Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
You know as I was reading this, I all of a sudden had like this Tron-like daydream that Anonymous and pretty much every cyber security firm was waging some massive disc war. Internets shutting down all over the globe at random times, computers and servers exploding and what not. Totally epic.
Starke said:
I think this is a popular conception, but ultimatly wrong. I think the whole point of Anonymous is it's sheer size, and the variation of people involved. Obviously nothing the size of Anonymous is going to be made up of skilled hackers, there just aren't that many of them. I think the "script kiddies" involved are largely a human shield for the more more skilled members. Ths is why Anonymous goes from a total joke, with failed raids and the like, to operating on a world class level against goverments and corperations, it all depends on who is involved. Yes, skilless script kiddies are going to be tracked down and busted, but that has little affect on Anonymous as a whole. The "hordes of /B/" are part of Anonymous but not all that it is.
It always amazes me that no one ever thinks the bad guys will do anything bad to THEM. People idolize the outlaw. The fact is the outlaw becomes the outlaw because he produces victims. There is a lapse in logic that finds people admiring this group but somehow does not see the glaringly apparent downside to their activities. At least consider the possibility that they might decide to do something bad to you, or your interests.
Also, the difference in this target over some of their others is that they now will have the full multi-force attention of the entire US security apparatus. Prior to this intrusion they were an issue for anti-hack squads, and the FBI. Now they are under the entire alphabet soup of agencies as well as Homeland Security. They face the same scrutiny as a domestic terrorist, and the ability to obtain open-ended tracking subpoenas is now unlimited. Expect the see the surprised faces of these people on the news in short order.
Internet anonymity is a myth, cultivated by those who use a hacker's deep belief in it to catch them.
Also, the difference in this target over some of their others is that they now will have the full multi-force attention of the entire US security apparatus. Prior to this intrusion they were an issue for anti-hack squads, and the FBI. Now they are under the entire alphabet soup of agencies as well as Homeland Security. They face the same scrutiny as a domestic terrorist, and the ability to obtain open-ended tracking subpoenas is now unlimited. Expect the see the surprised faces of these people on the news in short order.
Internet anonymity is a myth, cultivated by those who use a hacker's deep belief in it to catch them.
No, actually it wouldn't. There have been breakdowns on this before at various times, and the balance of power does change so it won't remain that way forever especially given our own morality and the way we don't do a good job of protecting our own interests (which is a whole differant discussion).Demodeus said:
The thing to remember is that right now the US is the only nation with truely effective large scale missle defense. Old estimates based on things like "Star Wars" are currently wrong. Our demonstrated abillity to intercept missles with submarines, ground batteries, and planes has scared groups like the USSR since one of the thing protecting the peace during the cold war was an agreement that nobodyw ould develop those things, and after the collapse of the USSR we did, and it REALLY annoyed them. It also got some people's goats internationally because it demonstrated that their own pretensions of MAD were not quite what they thought they were.
Right now the USA has the abillity to destroy the world 10x over, and the last time I checked the US has like a 20% chance of surviving a full out nuclear exchange more or less intact with every other nation in the world including our allies emptying their tubes at us. 20% isn't all that good until you consider the rest of the world has no chance of survival at all even under the most optimistic scenatios. If the actual nuclear strikes don't stop them, the after effects will. The US having huge oceans on both sides gives us a pretty decent chance of avoiding destruction from enviromental after effects. Fallout particles in the atmosphere and such seem like they would be an equalizer here, but there have been plans put in force that have shown that the US could probably solve that problem by intentionally causing large enough tidal waves and tsunamis with explosive, we're talking the "visible from orbit" world ending disaster movie type of wave here which would be high enough to pull a lot of those particles out of the air. Granted it WOULD put a lot of radiation into the water, but that is something that can be dealt with even if problematic. Incidently this is why a lot of post-apocolyptic concepts show the coastlines of the US totally eroded, that's not from explosive force, but typically part of how the US survived by setting that in motion, which did indeed cause backlash on it's own coastlines. The point is we'd suffer a lot of losses, but we have a better chance of just about anyone else.
Incidently, I realize there is a lot of dislike of the US simply for us being on top, but honestly for all pretensions of superiority from other nations, the US is a *SUPER*power for a reason. What gives us that designation is that we're capable of things that go beyond what other powerful nations (regular world powers) could conceive of, the general rules the rest of the world follows don't apply to us because we're simply so mighty at the moment, the abillity to potentially survive a nuclear war is a big part of that.
This was also a big part of the whole situation where Russia was threatening Poland over a defensive US missle base. To be entirely honest that missle base was keeping a lot of Russia's power penned in because while defensive it's existance was a serious detriment to the USSR being able to either fire missles into, or through the EU, this is why they even threatened potential nuclear force over it. See, we're not at war with the rest of the world, and share a lot of our power/protection/resources even with people that don't think a lot of us, which is potentially going to be our downfall. The point here being that this technology (anti-missle) which people tend to be ignorant of, exists and is a big deal.
I think Anonymous needs to get the fuck out of Tunisia, or at least stop pissing off the authorities. Because when they do, shit like this happens [https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/10773-OperationTunisia-Backfires-Activists-Rounded-Up.html]. I get that pretending to be freedom fighters and trying to help people who are in a bad situation sounds like a good humanitarian idea. But this is the real world. [http://en.rsf.org/tunisia-wave-of-arrests-of-bloggers-and-07-01-2011,39238.html] This is a world, where hacking the Tunisian government's website, especially using language like this [http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=118] can have real and deadly consequences. It only inflames an already tense situation, and only gives those who are in power more reasons (not that they needed them in the first place) to focus their actions on those people who are legitimately putting their lives on the line trying to make a difference.h264 said:I guess you missed the part where this isn't 4chan chester.
AnonOps Press release on this: http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=378
ANONYMOUS doesn't believe hacking is the solution, But if there are media articles, then attention is brought to the injustice in Tunisia.+ It can be of some use for Tunisians who come out on the streets and make their voices heard. I really don't think anyone genuinely believes hacking can change the world... But I see your point. ANONYMOUS just tries to help in the fight for freedom.
If you have some realistic, practical suggestions on how Anonymous can better spend their time trying to help with wikileaks, egypt etc - I am all ears, or eyes in this case, lol.
The same has happened in Egypt and I wouldn't be surprised if it also happened in Zimbabwe.
On one hand I applaud Anon for it's attempts at political activism. On the other, I really cannot believe how absolutely and appallingly stupid their "hivemind" is. Anonymous aren't heroes, they're not freedom fighters, they're cowards who have no understanding of the real wold.
Deliciously funny (possible ironic? I don't know all the rules for irony), messing with the company hunting you is something you see out of a movie. That being said, Anon will be short lived, it's people who don't really understand the real world and hide. Well sorry but eventually they're gonna get found, at least the most active ones will
First off, they were released on bail [V]. They weren't found innocent and their trials are still pending. Not that Anonymous made their situation better bey issuing an open press releases stating that these five were one of their number and threatened the U.K government with "serious action" if they did not let them go. If nothing else, the behavior (and outright naivete) shown in that letter marks them as a terrorist organization. They get what they want through thuggery, humiliation, and thrashing around in terror that the feds are coming to bust down their door next.h264 said:
Second, protesting is not a right. It can be legal, but you have to stay within certain bounds. Anonymous has often referenced their DDoS attacks as being "peaceful protests" like "sit-ins", nevermind that a DDoS is more like vandalism and bashing open mailboxes with your friends. A sit in is not legal. It's trespassing. It worked with students in the seventies because they had a legal right to be on those campuses. Which made it a legal gray area, for a time. Look back if you will at the African-American sit ins of the Civil Rights movement. They did go to jail and they went and sat. Accepting the knowledge that what they were doing was trespassing. They didn't try to deny the consequences (albeit unjust) that were coming to them, the beatings, etc. They were brave, yes. But what makes them brave wasn't that they took a stand, it was that they didn't hide behind a goddamn computer saying "protesting is legal, therefore our actions aren't criminal", nevermind that DDoSing IS a crime (one that comes with a $7,000 fine and up to ten years in prison), posting a man's social security number online is a crime. Putting the emails up on a file sharing site (which is also illegal) for mass consumption is a crime.
The law don't care why you did it, the law doesn't care at all. All that matters is that you did do it.h264 said:
Really? You don't think the DDoS caused any monetary loss for these companies? You don't think the posting of thousands of credit card numbers on the internet wasn't damaging? Wasn't a crime? (Because it was.) These companies service millions of people, millionsat a time. Their website was down for something like six hours if I remember correctly. Six hours. You think they didn't take a monetary loss? You may not think it's enough to matter to them, but I guarantee you they feel differently.h264 said:
And what about all the people who needed to get to the Master Card and Visa website? What about them? What about all the people who couldn't use their cards because they were compromised. The terror they must have felt when your identity gets compromised. People who were just trying to buy gas, buy food for their families. The small businesses who's profits were lost because of Anon's actions. (I guarantee that also happened.) You don't think those people matter?
I don't remember hearing anything like that. I doubt many people stopped dealing with Master Card and Visa. (I mean, look at you debit card, the one issued to you by your bank, what symbol does it have on the side? Which credit card company is sponsoring it.) What are the other options? American Express? They charge very high premiums and are very expensive to have. Discover? Well, they're actually a pretty good card, pity they aren't accepted more places.h264 said:
Where was the press release stating that Pay Pal had released the money to Wikileaks, I'd be happy if you linked me. Otherwise I won't believe you because it sounds like a bad business practice (giving in to terrorism). Pay Pal exists in a very gray area in U.S law and that makes them exceedingly easy to lean on. They don't want to piss off the government, not when the government can tell them that it's time for them to conform to U.S banking laws if they want to stay active in this country.
The attacks have not accomplished anything, the general public is not on Anonymous's side. They (for the most part) don't care about wikileaks, many of them back the government. They like the government. I like the government. I'm old enough to understand that corruption and bureaucracy are a necessary evils.
Well, that's the only legal form of protest they've committed in this whole affair.h264 said:
1 of the links you posted, is an ignorant biased blog post. The other has the below quote that I agree with. A lot Tunisia people were in this operation, so it seems strange for you to say "anonymous should get out of Tunisia". They were also very grateful that a group was finally standing up to their corrupt government after so many years of oppression. These Tunisian anonymous activist were likely caught because they set up blogs, twitter accounts, facebook and websites which can be tracked from the host. They were spreading cables and other info given to them and understandably their corrupt government was pissed. 1 person can make a difference, no one makes you do anything, you choose your own level of involvement and you should accept responsibility for your actions.nightwolf667 said:
Except the responses I've seen from Anonymous, specifically in their open letters show an unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions. Like I said I appreciate their attempts at activism, but they are woefully ignorant. An ignorance I've certainly seen you represent. This idea that the Tunisian people needs Anonymous to save them. I have no doubt that many Tunisians are glad you gave them a voice, but it's also important to remember that they will be facing the consequences of those actions, not those who participated from across oceans.h264 said:
The idea that one person can make a difference is nice, it's romantic, and it's woefully stupid in these situations. Inflaming the tension through stupid actions (yes, hacking their website was a STUPID action) is only going to bring the boiling point higher.
This is incorrect, it's more accurate to say that you cannot do this while keeping to the morality the US follows. Simply put dealing with terrorism is pretty easy, it's just that it would involve killing millions upon millions of people. It's not that we *can't* do it, it's because people think doing it would be wrong. In a lot of my posts on politics I take a very militant post, as I feel that the US needs to get over it's current standards of morality and start acting more realistically for the world we live in as unpleasant as it is. The stupid thing about America is that we play the role of a mindlessly stupid D&D Paladin and then QQ when it doesn't work and people don't like us anyway.Demodeus said:
At any rate, the ironic thing about Anonymous defending Wikileaks is that the nations that benefit from what they were doing are the ones that espouse the kinds of attitudes that could be used on groups like Anonymous very effectively, and would rapidly do away with the kinds of freedoms they profess to defend. Truthfully it's the US's morality that allows groups like Anonymous to exist, and gives them a place to hide/protection.
Wiping out Anonymous might involve a massive campaign of torture, oppression, and mass murder but it could be done. There are nations that wouldn't even hestitate given the oppertunity. Contrary to the opinion that such activities won't work, or just inspire more violence, the only time they tend to fail is when the people perpetuating them don't push things far enough. You do it right and there is rapidly nobody alive who is willing to oppose you. Pol Pot and his Khymer Rouge and similar groups would never have been what they were (and arguably still were) if this wasn't effective.
The thing is that the domestic morality of the US (which is differant from international relations, I won't go into my opinions on all of these things) has an armed and educated populance, and a lot of safeguards to prevent that kind of thing from happening. It's not that Anonymous is invincible or can't be beaten, it's just that we will not do the things that are nessicary (and contrary to what I've said about international relations and terrorism in the paat, I don't see this is a bad thing when it comes to the treatment of our own people), Anonymous pushing here is counter productive to their own existance, as is trying to undermine the US goverment. The US might not be perfect, but it's literally the best game in town for what they have in mind and they would do best to remember that, push hard enough and they will probably do more damage than good to their own professed agenda.
Apologies if that isn't terribly coherant (I'm not feeling well at the moment). I also know many people disagree with a lot of my attitudes, but what I am trying to say is that there is a differance between "can't stop them" and "won't stop them". Push hard enough, and the US will either change domestically in response (or try to), or you might even bring it down through things like wikileaks and wind up with people who will gleefully shut down this kind of behavior without a second thought, especially with no forces out there to oppose them. Nations that do things like build mobile execution chambers, aren't going to bat an eye at inflicting the nessicary amount of collateral damage. Read about some of the crap China has done to the anti-democracy movements, and while still there, it's hardly in good shape, definatly nothing like what Anonymous is doing. A lot of it's survival is also because of international pressure on China (which still helps a little).