NATO Considers "Persecuting" Anonymous

Recommended Videos

General Vagueness

New member
Feb 24, 2009
677
0
0
Realitycrash said:
The report then explainis how Anonymous hacked government contractor HBGary's servers and the CEO's Twitter account after the group revealed the government's plans to take down WikiLeaks
Okey, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Anon "Hack" HBGary's by pretending to be an admin and emailing someone within the network to get a new Admin-pass?
Because if so, they "hacked" it by exploiting human stupidity, and proves once more what big-shots in government (or NATO this time) know about "hacking".
Hacking is often understood to include social engineering along with software engineering.

Mathak said:
poiuppx said:
This combination leads the outside observer to think they are anarchic madmen. And the last time anarchic madmen went unchecked, we had World War I.
WW1 really was more of a militaristic and nationalistic madmen-thingy.
I think he's referring to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand that's usually cited as the initial spark.

So, KKK (a cell of them anyway) vs. WBC and NATO vs. Anon, things are looking up for people wanting an "interesting" 2012.
 

ParkourMcGhee

New member
Jan 4, 2008
1,219
0
0
Greg Tito said:
I mean, I definitely think that it's important for governments to be aware of the dangers that hacking can pose, but I'm not sure that oppressing them in return is the right move. As Stephen Colbert said of the Anonymous attacks [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/375428/february-24-2011/corporate-hacker-tries-to-take-down-wikileaks], you don't want to stick your penis into the hornet's nest.

Permalink
Woodsey said:
"you don't want to stick your penis into the hornet's nest."

Well how else am I supposed to get my kicks?
PHahahahahahahahaha.

Stick a hornets nest into your penis?

OT: What happened when Sony tried to pursue it's alleged hackers?

Not saying that they shouldn't do anything about it, but I don't think they should release anything publicly, or actively hurt the group as both can be seen as provocations. However be monitoring? That should be done.

Anything can go out of control. The only question is who monitors the monitors? And it has stood since the dawn of man.
 

aashell13

New member
Jan 31, 2011
547
0
0
No, I think they chose 'persecute' over 'prosecute' very deliberately. NATO is a military alliance, not a law enforcement organization. They don't have jurisdiction to conduct investigations and make arrests, and I expect they don't want their hands tied by incompetent or unwilling national police services in the event of a significant action against their infrastructure.
 

TheComfyChair

New member
Sep 17, 2010
240
0
0
They'll just find a few of the bigger members, torture them for a while, find out anything they actually know. Find a few more, torture them ect. ect.

I wouldn't like to be in anon right now though :p having Sony grumpy at you is one thing, having NATO saying they're going to clamp down on you? I'd run. They aren't messing with some hired analysts now, they'll be messing with intelligence agencies who WILL find them and almost certainly make them 'disappear'.
 

aashell13

New member
Jan 31, 2011
547
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
Truth.

Anonomoyus is at least entirely transparent, and doesn't screw around and ignore illegal activity on the part of coperations, or other countires, nor do they try to limit our rights, nor do they... etc.

I really want Anon to give everybody a nice big smack in the face, reveal all the BS that goes on, and cause reform across modern goverments.

How'd they do this wihout making everything worse is beyond me.
anon is the opposite of transparent, almost by definition. no one besides themselves knows who they are or what they're doing. All we have to go on is what they tell us, which can be difficult or sometimes impossible to verify. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that as transparency goes anon is no better than any dictatorship you might care to name, insofar as outsiders have no information about them aside from what they see fit to release publicly, and no way to obtain any such information.
 

Reed Spacer

That guy with the thing.
Jan 11, 2011
841
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
EDIT for ironic thought: Their structure is the internet, shut that down and Anonymous is screwed!
Which would be pretty funny; NATO wouldn't live long enough to scream.
 

w00tage

New member
Feb 8, 2010
556
0
0
Wow. I am hoping with all my heart that the reason Lord Jopling mentioned Anonymous as an example, and not, say, the unidentified cyber-war organization that attacked Georgia's internet communications while Russia rolled tanks into their country, is that NATO is really readying defenses against cyber-war organizations and just used the Anon example as a smokescreen.

I hope.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,459
0
0
aashell13 said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
Truth.

Anonomoyus is at least entirely transparent, and doesn't screw around and ignore illegal activity on the part of coperations, or other countires, nor do they try to limit our rights, nor do they... etc.

I really want Anon to give everybody a nice big smack in the face, reveal all the BS that goes on, and cause reform across modern goverments.

How'd they do this wihout making everything worse is beyond me.
anon is the opposite of transparent, almost by definition. no one besides themselves knows who they are or what they're doing. All we have to go on is what they tell us, which can be difficult or sometimes impossible to verify. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that as transparency goes anon is no better than any dictatorship you might care to name, insofar as outsiders have no information about them aside from what they see fit to release publicly, and no way to obtain any such information.
But that's the thing:

Anon is transperant because it's actions are all that we have: We'll know if anon does something because they would either say so, or we'd be able to see the result.
 

aashell13

New member
Jan 31, 2011
547
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
But that's the thing:

Anon is transperant because it's actions are all that we have: We'll know if anon does something because they would either say so, or we'd be able to see the result.
We only know anon did something if they claim responsibility. We have neither knowledge nor means of learning what else the people who make up anonymous might be doing or have done. If they decided to do something and simply not tell anyone, then no one would know except themselves and possibly the target, and even the target would be unlikely to know anything beyond the fact that they had been attacked. this is not transparency.
 

subtlefuge

Lord Cromulent
May 21, 2010
1,106
0
0
I think that people really need to wrap their heads around the fact that Anonymous will never stop not existing. There really is no going back to the way things were before.
 

DVTK00p

New member
Sep 11, 2009
14
0
0
Can you honestly believe a multinational military organisation would announce their plans to "infiltrate" a group if they haven't done so already? Especially if you take into account infiltration can mean many things. Doesn't cost a lot in the grand scheme of things to turn someone from their ideals and morals. Everyone has their price; even those that work outside of the law to undermine corporations and other institutional entities. Not to mention that those blokes that do are already on morally shaky ground. How much would it cost for you to give up doing something you enjoyed?
 

Golden Hawk

New member
Jan 30, 2011
65
0
0
teh_Canape said:
Me too... m00t for the win!

But seriously, this will either end society or change nothing. It basically means you'll have government members spending time on /b/, so in other words going totally insane and developing delusions of l33tness...

OR, on the even scarier side, nothing will change. This means it was the politicians who were on /b/ in the first place (and frankly, we already knew they were idiots anyway!)
 

Tiger Sora

New member
Aug 23, 2008
2,219
0
0
NATO's really overstepping it's bounds over the years, since it's been attacking other countries when it was built as a mutual defense pact.
How it's taking on the internet so to say..... this will just give rise to smarter, skilled, determined, and outright dangerous hackers.

Ewyx said:
Good luck trying to take down a group of bored kids and hacktivists, who if provoked will only cause more problems.
Yep, is all i can say.
 

Buccura

New member
Aug 13, 2009
813
0
0
I'd like to quote Bob Page from Deus Ex;

"Bob Page: A bunch of pretentious old men playing at running the world. But the world left them behind long ago. We are the future."
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
So everyone knows: NATO = US.

That being said, as so many others have mentioned, you can't infiltrate a group that doesn't have a group. They will arrest some poor stupid internet hippies, call them terrorists, lock them up, and the world will actually be made a worse place for it. The fact that people endorse this type of thing tells me that the world is full of retarded sheep. I mean, in order to do this, they are going to have to invade all kinds of peoples privacy. They will catch some guilty parties, but since they only really care about catching parties, rather than guilty parties, innocent folks will get caught up in it as well. They will place new legislation on the books in NATO countries (though, mostly in the US), and then we are all one step closer to having an authoritarian overlord to tell us when to jump.

That being said, the more resources we throw at more things, the faster it will fall and then can be rebuilt. So, have at it.

Edit: As one final note on this subject. They attack companies that treat people like crap, but it's the people that let it happen. They attacked the Sony website because Sony are digital Tyrants. No one really disputes this fact, but at the same time, few have taken the route I have and simply decided not to buy their products anymore. They exist simply because the average consumer is too much of a coward to be without the next iteration of (insert random exclusive title). Grow a set.