Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Dumps Australian Telco Data Online
lukehopewell1 writes "After the threats, admissions and delays, hacktivists protesting a data retention scheme proposed by the Australian Government's National Security Inquiry have begun dumping data gleaned from an Australian telco — presumably AAPT. Anonymous is in the process of dumping government and business customer data onto Pastebin for the world to see under the guise of Operation Australia. This episode is far from over, however. We're likely to see more data trickle out over the coming days, considering that the group has promised 40GB worth of leaks."
Person A gets shot at, gets tasered, gets arrested, etc.
Person B is "dumb".
I'm normally not a fan of this stuff, but in this case it actually makes a good point.
They've shown that they can steal data from the ISP.
If a bunch of your personal data starts being stored at the ISP, they or other criminals could steal that data as well. Basically having the data there is putting customers at great risk, and they have just demonstrated that the ISP is incapable of protecting the data.
This proves conclusively that any data preserved will be readily available to the government, the law enforcement, the crooks, anyone with pile of cash, and, ironically, NOT you, the person whose privacy was sacrificed. Saving all communications is beyond retarded. I agree with RMS: obtain a court order and then start logging, not the other way around.
says the "Anonymous Coward"
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Every time things like these new data retention, privacy sacrificing laws are proposed, two things always happen. People exclaim doom and gloom about the theoretical problems associated with the behavior and the government assuring the public that no such abuses will occur. (Think: Social Security #s in the US and how they were never supposed to be for anything other than social security... now it's a requirement for just about any financial transaction, people have been serialized and we're all stuck with the results which were accurately predicted.) The same thing has happened again -- people saying "this is a bad idea" and government saying "nothing bad will happen, you have nothing to worry about." But now we have someone exposing the weakness and vulnerability and the potential harm that can befall the public as a result of such data collection requirements.
But I think it's not enough to demonstrate it. People have to get angry. They have to understand they shouldn't be angry at the "hacktivists" but at the laws which require data collection and retention which are otherwise needless... the government has only one goal in mind, which is to use the data against the people.
What's your point? This just proves that they shouldn't keep a bunch of innocent people's data. It's a privacy nightmare.
Yes but they're not forcing you to store all your private data in their poor security shop right next to the big picture window. Your analogy is like a car: nonsensical.
Which is a good point, if the government is passing legislation forcing you keep your TV at the local electronics store.
Poor analogy is poor.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The local electronics shop is not the subject of new proposed legislation regarding major changes to government surveillance and tracking of the whole population. This action, IMO, qualifies as valid political speech. It is completely different to an act of vandalism or theft for the sake of it.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Right.
And if there was a law stating I had to keep a copy of all my personal documents at said electronics shop.. your demonstration would be a good thing to point to as a reason why this is a bad idea..
And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.
I guess the TV shops should not store their cash and finacial records in the window display at night then. I think they know that already.
OK, so basically the people's information being released are being punished twice. Once due to the government mandate which I assume they can't opt-out of, and two by those who apparently couldn't influence the government to change, took it out on them. I fail to see how anonymous is the one to root for here. Anonymous isn't the one that's going to suffer from either theirs or the government's actions. Collateral damage as it were I'm sure Anonymous will rally many to their cause.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
... I fail to see how anonymous is the one to root for here.
Well then, let me explain it.
Government is doing bad things. Specifically, it is always doing things which are against the interests of the people, or society as a whole.
All attempts at changing this behaviour have failed.
Anonymous is trying new tactics. By making the data public, it's making the population aware of the dangers of this legislation. In effect, they are illustrating the danger by hurting the privacy of a large number of individuals. With enough popular support, maybe possibly the law will get changed.
Now, as I said, this is a new tactic. The damage to the public is minimal, and would be otherwise dwarfed by any real data breach by real hackers. In that case, the information would be used for criminal purposes so the damage would be much greater, and the company would naturally deny that a breach had happened.
Now, you might not see this as an effective strategy, and indeed it may not be.
But this brings us back to the first point, which is that government is doing bad things and is unresponsive to the needs of the people. Since all other avenues of influence have failed, what remains would appear to be armed revolt.
When the system gets bad enough to piss off a large portion of the population, that's what will happen.
So you can pooh-pooh the attempts by Anonymous to try alternate means, but with no alternative you're effectively saying that revolt is the only option.
I, for one, applaud their efforts. I hope they come up with many more creative ways to make the people's voice heard in the halls of government, before we have to use armed rebellion.
if they did this to prove a point, they could have just posted a sample of the data, but no, they reveal everyones data and show they have as little respect for people as the companies that they target.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I have a 25GB monthly quota, you insensitive clods!
There's also quite a difference between the Wikileaks cases where data was leaked from an insider to Wikileaks, and things like this where the people getting the information weren't authorized to access it in the first place.
Anonymous harms the people who's data they publish, and they are not the good guys. They are criminals doing criminal harm.
However, they are *also* revealing just how vulnerable the system is to crime. If the data were not logged at all, then anonymous would not be able to publish it.
So, the government should protect me from anonymous by making this level of logging illegal, rather than mandatory.
That's not how it works (it's how it _should_ work though!) The government has taken steps to protect you from terrorists, but do you feel any safer for it? You say "the government should protect me from anonymous", but their idea of protecting you from anonymous will be to capture _more_ data to watch you more closely, and increase the punishments for this "terrorist" activity (including looking at the released captured data, and discussing the inadequacies of security).
(disclaimer: i've very recently given up caffeine so i'm extra cynical and extra grumpy)
Does it count as a release if it is uploaded to Letitbit.net, which proceeds to try and trick me into downloading an .exe file, then presents me with about 20 unreadable captchas in a row, then fails because it uses javascript on some IP address which got blocked by noscript, then after making an exception for that IP address it says I have reached my free limit of one download per day?
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
Ah, yes. Interesting how the "People's Liberation Army" seems to kill more than it liberates. Next time Anonymous wants to represent the people, ask the people first if they want Anonymous as their representative.
And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.
And if your government passes a law requiring local electronics shop to store masses of your personal data. You've also proven how lousy your security is. You've also proven that your government doesn't pass good laws.
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
Person B is just a pussy.
For what? Not taking on their opponents head-on? I mostly only care about the method that actually works, but if you're born with a brain, you're not a "pussy" for using it. It's like people think that you're a coward because you don't have fist fights all the time or let someone beat you up or something...
Not saying anonymous is right here, but indirectly fighting someone and using your brain doesn't mean you're a "pussy."
(i) So says an anonymous coward.
I don't see how that's related unless he took part in the activities...
Even if he did, I don't see how it matters. I don't agree with what he said, though.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You must not have been made to read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience in high school
Your loss.
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html
What steps exactly protect me from terrorists? They only thing that is going to stop these "terrorists" is to give them what they want. They don't do compromise. Also, the chance that you die from a terrorist attack in Australia, The US, Canada or Europe is much smaller than dying from lightning. You stand a bigger chance winning the lottery than dying from terrorists. About the only cause of death that is less likely to occur is being struck by a meteor. Why is it then, that the entire population should give up it's freedom to prevent "dying from terrorists"? I doubt that is the real reason. What is the real reason? It's probably just stupidity, but you can come up with your own conspiracy theory if you don't believe that, or any of the existing theories.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Civil Disobedience means that you break some law openly and are prepared to take the consequences. I understood that people behind this data leak have not even told their names.
What is the meaning of this fabulous sentence of a mystery language?
The government has taken steps to protect you from terrorists, but do you feel any safer for it?
Feelings are irrelevant. The objective answer is yes, you are safer. Governments in Western nations continue to arrest actual and would-be terrorists, usually before they can carry out the attack. As a result there have been few successful terrorist attacks in the Western world, the item below being one of the sad exceptions (of course we must remember that officially this was "workplace violence" by someone shouting Allah Akbar!):
Horror at Fort Hood: Gunman Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13, wounds 31 in rampage on Texas Army base
This isn't like the magic anti-tiger stone since we have actual bodies of terrorists in jail and in the grave - that isn't true for the magic anti-tiger stone. A few examples from the US, followed by some from Australia. Examples in the UK are trivial to come by.
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 17, 2012
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 10, 2012
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 3, 2012
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Guess there are a damn lot of indecent people in eastern Europe, then...
Hint: Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Damn those sour grapes!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A few years ago the German government already had the great idea to install a government backdoor to every ISP. I think it was the CCC who responded with an open letter that could be summed up with "Thanks, but it's already easy enough to hack everything around, but it's nice you thought we need help".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If they store my TV, then it would probably prove the point that they should not be allowed to handle my TV...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Cries like that are my only problem with the actions of Anonymous. Yes, my data is being published. But instead of blaming Anonymous for publishing them, blaming the government for recording them would be more apt. No records, nothing to steal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Could I opt-out of the terrorism stuff? I mean, mutually. You don't protect me from terrorists and I promise I won't hold you liable if I get blown up? Any chance?
Somehow I bet a damn lot of people would jump on that opt-out instantly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If the truth can be told so as to be understood it will be believed.
I just fear that the "understood" part is the hard one to accomplish.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You must not have been made to read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience in high school
...or he chose to disobey the teacher
...and if the powers that be decided to label maoris as the new terrorists and public enemy number one and treated them accordingly, eventually you'd have lots of maori terrorists... what's your point? It's exactly the same issue with african americans - people will live up to all of your stereotypes if you treat them that way. Just look at your average dictator... when they start thinking that EVERYONE is out to get them and treat the population accordingly, and all of a sudden everyone IS out to get them.
Treat everyone with respect, especially your enemies. If you caracature your enemies you won't understand them, and you'll make grave mistakes. Coincidentally the US is famous for doing just this in most wars since the 1950's.
If you want to see how factions within the US (ie. the neocons) manufacture enemies intentionally watch "The Power of Nightmares" by the BBC : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4_vkIsKOU4 . It's a very solid work, with many neocon powerbrokers and politicians expousing their philosophies, ex pentagon intelligence people talking about their frustrations, islamists and ex islamists etc... It also goes into how ALL (not just most) of these "terrorist" busts up til the point the documentary aired were paranoid delusions of jumpy police and spooks... but of course this isn't newsworthy so noone hears about it.
I note they still haven't arrested BushCo for sending what, a billion dollars to the Taliban to "halt" opium production.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Always the "good" progressive leftist, eh drinkypoo? Remember: It has been proven many times over that you should be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Always the "good" progressive leftist, eh drinkypoo?
Provably better than the hateful FUD you're spreading as an attempt at suppression of views with which you do not agree, you tiny-hearted little person.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Civil Disobedience means that you break some law openly and are prepared to take the consequences.
No it does not. Prominent counter examples are that of people sheltering jews in Nazi Germany and participating in the underground railroad.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Yeah I guess the term is not clearly defined. I'm mostly familiar with Gandhi's definition where the whole idea is to not resist arrests.
I am all for the people who are willing and able to put their freedom on the line for the cause - they deserve lots of respect for taking that route. I'm just not willing to disqualify other, perhaps less dedicated, protestors as well.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
well, good sir, there you have the charm. person b isnt even interested in being the hero. Work in the shadows all your life, never get any compensation, fame or recognition. I think that counts for some respect. Unless you think Assanges (a.o.) situation is some kind of martyrdom according to good old christian tradition i'm still pro-nonymous. They tried outing some of the cartels in south/mid americas but weren't careful enough. So a few heads got separated from a few people ... would they be heroes if they just posted that stuff with their names and faces on facebook? I think they'd rather be , as you call it, 'dumb' in that case , silly little kids tsk
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Here in Germany every single "terrorist" put on trial since the German Autumn has been revealed to have had contact to at least one state agency, from state and federal police to the Verfassungsschutz (part of the intelligence conglomerate) to our two secret services, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (foreign intelligence) and Militärischer Abschirmdienst (domestic intelligence), including being funded, trained, "led". At the same time this happened right under the noses of all the aforementioned agencies. They cannot protect the public from three lowlives. But they can combat terrorism. Yeah, right.
In all seriousness: On the list of threats to my life, freedom and livelihood terrorism does not even make the top twenty.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
That is really quite a fantastic claim given the following item, and just a small sample of arrests below. I would think you must have some substantial proof of this? And yes, terrorism is probably not the most likely thing to kill you, but it can in fact be a serious problem for a country if not held in check. You might have a very different opinion if Islamists in Germany achieve a similar attack rate there that they do in Iraq or Pakistan. The total killed by the National Socialist Underground isn't even a busy morning's work for Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Homegrown Terror Takes on New Dimensions
Surge in Volunteers
Never before have as many volunteers from Germany attended terrorist training camps as in the last two years. According to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, 138 people from Germany planned to travel to a training camp in 2009 alone. Since then, five volunteers leave the country on average each month to go to one of the camps in Pakistan. In the last decade, at least 220 people from Germany have completed terrorist training, with about half returning to Germany.
The Radical Islamist Roots of the Frankfurt Attack - 03/03/2011
Two Terror Suspects Arrested in Berlin - 09/08/2011
From the Rhine River to the Jihad - 09/29/2008
German Police Arrest 3 in Terrorist Plot - 09/06/2007
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I think the point that a lot of people/hactivists miss when they focus on privacy and get their knickers in a twist is that data retention regulations aren't primarily intended as surveillance enabling mechanisms, they are intended as evidence preservers so that once a law enforcement officer has enough evidence to go before a judge and get a warrant there will be something there to seize. From a forensic perspective, they mandate the architecting of digital exchange into systems they target. In the physical world this isn't necessary, we leave fingerprints everywhere we go, we pick up carpet fibers on our shoes, and we leave trace evidence behind. When it comes to digital systems such as those run by ISPs, unless there is software and hardware explicitly designed and configured to log, retain user info, etc, it isn't going to happen; transfer evidence is not going to exist. A lot of this type of legislation has been enacted because countries, even non-European ones, are signatories of the European convention on cybercrime, and the convention directs countries to have this type of capacity in place. The International Telecommunications Union, part of the UN, is also pushing countries to enact similar legislation. The trick is to make sure that the legislation is enacted in a way that doesn't infringe on privacy or other rights. If you read the convention, it specifically mandates that privacy and human rights be respected. There is also a retention time and a secure deletion directive, at least insofar as the European convention is concerned (directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament). Having said that, user activity data certainly needs to be better protected. And to all those who will probably jump on me and point out that the legislation and the convention also requires ISPs to have surveillance capability, that surveillance can only to be started with the proper judicial authorization, otherwise it is a criminal offence. It's just like taping a phone conversation. In most countries we also have enough case law and constitutional protection to mitigate abuse (e.g. 4th amendment in the US, or Charter s.8 in Canada.)