Anonymous Hacks UK Government Sites Over 'Draconian Surveillance'

Surveillence State by cusco · 2012-04-07 16:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe their 2,000,000 cameras aren't helping as much as they thought they would?

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Re:Surveillence State by jimicus · 2012-04-07 22:24 · Score: 2

You've never seen the results of the cameras. The suspect is seldom co-operative enough to face the camera straight on, and when they are it's usually a case of "Have you seen this amorphous grey blob? Police would like to speak to him..."
Re:Surveillence State by beh · 2012-04-07 23:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not sure whether either the Anonymous attacks or the funny quips will help the case of civil liberties.
Sure, you and I know that the way civil liberties have been eroded in the past decade is a bad thing. Unfortunately, most voters really haven't. And if people attack government websites, it will only strengthen THEIR case, not the case of those who want civil liberties restored.
You taking the liberty of bringing down websites to ask for more liberties is roughly the same as if someone started to randomly shoot people proclaiming that he will continue killing people until murder will finally become legal.
It's entirely irrelevant whether your point is a valid one (as, in my opinion, it is in the case of civil liberties -- for most bystanders that really don't have a clue on why this is even important. To them, the government is doing the right thing, seeing that that kind of surveillance would actually be needed to prevent further attacks on government websites.
Right now, I don't know what the right course of action is to convince the governments that more and more surveillance is a bad thing. I wish I knew what the right course of action would be.
What I do know, though, is that attacking government websites is the WRONG way.
Re:Surveillence State by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-08 00:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

You taking the liberty of bringing down websites to ask for more liberties is roughly the same as if someone started to randomly shoot people proclaiming that he will continue killing people until murder will finally become legal.
Er, you understand that the whole point of protest is to cause disruption, right? It is a vital part of democracy, the option to march down a street and hold the traffic up because there is no alternative. It's just a shame that we have got to the stage where it is pretty much the only option.
DDOS'ing a web site doesn't seem to be any different that DDOS'ing a road by walking down it in a large group.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Surveillence State by sa1lnr · 2012-04-08 01:25 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television#Prevalence
Guess again.
Re:Surveillence State by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-08 04:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

You taking the liberty of bringing down websites to ask for more liberties is roughly the same as if someone started to randomly shoot people proclaiming that he will continue killing people until murder will finally become legal.
Er, you understand that the whole point of protest is to cause disruption, right? It is a vital part of democracy, the option to march down a street and hold the traffic up because there is no alternative. It's just a shame that we have got to the stage where it is pretty much the only option.
DDOS'ing a web site doesn't seem to be any different that DDOS'ing a road by walking down it in a large group.
Not anymore! Now you can march down a street, but only as long as that street is a 5'x5' section designated as a "free speech zone" for you to march around in a circle in.
Re:Surveillence State by 1u3hr · 2012-04-08 07:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

You taking the liberty of bringing down websites to ask for more liberties is roughly the same as if someone started to randomly shoot people proclaiming that he will continue killing people until murder will finally become legal.
"Roughly the same". That's the most insane analogy I've seen on Slashdot, And there have been some doozies.
Re:Surveillence State by beh · 2012-04-08 17:52 · Score: 1

Again - it's good that YOU see that this way. Many non-nerds will not see that difference. So, whenever the media covers these kinds of events, note how the say "denial of service ATTACKS", not "denial of service DEMONSTRATION".
Can you see how this might make an important (and negative) difference in the minds of your parent's/grandparent's generation?
And importantly, noone calls these things 'demonstrations' - look at the linked zdnet article headline "hacks UK government sites". It's the same kind of language you also get with articles that then continue something along the lines of 'millions of credit card/social security records stolen'. And the 'demonstrators' own language?
" #OpTrialAtHome — Target: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | ETA: 7 MINS! Charge your laz0rs and aim! #Anonymous #UK
#OpTrialAtHome — Target: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | Fire! Fire!! Fire!!! Fire!!!! Soundtrack- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKTpWi5itOM #Anonymous #UK Pew Pew Pew
#OpTrialAtHome : Tango Down: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ | Keep Firing!!!! Keep it down! Make them hear you! #Anonymous #UK
"
Really - is "Charge your laz0rs and aim!", "Fire! Fire!! Fire!!!" the kind of language that will make non-technical folk see that this is 'just the same as a demonstration'?
It's all well and good for you that YOU "know" this to be a demonstration, not an attack. But to a large majority of people outside of the net, words like "attack" and "fire" sound more like the kind of things politicians SHOULD protect us all from.
And there go even more of your civil liberties.
Re:Surveillence State by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-08 19:53 · Score: 2

So, whenever the media covers these kinds of events, note how the say "denial of service ATTACKS", not "denial of service DEMONSTRATION".
So the media is to blame for not understanding it.

Really - is "Charge your laz0rs and aim!", "Fire! Fire!! Fire!!!" the kind of language that will make non-technical folk see that this is 'just the same as a demonstration'?
I never said they were particularly good at it, they just found an effective way of being noticed.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Surveillence State by beh · 2012-04-08 21:46 · Score: 1

The media may be partially to blame - but the problem is that even journalists aren't necessarily the most tech-savvy bunch.
And look at this - even wikipedia calls it "Denial-of-service attack" - maybe because in most cases, DDOS attacks were actual attacks on companies or websites, and most of them didn't find the kind of publicity then, that DDOSing the government finds now.
Besides, why would it be the medias fault for calling it attacks when you see the ones causing it using the exact same language?
Note how the purported chat didn't say "peaceful Internet demonstration", but rather "aim", "fire", and "keep firing" ?
If you stage a demonstration, people hold up banners to make clear what they are demonstrating for. Even if the DDOS packets that overwhelmed the government sites contained the words "we want our civil liberties back" - it still is nothing that could be seen by outsiders.
So, if you can't do the same thing with the banners in your 'Internet protest' - then you need to find a way to explain to people what you're trying to do - OR you leave that turf to politicians who will gladly fill in the blanks on how this is basically cyber-terrorism and how we need more surveillance to stop it. (And remember - if the press won't know where to find you to answer questions about what's going on; because you want to stay "anonymous" - they will HAVE to go and ask the other side, i.e. the government, what the whole thing is about.
And guess who will end up being the losers if you let the government explain those "attacks"? And rest assured - politicians will NOT call this a "peaceful demonstration", if it would harm their case -- they WILL call it "attacks" as it would bolster their positions!
Re:Surveillence State by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-08 22:45 · Score: 1

even wikipedia calls it "Denial-of-service attack"
Seriously? Wikipedia is your source for this argument? Wait while I got and change it to "denial of service protest"...
The media has been referring to it all day as "hacking". There was no hack, just a DDOS. No data stolen, no sites defaced.

Note how the purported chat didn't say "peaceful Internet demonstration", but rather "aim", "fire", and "keep firing" ?
Have you ever been to a real life protest? Hyperbole is the order of the day, and this is Anonymous we are talking about. Again, I never said they were good at this.

If you stage a demonstration, people hold up banners to make clear what they are demonstrating for. Even if the DDOS packets that overwhelmed the government sites contained the words "we want our civil liberties back" - it still is nothing that could be seen by outsiders.
Well, they tried with Twitter and a release on Pastebin, but being disorganized the message wasn't very coherent. Plus the media don't know where to look and Anonymous don't exactly send out press releases (they should though).

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Surveillence State by ultranova · 2012-04-09 00:52 · Score: 1

I'm not sure whether either the Anonymous attacks or the funny quips will help the case of civil liberties.

I don't think that anything would. The reason they're eroding is that communism fell, so the powers that be no longer have any reason to pretend being nice. And they learned their lesson about having their own rethoric turned against them, thus the focus is on "security" with the new terrorism boogeyman (and the bit older drugs one).
It's important to remember that the whole concept of "freedom is good" is very new and never really took root. Our modern societies are still basically feudal systems where what you own determines your position and power in a hierarchy. In such a system freedom is neither valued nor sustainable; a system where masses of serfs serve a few wealthy masters cannot give those serfs freedom, because then the serfs will stop serving their masters and the system comes down. And while the threat of being cut out of economy (unemployment) works as a way to keep the low down to a point, the Occupy protests show quite clearly that there are limits to how far you can squeeze people before it stops working; at some point every feudal system needs to decide between using force to keep the peons in line or being destroyed. Our lords have made their choice and are getting ready for a showdown.
TL;DR You never had any liberties to begin with, it was all propaganda, but some people actually believed that bullshit, so now the point is being clarified.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Surveillence State by beh · 2012-04-09 03:16 · Score: 1

I'm not saying wikipedia is the "source of my argument" - I'm saying, it's not just the media who get this wrong, if even wikipedia (a site nerds CAN help editing) uses that terminology.
I'm also absolutely getting the misuse of the word "hacked" here - prominently featured even in the article here on slashdot.
Again - the problem is not that you or I understand that the word 'hacked' is wrong. The problem is the point you're admitting yourself: "Again, I never said they were good at this", or "Anonymous don't exactly send out press releases (they should though)".
I think up until Anonymous and potentially similar groups get their act together in also managing how things appear OUTSIDE of their own activities, their plans will more likely than not backfire. If the field is left to political pundits, Anonymous is providing them with all the fodder they need to demand MORE surveillance.
And even if Anonymous would come up now and say "the 'disruption' here was meant as a protest", it will sound bad like their backpedalling / asscovering, like they got caught doing something bad (even if you feel they didn't do anything bad).
If you go on a stage completely unprepared - you will likely NOT get out what you want.
And as I pointed out earlier:
"
Right now, I don't know what the right course of action is to convince the governments that more and more surveillance is a bad thing. I wish I knew what the right course of action would be.
What I do know, though, is that attacking government websites is the WRONG way.
"
only just let me add - coming out a few days later trying to tell people "it wasn't an ATTACK, it was just a legitimate PROTEST" is not going to work. These are issues you need to plan for BEFORE you protest/attack/do...

Support Them? by tvlinux · 2012-04-07 16:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hacktivisim at it finest. The more governments restrict freedom the more "terrorist" there will be.

Re:Support Them? by muuh-gnu · 2012-04-07 20:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hactivism (or any other sort of activism for that matter) is a rather desperate and pointless endevour because it will not lead to any change whatsoever in the direction the hacktivists hope for. It is just useless effort, often even damaging to their cause.
The only way to change things is to make people at large stop voting always the same parties into the parliaments. If you have effort or money to spend, support your local pirate parties. Persuade eligible voters to vote for them.
Whatever you do, have a clearly defined and well distinguished political party to be able to channel the support you gained. Votes are the only currency that counts. Hacktivism, demonstrations, OWS, etc are all just useless masturbation if they dont rally around a specific political party.
The problem is political. You wont solve a political problem by non-political means. You cant beat them at their game without playing the game. You have to get in there, however dirty and rigged it may be in ther favor, and win against all odds. Only by winning will you get to change future rules.
Hacktivism is none of that. It is a vulgar display of wretched, powerless frustration and doesnt indicate that you are or ever will be, a winner. It communicates the exact opposite, even more so.
Re:Support Them? by SplashMyBandit · 2012-04-07 20:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hmmm. While mostly I don't agree with Anonymous in some cases they are outlaw 'Robin Hoods' - in the fact they are outside the law opposing bad and corrupt governance. This law, and many of those recently proposed in the UK, are just *bad*. Hopefully the sensationalist nature of this (which is relatively harmless as far as protests go) will draw the attention of the citizenry to these bad laws.
Re:Support Them? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 21:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

"You wont solve a political problem by non-political means."
Really? The English gave you the colonies just like that, because you voted for it?
Re:Support Them? by Macthorpe · 2012-04-07 22:27 · Score: 1

I can't agree. All they've done is create a scenario by which the UK government can say "See! We told you we need to stop these people!"
People were already railing against the new laws regarding data retention, it didn't need a protest and it definitely didn't need a group if stupid kids making it worse.

--
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Re:Support Them? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 23:43 · Score: 1

Hactivism is an (illegal) method of demonstration.
Demonstrations are a way to both demonstrate to the politicians that you personally care about something, and to bring awareness of an issue to the larger public. Making the public aware of issues is critical to persuading them to change their voting.
The first step to a public debate is making the media discuss it. All the better if it's about something the politicians don't want to talk about.
Your last line is a putrid display of rhetoric. You're trying to display hacktivism as powerless and impotent because you don't want it to work. But really, it is a form of media whoring, and media whoring is astoundingly effective.
Re:Support Them? by muuh-gnu · 2012-04-08 00:37 · Score: 2

> Winning against all odds doesn't work
Pirate parties in Sweden and especially Germany have won a significant amount of votes. They now have approx 10% acceptance according to polls, and are already making goverment coalitions impossible that have been the norm for the last 40 years.
> Starting a change on the political level is technically impossible.
Paralysis by analysis. If the pirate party founders thought in terms of impossiblities, not formed a political wing, and only resorted to desperate and useless demonstrations, protests, and "hacktivism", we wouldnt be where we are right now. All the existing power, drive, awareness and frustration of millions of people would have dissolved into nothingness. But happily they reckognized this, and now we have someone to vote for, and believe it or not, IT ALREADY CHANGES STUFF. Significantly. We've not even entered the German Bundestag yet, and there already are chages. All the other "established" politcal parties are already reacting to the "new power".
You absolutely need a politial way to channel peoples will. Trying to impress and appease existing entrenched political parties by merely demonstrating is an excercize in futility. NOthing will change until you dont start throwing out the bad guy out of the parliaments and getting in yourself.
Re:Support Them? by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-08 00:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

The only way to change things is to make people at large stop voting always the same parties into the parliaments. If you have effort or money to spend, support your local pirate parties. Persuade eligible voters to vote for them.
The previous government tried to bring in something similar, and both the parties making up the current coalition opposed them but are now pushing forwards with basically the same thing. The Lib Dems even got as far as setting up a web site where you could tell them which freedoms you wanted back, but that seems to have been forgotten now.
You could vote for a non-mainstream party, but that is just a wasted vote under our system. Really the only option is to pick Labour or Tory based on who you think will fuck up the economy less or reduce your personal tax burden.
Protest is all we have left, and they have done their best to ignore that. How many protests can you remember hearing about so far this year? Occupy ended I suppose... But no-one else managed to even make the TV news. Anonymous's action got a response from mainstream politicians and hours of coverage this morning.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Support Them? by Mithent · 2012-04-08 00:58 · Score: 1

Agreed. Demonstrating the dangers of the Internet isn't helpful at all, and is more likely to steel them against this threat.
Re:Support Them? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-08 03:01 · Score: 1

Ok, so you're in a political mindset where only politicians have the power to change things.
But that's not true. Politicians have to suffer consequences of their actions. Politicians who are exposed as corrupt face public outing and shaming. Politicians who do clearly do not have the public support may be forced to resigned.
And of course, as a notion spreads through the populace, people within the political parties are also likely to pick up such opinions.
I think your dismissal of demonstrations as a tool for effecting change is based on a far too limited view of the system. This isn't pure game theory.
Re:Support Them? by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-04-08 08:30 · Score: 1

In so much as the taking down of websites I agree largely, but I do appreciate the information dumps that have come from this sort of thing
Re:Support Them? by Thing+1 · 2012-04-08 14:11 · Score: 1

Votes are the only currency that counts.
"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

I'll bet that'll be effective by phantomfive · 2012-04-07 16:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

"UK government has released a report today, announcing that as their crucial websites were taken down, they can no longer ignore the attackers, and have reversed the planned draconian surveillance."

More like in six months, there will be more arrests.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:I'll bet that'll be effective by martin-boundary · 2012-04-07 19:58 · Score: 2

Nonono! It ain't terrorism until Tony Blair goes on FOX news and tells the world how the dangerous hackers could crack any UK website within 45 minutes!
Re:I'll bet that'll be effective by magpie · 2012-04-08 09:16 · Score: 1

hey the scottish gov is not backing them but is against the laws http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/apr/snp-condemn-uk-government-surveillance-plan yet another reason to vote yes when the referendum comes.
Re:I'll bet that'll be effective by phantomfive · 2012-04-08 09:21 · Score: 1

Together, we can make Scotland better.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Counter-Productive by http · 2012-04-07 16:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Really? Really? Tell us the way that is already proven to work.

--
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1

Re:Counter-Productive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 17:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Paying them to write laws in your favor like the large corporations do?

That's the way to do it... by Zcar · 2012-04-07 17:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

Attacking the UK government over the internet is a sure way to get them to give up on internet surveillance.

Re:That's the way to do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 19:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Attacking the UK government over the internet is a sure way to get them to give up on internet surveillance.
Hackitivism by itself can't change anything, but that never was its objective. It's a way to call attention to an issue that the population has the right to be informed about (this is important dammit!). Aware of the issue, it's up to the people to force the politicians to behave.
Without stunts like this, how else is a small group of citizens who know more about X (in this case X=Internet/computers) than most inform the other citizens (who know little about X, but know about other stuff) that the government is about to screw them? Unfortunately, unless you have extremely rich friends your options are few.

sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 17:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Kinda sad when the only people fighting for your rights are a bunch of script kiddies in their basements.

Re:sad... by MacGyver2210 · 2012-04-07 18:55 · Score: 2

I live in an apartment, thank you very much.
I don't even have a basement. Just don't tell the tornadoes.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:sad... by DrEldarion · 2012-04-08 03:26 · Score: 1

So what are YOU doing? It's the people's job to control their government. These people wouldn't be in office unless they were put there by the people.
Don't like what they're doing? Vote them out.
Don't like the field of candidates? Run for office.
The beauty of a democracy is that real people can make a huge difference. The drawback is that everyone thinks that all the other people will do it for them.
Re:sad... by magpie · 2012-04-08 09:14 · Score: 1

oddly the government of scotland is http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/apr/snp-condemn-uk-government-surveillance-plan not that the bbc will ever mention it though.

I can tell they did it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 17:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Some of the words, like "colour" "centre" and "organise" have been cannily vandalized.

It's quite a clevre plan.

It's like a cocktail... by Cazekiel · 2012-04-07 17:23 · Score: 1

The more our world leans to the universe in Daniel Suarez' fiction, the more I feel a delightful mix of elation, fear, uncertainty and excitement.

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin

When will governments learn? by Skapare · 2012-04-07 17:23 · Score: 1, Interesting

And they even get a choice of which thing they want to learn ... 1. How to respect the rights of the people ... or ... 2. How to make a web site and its servers secure. Sheesh. Did they set this up with "Government Websites For Dummies"?

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Re:When will governments learn? by qxcv · 2012-04-07 20:53 · Score: 2

They probably already have 2) down pat if they're doing their jobs properly. Remember, all that happened here was a DDoS - there were no gaping holes found in the defences of the websites. Anonymous just happened to have more resources than the Government websites did and thus managed to make the sites unresponsive for a couple of hours.

But of course you already know this since you're the kind of discerning Slashdotter who reads linked articles and has at least a basic understanding of the topics on which they comment, right?

--
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond

Anonymous? by VortexCortex · 2012-04-07 17:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Can we just $_ =~ s/Anonymous/someone/i please?

It would be far less confusing to those who don't realize it's just your average every-day folk behind these stunts. It's really just the common man turned vigilante... Either this, or label all vigilante acts with unknown perpetrators as the work of Anonymous -- Because that's what it's come to.

Here, I'll demonstrate:

Today, someone hacked multiple UK government websites over the country's 'draconian surveillance proposals' and 'derogation of civil rights.' At the time of writing, the following websites were taken down: homeoffice.gov.uk, number10.gov.uk, and justice.gov.uk. Someone is not pleased with the UK government's plans to monitor Internet users.

Re:Anonymous? by phantomfive · 2012-04-07 17:49 · Score: 1

I can tell you for sure though, if I ever hack some website, I won't be claiming it was anonymous.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Anonymous? by cavreader · 2012-04-07 18:40 · Score: 2

The only positive thing the "hacktivists" accomplish is force companies to contribute more resources to securing their systems. Most of these attacks take advantage of poor IT practices such as not remaining up to date security updates. They also provide the politions with the ammunition to enact more stringent laws.
Re:Anonymous? by Hitokiri+Battousai · 2012-04-07 18:59 · Score: 2

They're called Anonymous because they're not just random people, but rather a stand alone complex—which, albeit, is just a group of random people, but with the addition of unintended or decentralized cooperation. And that's something to which it is meaningful to give a name.

This guy goes into it more: http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientology-sac/
Re:Anonymous? by Hentes · 2012-04-07 22:35 · Score: 1

They are much better organised than their propaganda would led you to believe. This was a coordinated DDoS attack with dozens of members participating and Anonymous have claimed responsibility over it.
Re:Anonymous? by GameboyRMH · 2012-04-08 03:48 · Score: 1

That's like saying angry mobs are organized because they swarm together and speak in the same space.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Anonymous? by cusco · 2012-04-08 13:18 · Score: 1

It's a DDOS attack. The only 'poor IT practices' here are not having an unlimited pipe to the Internet and an unlimited number of servers to handle the extra traffic.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Anonymous? by cavreader · 2012-04-09 11:35 · Score: 1

There are only a few data centers capable of fighting off a DDOS and your right this type of attack is almost impossible to withstand for most companies. However, the posers acting as "hacktivist" have taking advantage of systems which were not current on the security patches. Too many mid to large companies have too much red tape to get these updates in place. These types of decisions are usually left in the hands of some management knot head following the "correct procedure". After all if they follow the correct procedures and someone compromises their systems they can save their jobs. Sloppy coding practices also create exploitable holes just by not validating both client and server side data streams. I don't care how secure a browser is it doesn't matter when the developer does something stupid. SQL injection attacks are also a big target but can be prevented by correct data access and current staying current on the security updates. One thing I have not seen is people entertaining the possibility that some of the more public attacks rely on insider information provided by a disgruntled employee.

UK government = fucked. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 17:27 · Score: 1, Informative

The current state of the UK is a good example of a government
which has more interest in remaining in power than anything
else it might be doing which could be more productive and might actually
serve its citizens.

As an aside, this is pretty much a preview of what you will see the US
government do in the next 20 years. In both cases it amounts to the
pointless thrashing of an empire which is either already defunct or
will soon be.

You knew it was coming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 17:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Obligatory XLCD

http://xkcd.com/932/

Re:Counter-Productive by jhoegl · 2012-04-07 17:35 · Score: 4, Funny

I say they discover a new land, live on this land for a few years whilst drawing monetary support from Britain, and then get all in a huff about tea time.
That will show em who is boss!

They have a right to be angry ... by MacTO · 2012-04-07 17:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

... but they should be locked up until they figure out how to press for change by democratic means.

This is a relatively small group of people, few of whom are UK citizens, that are using force to impose their ideology. They assume that their radical perspectives are supported by the majority, but are unwilling to test that by legally participating in the legislative process.

In other words, these are a bunch of hot heads that want to ram their ideas down everyone else's throats. In that sense they aren't terribly different from other religious or political ideologues.

(For what it's worth, I do support privacy. Yet I believe that the rule of law and democracy are far more important.)

Re:They have a right to be angry ... by cathector · 2012-04-07 17:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

by that reasoning, revolution is never an option.
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 18:18 · Score: 1

The UK is worse than even the US in terms of having the majority tacitly throw their support behind anything proposed (e.g. pan-surveillance and complete removal of any sort of personal defense) regardless of the tyrannical governmental momentum involved. A blindly accepting majority coupled with an increasingly restrictive government is a recipe for democracy breaking. the fuck. down. Their ideology rejects the progression of this perceived breakdown, and implicates the mechanisms by which a populace is tricked by a superior effort into accepting anything, and your response is "well they should accept democracy. They're upsetting the glorious status quo." Bravo shill... bravo.
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by MacTO · 2012-04-07 18:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Revolution is only an option when democratic and legal institutions do not exist, or there is concrete evidence that they have failed. If you seek revolution when those institutions exist, you are basically saying that your opinions are more important than those of the majority and that the courts have failed to protect minority rights.
Any such arguments for the UK, US, Canada, etc. are dubious at best. Yes, our institutions have problems but fixing those problems involves reform rather than revolution.
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by Concerned+Onlooker · 2012-04-07 18:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Revolution should be an option, but it should always be the last option. The problem with responding drastically is that the people who are abusing the power to begin with will only abuse it more to counter what they see as a threat. The cycle feeds itself.
That's why violence is such a lousy idea. Sure, it may sound gratifying to give the bastards what they deserve, but the bastards will always come back with even more violence.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by Baloroth · 2012-04-07 18:33 · Score: 3, Informative

by that reasoning, revolution is never an option.
Revolution is the ultimate democratic action: the people rising up en masse against tyranny (or for tyranny, in some cases. Democracy doesn't always work for freedom).
Far different from script kiddies "hacking" (actually DDoSing, which isn't "hacking" any more than driving a Fisher Price toy is "driving") a few government websites because they are pissed off over something (even if they are right to be pissed). That is more like scribbling graffiti: not democratic, just annoying.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 18:39 · Score: 1

Well, if the government can hide concrete evidence that democratic and legal institutions have failed, then what do you do?
1) A few noble cyber-patriots who actually have concrete evidence are forced into revolution, or,
2) A schizophrenic hacker (off his meds, the poor dear) starts a cyber-terrorism campaign to make the world believe his paranoid conspiracy theories.
Which one will you read about in the news? Which one would have been more likely in Russia, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria? And did the CCTVs save the UK, or instead cause George Orwell (Eric Blair) to repeatedly turn over in his grave? How many laws authorizing how much surveillance have been passed/will be passed before the population says 'enough is enough'?
Sleep well!
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by mrnobo1024 · 2012-04-07 18:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

So-called "democracy" as it exists in countries like the US is a complete sham. The government can act against the public interest on literally every single issue and still stay in power: any individual is only going to be knowledgeable about a small fraction of what the government does, and a majority of people will just take the media's word for it that they're doing right on most everything else.
The only issues on which the public actually has any influence are those which our rulers recognize to be of relatively minor importance, so the parties can put on a show of virulently disagreeing on them, which makes people feel like they're actually making a difference when they throw out corporate-owned party A and put into power corporate-owned party B. On the most important issues, there's always bipartisan agreement on the wrong side.
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by phantomfive · 2012-04-07 19:03 · Score: 1

Well, if the government can hide concrete evidence that democratic and legal institutions have failed, then what do you do?
They haven't failed. Most people don't care about these proposals. And in a democracy, 'most people' is kind of the point.

Although your question is a good one. If you don't have freedom of speech, you don't have democracy. The #1 problem facing democracy in Russia is the lack of free speech.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by Bert64 · 2012-04-07 21:54 · Score: 1

Wether the majority would support their goals or not is irrelevant, they don't have sufficient access to the media in order to inform the majority of what their goals are... The majority only reads what the large media companies want them to read, and those companies have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by trevelyon · 2012-04-07 22:44 · Score: 4, Informative

The government of the U.S:

1. has suspended Habeas Corpus
2. has taken and imprisoned citizenry from the street without being charged with a crime or receiving due process
3. allows police to detain and strip search anyone for any accusation
4. has not followed it's own laws for electing a president (see bush vs gore)

I'd say it's safe to assume the rule of law in the U.S. is long gone. When you've discarded the highest law in the land (the constitution) so blatantly and completely what law exactly is there left to respect? These are not "problems with institutions" but rather a complete and intentional disregard for the law as stated. This is not to mention the unending general surveillance of it's people which is rather clearly protect by that same constitution. What exactly do you require to classify it as beyond the rule of law?

I can't speak to the case of the U.K. since I am ignorant of the specifics of the laws there but I suspect there is some basis for the protection of liberties and privacy of the people in the law there. How that reconciles with what seems to be the population under the greatest surveillance by their government is beyond me.
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-08 04:01 · Score: 1

Imagine Bush had passed a law which could suspend the US constitution at whim (Civil Contingencies Act) and a second law which could change its words without debate in congress, just a vote (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act).
Imagine he'd mandated that everyone in the country should be fingerprinted and iris-scanned and that they should be required to identify themselves digitally wherever they go (Identity Cards Act).
This UK government was Labour (Blair & Brown) who passed a much longer list of totalitarian laws than above. The govt since 2010 is a coalition, the first in 80 years. The junior partners are mostly Liberal Democrats.
Their first act was to repeal the Identity Cards Act and several illiberal measures I haven't mentioned.
Almost nobody knows that these new surveillance measures aren't new, Labour introduced unlimited internet surveillance in RIPA 2000. It's about who pays to store the data.
Also worth noting that this is an EU directive demanded by Labour via policy laundering.
Now, these new powers were leaked. And it seems that even the Deputy Prime Minister (a LibDem) didn't understand what had been proposed.
http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2012/04/the-party-machines-view-on-communication-interception/
Indeed, the liberal side of the LibDems are going mental about this. What the liberals will probably try to do is repeal RIPA and insist that access to such data is only possible via the judiciary ie a warrant.
This guy gives a much more in-depth analysis.
http://spyblog.org.uk/
Posting as AC as I have heavily moderated this article.
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by magpie · 2012-04-08 09:13 · Score: 1

Hey the system would work if the mean stream media, including the bbc were woth shit. On party, the biggest in one of the nations of the UK has stood up. http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/apr/snp-condemn-uk-government-surveillance-plan but don't expect the bbc to make note of it...or any of the mainstream media. Yeah wer'e used to being ignored up here.
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by Ash-Fox · 2012-04-08 23:33 · Score: 1

A blindly accepting majority coupled with an increasingly restrictive government is a recipe for democracy breaking. the fuck. down.

No, a European government that is not voted in by the people's of Europe is a recipe for democracy breaking down, since there is no democracy. It doesn't matter which way vote for the UK government because the European government is in control.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:They have a right to be angry ... by Ash-Fox · 2012-04-08 23:52 · Score: 1

Imagine Bush had passed a law which could suspend the US constitution at whim
He doesn't need to in order to ignore it - Also as we know, he did. The UK is different because of common law, making accountability a problem for those in power.

Imagine he'd mandated that everyone in the country should be fingerprinted and iris-scanned and that they should be required to identify themselves digitally wherever they go (Identity Cards Act).
To be fair, this was based on the pre-existing IPS drafts for verifying identity. When IPS dropped iris scanning from their draft, so did the identity cards. Otherwise you're pretty much still required to go through the same conditions for identity verification for a passport. That identity information is stored at the IPS and on your passport in an NFC chip which is encrypted using your passport number and cryptographically signed by the IPS.
The problem with the Identity Cards Act was more to do with who had access to the database, the fact we already had passports and the penalties for not keeping information up to date on the database.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

DDOS = Hacking? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 18:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the first line of the article "Summary: Anonymous has launched a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) against multiple UK government websites."
Far less impressive than hacking the sites IMO. Then they could have left a message.

Not Hacks by pgn674 · 2012-04-07 18:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

The defacing of Chinese government's websites were hacks. This is just a DDoS.

Oh fa chrissake by DurendalMac · 2012-04-07 18:46 · Score: 1

A DDoS is NOT a hack. Turning on LOIC, Longcat Flooder, Pissblaster 9001, etc is not hacking. All you're doing is pointing a hose and turning on the water.

Re:Oh fa chrissake by Mouldy · 2012-04-07 20:35 · Score: 2

Which I believe is actually illegal in the UK right now - I think the hose pipe ban is already in effect this year
Re:Oh fa chrissake by I+Read+Good · 2012-04-09 11:17 · Score: 1

I've heard this before. I've also heard it rains a lot over there. What gives?

Re:Counter-Productive by DurendalMac · 2012-04-07 18:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

SOPA and PIPA were shut down through legitimate protests with ACTA not far behind. The problem is often getting enough people behind it to make that difference.

There are more effective things by Phoenix666 · 2012-04-07 18:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

to do. Who cares about a website? Websites are superfluous. But hack their Blackberries and you will get their attention. Hack their family's accounts, and you will get their attention. The politicians of the world need to know that their very lives are at the mercy of geeks, and that the geeks are not pleased.

If geeks would work together, this kind of BS would nearly instantly stop because modern life would be impossible without the active or passive participation of geeks.

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

Re:There are more effective things by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 20:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hack their Blackberries and they'll pay other geeks enough (or just allow them to keep their jobs) to fix the problems. Hack their family's accounts and they'll find a way to track you down and imprison you.
Their lives are not at the "mercy of the geeks", and it doesn't matter one little fuck that the "geeks are not pleased". People with technical skills are commodities to those in power; those whose primary skills are amassing fortunes through corruption, building high-level relationships and brokering power- things that 98% of geeks are unable to accomplish.
Geeks are like honeybees- You give them a nice little hive to buzz around in with Aeron chairs, free snacks, and maybe a few stock options, then point them to a pretty field of flowers in which to gather pollen and keep them focused and happy, then every once and a while you open the hive and take the honey that they bust their asses to make. Piss them off and you might get stung once and a while, but 99% of the time, you're going to get the honey. "But, but look at Google and Facebook and Amazon, and, and...." Yep- and look at who steers those corporate ships now, Sparky. In the majority of these types of successes, the geeks took their cash and split- Don't ask them to organize your little geek uprising.
"If the geeks would work together".... yep, If only they would. If I had wheels I'd be a fucking wagon. If only, for that matter, anyone that feels outrage against an unfair or oppressive system would actually "work together". You need a leader, and organization for that to happen, which involves actually finding someone who is a geek (or maybe just technically literate) AND a leader AND willing to put his or her neck on the line against existing power... good luck with that, pal.
Your post is so heart-breakingly naive and cliched that it's not even worth making fun of. What's really disturbing is that you have a low number next to your name- You're too damned old to be that damned naive.
Re:There are more effective things by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 22:21 · Score: 1

"But hack their Blackberries and you will get their attention."
You mean "hack their assistants' Blackberries", themselves they wouldn't know one if it bit them.
They'll just fire the assistant.
Re:There are more effective things by phantomfive · 2012-04-08 04:54 · Score: 1

"But, but look at Google and Facebook and Amazon, and, and...."

Uh, in all three of those cases, the geeks who started the company are still running the company.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:There are more effective things by phantomfive · 2012-04-08 16:09 · Score: 1

True, you need to make it easier for competent people to enter the power structure than to start a revolution.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Counter-Productive by phantomfive · 2012-04-07 19:07 · Score: 1

Indeed. If enough people are willing to vote based on a particular point, politicians will pay attention. And if they don't, someone will be elected who does. Surprisingly, this is true whether we have a two-party system or a 10 party system.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

must be total chaos ... by drrilll · 2012-04-07 20:04 · Score: 1

They took down some websites? It must be complete anarchy over there. A total breakdown of moral order. Its tough but fair. Well played Anonymous.

oh look, the Reichstag's burning by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-07 20:50 · Score: 1

We need some sort of Enabling Act to hurry through legislation to protect us from these terrorists.

Re:Counter-Productive by Phil06 · 2012-04-08 01:45 · Score: 1

I say they should go after governments that are actually draconian, like North Korea.

--
"...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man

Re:Counter-Productive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-08 03:49 · Score: 1

Yeah and now they're trying to push through SOPA v2 in the form of a treaty while noone's looking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Re:Counter-Productive by hkmwbz · 2012-04-08 05:18 · Score: 1

Guillotines.

--
Clever signature text goes here.

Only backed by the unionist parties by magpie · 2012-04-08 09:03 · Score: 1

Labour will back it, but oddly the biggest party in scotland stands opposed http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/apr/snp-condemn-uk-government-surveillance-plan Hey another resaon to desolve the act of union.

Re:Counter-Productive by DurendalMac · 2012-04-08 09:52 · Score: 1

That's ACTA. I just mentioned ACTA. ACTA is dying as Europe abandons it thanks to mass protests. Please try to keep up.

sort of like by ILongForDarkness · 2012-04-08 13:57 · Score: 1

the draconian surveillance of hacktivists?

Re:Counter-Productive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-08 14:48 · Score: 1

I guess you haven't heard about CISPA? Please try to keep up.

Re:Non-political means by Ash-Fox · 2012-04-08 23:27 · Score: 1

Anybody that knows about the Revolutionary War, can see that they tried politics, but that didn't work.

I don't see Anonymous being an actual political party here in the UK, no idea what you're talking about.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

This is stupid by Tmann72 · 2012-04-09 00:54 · Score: 1

All these hackers are doing is making the government realize how inadequate the system currently is such that a small group of people can cause this much havoc. This will speed along more laws to help crack down on net traffic because they see an obvious security threat to the countries well being. This is counter productive anonymous. This isn't simple protesting. It's actual acts of crime and vandalism against a sovereign state. This will only make things worse in the long run.

Slashdot Mirror

Anonymous Hacks UK Government Sites Over 'Draconian Surveillance'

90 of 151 comments (clear)