Anonymous, Antisec, Lulzsec - Cyber-terrorists?

[jimik1990]

I want to preface what I'm going to say by saying I have next to no understanding of these groups, what they see as their aims, and their philosophy.

After reading/watching/hearing stories of companies and organisations ranging from Sony to the Syrian Interior Ministry, to the Federal Police of Brazil being hacked and sensitive data being essentially handed out wholesale, why is it that governments and the media seem reluctant to refer to these as what (at least in some cases) surely would qualify as cyber-terrorism? Is it borne out of fear that by demonizing these groups, they'll find themselves in the crosshairs? Or is it because it's simply easier to not treat them that way.

If I remember correctly, Anonymous hacked the websites of PayPal and Visa in retaliation for their cutting off of donation paths for WikiLeaks, but how is that really different to a group like Al-Qaeda (for argument's sake) making a suicide attack on a target in retaliation for a prior action. I know that there is a massive gulf in terms of political ideologies between Anonymous and Al-Qaeda, and I am NOT wanting to draw a connection between the two (mainly because there isn't one), but if someone has any kind of explanation, I'd really appreciate it

 

[Robert Ewing]

Not cyber-terrorists.

Cyber-pranksters.

Big difference, and one is largely harmless, and usually the act of doing so is forgotten in a month or two. Guess which one it is.

 

[BrailleOperatic]

No one is hurt in an Anonymous attack. DDoS is in no way, shape or form comparable to an IED. There is no loss of life or collateral damage. There is however, extreme inconvenience and millions of annoyed internet consumers. Anonymous is different from Al Qaeda in that they're more peaceful well, in many respects, being more effective. But themedia has not been shy to call them cyber terrorist. FOX News did an entire story on them.

On the other hand, LulzSec and their ilk have no real agenda. They truly do it for the lulz. The only people who like LulzSec ARE LulzSec.

 

[eTe]

It's activists.. They did it because they believe in Free Speech on the internet.
Shutting down WikiLeaks donations would cripple the website I think. WikiLeaks unearthed things the government didn't want you to know, which you have every right to know.

And they hack into databases to try and get people to realize how insecure their data is. Maybe if people wake up and get better defense, there might be less information theft.

Al-Qaeda are nutcases who want to kill those who do not agree with their opinions. Nothing in common.

EDIT:

On the other hand, LulzSec and their ilk have no real agenda. They truly do it for the lulz. The only people who like LulzSec ARE LulzSec.

I think that LulzSec still serve a greater purpose. The fact that they can break into places like that only enlarges the glaringly obvious need to increase security. They might be doing it for the wrong reasons, that is LuLz, but it still has a positive over all effect.

 

[jimik1990]

Again, I want to re-iterate that I am IN NO WAY comparing any of these groups to a militant organisation responsible for the deaths of many thousands of people.
But surely you can't have a group essentially breaking into the network of a defense department, or a bank and getting away with relatively minor charges. The punishment needs to match the crime. If I was to (in person) break into the ASIO offices - wherever they are - then they'd presumably try to prosecute me under some kind of terrorist legislation. However is it really so much better these days for me to do it on a laptop instead?
can I ask, when they did break into banks, Sony, etc. Did they actually steal account information, or leave it available for other, perhaps more malicious groups? If so, then while they succeeded in highlighting the obvious need for increased security, they also should be done for theft or as an accessory.
Theft is theft

 

[Something Amyss]

No one is hurt in an Anonymous attack.

And if terror were only "fear of death," that would be a valid argument.

 

[AnarchistFish]

It's activists.. They did it because they believe in Free Speech on the internet.

^This

People calling them terrorists is just propaganda

 

[Vrach]

More like Cyber-vandals - at worst. They've done a lot of good stuff too.

 

[jimik1990]

Terrorism is sometimes defined as "using the THREAT of violence to intimidate or coerce esp. for political ends"

 

[Fetzenfisch]

annoying pranksters maybe. THey are so far far away from everything thats worth to be called terrorism. Crashing a few websides is not cyberterror. deleting social security information, crashing communication or electicity networks, shutting down hospitals or power plants, that would be cyberterror. you know, actual hacking

 

[Esotera]

If I remember correctly, Anonymous hacked the websites of PayPal and Visa in retaliation for their cutting off of donation paths for WikiLeaks

Ha. They DDOSed the site, completely different, and shouldn't even be called hacking. Most their crimes are on obscure, unimportant sites. Like Lulzsec taking down the CIA's public site, xkcd sums it up well:

Spoiler

Anon & all the others wish they were cyber-terrorists, when in reality they're just a bunch of bored script-kiddies that are begging for attention. The media isn't giving them the satisfaction (mostly).

 

[Lilani]

It's activists.. They did it because they believe in Free Speech on the internet.

Really? Because I think they're kind of screwing that up for everybody. I think their actions only give ammo to the ignorant old people who think the Internet should be censored, lest we continue to be "terrorized by these vandals." Look at what LulzSec did: they stole email addresses and other personal information from thousands of people that did nothing to instigate them. They just happened to have been users of Sony, or Gmail, or whatever else. And all of those people would be idiots if they didn't suddenly become a lot more concerned about the safety of their personal information. And perhaps for a few, concerned enough to seek government intervention to preserve their safety. What they did made that whole "sacrificing freedom for security" argument a LOT more plausible.

To me they seem like the kind of people who protest for free speech by throwing bricks through people's windows. Sure it gets a point across (though ambiguous and easily misinterpreted and skewed), but what does it really accomplish apart from showing people that they like throwing bricks through windows?

 

[souper soup guy]

I can't speak for lulzsec, mostly because I don't know them, but Anonymous and wikileaks have done some very good things. These people just want freedom of information, and the "cyber terrorists" you think you see are probably just criminals who want to put the anonymous logo on their crimes so that the police and government will waste their resources hunting anonymous rather than the criminals.

 

[FernandoV]

Ok, not to underestimate what Anon is capable of but a couple of the websites they hacked they only got to surface websites. So basically all they did was change the website to fuck with the owner. They didn't get sensitive information from Syria, they just fucked with them.

 

[Wintermoot]

I Anonymous are cyber-terrorists but they have good goals (in the same way as bombing Kim Jong Il-Sung,s palace)

Lulzsec/Antisec are no better then common thugs that destroy a bus stop for the hell of it.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

Identity thieves, Saboteurs, and all around ass holes. They have no redeeming factors.

But... Anon has done some good things, I think. Not the whole DDoS stuff, but...

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=27886

and, less seriously...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7liYfhRgXGk

(No offense to Oprah fans)

Lulzsec and Antisec, on the other hand, need to be virtually curb stomped... Or curb-stomped in reality!

 

[Robert Ewing]

Not cyber-terrorists.

Cyber-pranksters.

Big difference, and one is largely harmless, and usually the act of doing so is forgotten in a month or two. Guess which one it is.

Except that they have been costing companies billions and billions of dollars.

That is true, and I don't quite think it's that much But usually, they have a point to why they are attacking. They never attack out of the blue. For the sony hacking scandal, was to pardon Geohotz and to change sony's questionable business practices. So Sony did just that.

Don't think of it as an attack, more a protest... with a considerable amount of leverage.