghan poppy fields a plenty....sort of makes one wonder where all that funding for the taliban comes from now doesn't it...if only...oh nevermind...
Tired of the word "terrorist and/or terrorism.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I recently purchased some hacking books on amazon out of curiosity, half-realizing that this COULD put me on some watch lists I probably don't want to be on. I wonder whether I'm just being paranoid.... or if we actually got to that point already.
Indeed. They've been talking this up for years now, though the implied "enemy" is usually China. I'm not sure it's news though.
We've had this since 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command
Not to mention the various NSA resources (etc) that have been dealing with this stuff since forever.
The NOAA has alerted congress that air might contain invisible gasses. We cannot underestimate the threat from those gasses which in certain conditions can be accelerated in a way that will cause damage to the US infrastructure.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
And here i thought that was mostly Russian mob types.
I don't doubt that what you say is true to a point, I still fail to understand why that make them terrorists. And how far does it go, are we going to just keep going down the list of crimes until will get to something like writing your name on the sidewalks wet cement gets you labeled a terrorist.
How about this, we just say everybody's a terrorist and the constitution applies to nobody except those that you personally think it should apply to. how about that.
they're terrorists because they make the FBI look like a bunch of assholes when their internal comms get hacked and leaked.
They're using their grammar skills there.
There are good and bad people inside of ever organization and to always point out the negative side of things is playing right into the PR machine's hands. Have you ever seen a news story about the CP websites they have helped bring down? Of course not.
Read all streams of news even if they are sometimes referred to or labelled as crazy. I would rather be over informed and make my own opinion than under informed and have my opinion made up for me.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
Terrorists may be poking around, but in the end, they aren't going to be very interested. Why? No visuals. Terrorists want great visuals that will make news and the blogs.
They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.
Wait a minute... You're talking about the USA military and police, right?
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Why the last requisite? If it weren't for it, most of the powerful governments of the world would fit the bill nicely.
In other words, and more to the point, why do people insist on only calling terrorists to people who have no affiliation with governments? (Unless it's a government that the establishment does not like, such as the Palestinian Authority or Iran). That kind of discourse aims at demonizing unaligned interests while implicitly condoning similarly unsavory actions of powerful states.
Score: i, Imaginary
I worry less about Anon & friends (a slight annoyance, were I to come under their gaze), than I do about what heavy-handed things the boys in DC might do to 'fix' things.
I am John Hurt.
The U.S. government calls that SIPRnet, it's where all the classified data lives, other even more secure networks are required to process Top Secret data. As far as being unhackable just because it's not connected to the internet? Just ask Pvt. Bradley Manning how impenetrable that made it (SIPR was where he got the data from), or the Iranians how robust that strategy was at protecting their Natanz nuclear facility (Stuxnet).
Non-internet connectivness is a massive hurdle to overcome & keeps out most attackers, except for the inside threat & the massively determined APT, but it is not the end all be all answer.
"Terrorist" is the new word for "brigand". There is a substantive difference between an armed group with overt, recognized ties to a civilian government (even a former or wannabe government), and an armed group that's on it's own. Governments can negotiate, can form treaties, can surrender, can accept surrender, and can keep their armies in check.
Normal government-initiated violence is an extension of politics. It only happens when the sides in a negotiation can't agree who's stronger, and so neither is willing to give in. Heck, these days economic strength is more important than military strength, and failed negotiations usually end in economic retaliation, not even violence.
Brigands, or terrorists, or whatever you want to call non-state actors, are in it for the violence. There might be a "cause", but there's no (realistic) political aim that can be satisfied to stop the fighting. They can neither surrender nor accept surrender. It's an all-around evil situation, because the violence isn't an extension of politics, and so cannot easily be stopped (for example, it took a generation to wind down the violence associated with the IRA past the point where everyone had realized there was nothing left to fight for).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Indeed.
On one hand, we have the FBI, who play politics the way dolphins can play Water Polo, carry guns, come from an Authoritarian mindset, and think their jurisdiction is the internet. They also think they can dominate anyone, and are unaware that their actions, even their gentle probings of Anonymous, are escalating things.
On the other hand, we have Anonymous, whose constituents change so rapidly and lack any amount of central structure, than they are more like a cell operation. They believe the internet is anyone's but the would-be usurpers. They also come from a mentality in which they believe they can dominate anyone.
It's like having two Kings trying to rule the same country. Someone is going to die if the FBI keeps escalating things, and over the long run, it won't be the members of Anonymous. The FBI throws a rock, Anonymous throws a boulder; the FBI takes the life of one Anonymous member, three undercover FBI agents are unmasked in the field. And the people will be in the middle of this exchange. The FBI has the backing of the US government, and access to their financial resources. Anonymous has the backing of an unknown number of people from all over the world, and access to those financial resources.
I am John Hurt.
They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.
Like or not, they fit the very definition of terrorist.
While the broader definition of terrrorize is debated, Anon is center, far away from the gray edges.
ineluctably political in aims and motives violent – or, equally important, threatens violence designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.
Unfortunately for your opinion, you haven't a bloody clue what you are talking about. Have you seen someone claiming to be a member of Anonymous? Have you ever talked to someone claiming to be a member?
OK, here's the primary piece of information that you either don't know or you don't want others to know: Anonymous is leaderless, unorganized, random and constantly shifting groups. No one is an official member of Anonymous. No one is a leader.
Anyone who wants to pretend that Anonymous is "dangerous" or "terrorist" simply logs into any site that accepts comments and makes the appropriately incendiary anonymous comment and signs it "Anonymous".
That "agent provocateur" is no more (and no less) Anonymous than you or I am. There is no membership. There is no leadership. There is no "agenda". There is no political agreement. If you don't understand those basics, then you do not understand "Anonymous".
At the most basic level, "Anonymous" is any temporary group of people who agree that "something must be done" about some problem, outrage, crime or whatever. They agree to take action and perhaps they carry it out. It may be peaceful, it may be destructive, it may be silly, it may be anything . They are probably not related to other "Anonymous" groups with other concerns.
Your whole screed is based on completely not understanding what "Anonymous" is. So learn. And, until you learn, don't make such stupid remarks.