21–30 of 71 posts
I remember when this idea was still pretty much seen as a "conspiracy theory" around the time when Wikileaks was getting DDOS'ed.
You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? Are the people actually carrying out these attacks convinced that their efforts are better spent on that than identifying and infiltrating terrorist networks? I get spying. I get compromising and penetrating the networks of rival countries. I even get economic espionage, in the same way that I understand why the US Marines ove…
That's really why they want to keep this power, and they don't have a good reason for keeping it, or at least not one they can say in public. That's why Clapper keeps saying "ok, we haven't foiled any terrorist attack - but trust us it's really important to keep it!". They know they can't just come out and say "hey, we need this to spy on allied politicians, judges, corporations, and other people you might think are innocent, but are really pissing us off, like many of the activists do".
You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? Are the people actually carrying out these attacks convinced that their efforts are better spent on that than identifying and infiltrating terrorist networks? I get spying. I get compromising and penetrating the networks of rival countries. I even get economic espionage, in the same way that I understand why the US Marines ove…
Anonymous DDoS'd bits of the UK govt ( http://www.out-law.com/page-11476 ). Not critical bits but enough for them to take notice of the threat. Much of the (UK) law enforcement response to potential civil unrest is to try to prevent escalation, this would seem to be in line with that. Also the tactics and techniques used are frankly not something any of the other bits of UK govt outside the MOD would understand or be…
I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth was used? Where was the target server hosted? Is it legal for an intelligence agency to launch a denial of service attack against civilian infrastructure in another sovereign state to disable dissident political speech? And if it is legal for GCHQ to do it, then why is it not legal for MSS to do the same thing? If GCHQ can DDoS Anonymous, then MSS can DDoS Falun Gong. If GCHQ can hack Anonymous' laptops, then the PLA can hack Tibeten government in exile's laptops.
Allowing GCHQ to be used like this undermines the ability of the UK to be a force for good in the world. Losing the moral high ground for something as pathetic and petty as this? It is embarrassing to see Western Democracies behaving like script kiddies.
But looking at how things have been in America for the last 10+ years (since the justification of WTC) I don't see much hope unless the citizenry rises to the occasion and fixes these rascals to their place. I sincerely hope they do, but I am given up on this already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous DDoS'd bits of the UK govt ( http://www.out-law.com/page-11476 ). Not critical bits but enough for them to take notice of the threat. Much of the (UK) law enforcement response to potential civil unrest is to try to prevent escalation, this would seem to be in line with that. Also the tactics and techniques used are frankly not something any of the other bits of UK govt outside the MOD would understand or be…
That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea. I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth was used? Where was the tar…
http://pando.com/2014/02/04/the-first-congressman-to-battle-...
This part especially stuck out to me:
> Pike was less interested in sensational scandals like Church’s poison darts and foreign assassination plots than he was in getting to the guts of the intelligence apparatus, its power, its funding, its purpose. He asked questions never asked or answered since the start of the Cold War: What was America’s intelligence budget? What was the purpose of the CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies and programs? Were they succeeding by their own standards? Were taxpayers getting their money’s worth? Were they making America safer?
> Those were exactly the questions that the intel apparatus did not want asked. The Church Committee focused on excesses and abuses, implying that with the proper reforms and oversights, the intelligence structures could be set right. But as the Pike Committee started pulling up the floorboards, what they discovered quickly led Rep. Pike and others to declare that the entire intelligence apparatus was a dangerous boondoggle. Not only were taxpayers getting fleeced, but agencies like the NSA and CIA were a direct threat to America’s security and democracy, the proverbial monkey playing with a live grenade. The problem was that Pike asked the right questions—and that led him to some very wrong answers, as far as the powers that be were concerned.
From what I've noticed, nobody is asking these questions today, and yet NSA and CIA keep getting bigger and bigger funding, with NSA having nothing to show for it and yet with expanding capabilites, and CIA wanting more funds mainly to operate more drone strikes in secret (i.e. covert wars). This is a path that's actually dangerous for national security, either because they are collecting data on people that can later be hacked and gotten by rival nations, or because they're starting wars with other nations who knows for what selfish reasons, without the people knowing anything about it. We should have a big debate about it, yet no one seems to be starting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous DDoS'd bits of the UK govt ( http://www.out-law.com/page-11476 ). Not critical bits but enough for them to take notice of the threat. Much of the (UK) law enforcement response to potential civil unrest is to try to prevent escalation, this would seem to be in line with that. Also the tactics and techniques used are frankly not something any of the other bits of UK govt outside the MOD would understand or be…
That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea. I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth was used? Where was the tar…
You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? Are the people actually carrying out these attacks convinced that their efforts are better spent on that than identifying and infiltrating terrorist networks? I get spying. I get compromising and penetrating the networks of rival countries. I even get economic espionage, in the same way that I understand why the US Marines ove…
Anonymous DDoS'd bits of the UK govt ( http://www.out-law.com/page-11476 ). Not critical bits but enough for them to take notice of the threat. Much of the (UK) law enforcement response to potential civil unrest is to try to prevent escalation, this would seem to be in line with that. Also the tactics and techniques used are frankly not something any of the other bits of UK govt outside the MOD would understand or be…
My bet is they didn't really consider Anonymous a threat, but just experimented to see how much effort it is to clobber them if need should arise at some point in the future.
You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? Are the people actually carrying out these attacks convinced that their efforts are better spent on that than identifying and infiltrating terrorist networks? I get spying. I get compromising and penetrating the networks of rival countries. I even get economic espionage, in the same way that I understand why the US Marines ove…
I'd hope the training was more subtle than DDOS that group.
Don't forget that this is an event that became public and that we don't know what work GCHQ were doing behi d the scenes. The IRA and STEAKKNIFE operations show that British Intelligence isn't as hopeless as a lot of current stories make them seem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous DDoS'd bits of the UK govt ( http://www.out-law.com/page-11476 ). Not critical bits but enough for them to take notice of the threat. Much of the (UK) law enforcement response to potential civil unrest is to try to prevent escalation, this would seem to be in line with that. Also the tactics and techniques used are frankly not something any of the other bits of UK govt outside the MOD would understand or be…
That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea. I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth was used? Where was the tar…
Using special branch to infiltrate political groups is commonplace. So much so that there are recent scandals from officers living false lives having children with the people they are surveiling, and trials collapsing.
GCHQ have to obey the laws of England. They are usually mentioned in law to give specific exemptions.
I have no idea how they handle the laws of other nations. I'm guessing that they obey those laws where they align with English law.
It's not the first time they've done "script kiddie" antics. Hacking terrorist information websites to replace bomb making instructions with the recipe for cupcakes is another example.