I have no love for Anonymous (far from it), but some of this is disturbing.
War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
51–60 of 71 posts
Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#52Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. Using special branch to infiltrate political groups is commonplace. So much so that there are recent sc…
I realize this sounds snarky, but I'm just a North American from the middle of that continent...
Who is deemed capable of deciding which political groups to infiltrate? It seems to me that there's a narrow line between manipulating politics the way you want them to go and observing threats.
Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#54You 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 because you're making the mistake of believing them that what they're doing is monitoring or attacking terrorists most of the time. But it's not. Most of the time, their spying capabilities are used against stuff like this or against innocent people, who the government doesn't like. 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 sa…
If what you write is true, GCHQ (and, by extension, the rest of the "Five Eyes") must have the most amazing Porno Stash on the planet!
Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#55You 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…
Don't Anonymous want to be treated as an existential threat? The whole "we are legion" rhetoric leaves little doubt on that.
Hardly. Do you know what "existential threat" means?
Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#56Earlier 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…
> I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal".
When the intelligence services do it, then it is not illegal. Nixon set the precedent here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8
Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#57You 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?
> In terms of a threat to the United Kingdom, or in terms of a threat to GCHQ's budget?
Groups like Anonymous are a gift to intelligence services. They're mildly subversive and therefore "other people" to most people, and most people don't understand what they do or how they do it; they're shadowy and mildly scary.
Anonymous is a force multiplier for budget and mission creep.
Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#58Has anyone ever done a kickstarter to bribe government employees to whistleblow on other government employees?
Bribery is illegal. That would be a very risky thing to contribute to.
Has anyone done a kickstarter to buy cocaine in bulk?
Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#59You 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…
do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time Anonymous are political agitators, of course they think that. We're constantly inculcated with notions of spy agencies as supremely powerful, supremely competent cloak-and-dagger organizations that work in the shadows to guide world events. But this just makes them look like bratty kids with a rich uncle. Self-important assholes that feel justifie…
Yeah, well the Metropolitan Police thought it was worth infiltrating the Stephen Lawrence campaign http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/24/stephen-lawrence-f...
Re: War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show
#60Anonymous channels existed in IRC servers around the globe, on million-user-plus networks and tiny networks alike. It's chilling to think whole networks of people completely unrelated to Anonymous could get taken down just because a few morons were using a channel to organize attacks.
(Also, am I missing something, or did they completely miss an opportunity to collect intel by taking them offline and making them move to more private channels?)