Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Britain's GCHQ Attacked Anonymous Supporters With DDoS

Posted by Unknown on from the something-about-watching-watchers dept.

An anonymous reader writes "NBC News reports that, during a 2012 NSA conference called SIGDEV, GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group bragged about using Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks against members of Anonymous during an operation called Rolling Thunder in 2011 (there is evidence that says it was a SYN flood, so technically it was a simple DoS attack). Regular citizens would face 10 years in prison and enormous fines for committing a DoS / DDoS attack. The same applies if they encouraged or assisted in one. But if you work in the government, it seems like you're an exception to the rule."

9 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. In defense of GCHQ... by korbulon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...No, I got nothing.

    1. Re:In defense of GCHQ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But they're trying to stop T E R R O R I S T S ! ! !

      Protesters are not terrorists. Sadly our governments don't make that distinction.

    2. Re:In defense of GCHQ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But they're trying to stop T E R R O R I S T S ! ! !

      Protesters are not terrorists. Sadly our governments don't make that distinction.

      No, that's not sad, it's quite terrifying.

      What's sad is that the secret agencies been treating activists like terrorists to maintain the corporate status quo since their inception over a century ago. That's what "national security" is.

    3. Re:In defense of GCHQ... by emagery · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I understand I am replying to a point of sarcasm, nethertheless we really should invest some time in using words correctly. Terrorists user terror to achieve a goal. Period. Activists use activism to achieve a goal. Vigilanteism may or may not use terror, but it is using directed force (of one form or another) to achieve a goal (in this case, hacking deleterious services in the name of 'justice' as understood by those engaging in it.) Whether justified or not or misdirected or not, it's not terrorism unless the force being applied is terror, and that does not accurately describe anonymous. Tangentially, I wish we'd do the same with words like LIBERAL (to behave permissively) vs. AUTHORITARIAN (to behave restrictively) or CONSERVATIVE (to resist change) vs. PROGRESSIVE (to seek change.) In all cases, the context is what's most important. Are you permissive toward personal in-home nondangerous lifestyles? Well, then you're socially liberal and probably democratic (party) leaning. Are you permissive towards gigantocorporations buying legislation and dumping toxins into water supplies on the cheap? Then you're corporately (neo) liberal. Hell, you have to be both liberal (towards individuals) and authoritarian (toward those arguing to take personal liberties away) to achieve and end... so I guess using D(D)oS against D(D)oSers almost makes sense. MEH! I just wish people would be simple and clear about the labels we through around and understand them in contexts.

  2. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other news, the UK military can drive tanks, fire missiles & carry weapons - but regular citizens cannot.

    It's all about oversight, not an attitude of "why can't we legally do this too?".

  3. The Schutzstaffel by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://pigs-at-gchq.com/ Do laws matter? When all agree to abide by a law it is called a social contract in English. “An agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for mutual social benefits, by safeguarding individual freedom for state protection.” The Oxford dictionary puts it this way: “Agreement among the members of a society or between a society and its rulers about the rights and duties of each.” The U.K. and the U.S. authorities have broken this agreement so badly in so many different ways that the future is not looking very good. Until they agree to keep within this social contract I will simply tell them at every opportunity to fuck off. Hope you do the same.

    1. Re:The Schutzstaffel by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anonymous had already broken the social contract.

      I believe you'll find Anonymous is breaking the social contract because governments have already done so.

      You've completely missed the part where the GP said:

      "Agreement among the members of a society or between a society and its rulers about the rights and duties of each." The U.K. and the U.S. authorities have broken this agreement so badly in so many different ways that the future is not looking very good.

      I find it difficult to disagree with the notion that the governments have already broken the social contract, and Anonymous is a reaction to that.

      I don't necessarily agree with everything Anonymous does -- but I sure as hell understand the reason for them existing. When your rulers are unjust, you have little recourse except to break the social contract as well.

      That those same unjust governments decide that gives them free reign to continue to be unjust is just more of the same.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Re:Perspective by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is not 'exception to the rule' under UK law. You have to have some 'ok' from the gov to do this. The GCHQ staff understood that when they first collected all calls (domestic too) via their Intelsat efforts in the 1960's.
    The Intelligence Services Act of 1994 offers a lot of new legal protections, then the Intelligence and Security Committee, SIGMod (sigint modernisation) followed in mid 2000 with more legal backing. Open court use of material is still under GCHQ veto, most is "passed" to other groups, MI5, ~ Special Branch.
    The use of a "packet flood" back up would have been a new step beyond passive logging and longer term infiltrating efforts.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  5. Re:GCHQ: "Hey guys.. DDoS attacks are illegal!" by Patch86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If government agents lobbed military-grade ordinance at innocent civilians in the UK, we'd call that unlawful killing and lock the bastards up. And by the same token, if GCHQ had DoS'd targets belonging to legitimate wartime enemies, we wouldn't be criticizing them.

    As a rough rule of thumb, the government isn't allowed to do things to citizens above and beyond what any civilian could do without a court mandate or a valid piece of legislation. Unless GCHQ have such a thing, they did wrong.