British Spies Wage DDoS War On Anonymous, LulzSec

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
snekadid said:
Nimcha said:
Kalezian said:
Nimcha said:
It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec
Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.

Until all of your private information is accessed because your ISP is the same that is used by their targets.

What about then?

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I kind of want to respond to this but I'd be getting a short post warning.

These sort of posts probably sound nice in your head, but what are you actually saying that has any relevance to the topic at hand? With things like those annoying anonymous kids it apparently works best to fight fire with fire. So why not?
Ignorance at its finest. Try reading 1984 sometime, you'll learn something.
I have, and unlike a lot of other people I still know where the line is between fiction and fact.
 

Hammartroll

New member
Mar 10, 2011
199
0
0
Nimcha said:
It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec
Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.
Yeah, and it's totally a price worth paying to allow police to come into an eatery, start flipping over tables, look in back rooms and generally make the place dysfunctional for the customers, whenever they like and how ever often, just to potentially catch a random person who might be there and only in theory has committed a crime.

I hope the afflicted chat rooms sues the government for hundreds of millions.

But the scared sheep of society will get what they ask for.

EDIT- And 1984 is right around the corner. Edward Snowden described it as a "turn key tyranny" because we have all the laws and infrastructure in place to enable a tyrant, all we need is for the wrong person to get into power. We have computer monitors that look back at us, we have web browsers that listen to us, government entities can access a dossier of our entire online/cellphone history to incriminate us and in the US we got the 2012 NDAA bill which allows the government to detain whoever they wish forever without anyone ever being the wiser. If 1984 isn't here, then it's certainly on the horizon.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
If people took all the anger and hate that they feel toward the governments for doing this and turned it on the people who were actually breaking the law in the first place--stealing identities and personal information and then selling it to the highest bidder, or just ruining innocents peoples' lives for 'lulz'--one has to wonder if we would even have a problem Anonymous or other groups like it.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Hammartroll said:
BB, you say?
Point of order: Wasn't 1984 a real shit-hole of a world where you can't say "Fuck my government" without getting carted away and there was real fear in the same manner as you see in Farenheit 451, say? I know this is an aside from the main topic, but it is interesting still. I don't feel that that's as close as one might suspect, and I'm a cynic talking here.

OT: I personally find this amusing, but have to cut the merriment short because umm...these groups are hardly relevent anymore. They became background noise for us already.
 

Jmp_man

New member
Apr 24, 2011
127
0
0
I think Jake Davis said it best...
Or maybe the more important question: how can they even be permitted to launch these attacks at all? There's no justification for how nonchalant a democratic government can be when they breach the very computer misuse rules they strongly pushed to set in place.

When we look at what Western governments are doing - snooping on our emails, infecting our computers, intercepting our phone communications, following our avatars around in online games, backdooring our public encryption, discrediting our Internet viewing habits, encouraging illicit activity and even engaging in their own illicit activity - we have to ask ourselves: who are the real criminals here?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jake-davis-following-latest-gchq-revelations-who-are-real-criminals-1435193

Sniper Team 4 said:
If people took all the anger and hate that they feel toward the governments for doing this and turned it on the people who were actually breaking the law in the first place--stealing identities and personal information and then selling it to the highest bidder, or just ruining innocents peoples' lives for 'lulz'--one has to wonder if we would even have a problem Anonymous or other groups like it.
You mean like Big Business? Cause if everyone took a stand against businesses selling our data and information freely to third parties we might not need people like Anonymous to DDoS websites for "Activism".
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
so in order to possibly disrupt criminals you decide to become a criminal yourself. i really want someone to take Drooling Thunder to court for this. wont happen of course because governemnt is above the law of course. What they did is essentially bombing the headquarters of opposite party because they dont agree with their policies.

CardinalPiggles said:
Fight fire with fire. Makes sense seeing as all these people seem to understand is DDoS attacks and personal information breaches. I hope some of them think twice before doing this shit again.
figting fire with fire only increase the amount of damage. there is a reason firemen carries water and not napalm.

Nimcha said:
It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec
Small price to pay. I hope they've been as successful as they claim.
Yes, your freedom is a small price to pay for.... shooting people who dont agree with government? its as if you want to live in slavery or something.

dumbseizure said:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.
Good, these Jews are just plain annoying. Im willing to put up with those house searches if it means we can get rid of them in the future!
(and yes, this was sarcasm, because your basically saying we should kill people we find annoying).
 

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
I remember reading an interesting article about how the GCHQ was essentially under the employ of the NSA, and that the NSA occassionally outsourced work to the GCHQ because they could spy on Americans (aka foreigners) with less legal restriction than the NSA could.

On topic, it's a little sad that there are people out there who would say "I'm willing to put up with the government breaking the law, infringing on my civil liberties, and harming innocents to stop people who are annoying me." That's not even exchanging liberty for security...it's just giving away liberty for free!
 

dumbseizure

New member
Mar 15, 2009
447
0
0
Strazdas said:
dumbseizure said:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.
Good, these Jews are just plain annoying. Im willing to put up with those house searches if it means we can get rid of them in the future!
(and yes, this was sarcasm, because your basically saying we should kill people we find annoying).
I don't even know how to describe the various kinds of stupid that is.

DDoS is not the same as killing someone, and how you could even think I basically said that is so fucking strange I don't even know where to begin.

So how about you refrain from replying to me again unless you have something more substantial, and not pushing what I said to in illogical extreme.

Or just don't respond at all, that would be so much better.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
In war, when you bomb a factory, the shrapnel flies and fires spread. It is a tragic reality of war.

Like war there will be unintended collateral damage. But unlike war, lives will not be lost.

I say the "Hacktivists" are doing more monetary damage, and must be stopped.

PS: I do not feel like debating this today, I am just putting my thoughts out there.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Strazdas said:
so in order to possibly disrupt criminals you decide to become a criminal yourself. i really want someone to take Drooling Thunder to court for this. wont happen of course because governemnt is above the law of course. What they did is essentially bombing the headquarters of opposite party because they dont agree with their policies.

CardinalPiggles said:
Fight fire with fire. Makes sense seeing as all these people seem to understand is DDoS attacks and personal information breaches. I hope some of them think twice before doing this shit again.
figting fire with fire only increase the amount of damage. there is a reason firemen carries water and not napalm.
First of all, yes the law is above the law derpy, otherwise how could ambulances speed towards a dying person to try to save his life, how could police officers shoot dangerous criminals, and how could fire fighters speed towards a burning building to try to save lives/buildings.

Secondly, fighting fire with fire is a metaphor. Being attacked is all these hackers understand. Creating more defenses is just like extending the obstacle course for these people. They see it as a challenge to be overcome. And besides, Thunder's tactic was DDoSing crappy chat rooms, whereas these hackers were DDoSing government websites. Slight difference there, not exactly the napalm attack you were getting at now is it.

There is a line that could quite easily be crossed here, but I don't believe Thunder has crossed it yet.
 

Pandaman1911

Fuzzy Cuddle Beast
Jan 3, 2011
601
0
0
Ech. What a mess. Well, sometimes when you're going after filthy little bugs that have infested the house, you just have to start tearing the wall down and build it back up later.
 

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
0
Valderis said:
And this is all legal how?
Government is another way to say better than you ...

On topic. I am kind of against government, I don't think one group can possibly have the best interests of an entire country. I am not about to start rioting or hacking but implementing one set of rules for so many different people doesn't really work in my eyes.

I think everybody should play by the same rules, if anon and lulzsec are targeted for doing DDOS attacks, how come the government can do them Scott free? I also believe that the government should be totally transparent and any corruption dealt with in a very serious way ... also a fan of sortition.

Going off topic into political ideology now though.

It all seems a little "playing dirty" for the government, a bit like the shield ... it will get results but very sloppy and not really legal.
 

Mr_Spanky

New member
Jun 1, 2012
152
0
0
Nimcha said:
snekadid said:
Nimcha said:
Kalezian said:
Nimcha said:
It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec
Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.

Until all of your private information is accessed because your ISP is the same that is used by their targets.

What about then?

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I kind of want to respond to this but I'd be getting a short post warning.

These sort of posts probably sound nice in your head, but what are you actually saying that has any relevance to the topic at hand? With things like those annoying anonymous kids it apparently works best to fight fire with fire. So why not?
Ignorance at its finest. Try reading 1984 sometime, you'll learn something.
I have, and unlike a lot of other people I still know where the line is between fiction and fact.
If you can't see the correlation between 1984-esque governance and the way things have been heading in the west for the last couple of decades then you haven't been paying attention.

I'm not saying it's there yet but the whole idea that "it's OK because it's the government/governmental authorities" just doesn't hold water in any kind of society you want to call democratic.

Bottom line - if this was a private individual/private company that was open to prosecution by the relevant country they WOULD be prosecuted. I understand the fact that they can't because of reasons that I'm sure you're aware of - but that does not mean that it should be a free-for-all or a law free zone.

The whole point (the ideal at least) is that the law is the same for all - and those in authority are supposed to be the ones that hold the law in the highest regard.

Shit like this shows that they aren't even trying to make that happen and that makes 1984 comparisons easy. No we aren't there yet. But this kind of thinking and disregard for the legal process makes it very easy to think that's where we are heading.

At least if the same kind of thinking continues to prevail in the highest places of authority and power in the world it will happen - the only question is when it will become a fully formed adult as opposed to a screaming infant.
 

Parnage

New member
Apr 13, 2010
107
0
0
dumbseizure said:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.
I'm willing to be stripped search in an airport just in case it stops a terrorist group.

I'm willing to be monitored online 24/7 by intelligence agencies just in case I do something illegal.

I'm willing to be attacked by my own government in DDoS attacks in the off chance they stop people I find annoying.

I'm willing to trust the government to do the right thing because the government has never done wrong and are well known for stepping back if the population feels they've gone too far.

Do you see how scary you sound? I don't even have to bring up stuff like shutting down groups I disagree with because I find them annoying or corruption and misuse of this kind of power.

At what point is it not okay for you?
 

dumbseizure

New member
Mar 15, 2009
447
0
0
Parnage said:
dumbseizure said:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.
I'm willing to be stripped search in an airport just in case it stops a terrorist group.

I'm willing to be monitored online 24/7 by intelligence agencies just in case I do something illegal.

I'm willing to be attacked by my own government in DDoS attacks in the off chance they stop people I find annoying.

I'm willing to trust the government to do the right thing because the government has never done wrong and are well known for stepping back if the population feels they've gone too far.

Do you see how scary you sound? I don't even have to bring up stuff like shutting down groups I disagree with because I find them annoying or corruption and misuse of this kind of power.

At what point is it not okay for you?
Seriously, what the fuck is with you people and pushing 1 point to an extreme.

Am I fine with this DDos? yes.

Strip searches in airports? No, but i'm fine with what they currently have going.

Monitored online? er no.

Any-fucking-thing else you wanna say?

Just because I agree with this doesn't mean I am for the government doing all of that.

And no, I don't sound scary cause I didn't fucking say half of what you said I implied, what I am noticing is how stupid you are for taking one point I said and running half a fucking mile with it though.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Gilhelmi said:
In war, when you bomb a factory, the shrapnel flies and fires spread. It is a tragic reality of war.
This is not a war.
This is political takedown of opposing faction.

CardinalPiggles said:
First of all, yes the law is above the law derpy, otherwise how could ambulances speed towards a dying person to try to save his life, how could police officers shoot dangerous criminals, and how could fire fighters speed towards a burning building to try to save lives/buildings.

Secondly, fighting fire with fire is a metaphor. Being attacked is all these hackers understand. Creating more defenses is just like extending the obstacle course for these people. They see it as a challenge to be overcome. And besides, Thunder's tactic was DDoSing crappy chat rooms, whereas these hackers were DDoSing government websites. Slight difference there, not exactly the napalm attack you were getting at now is it.

There is a line that could quite easily be crossed here, but I don't believe Thunder has crossed it yet.
No they are not above the law. ambulances CAN NOT speed above the speed limit in ANY CASE. what they can do is ifnore traffic lights, and that is written specifically in the law itself btw. the law also gives exception to police officers speeding when in chase of criminal. this is written in the law and the officers are not above it. This is why we got units meant to investigate of police follow the law themselves.

It is a metaphor, however it is only as good as an eye for an eye. you know, the metaphor that leaves everyone blind.
There is no defence agaisnt DDoS. there are only 3 ways to deal with DDoS.
1. arrest the DDoSers - the legal way.
2. Have your server more powerful than the DDoSers units power - the ignoring way,
3. DDoS them back - the illegal way that is as bad as the DDoS itself.

It does not matter what website you are DDoSing, it is still illegal unless you are in Germany, where is is considered a legal form of protest. As suck Drooling Thunder should be held accountable for their crimes just as well as anonymous should. Said chat rooms were probably hosted on a multi-chatroom server that hosted thousands of cahtrooms and the DDoS did more actual damage than the government sites being down for a few hours. but of course her derp as lnog as government site noone visits is down its massive damage.

Thunder has crossed the line the moment it has decided to break the law.

omega 616 said:
I also believe that the government should be totally transparent and any corruption dealt with in a very serious way ... also a fan of sortition.
We would get along i think :)

dumbseizure said:
Just because I agree with this doesn't mean I am for the government doing all of that.

And no, I don't sound scary cause I didn't fucking say half of what you said I implied, what I am noticing is how stupid you are for taking one point I said and running half a fucking mile with it though.
So you both agree and are against it? how does that make sense?
you basically said you agree with removal of a faction just because you find it annoying. This is as scary as KKK speeches.
 

Dogstile

New member
Jan 17, 2009
5,093
0
0
dumbseizure said:
Parnage said:
dumbseizure said:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.
I'm willing to be stripped search in an airport just in case it stops a terrorist group.

I'm willing to be monitored online 24/7 by intelligence agencies just in case I do something illegal.

I'm willing to be attacked by my own government in DDoS attacks in the off chance they stop people I find annoying.

I'm willing to trust the government to do the right thing because the government has never done wrong and are well known for stepping back if the population feels they've gone too far.

Do you see how scary you sound? I don't even have to bring up stuff like shutting down groups I disagree with because I find them annoying or corruption and misuse of this kind of power.

At what point is it not okay for you?
Seriously, what the fuck is with you people and pushing 1 point to an extreme.

Am I fine with this DDos? yes.

Strip searches in airports? No, but i'm fine with what they currently have going.

Monitored online? er no.

Any-fucking-thing else you wanna say?

Just because I agree with this doesn't mean I am for the government doing all of that.

And no, I don't sound scary cause I didn't fucking say half of what you said I implied, what I am noticing is how stupid you are for taking one point I said and running half a fucking mile with it though.
Well that's just it isn't it? Before nobody was happy that the government would use a mass attack affecting others for just once group, but they're all ok with it now, because a small group of people I don't like got hit by it too!

Monitored online? Guess what, that already happens. NSA is an American thing but you'd be silly to think that the government doesn't have a section of their branch to monitor web use. I should know, I was going to apply for that position, it pays well.

Strip searches in airports? They have machines that show you naked already. The only difference is now you don't need to take your clothes off for them to see you naked.

At this point you just seem really misinformed.
 

General Winter

New member
Sep 13, 2013
56
0
0
Strazdas said:
Gilhelmi said:
In war, when you bomb a factory, the shrapnel flies and fires spread. It is a tragic reality of war.
This is not a war.
This is political takedown of opposing faction.
An opposing faction that happens to do things that are arguably immoral and definitely illegal in pursuit of their political goals. Free speech does not legitimize illegal actions, no matter how much some would like it to.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
General Winter said:
Strazdas said:
Gilhelmi said:
In war, when you bomb a factory, the shrapnel flies and fires spread. It is a tragic reality of war.
This is not a war.
This is political takedown of opposing faction.
An opposing faction that happens to do things that are arguably immoral and definitely illegal in pursuit of their political goals. Free speech does not legitimize illegal actions, no matter how much some would like it to.
Morality is personal and as such should not be used to justify anything.
That faction does soemthing that is illegal. therefore to stop them from doing something illegal the police does the exact same illegal thing. Its like if in order to stop a thief you would rob his house. this only makes you a thief as well and in my way helps us lower amount of thievery. if anything, your neighboars see you got rich and got away free so they will steal from someone they dont like as well.
Illegal actions should be stopped by legal actions. its why we have laws, you know.