What you need to do is get a dedicated group of hackers on your payroll. The more skilled the better.
U.S. Senator: We Need to Look Into Anonymous, Pronto
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We do need something, but I have a suspicion that it'll somehow end up being detrimental to the freedom of the internet.
In short: This is why we can't have nice things.
In short: This is why we can't have nice things.
"John McCain wants action".
Every politician wants someone else to take "ACTION!".
Because if the results are good, they'll claim they masterminded it.
If it's bad, their PR people spin it "He never meant X, it was clearly misinterpreted!!!"...
And punching on Anonymous is a nice way to avert attention from whatever dirty laundry is going on elsewhere. Because 'hey, everyone hates dem hackery folks, right?!".
I don't think several investigations from several good government organisations is a bad thing.
Because the more prying eyes and smart minds, the more chance for succes.
Every politician wants someone else to take "ACTION!".
Because if the results are good, they'll claim they masterminded it.
If it's bad, their PR people spin it "He never meant X, it was clearly misinterpreted!!!"...
And punching on Anonymous is a nice way to avert attention from whatever dirty laundry is going on elsewhere. Because 'hey, everyone hates dem hackery folks, right?!".
I don't think several investigations from several good government organisations is a bad thing.
Because the more prying eyes and smart minds, the more chance for succes.
Yes, because this situation is EXACTLY what we need. To get government agencies involved in something they do not comprehend, so they can draft legislation proposals much like S.978 That does more harm than good, Does not do what it is supposed to do, in order to attack an organization that has done good for the people.
I mean what exactly is this supposed to do? Drafting laws to fight a non threat by a group of people the likes of which think the internet is made up of a series of tubes?!?
Yes, so lets hurry up and get guys like these on the case so they can gain tools to persecute threats to their corporate overlor.... Errr.. uhm.. I mean, fix this problem.
I mean what exactly is this supposed to do? Drafting laws to fight a non threat by a group of people the likes of which think the internet is made up of a series of tubes?!?
Yes, so lets hurry up and get guys like these on the case so they can gain tools to persecute threats to their corporate overlor.... Errr.. uhm.. I mean, fix this problem.
...ugh. Could you at least pretend to read these articles? What he's saying is that while the law(s) exist to deal with them, because they've been drafted over a long period of time by a variety of different groups with different axes to grind/groups to appease, it's a tangled beuracratic mess with regards to who has to deal with things (and, in effect, who gets the credit).Keava said:
So yeah, setting up one group specifically to deal with this stuff makes perfect sense.
Anonymous isn't the 'organisation' (if it can be called that) that is truly a threat.
The real threat for cyber security, as Anonymous/Lulzsec themselves have stated, is not the people who publicly release information without any intent of using it to abuse said information for their own personal gain. The hackers that we really need to worry about are those who don't leave a calling card - those who are thieves in the truer sense of the word, whom merely come in, take all the credit details and vanish to steal millions without anyone tracking them.
All the likes of Anonymous do is hack for the sake of political message - and they do so very successfully, accumulating huge amounts of media attention from all over the world. Its not for personal gain. We don't know who the people are who hack for personal gain. Thats the entire point.
If this proposal is specifically tailored for those types of hackers, who are thieves in the literal sense of the word, then sure, I'm all for this legislation. But if its to target hacktivists who's primary concern is with political topics like government transparency, freedom of speech, etc, such as Anonymous, then I'm seriously concerned with whether this is just an online version of 'covering up'.
Also,
Whether this suggestion was intentional or not, I think that this particular wording gives a false impression that Anonymous has been confirmed to have been involved in that particular incident. Considering the nature of this website, I would also argue that such a wording could also potentially cause inflammatory opinions against Anonymous based around false arguments, due to the vast number of gamers on this website and the emotions involved behind the closure of the PSN.
While I fully understand if you do not act upon the points made here, I respectfully ask that this particular sentence be omitted from this article for the reasons stated above.
The real threat for cyber security, as Anonymous/Lulzsec themselves have stated, is not the people who publicly release information without any intent of using it to abuse said information for their own personal gain. The hackers that we really need to worry about are those who don't leave a calling card - those who are thieves in the truer sense of the word, whom merely come in, take all the credit details and vanish to steal millions without anyone tracking them.
All the likes of Anonymous do is hack for the sake of political message - and they do so very successfully, accumulating huge amounts of media attention from all over the world. Its not for personal gain. We don't know who the people are who hack for personal gain. Thats the entire point.
If this proposal is specifically tailored for those types of hackers, who are thieves in the literal sense of the word, then sure, I'm all for this legislation. But if its to target hacktivists who's primary concern is with political topics like government transparency, freedom of speech, etc, such as Anonymous, then I'm seriously concerned with whether this is just an online version of 'covering up'.
Also,
With all due respect to The Escapist and you yourself, I have issues with this particular sentence. Considering the title and subtitle of this news article is centred around Anonymous, this sentence suggests that it is now considered a fact, rather than speculation, that Anonymous hacked Sony and brought about the months-long closure of PSN. However, there are a vast number arguments suggesting that Anonymous was not involved in the PSN scandal, such as Anonymous themselves claiming that they did not hack PSN.Greg Tito said:
Whether this suggestion was intentional or not, I think that this particular wording gives a false impression that Anonymous has been confirmed to have been involved in that particular incident. Considering the nature of this website, I would also argue that such a wording could also potentially cause inflammatory opinions against Anonymous based around false arguments, due to the vast number of gamers on this website and the emotions involved behind the closure of the PSN.
While I fully understand if you do not act upon the points made here, I respectfully ask that this particular sentence be omitted from this article for the reasons stated above.
good luck with that Anonymous leaves little to no trails behind.
also Anonymous is like a bear: it will only attack if provoked.
if you don,t provoke them they won,t attack you.
also Anonymous is like a bear: it will only attack if provoked.
if you don,t provoke them they won,t attack you.
It's a good idea.
I mean the with the whole Lulzsec thing I was hoping for the government to shut down their site, their twitter account and whatever else they used to spread their terrorism then investigate them. With so many different groups seeming to technically have the ability to go after them the passiveness is a bit easier to understand.
"I don't wanna go after them, you go after them."
Get some government agents who's clear job is to investigate and attempt to stop the organization of criminal activity online.
"Oh! Oh! Help! I'm being oppressed!" people will cry wolf. They've been crying wolf for years. The internet needs more regulation to protect the government, the corporations, and the people from criminals online. The last hacking spree that was all over the news is proof of that.
I mean the with the whole Lulzsec thing I was hoping for the government to shut down their site, their twitter account and whatever else they used to spread their terrorism then investigate them. With so many different groups seeming to technically have the ability to go after them the passiveness is a bit easier to understand.
"I don't wanna go after them, you go after them."
Get some government agents who's clear job is to investigate and attempt to stop the organization of criminal activity online.
"Oh! Oh! Help! I'm being oppressed!" people will cry wolf. They've been crying wolf for years. The internet needs more regulation to protect the government, the corporations, and the people from criminals online. The last hacking spree that was all over the news is proof of that.
I'd be amazed if he knew how to turn on a computer. Really 'Let's find anonymous'. Yes, let's find the people who by their very definition have no ties or affiliation to any organisation, with no defined structure, methods or morals and are sporadically spread out across the globe. Idiot.
And why cant current law enforcment agencies adapt to deal with this stuff? I am sure the fbi has a division and it seems to do a decent job when they are on the case, why cannot the local police just have their own cyber divisions that do this stuff.
Or the fbi could expand theirs, how much do they need to do x y z done, we do not need a committee that will spend tens of millions of dollars to find out we do not have enough manpower to handle the degree of hacks.
They could even assign all of cyber crimes to the fbi/nsa if they wanted anyway, nsa would probably be the place to go if you wanted to delve an anti hacker team out, being they are probably more cutting edge tech wise than the fbi or others.
Or the fbi could expand theirs, how much do they need to do x y z done, we do not need a committee that will spend tens of millions of dollars to find out we do not have enough manpower to handle the degree of hacks.
They could even assign all of cyber crimes to the fbi/nsa if they wanted anyway, nsa would probably be the place to go if you wanted to delve an anti hacker team out, being they are probably more cutting edge tech wise than the fbi or others.
You mean...this?The_root_of_all_evil said:
That aside, I'm perfectly willing to sit back and watch the fun. Anybody got some popcorn?
hm... internet freedom much? besides, it goes against conservative principes to have such an invasive government. in my opinion this stupidGreg Tito said:U.S. Senator: We Need to Look Into Anonymous, Pronto
Senator John McCain, former Republican Presidential nominee, asked Congress to dedicate a committee to cyber-infiltration by groups like Anonymous.
With the recent attacks on thefts of personal information at firms like HB Gary [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/tag/psn+down] are serious threats to national security. McCain thinks the problem is that no one group in Washington is tasked with dealing with these issues.
"As you know, cyber security legislation has been drafted by at least three committees and at least seven committees claim some jurisdiction over the issue," McCain wrote in a letter to Senate leaders. "The White House put forward a legislative proposal in May and the Department of Energy put forth requirements and responsibilities for a cyber security program that same month. Earlier this month, the Department of Commerce sought comment on its proposal to establish voluntary codes of behavior to improve cyber security and the Department of Defense issued its strategy for operating in cyberspace.
"With so many agencies and the White House moving forward with cyber security proposals, we must provide congressional leadership on this pressing issue of national security." In short, there are too many cooks in the kitchen.
"I write to renew my request that the Senate create a temporary Select Committee on Cyber Security and Electronic Intelligence Leaks. I feel this Select Committee is necessary in order to develop comprehensive cyber security legislation and adequately address the continuing risk of insider threats that caused thousands of documents to be posted on the website Wikileaks," McCain wrote.
While I didn't vote for McCain in 2008, I always respected him as a leader who knew shit from shinola. He's absolutely correct here that there needs to be a designated government body overlooking the whole cyber-security issue from a top-down perspective instead of hacker groups like Anonymous being the hot potato that no one wants to hold.
On the other hand, maybe the Senators are just worried that they'll be hacked ...
Source: Mccain.senate.gov [http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=250e73df-04c9-0fe5-5417-7701b0ec3945&Region_id=&Issue_id=]
Permalink
I have to agree with this, LulzSec is a little different, but they seem to have sunk now. But Anonymous is just too good, and they could probably stop the whole economy for a day if they felt like it. So leave them be. Go after the thieves who do not make themselves public. And let's be honest, with the amount of people out their with Both a political agenda and good enough computer literacy to become hackers, catching them is likely to increase resistance. The government needs a subtler way of dealing with them.henritje said:
Also: While I understand that hacking, when done maliciously, can be very problematic, I think the sentences are too harsh compared to things like manslaughter, my friend actually did a research project on it, a man got less time for killing two girls than a hacker who didn't steal a cent or distribute any personal info, and the hacker was not allowed near anything with an internet connection for the rest of his life... A bit harsh when you look at it in perspective no?
Anonymous should stay unmonitered and free. Because it's the last free thing that I can think of.