Slashdot Mirror
BBC Taken Offline By 'Anti-IS' Group (bbc.co.uk)
New submitter shilly writes: The BBC is reporting that all its websites were taken offline on New Year's Eve for several hours, and the attack appears to be from a group calling itself New World Hacking. The group claims its raison d'être is to attack IS, but wanted to test out its capabilities first and chose the BBC as a target. A member of the group said, "We realize sometimes what we do is not always the right choice, but without cyber hackers... who is there to fight off online terrorists?"
so just terrorists then?
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Or maybe it should be "without cyber terrorists... who is there to fight online hackers?"
Did their mothers never tell them that two wrongs don't make a right? You need at least three lefts to make a right, or something.
On the plus side, the BBC won't cut your head off if they find you.
Who ordered that?
LOL? With friends like this who needs enemies.
Morons.
I can't see how a non-government backed cyber-attack can work against a group with a distributed online presence. If you take down one site, wouldn't they just pop up another and use social media, or more old fashioned communications methods like email, to spread word about the new site. So are these New World hackers planning to also take down Facebook, Twitter, Sony or even the almighty Google?
Are they the terrorist group previously known as ISIS?
If the wealthy don't get their daily fix of self loathing they'll bleed from the ears and die and we'll be able to govern ourselves rationally again.
Do they not realize... they ARE the online terrorists?
Please explain how you come to that decision. I'm sure the world would like to know.
Oh, perhaps it is because it covers the 'real world' and not hicksville USA. It is also not afraid to take the UK Government to task.
To many people in the world, the BBC is a fountain of information and not propaganda like the US equivalent.
CNN-International used to be good but has gone down hill rapidly in recent years.
But hey, carry on thinking that it is some commie/socialist propaganda machine. There are a lot of people who think that the BBC is a right wing propaganda machine. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
If they wanted to 'test their capabilities' they could have just hit some obscure and unimportant site that no-one would even notice being down. Or they could have picked a target that would be a plausible target for Anonymous and let the world blame it on them - hit Sony again, perhaps, or some state-owned company in Russia. Attacking one of the world's most read and respected news organisations and the claiming credit for it publicly (Or, more likely, claiming the credit after someone else takes the BBC site down) just seems like a plea for attention.
Does IS even have websites? I've been lead by various news reports to conclude that they have an extensive social media propaganda campaign, but it isn't run through their own websites. Just an ever-shifting set of youtube channels, facebook pages, twitter accounts and so forth.
I'm guessing New World Hacking is following news of their exploits, which includes reading the comments here, so: Knock it off. You want to attack Islamic State? Go have a try at following their social media presence and report as many of their accounts as you can find to the service operators. You will probably have to learn a few additional languages though - Arabic does not do well on machine translation, and even in the areas IS operates Arabic isn't always the most commonly spoken of languages. That sounds like a better idea, with the added bonus of being legal so you can operate in the open and recruit a few more people - and you'll need them. Use those people to promote a countering narrative - spread word of their atrocities, and make fun of their idiotic proclamations. Religion is always week against mockery - once it loses respect it loses authority too.
Please explain how you come to that decision. I'm sure the world would like to know..
Probably was brainwashed by Fox News and talk radio.
Of course, people like that don't have much in the way of brains to wash.
If you really are against IS, maybe you should focus on taking IS targets down rather than popular news providers. You better be quick though, because you are just as bad as IS in the eyes of the UK people.
To be fair, post-Hutton the BBC toes the government line in a way it hasn't since before the hippies invaded the ranks in the '60s. What is more, much of its research and technical infrastructure - including the transmitter network itself - has been sold off since the '90s. It really isn't the BBC it once was, which in turn wasn't the BBC that once was, but the privatisation is a real shift of control from something that had for three quarters of a century been about public broadcasting at arms' length from the State.
Oh so just kids mucking about with scripts to get a DDOS going... move along nothing to see here...
but without cyber hackers... who is there to fight off online terrorists?
I understand the goal of these cyber hackers but they need to be very careful messing with the BBC...Jeremy Clarkson isnt up to much these days and i hear he's got a real mean right hook.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Just try it on the real target and if it works it works. Doing this really makes them lose any credibility.
BBC is nothing more than Marxist-Leninist rubbish.
I also fail to see how these guys are any danger to real terrorists. The most they can do is to take some small/medium sized site offline for a limited amount of time. How is that threatening/revenging/weakening of armed guys who are decapitating/blowing up civilians? If these so called cyber hackers could at least collect some intelligence about the terrorist's plans, their connections and sponsors, but that would require actually breaking into social networks/email providers/cellphone operators they use for internal communication (alongside of thousands of other users). In this case NSA's surveillance sounds like a more appropriate although still questionable tool.
I don't think you know what those words mean...
Attention seekers or distraction? Inquiring minds want to know... And the entire BBC? Please... Trying to create some "news", are we?
As the BBC has been shown repeatedly to slant news favorably towards terrorists, this may not be such a bad choice.
Just because someone with an agenda makes a claim, means that they are anything more than a troll.
The agenda pushed is the "online terrorists", i.e. speech as terror. Which sounds unlikely. Very similar in fact to that "How do we censor terrorist speech" article the other day.
If it *wasn't* the BBC, would we have noticed?
Suppose they knocked out some 'terrorist' website with its 100 visitors a day, would anyone have given a flying fuck?
So their tests of a DDOS doesn't make sense, and neither does their "online terrorist" claim.
There isn't a website with hits the volume of the BBC that could be called a terrorist site. Not even close. So which site would you DDOS and where is it hosted?
The BBC is a British version of PBS and NPR. Has always had a pretty blatantly Leftist agenda, and in the Middle East, have been squarely on the side of the Palestinian Jihadis. Watching the BBC, for example, there is no way one would ever come to a conclusion that Israeli operations in Gaza would be in retaliation for daily rockets fired into Sderot.
Not just that, they are apologists for Muslims everywhere - from Britain to Europe to India and the Americas. Any anti ISIS/ISIL group that took down their site made the right choice for a test target. Good luck to them disrupting ISIS so that they don't get to convert our kids and friends to Islam and wage Jihad while here.
It isn't like a ddos even affects online hackers. They aren't using their website as a their point of attack.
ISIS implies Islamic State in Iraq & Syria. ISIL expands it a bit to mean Iraq & the Levant, which would toss in Lebanon, Israel and the Pali authority as well. But now they claim to lead all Muslims worldwide, and you have Jihadi groups like Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, Islamic movement of Uzbekistan as well as splinter Jihadi groups in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh all affiliated to ISIS. And of course, the armies of 1 or 2 popping up throughout the West, like in Paris and San Bernardino. This is the closest thing to the Abbasid Caliphate that existed in the 9th century.
Call it like it is. These scripts kiddies ain't no heroes.
Unfortunately someone always makes a better idiot.
Their hearts *might* be in the right place, but not their packets. If they wanted some real practice they would do some serious old fashion investigative work and dig up any and every detail they can on the Linode attack and then give that information to the company so that they might mount a better defense strategy and perhaps help the law enforcement side of things. After all, these gray hats are running with the right circles, no...? Then again, their "practice attack" was something script kiddies could have likely pulled off. I'll bet this is all about ego. They are playing with fire.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Okay, so now the test has been successful, they can go ahead and take down... uh... what? isis.com? For a couple of hours?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Please explain how you come to that decision. I'm sure the world would like to know..
Probably was brainwashed by Fox News and talk radio.
Of course, people like that don't have much in the way of brains to wash.
Nobody is more close-minded than a "progressive".
Campus speech codes, shouting down speakers that aren't "progressive", "microagression", calling people "racist" or "sexist" because they don't think "X" is the proper approach to something when "X" is the hive-mind-agreed-upon "progressive" policy.
Watch the shit hit the fan if you simply point out that by far the largest contributor to gun violence in the US is black-on-black crime with already-illegal guns and almost all of that occurs in very restricted geographical areas almost all under one-party Democrat rule. Those are facts that make a "progressive" head explode because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions.
Point out that when you control for things like education, hours worked, experience, and all other variables that there is no "gender gap" in pay, and you get to watch "progressives" go crazy.
Mention the fact that Michael Brown was a 300-lber who just robbed a convenience store - beating on the clerk in the process - instead of some harmless "innocent teen", and was probably panicked and desperate to escape when the Ferguson police started questioning him a few minutes later and watch "progressives" spit and sputter.
But hey, you can pat yourself on the back all fucking day with your close-minded "facts have a liberal bias". I do wonder if Detroit's treasurer would agree with you, though.
And I also have to wonder how many "progressive" loons (but I repeat myself...) who ranted about "BOOOOSH LIED!!!!" are going to vote for Hillary!, who claimed, among her myriad documented lies, was named after Sir Edmund Hillary seven years before he climbed Everest. Who lied about not having classified data on her illegal mail server.
that our {s}most brilliant minds{/s} are fighting IS online.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1) IS is now posing as anti-IS troops and this was their attack in Europe that was announced earlier.
2) Come on, three-letter-agencies of the United States Gubernment, can't you come up with a better name than "New World Hacking" for your dubious activities? L.A.M.E.
Probably just a cover story thought up in haste to deflect attention from another group's attack or test that went off prematurely. Let's talk about ISIS to throw most people off our scent.
"To many people in the world, the BBC is a fountain of information and not propaganda like the US equivalent."
The beauty of our system is that there IS no US equivalent. Each private station is just as biased, but competition produces a diversity of bias.
the most famous example in recent history: the Savile coverup. Other famous examples: the priest and a small boy in relief with his cock hanging out above the main entrance to the BBC London headquarters at Broadcasting House (NSFW). Building 7 WTC falling on its own footprint twenty six minutes earlier than it actually did (1:17 in, it's RIGHT THERE as she's pointing to the spot where it "was"!).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
What in the name of sweet Jeezus has your very exciting rant about all the perceived evils of US liberal politics got to do with the BBC?
With friends like these, you'd be better off with just enemies.
Totally stupid and dick move.
Where before, if they attacked isis, their biggest worry would be possible retaliation from a terrorist group from another continent that has very limited reach to their current location. They could have done almost anything, and the authorities wouldn't put any real effort into investigating it.
Now they've pissed off a prestigious 'ally' that's in a country that can take action, even if through treaties & agreements. The authorities have real reasons and concerns to drive them to spank these assholes now.
Only a moron turns powerful entities that can hurt you into enemies in their attempts to tweak another enemy that is of limited threat.
see title
Sound like there was a miscommunication in their group, the boss said take out IS but they thought he said IIS
Completely illiterate view of BBC particularly the propaganda machine known as BBC news.
The news is full of trolls selling glow ball wamming, and during the Blair years WMD lies, and paving the way for World War 3.
If we had a neutral BBC investigating the wrong doings of the politicos and their directives, the Iraq war would never have happened.
That is how much blood they have on their hands.
The same now is true of glow bull wamming.
The science says NOAA is lying by tossing out all the satellite data, and that that the Sun is heading for a cooling period due to the double dynamo effect, which is going to bring with it more snow, rain and floods, while trolls are out there selling a world full of glow ball wamming.
More blood on their hands.
bbc was bought by the UK monarchy in 1927 and has been running the bull of that extreme mafia family the US fought a war to escape ever since.
start there and work your way through another world war and countless manipulation campaigns and the cover up of all the pedophilia that family has been involved in (such as her kids regularly visiting Jeffrey epsteins island and going crazy when the media hacked their phones)
and you'll probably come to the same conclusion.
It's just like that line the song by the Ramones "Mr Loboto" "BBC did a job on me"
rewriting history since 2109
These have to be the dumbest people on the face of the earth. It's less effort for organizations like IS to create another web presence than the effort it takes these children to shut one down. Beyond that, security services from states that actually have the power to do something are using these kinds of sites as sources of information. They can figure out things like who's setting them up, where the money's coming from, means and methods, and where the recruits are going. Somewhere at the end of that chain of information is a smart bomb with a bad guy's name on it if the script kiddies will stop messing things up.
Typing with one hand?
A bunch of script kiddies attacked the BBC because they want to attack IS ?
I would be surprised the sum of their IQ is even close to reaching 3 digits.
Let's hope they left enough clues so justice can stop their mischief.
Oh, and if any of these bright boys are reading this: are you proud to have attacked such an easy target ?
Ever heard that triumph without peril brings no glory ?
Understood ? Now go to your room!
This looks like a job for... the proper authorities!
He was waiting for an opening. Speech was ready to go and only needed an audience.
BBC are terrorist by misrepresenting people, trolling for comments to attack certain groups of people. Apparently BBC got a guy fired for using the term white flower, this is no joke. BBC should be offline forever, I do believe in freedom of speech but when people are lying out of asses to mass group of people it's going way too far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Keep calm and carry on
how will you be sure it's waterproof?
Nobody is more close-minded than a "progressive".
I read the whole entire rest of this mindless rant hoping to find the answer... Nobody is more close-minded than which progressive?
An anti-IS group? In other words, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.
You seem to have it backwards. In the 50s the BBC was very supportive of the government. In the 60s t started to be more irreverent, and really began to hold ministers to account in the 70s when Newsnight and Question Time stated.
I agree it has become more tame lately.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Years of having potent arguments answered with "but YOUR side has problems too, LOOK!" and the subject being changed. He simply has given in to the new way of argument and is now surprised that you consider it invalid. Just think of how many "Islamic terrorism is a bad thing and we need to think of how to end it" arguments have been answered with "The Crusades were worse and killed more people so STFU". This has been going on for years and years.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
No, you just have trouble with reading comprehension ;-). I'm agreeing with you:
To be fair, post-Hutton the BBC toes the government line in a way it hasn't since before the hippies invaded the ranks in the '60s.
i.e. in the '50s it was very pro-govt, but between the '60s and the '90s it was "more irreverent". From a current affairs PoV, we're now reverting to the '50s model of obsequious fawning.
Or maybe it should be "without cyber terrorists... who is there to fight online hackers?"
Did their mothers never tell them that two wrongs don't make a right? You need at least three lefts to make a right, or something.
The correct quotation (from The Harvard Lampoon's Deterioata) is "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do."
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
Hmm... Not sure if serious or if just not inclined to learn some history.
See the use of the BBC during WWII. They were used to spread both propaganda on their own channels but also set up channels just for the propagation of propaganda. Additionally, they were used to convey secret messages. One of the more interesting was a bit of poetry to signal the French Resistance folks to start preparing for the arrival of troops in Normandy - known as D-Day. They were also heavily censored during that time, an effort to control the population's thoughts and opinions could be called "brainwashing," no?
So, sure, the AC you're responding to is (quite probably) out to lunch - it's not really out of character for the BBC to be used for propaganda and an attempt to control a population. It's probably not at all what the AC was referencing but, well, there it is.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I am a listener to, fan of, and financial supporter of NPR. I consider it one of many news sources. NPR does, indeed, have a Left-leaning slant and I am aware of the bias and try to use multiple sources to get informed. A recent example was a piece about Trump. I am not a Trump supporter but I am a fan of honesty. I do not recall the exact quote but they were accusing Trump of wanting to do something about internet communications. I decided to go online and have a look. I found said quote and it was not only out of context, it was more quoting insinuations made by the interviewer than the interviewee. I've never heard a retraction.
I'm aware of the bias and I'm pretty sure that, even if just by omission, you will not find an unbiased news source. I don't think it's really possible to eradicate biases completely. Thus, I prefer to get news from multiple sources - including overseas media about current events in the US. Your statement about the NPR is, in my opinion, accurate and that's why people should try to use more than one news source. I've even listened to Fox (I don't watch much television, I haven't watched much for most of my life and almost none since the 1980s - I do like talk/news radio, however) and found nuggets of facts and objective reporting. Yet it's obvious that Fox is biased as well.
So, if nothing else, this is some attempt to be objective - NPR is biased. I'd say it's not heavily biased but I think evidence suggests that they're biased. It's not surprising or unusual. It's just what it is. If your goal is to have your opinion read back to you and supported then stick to the source that tells you what you want to hear. If you want to expand your views then listen to the sources that you believe to be biased in the opposite direction. If you're interested in making up your own mind and having as much information as possible then use multiple news sources and listen for the things that aren't said and pay attention to the way things are being said.
Err... That is all... What is it that you kids do? Something about dropping a mic? Err... Will it suffice if I just turn it off and place it back into the stand properly and gently? 'Cause, yeah, it's not really nice to go damaging other people's stuff and I imagine the noise will be unruly and the potential feedback could be annoying to some of the older members of the audience.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Multiple sources is a good criteria. I pick my news from multiple sources, but excluding al Jazeera, which despite their fanbois here, has a record for pushing al Qaeda. BBC is good for SOME coverage of world news, like when they cover European or Arab affairs. But I don't trust them in their coverage of the US, Israel or India, due to their pro-Muslim biases. Typically for world events, I check out the leading news organizations for countries I'm interested in, as opposed to the BBC's Economist like opinionated pieces of them. Like say Jerusalem Post for what happens in the Middle East. For the US, I check out the websites of people who I trust as being more objective. I don't do Facebook or Twitter, but if I did, then I'd follow directly the people I support, and ignore the media altogether.
Those are good sources. I'm aware of the biases and acknowledge them which is why I'd say that I find al Jazeera to be an acceptable source. I'm not suggesting that one take them at face value and to the exclusion of all others but that one at least consider their information and seek to find more information as needed. Some days I may find a single story, and just that one story, and spend as many as a few hours learning about the background, opinions, and even delve into the history of that region. I'll then draw my own conclusions but I don't exclude al Jazeera as an informations source by default.
Hell, I'll even go to Democracy Now! as a source of news. I've caught them, more than once, so abusing editorial methods as to make things seem exactly opposite what reality is. However, I'll still go see what information they have. I don't really exclude anyone - if that makes sense? I am just aware that they're biased or might even be outright dishonest. Which leads to this:
I guess, I don't even really have a set group that I use. It really depends and I do have preferences but no exclusions (other than some obvious not-news sources). I'll even make use of Russia Today. True, I probably avoid drawing conclusions based on those sources but that doesn't mean I'll exclude them. I'll visit various sites, some not in English, and see what I can find out. I make use of machine translation a lot and sometimes will even use multiple translation services. (I use something simply called Translator by someone named SailorMax. I also *read,* but not speak well, a few other languages and can often get by without it.)
Fortunately, I'm retired. I can get away with spending that much time keeping up with things of interest. I'm in a position where I can spend that time and think for myself. I've often pondered actually putting those thoughts to keyboard and sharing the fruits of my research with others but, frankly, I'm both a bit lazy and aware of my own biases. I am sort of working on a project that enables such but it may be a while coming and may never reach fruition though it may make a repository of my thoughts which, I suppose, probably isn't of much value to anyone else but will certainly offer a feedback mechanism because I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and having to defend them as being logically consistent and well reasoned. (As an aside: That's one of the reasons that I'm here and one of the reasons that I do share as much as I do.)
Oh, the linked extension is for Opera. I don't know if there is a Chrome/Chromium version but it should work if you simply download it and import it as an unpacked extension? Prior to being able to directly use Chrome extensions, that's how I was able to get the extensions work in reverse. I've not poked at Vivaldi for a little while but worked for Vivaldi as well. I suspect that there's something similar for Firefox, Pale Moon, and whatnot - I don't know of something of that nature for Midori and I've no clue what works with IE/Edge or Safari. It's sometimes rather interesting to read news articles with one translation and then use a different translation service to check against it. Sometimes the resulting differences can be a bit interesting. The conclusions you draw are your own and you don't have to rely on someone else telling you what to think - so there's that.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No, the correct quotation is:
"Consider that two wrongs never make a right,
But that three do."
I'd love to try whatever you're smoking
I'd love to try whatever you're smoking
The current Director General of the BBC is also a Director of HSBC Bank (Those lovely people who fucked the global economy), a Tory party donor and a personal friend of David Cameron. So of course there's no bias on the BBC!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
to bring down.
Healthcare.gov immediately comes to mind.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
"The BBC is a British version of PBS and NPR"
Yes, just like the Beatles were the British version of the Monkees.
What does Fox News & Talk Radio got to do with the BBC?
Here, I'll give you some help...
Oddly, they both demonstrate that 'US liberal politics' seems to be infecting the world, or its just mutual infestation as its hard to say who infected who...why would ANYONE in the UK care 1 iota about what Fox News has to say? O right, its to allow them to feel 'superior' because their supposed non-biased state run TV agency claims to have better 'facts' than Fox News. Consider as well that things like 'Campus speech codes' are NOT just a US only encroachment on liberty (check out stories on UK Universities banning various open discussions or appearances by 'the wrong type of people (Robin Thicke for one & some people debating Abortion were two I noticed a few months ago).
As well, just go check out BBC's reporting on something like the Michael Brown incident, it supports the same narrative as the 'liberal media' in the US...again the point being is that if you raise any of the topics the AC ranted about in the UK with the general British public you'll get the same basic 'progressive' response which is to spit & sputter about 'racism', 'sexism', 'patriarchy', etc., etc., etc. while maintaining the smug British attitude of 'superiority'...