War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show • Hacker News Board

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#31

Post by sentenza » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:05 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #29

redthrowaway wrote: post #14

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…

GCHQ has a bunch of people. Some of these are experienced staff. Some of them are new to the post. It's possible that some things like targeting anonymous are used as training exercises. 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…

Nobody is laughing. I've started re-listening some of the podcasts by people from the CCC and from that have gathered a reasonable situation-assessment mechanism:

Assume "their" (NSA, GCHQ) managers are as competent as yourself. So what would you do if you had all this info, all this infrastructure access and your prime objective is your mission, which you believe to be to observe and stop anything that brings danger or instability to the state.

That's what we are dealing with. A blunder here or there does not even make a dent in the position of power that these intelligence agencies now hold.

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#32

Post by oracuk » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:11 AM UTC

sentenza wrote: post #28

oracuk wrote: post #18

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…

Wait a minute. Intelligence agencies _are not_ law enforcement. This is a common misconception. Intelligence agencies do not engage in law enforcement, even though in some nation-states police have access to some intelligence agency information. 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're right about them not being law enforcement(See https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/faqs-about-mi5/is-mi5-t... for example) but the level of collaboration between them is very close.

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#33

Post by smsm42 » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:19 AM UTC

oracuk wrote: post #18

redthrowaway wrote: post #14

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…

So a bunch of punks went out and threw eggs and toilet paper at a government agency's building. So the government got butthurt and ordered the army to load 10 tons of eggs and 10 thousand rolls of toilet paper end go egg and TP houses and parks where those punks hang out. That's the level of maturity we're dealing with here. That's the people that everybody assumes are so good at what they're doing that it's OK to forcefully take your money to pay them salaries and put you in jail if you don't do what they tell you to.

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#34

Post by erichocean » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:25 AM UTC

f_salmon wrote: post #12

nsns wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics is not the problem, politics is essential for our lives, what's wrong is that it simply serves big capital these days, with growing disregard for civil rights.

Exactly money must be taken out of politics, i.e.: No more lobbying (= legalized corruption). But how are you going to do that when rich people are already in power and are using their financial dominance to protect their monopoly of power?

By eliminating taxation (governments can simply print the tax money they need according to a fixed formula against the national GDP), and then using computers, allow citizens to directly apportion their equal portion of the taxes to the causes they think are worthy, updated on a regular basis (I suggest daily so that the populace can respond quickly to things like natural disasters).

A simple approach would be to let each person subdivide their tax "share" (which is equal among all voters) by 1% increments. In addition, private individuals could establish "tax baskets" that could be used to fund a number of smaller entities with a single appropriation, so that your 1% could be apportioned among hundreds of entities without you having to type them all in.

This approach completely eliminates money from politics: politicians no longer have the power to tax specific individuals (or grant special exemptions), and they also no longer have the power to give money to people within (or outside) government.

It does not eliminate the ability of government to meddle with regulations, but the populace can trivially respond by docking their budget immediately in retaliation. It's amazing how much better behaved government institutions are when they are directly answerable to the people.

This approach is completely reasonable in the information age and with monetary systems, like the US, where fiat money is used. We already calculate GDP numbers, and the number for taxation would simply be fixed as an amendment to the constitution (while simultaneously invalidating all other tax powers from the government).

For extra fun, double the amount of tax dollars created and give everyone in the country a basic income out of it. I suggest that half of all taxes go towards a basic income (social money for individuals), and that the other half go to the community in the form of government, law enforcement, schools, police, etc. and whatever other social programs individuals want to apportion their social tax dollars to (social money for the community).

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#35

Post by smsm42 » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:26 AM UTC

higherpurpose wrote: post #26

I urge everyone here to read this article about Congressman Pike's fight against the NSA: 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 questi…

So he expected a government agency to track its efficiency and see if the money spent is really warranted compared to the effects produced? That's crazy talk. That would be running the government like a good business. Nobody does that. And yet less folks like CIA or NSA. They protect us from evil, so people should shut up, pay up and be quiet and trust them, they're the good guys after all.

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#36

Post by _bfhp » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:30 AM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #20

_bfhp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know next to nothing about it, but Anonymous probably aids WikiLeaks in some way, and WikiLeaks is definitely threatening.

I know next to nothing about you, but you are probably an ignorant gossipmonger.

I don't understand the hate here. I meant threatening in a good way, to financial/state power.

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#37

Post by gaius » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:35 AM UTC

redthrowaway wrote: post #14

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…

You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time?

In terms of a threat to the United Kingdom, or in terms of a threat to GCHQ's budget?

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#38

Post by fit2rule » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:46 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #37

redthrowaway wrote: post #14

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…

You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? In terms of a threat to the United Kingdom, or in terms of a threat to GCHQ's budget?

.. I think its more like in terms of 'having something productive to do that the Masters will enjoy hearing about at the end of the month', in the case of GCHQ. My assessment of the people I know who work at GCHQ (quite a few, actually) is that they are all authority-worshipping lackeys of the 'management class' they serve. Hacking Anonymous gives them a way of justifying their hacker lifestyles to the toffs that rule them. Its a cultural thing.

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#39

Post by fit2rule » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:49 AM UTC

sentenza wrote: post #31

DanBC wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GCHQ has a bunch of people. Some of these are experienced staff. Some of them are new to the post. It's possible that some things like targeting anonymous are used as training exercises. 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…

Nobody is laughing. I've started re-listening some of the podcasts by people from the CCC and from that have gathered a reasonable situation-assessment mechanism: Assume "their" (NSA, GCHQ) managers are as competent as yourself. So what would you do if you had all this info, all this infrastructure access and your prime objective is your mission, which you believe to be to observe and stop anything that brings danger…

"instability to the state"

^^ thats the crux of it. However: s/state/status quo/ and you have a more accurate assessment.

Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show

#40

Post by fit2rule » Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:51 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #35

higherpurpose wrote: post #26

I urge everyone here to read this article about Congressman Pike's fight against the NSA: 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 questi…

So he expected a government agency to track its efficiency and see if the money spent is really warranted compared to the effects produced? That's crazy talk. That would be running the government like a good business. Nobody does that. And yet less folks like CIA or NSA. They protect us from evil, so people should shut up, pay up and be quiet and trust them, they're the good guys after all.

>they're the good guys after all

Nothing could be further from the truth. The NSA, CIA, GCHQ - these are the most corrupting influences on western society, and they are responsible for a great deal of terror, instability, and insecurity in the countries they operate.

The day we depose these people and put them in the asylum where they belong, will be a bright one indeed.