Canadian Government Servers Compromised By Anonymous

An anonymous reader writes: There was a cyber-attack on Wednesday by the activist group Anonymous, aimed at the Canadian government. Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney says no personal information was compromised. Anonymous claimed responsibility for the attack in protest against the recent passing of the government's anti-terror Bill C-51. "Today, Anons around the world took a stand for your rights. Do we trade our privacy for security? Do we bow down and obey what has become totalitarian rule? Don't fool [yourselves]. The Harper regime does not listen to the people, it acts only in [its] best interests." the group wrote in an online post.

Comments

Yeah, fuck Harper

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one, welcome our Anonymous Canadian Overlords.

Re:Yeah, fuck Harper

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that previous regimes didn't pass quite as many omnibus budgets with blatant anti-Canadian clauses throughout, nor try to establish a secret fucking police in a formerly somewhat free* country.
 
* no free speech, an obvious exception

Re:Yeah, fuck Harper

[tbannist]

Oh give it up for crying out loud. Regardless whether you're talking about the Cons majority Federally, or the NDP's new majority in Alberta I'm sick and tired of hearing whiners bitch and complain about how the combined power of all the other voters should trump the number of elected representatives who garnered the most votes in their ridings.

Can you explain why you think the government should not be representative of the combined will of the voters?

I guarantee you that when your particular party of choice gets in power you'll be rolling your eyes at anyone who uses the same argument.

Potentially, but that doesn't mean that's actually the proper reaction.

You also act like past regimes, Trudeau (PET) and Chretien, weren't just as much dictatorial as Harper's.

I'm am genuinely under the impression that they weren't, feel free to prove me wrong, but all of the credible commentary and discussion I've heard from experts on the topic indicate that Harper is running the most dictatorial and partisan government in living memory. Additionally, Stephen Harper is infamous for his micro-managing, his stage managed appearances and his defiance of the experts on virtually every topic. It's why this conservative government is just 2 for 45 on court challenges to their laws and has picked fights with just about every group that's not a conservative lobby group (and some that are).

Personally, I think you're using a false generalisation to dismiss valid criticism of Harper.

Go ahead and vote for your favorite future dictator next election, but step back a bit and be objective about what you're going to get.

It seems like the problem with people like you is that you can't even imagine there being anything between two polarizing options. Either someone acts like a dictator or they do not. Is there no room for someone who only acts like a dictator some of the time? And shouldn't we prefer a politician who, when elected, spends as little time acting the dictator as possible?

I had high hopes for Harper when he was chosen to lead the Alliance party back in the day, but he's disappointed me at every turn since then.

Conterproductive, perhaps?

[jandersen]

So, Anonymous protest against a law that targets hackers by ... hacking? And this will demonstrate to the government and the public that this law is not warranted? Please explain the logic in this, because I can't spot it.

Re:Conterproductive, perhaps?

[wonkey_monkey]

Anonymous hacker XYZ convicted to Y years

So is his middle name a number, or is he going to get sentenced to Jeff years in prison?

Re:Conterproductive, perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to change my middle name to "-10" to make myself safe from this.

Re:Conterproductive, perhaps?

[Dr Caleb]

No, the law isn't about hacking. Bill C-51 gives the government power to share information about citizens between departments. It also authorizes heavier surveillance, stronger powers of arrest, while not adding any accountability.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

Thanks but no thanks

[drrilll]

If I ever need Anonymous to take a stand for my rights, I will shine a Guy Fawkes mask onto the clouds. Until then I am more than capable of managing what I do and do not want to stand for. Do not presume to speak or act for me.

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops - they had an opinion - they forgot to check with you first to see whether it matches yours. Because you apparently think that your opinion trumps their right to have a different one. But the truth of the matter is, while you're certainly entitled to have your own opinion and stand for whatever you like, no one else really gives a shit but you.

Shit title

[Mashiki]

Shit article, shit title. It was a DDOS, and in terms of impact pretty much nothing happened. IP based stuff went into failover, and there wasn't even a pick up in phone call-ins apparently.

Troubling

[mark-t]

Bill C51 is particularly troubling... it has already been passed into law and as such may prove very difficult to get rid of by any later prime minister that disagrees with it without a majority government.

The most particularly troubling aspect of C51 is that it empowers CSIS to break almost *ANY* law... short of inflicting enduring physical bodily harm on someone, or acts of sexual violation... in the course of disrupting anything that they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be a terrorist threat, including violating even civil and constitutional rights. That means they can imprison people because of their race, or simply because of what that person believes, for example, even if that person has done absolutely nothing wrong. if CSIS has any reason at all to suspect that such factors link them to committing any act that corresponds with a terrorist threat, a phrase that by itself is so loosely defined (in fact, it isn't even defined in this law... in fact, it appears almost intentional to have left it undefined so that CSIS could apply the term as they saw fit), that even picketing or almost any other form of entirely peaceful assembly that might happens to disrupt some activity that the government is wanting to push forward could qualify.

It's interesting to consider, however, that because CSIS also outlaws the the distribution of terrorist propoganda, if, for example, Westboro Baptist Church were Canadian, then by Bill-C51, the government would have to ban the Christian bible, since WBC uses that text to justify many of their insane acts, and the bill explicitly outlaws the dissemination of literature that encourages acts of terrorism.

Re:Troubling

[Gramie2]

Tom Mulcair was on the CBC yesterday, and I have to say (as a non-committed voter who has voted NDP, Green, Liberal and --in a sad episode of my youth-- some Family somethingorother anti-abortion party) that I like the things he says and the way he says them. No hype, no theatrics, just intelligent arguments and thoughtful principals.

With Harper, we will get a precipitous slide into government by the rich, for the rich; with Trudeau, a gentler slope but the same trajectory. I truly believe that Mulcair will try to roll back some of the encroachments on individual rights and liberty, and actually start us headed towards environmental responsibility.

Is it possible that Mulcair will fall victim to the same hubris and vested interests as other politicians? Of course. But why not start out with at least a little hope for positive change?

Some facts about denial-of-service (DoS) attacks

[nickweller]

"What is a denial-of-service attack? Most commonly, these events occur when mischief makers or hackers simply flood a target computer with more traffic than it was built to handle. ref
--

Please stop using the word cyber on a tech site ..