NATO Report Threatens To 'Persecute' Anonymous 388
Stoobalou writes "NATO leaders have been warned that Wikileaks-loving 'hacktivist' collective Anonymous could pose a threat to member states' security, following recent attacks on the US Chamber of Commerce and defence contractor HBGary — and promise to 'persecute' its members."
From the article: "In a toughly-worded draft report to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, General Rapporteur Lord Jopling claims that the loose-knit, leaderless group is 'becoming more and more sophisticated,' and 'could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files.'"
good luck (Score:5, Funny)
Re:good luck (Score:4, Funny)
I think the phrase Anonymous likes to use is "pissing in an ocean of piss."
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, a large group of hackers were arrested today after sexually assaulting their maids...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think they're fishing for information, trying to observe a reaction. If NATO really wanted to go after Anonymous, it would IMHO be a strategic blunder: The whole point of Anonymous is their asymmetric approach. Not only that, but NATO doesn't even have superiority online. Another more likely scenario is that NATO wants to extend its mandate and uses Anonymous as an example "cyber" threat. I mean, who wants to guarantee that Anonymous isn't a false flag operation in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we'll find out... (Score:4)
I guess we'll find out if "Anonymous" is as anonymous as they think they are, if it is truly as chaotic as some people claim. I have my doubts on both fronts.
I think the correct answer is both (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Easy. Just subpoena Amazon for the list of people who bought those Guy Fawkes masks.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can get 100% safety.
Of course not; it is always possible that someone has put a camera in your room, or that there is a keystroke logging program that shipped with your motherboard, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
just following orders (Score:5, Insightful)
His handlers should let the cat out of the bag and accept the kudos they deserve. Talk about bang for the buck!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Persecuting your own citizens (Score:3)
Let us know how that works out for you!
Re:Persecuting your own citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, NATO,
What's the matter? You've been telling us for years that if we didn't do anything wrong, there's no need for privacy. Welcome to our world.
Sincerely,
Everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Which, according to their logic is still true.
If they're taking the position that the members of Anonymous have crossed the line to doing something wrong ... then there's still no need for privacy.
Expect them to say now that the only way to prove you're not a terrorist is to relinquish any form of anonymity. Oh, and don't expect them to see the difference to people prot
Re:Persecuting your own citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no, no, you misunderstood me. If the NATO member nations were doing nothing wrong, then they would have no need for privacy, and thus by their own logic, the actions of anonymous are ethical and reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well then ... carry on ... I agree completely. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let us know how that works out for you!
Prosecuting crimes and defending national infrastructures are definitely valid activities for a state to do, but would probably be characterized as "persecution" by Anonymous. To be more cynical, many brutal regimes throughout history have also shown that true persecution is often very effective in achieving their goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Persecuting? You’ve got that wrong. Prosecuting is spelled P R O S E C U T I N G.
Great idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that's worked great against al-Qaida. Ten years and we finally caught/killed the closest thing to a leader they have and the war still continues.
Anonymous had no real leader or command structure. Pursuing this course of action would be a huge waste of time/money and only rile up a bee's nest that loves to fight back when provoked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bet money that there's some on Government payroll that will be paid to track down themselves.
Do you have a properly filed form 27B-6 ?
Harry Tuttle is obviously a member of Anonymous, he makes unauthorized modifications to the tubes...
Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
I am Spartacus!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am Spartacus!
Man, that movie would've been a lot funnier if they just started slaughtering every smartass who spoke up just to teach the rest a lesson.
Wait, did I say "funnier"? Sorry, I meant "more true to what would actually happen if there was anything like this demonic evil fascist dictatorship going on that everyone keeps talking about".
Re: (Score:3)
I am Spartacus!
Man, that movie would've been a lot funnier if they just started slaughtering every smartass who spoke up just to teach the rest a lesson.
Wait, did I say "funnier"? Sorry, I meant "more true to what would actually happen if there was anything like this demonic evil fascist dictatorship going on that everyone keeps talking about".
You're that same kid that read the first few pages of Lord of the Flies and then wrote a report on how great it was with all the kids living on an island make making Robinson Crusoe like shelters aren't you? At the end of the movie every single one of them is literally crucified along the road, cross after cross down the road, hanging there to teach everyone else a lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
I am Spartacus!
I am Spartacus!
I am Spartacus!
Very funny. But seriously let me...BLAM!...BLAM!...BLAM!...
Ok, assholes. This isn't the Bronze age anymore where I gotta hack you to bits, one stabbing at a time. Anybody else got anything to say? Wanna end up like those three?
General Rapporteur Lord Jopling (Score:3, Funny)
I think his parents named him after consulting once of those "What's your Star Wars name?" pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looked like one giant title to me, did they even say his name?
They did. It's "Rapporteur Jopling". He's a general. And a lord. And, apparently, a major tool.
Any other brief questions? Or questions about some other text editor?
Re: (Score:2)
Looked like one giant title to me, did they even say his name?
They did. It's "Rapporteur Jopling". He's a general. And a lord. And, apparently, a major tool.
Any other brief questions? Or questions about some other text editor?
Upon further research, I was mistaken about "Rapporteur". It, too, apparently is some kind of gay NATO title. And it's held by Michael Jopling, a Conservative member of the House of Lords.
Still, a major tool - oh, but I already said he was a Conservative member of the House of Lords, so I'm simply repeating myself here ...
Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident (Score:5, Interesting)
The group demonstrated its capabilities in February, says the report, when it hacked into US-based defence contractor HBGary.
I neither defend nor condone Anonymous' actions but I take issue with this statement. Indeed, upon reading the report I get a little more accurate of a description:
Observers note that Anonymous is becoming more and more sophisticated and could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files. According to reports in February 2011, Anonymous demonstrated its ability to do just that. After WikiLeaks announced its plan of releasing information about a major bank, the US Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America reportedly hired the data intelligence company HBGary Federal to protect their servers and attack any adversaries of these institutions. In response, Anonymous hacked servers of HBGary Federal’s sister company and hijacked the CEO’s Twitter account. Today, the ad hoc international group of hackers and activists is said to have thousands of operatives and has no set rules or membership.[36] It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths. The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted.[37]
(Emphasis mine). I don't know how certain members of Anonymous found themselves on the receiving end of Aaron Barr's maligned attacks on them but I don't see their reaction to such as all too out of line. Barr went after Anonymous [wired.com] and it's not entirely clear to me why persecution of Anonymous is sought. What would I do in that situation? Would I lash back out at this person tracking you? Probably although I might have taken a more litigious route (and I hope those named by Barr do, regardless of any possible involvement in Anonymous).
Whoever leaked these documents is at fault here, be it Bradley Manning or anyone else who had access to the documents and leaked them. I'm guessing they signed something saying they wouldn't do that so they're at fault. Wikileaks, the press, Anonymous, the whole internet, etc are not to blame for coming into possession of them through legal means. Attack the person who broke the rules and fix the problem from its source. Whether Manning was whistle-blowing or breaking his promise of national security will be decided by what he leaked. NATO should be telling the nations to deal with their own problems and not trying to enforce more ridiculous global control.
Re: (Score:2)
(Emphasis mine). I don't know how certain members of Anonymous found themselves on the receiving end of Aaron Barr's maligned attacks on them but I don't see their reaction to such as all too out of line. Barr went after Anonymous [wired.com] and it's not entirely clear to me why persecution of Anonymous is sought.
Really? You honestly can't think of ANYTHING Anonymous might have done to make people interested in finding out who they are? I feel like Barr was stupid in the same way someone is stupid if they decided to shout "You're a Pussy, and I'm going to pwn you with all my evidence which I have currently on me with no copies!" at a crime lord in front of his gang with no one else around in the middle of the night. But it's still illegal to shoot stupid people. Likewise, DoS attacks, defacing websites, stealing
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering cyber attack is now an act of war, HBGary, an unrelated 3rd party, attacks the privacy of Anonymous, they have every right to retaliate.
Look at it this way -- PEARL HARBOR. WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering cyber attack is now an act of war, HBGary, an unrelated 3rd party, attacks the privacy of Anonymous, they have every right to retaliate.
You use the term "unrelated" but were they?
My understanding is that Bank of America hired FBGary after Anonymous was causing them problems. This makes them a related third party.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
After WikiLeaks announced its plan of releasing information about a major bank, the US Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America reportedly hired the data intelligence company HBGary Federal to protect their servers and attack any adversaries of these institutions.
False. Read the emails, the Chamber of Commerce and BOA requested ideas about how to combat the threat of wikileaks. HBGary Federal put together a presentation about methods that could be used. No one actually hired HBGary Federal, and in fact, HBGary Federal never won any government contracts. Probably because they suck, but the main point is that the Chamber, BOA, and the US government never employed them.
I don't know how certain members of Anonymous found themselves on the receiving end of Aaron Barr's maligned attacks on them but I don't see their reaction to such as all too out of line. Barr went after Anonymous [wired.com] and it's not entirely clear to me why persecution of Anonymous is sought.
Anonymous had already launched major attacks against many different targets, so they were obvious
Huh??? and Duh??? (Score:2)
Gee whiz, since so many other countries (China)...(China)...(China)...have been doing this thanks to US, Euro and Japanese multinationals offshoring all that technology along with the jobs to a bunch of totalitarian countries (much like Police State Amerika) this forein intelligence hacking is a given.
I'd say be highly worried about all those anti-democracy multinationals......
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks, the press, Anonymous, the whole internet, etc are not to blame for coming into possession of them through legal means.
I'd like to point out that according to appendix B of 18 U.S.C. 793 - they are indeed guilty. But that's just an example of a law that despite (or because of) best efforts is ridiculously broad in scope.
"Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connect
Re: (Score:2)
It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths.
They really have no idea, do they?
Acts of War (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh. When we saw the story the other day that the US had declared that hacking and similar online attacks could be considered acts of war, I didn't understand the purpose of such a statement. Now I understand.
I think we might be seeing the start of America's next war on a general concept.
Any bets as to what the target will be stated as? Anonymity? The Internet in general?
Re:Acts of War (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be a war not fought to be won, but to be sustained; sustaining the military-industrial-security complex.
Anyone can be a suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. When we saw the story the other day that the US had declared that hacking and similar online attacks could be considered acts of war, I didn't understand the purpose of such a statement. Now I understand.
I think we might be seeing the start of America's next war on a general concept.
Any bets as to what the target will be stated as? Anonymity? The Internet in general?
Yeah, you thought the "War on Terror" was vague? How about a "War on Anonymous?" Anyone and everyone could be an "enemy combatant."
Re: (Score:2)
And they could be shipped off to Gitmo for torture^H^H^H^H^H^H detainment in preparation for a military tribunal.
Mr Anonymous, would you please stand up? (Score:2)
As everyone is an anonymous combatant, this demonstrates the importance of not being seen [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, you thought the "War on Terror" was vague? How about a "War on Anonymous?" Anyone and everyone could be an "enemy combatant."
Yes, that is an enormous problem. Following this to its logical and historically-proven conclusion: The police could randomly arrest anyone who had an opinion contrary to or offensive to the state's position, with great impunity. Your spouse or best friend could be walking down the street or across a parking lot, on their way to buy groceries, when suddenly two officers escort him/her away potentially never to be seen or heard from again.
Just like China and a lot of other nations, especially communist state
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest the term "NANONYMOUS" for those who wish to be unknown, but not confused with the "Anonymous". PS: I for one welcome our hiveminded and unknown overlords.
"Bana" - nanonymous
Re: (Score:2)
you have scared me...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't even about hacking or anonymity or even the United States. Those terms simplify it too much. History is just repeating itself and and has been since the Greeks.
Anonymous is just the modern day version of the Bomb Wielding Anarchist. They really weren't the huge threat they were often made out to be, but they committed one massive, unforgivable sin, they insulted the validity of the law.
"The tighter you grip ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... the more systems will slip through your fingers."
Re:"The tighter you grip ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"... the more you risk a serious chafing and subsequent desensitization of the glans, leading to increased frictional requirements, leading to a tighter grip in a terrible downward spiral that ends up with something that resembles a hot dog stricken with leprosy. "
Re: (Score:2)
Oh ... you evil (yet funny) bastard. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
It should be pointed out that shortly after that line was spoken, her entire planet was blown the fuck up.
Perhaps a war of attrition isn't the right tactic...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well Bin laden is dead so we need the next witch hunt!
Mod parent up. There seems to be a need to have some bogey men to keep the population afraid and thus subservient. Communism (well, the Soviet Union) died so paedophiles and Islamic terrorists were pronounced the enemy. Now there is a danger, with Osama murdered, that one of them might go -- so prepare a new enemy.
Why is NATO Involved? (Score:2)
Unless I completely missed some mostrously epic hack - wtf is NATO doing chasing these guys? Where in the NATO charter does it say track down delinquents engaging in electronic forms of protest?
I could understand Interpol or some law enforcement agency, since the worst of what Anonymous accomplishes seems to be network intrusion. But I thought NATO was all about stopping aggression against member states. When did Anonymous graduate to that level?
Re: (Score:2)
What better way to ensure continued institutional relevance(and throw a bone to a disproportionately influential member) than issuing toothy statements about the terrifying threat of, and terrible retribution awaiting, those who ha
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, their mission and charter are quite clear and they have been very active in combat zones throughout the world for a long time. Most recently, they have been dealing with combat in Sudan.
I just don't understand why they are going after anonymous specifically, of how the actions of that group applies to their charter. What is so special about Anon that they get targetted like this?
Still stings? (Score:2)
HBGary still paying off people to try and stick it to Anon after they revealed how useless all the money going to HBGary was?
Huh...
We should certainly be fearful of people who are able to hack into systems taxpayers paid for. Maybe the government should start hiring them!
It's always scary when there are motivated people who will expose just how worthless you are.
What if? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
^ This is Anonymous, only they have no actual leadership. It's a bunch of random people doing whatever the fuck they want, and occasionally one of them has an idea that the others like, and they roll with it.
Treating them like they're Al Qaeda or something is
Re: (Score:2)
Treating them like they're Al Qaeda or something is just looking for trouble.
Actually, Al Qaeda (translation "the base") is probably the closest well-known organization there is to Anonymous. "Al Qaeda" is a essentially a brand-name that anyone who wants can use for themselves. For example "Al Qaeda in Iraq" initially had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. They just took on the name, probably to intimidate the Americans. It was only after they were pretty succesfull that they linked up with Osama's branch.
another quote from a NATO official (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wars on ideas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: we now have a convenient bogeyman to use as an excuse to exercise greater control over the masses.
How about... (Score:2)
The 'Anonymous' name gives crackers that already were hacking before a name to go under. Basically anyone who can quote "We are legion" and is already hacking can now put up a sweet little front.
So NATO: stop chasing ghosts. Sure they could make a few arrests but I imagine there are more sects of anonymous than there are nations. The terrible truth to this situation is that onc
Re: (Score:2)
If... (Score:2)
Governments should be afraid of their people (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only hope that Anonymous exceeds their expectations. Right now, it looks like they think Anonymous is a threat they can crush. I dearly hope that it isn't. My government should be quaking in its boots at the thought of angering a significant minority of those it governs. "Government by consent of the governed." has meant far too little for far too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can only hope that Anonymous exceeds their expectations. Right now, it looks like they think Anonymous is a threat they can crush. I dearly hope that it isn't. My government should be quaking in its boots at the thought of angering a significant minority of those it governs. "Government by consent of the governed." has meant far too little for far too long.
Don't worry, it's not a threat they can crush. It's a hydra. Cut off the head, two more angst filled teenagers replace them.
Re: (Score:2)
I always like to replace the word Anonymous in these stories with the phrase "The Internet".
E.g. "I can only hope that The Internet exceeds their expectations. Right now, it looks like they think The Internet is a threat they can crush. I dearly hope that it isn't. My government should be quaking in its boots at the thought of angering a significant minority of those it governs. 'Government by consent of the governed.' has meant far too little for far too long."
There, that sounds better.
Streisand? (Score:2)
Is anyone else seeing the Streisand effect here? Seems like Nato has just done a ton to help legitimize Anonymous and help with their recruiting and organizing efforts?
I'm not going to get into value judgments about Nato v. Anon in terms of right/wrong, but isn't Nato going about this wrong?
All your snarky comments... (Score:2)
wont amount to much when someone slips up and stays connected a little to long and they are detected right down to the DSLAM.
When that happens, and it will happen, they are going to be made an example of in a big nasty public way.
And after they are "de-briefed" the group will start to unravel as one by one they will be found and made examples of as the thread continues to unravel and more and more information is gathered as each in turn is made an offer of "You can cooperate and we can be nice, or you cann
propaganda (Score:2)
It is all man-made thus can be broken by man.
So by hyping the anonymous this way they create an Osama-like image of just normal yet skilled people.
Hunting them down will not stop the people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait till I hear about some high level NATO officials get Swatted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait until some jacktard decides it's OK to drop a JDAM into a house where some 15y/o is jerking off to pr0n..... because another 15 y/o DDOS'ed PBS and spoofed the IP to make it look like it came from the first 15 y/o.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "Personal Army", doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
1. This is ridiculous.
2. They are next.
NATO just declared war on Anonymous. (Score:2)
Anonymous is in deep shit now. NATO has all sorts of agents everywhere willing to detain them by any means necessary.
Rape charges, entrapment, any means.
oh wait, that was PANDERING... (Score:2)
Anonymous is in deep shit now. NATO has all sorts of agents everywhere willing to detain them by any means necessary. Rape charges, entrapment, any means.
Just plain old computer crime charges will do just fine. No need for that other sort of nonsense.
That's how they silenced Bob Lazar [wikipedia.org] !
/jk
?
Re: (Score:2)
If you get rid of Anonymous are they really gone?
Re: (Score:2)
Toughly worded, you say? Goodbye Anonymous!
Not _just_ toughly worded. Toughly worded by someone called "General Rapporteur Lord Jopling" - what even IS that title? From this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapporteur [wikipedia.org]
I learn that there are even "shadow rapporteurs" - sounds like a bureaucratic assassin...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What it might do is cut off recruitment. There's a spectrum of Anonymous folks, from the script kiddies who downloaded LOIC, and have it running on their parent's computer, all the way up to the serious folks who actually designed and architected the attacks. The serious folks know how to protect their anonymity well, and it's unlikely that any significant portion of them will be caught and tried. The script kiddies are pretty vulnerable though, and are going to get picked off by prosecution.
Thing is, th
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this was kind of along the lines of my thinking.
I can definitely foresee a witch-hunt which will result in the lives of many who are low-hanging fruit that are actually pretty harmless, or even mistakenly identified altogether, while simultaneously not being effective in curbing any real damage from those that might be "harmful".
Gee... does this sound familiar to anyone? Haven't we seen this in at least one or two areas already?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a Freudian slip?
Re:right. sure. (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't anon just topple the jerks in Georgia for fun? Then? On to the criminal regime in Bahrain!
Then NATO can really worry and wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure all the Anonymous members are shaking in their boots now. Scary U.N. is coming to to get them carrying black bags with their names on them.
NATO != U.N.
* NATO has guns and bombs, "Oops, we're sorry" immunity and sometimes enforces decisions the U.N. finally gets around to.
* U.N. has no guns or bombs, and usually no spine or balls either.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO has things like the SAS, SEALs, Delta, USAF Cyber Command, Fleet Electronic Warfare Center, you know a real mix of people that kill and people that defend against information and electronic warfare.
NATO wanting to go after cyber activists and terrorists coupled with the announcement yesterday that the DoD considered cyber attacks to be an act of war could result in military action, both overt and covert, against people that piss off the US and EU.
Remember that the big members of NATO are also big membe
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck is wrong with you?