Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anonymous Speaks About Australian Gov't. Attacks

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the not-a-spokesman-mind dept.

Censorship 235

daria42 writes "The loose-knit collective of individuals known as 'Anonymous' has broken its silence about the distributed denial of service attacks on the Australian government. An individual (who insisted he or she is not a spokesperson for the group) said the attacks were more effective at stopping the government's Internet filtering project than signing a petition, and that the attacks could go on for months." The site where some members of Anonymous are said to hang out, 4chan, got a visibility boost yesterday when its founder moot spoke at the TED conference.

cancel ×

235 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

good reporting (1, Informative)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114742)

Lol, stupid reporters.

We Are Anonymous (5, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114752)

We are legion.

Let's just check this box to post as AC and...

Re:We Are Anonymous (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115154)

We Are Anonymous
We are legion.
Let's just check this box to post as AC and...

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Re:We Are Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115284)

I'm not a native English speaker, so can somebody please explain to me what "We are legion" means?

I do know about the concept of a Roman legion. Is it related?

Re:We Are Anonymous (2, Informative)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115312)

Pop culture, thanks for asking I learned a few things too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_in_popular_culture

Re:We Are Anonymous (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115368)

Impossible, nerds dont "pop culture".

Re:We Are Anonymous (2, Funny)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115838)

Also, they don't verbs.

Re:We Are Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115394)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_%28demon%29

Re:We Are Anonymous (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115446)

It means "we are very many". See #5 here. [reference.com]

And you are correct - the word legion is often associated with the Roman legion, or the French legionnaires. So the phrase also implies that Anonymous is a vast army of soldiers. Which is part of their motif. If one "soldier" winds up in the party van, [urbandictionary.com] there are uncounted hordes of other anons that will take his place and continue the work, whatever that may be.

Re:We Are Anonymous (0)

Khisanth Magus (1090101) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115820)

You are very wrong. "We are Legion" means more "We are many and we are one". It is a reference to the demon Legion in the bible.

Re:We Are Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115876)

The Romans used the word first. It's not exactly a huge stretch to imagine Judeans naming a demon after the Roman Legion.

Hmm (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31114802)

I've never heard of this site, "fourchan". It seems like its a pretty cool activist site. Can someone tell me more about it? I'd go there, but my ISP is blocking it :(

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31114970)

Get off of Verizon Wireless?

Re:Hmm (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115464)

I was wondering how many comments down it would be before 4chan got mentioned. Second post for the internet rules, then this.

I'm an Australian citizen, and I don't much like Australian politics! COME GET ME NOW!

Legion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31114808)

We are Anonymous
We are Legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect Us
(and throw a few prawns on the barbie, Skip)

Impossible! (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114822)

"An individual (who insisted he or she is not a spokesperson for the group)"

So, basically, a nobody commented.

All right.

I am Canadian and so I say the Canadian government disapproves too. Though I insist I'm not speaking in the name of the Canadian government.

Yay?

Re:Impossible! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31114912)

Wooosh.

There aren't any spokespeople for anonymous, because there isn't any structure to the group. By definition, everyone in it is a "nobody." That's kind of the point.

Re:Impossible! (-1, Troll)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114954)

Woooosh right back at you. That was my point.

Re:Impossible! (0, Flamebait)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115300)

No, that was not your point. Your point was that because the person was a nobody, they are unqualified to speak for the whole (your citizen speaking for a government analogy). Either you have a crap analogy or you didn't get AC's point.

The AC's point was that since everybody is equal in Anon, every body therefore has equal qualification to speak for the group.

The article suggests that the Anon member's views are shared by the AC, that he is qualified to speak for the group as an equal member, but was not chosen or designated to do so by the group.

Re:Impossible! (-1, Troll)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115442)

You answered 1 minute after I decided to answer properly. I didn't think this post would be seen as insightful like that so I didn't bother to give a proper reply at first. See my reply. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1547892&cid=31115280 [slashdot.org]

Re:Impossible! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115768)

No, the point was that NOBODY is qualified to speak for “Anonymous”.

Only a large group of anonymous people can do that, and they do it by working together. The only reason they’re there in the first place is because they have some common belief (okay, and for the lulz). Anybody claiming to speak for the group is, by definition, not. 30 seconds from now, 90% of them could decide to do something else entirely and then what happened to your spokesperson’s credibility?

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115172)

Insightful! :P

Insightful? Ok... (-1, Troll)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115280)

Well, since everyone loved your comment, let me clarify with more words.

A nobody commented and used "Anonymous" as a way to get attention. He could have said Al-Qaeda and it would have been the same.

In this particular case, since only ONE person commented using a nonexistent group to get attention, this really is a non-story.

You are somewhat right and somewhat wrong. (1)

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115780)

Anonymous is a non-hierarchical group with no objectively defined membership and no legitimate representation, but saying that it is nonexistent is strange.

That would be like saying coffee-drinkers or speakers of American English are nonexistent, just because they have no representative and there is no objective way to determine who belongs to this group. (Does drinking a single cup of coffee once in your life make you a member or only regular consumption? And what qualifies as regular? ... )

Anonymous exists, it is currently troubling the Australian government and has troubled Scientology before. It seems to be hard to grasp - for some minds and prosecuters alike ;-)

However, for that reason it is a non-story. I totally agree with you there.

Re:Impossible! (3, Informative)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114918)

Except "Anonymous" is the bastard hybrid of a punch of bored 14 year old script kiddies, an unholy horde of angry-at-the-world genuinely decent at coding 20 somethings, and a frightning legion of bored in-it-for-the-lulz near or middle aged men.

Re:Impossible! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115104)

Hello, I am a middle aged man but in it for the CP.

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115752)

The Communist Party? Anonymous is a front group?

Re:Impossible! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115146)

Except "Anonymous" is the bastard hybrid of a punch of bored 14 year old script kiddies

Wrong, because this would be a blatant violation of 4chan rules:

If you are under the age of 18, or it is illegal for you to view the materials contained on this website, discontinue browsing immediately.

So it is obvious that 14 year olds (along with people from Australia and Iran) are not allowed to access 4chan because of the rules.

Ref: 4chan roolz! [4chan.org]

Re:Impossible! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115212)

Except the mods are the laziest bastards of the bunch and don't give a shit. If you wan't to see how real moderation is done, step over to SeVenezuela. Be sure to let everyone know you're either from the 4ailchans or underage, you'll see first-hand how it's supposed to be done.

Re:Impossible! (2, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115440)

Except "Anonymous" is the bastard hybrid of a bunch of bored 14 year old script kiddies, an unholy horde of angry-at-the-world genuinely decent at coding 20 somethings, and a frightning legion of bored in-it-for-the-lulz near or middle aged men... all united by the fact that none of them have gotten laid recently.

Re:Impossible! (3, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115628)

Actually its a bit more than that. You could say that slashdot is the "Bastard hybrid of a punch of bored 18 year old CS students, a completely misinformed group of editors, and a legion of bored in-IT-for-the-money near or middle aged men. The only difference between Slashdot readers and Anonymous is that Anonymous makes an impact on the world.

So - whatever your views about them are, positive or negative, realize that they do earn some merit.

Re:Impossible! (2, Funny)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115822)

Don't make a false dichotomy here.

Many Slashdot readers are also Anonymous members.

Re:Impossible! (3, Interesting)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115912)

Like the sibling post says, many slashdotters ARE 4channers.

I never really said they were bad, I don't consider 4chan any more evil than I do a hurricane. If anything I think of Anonymous as a sort of physical collective superego and id for the internet with no mediating ego, they're more like a force of nature than anything else.

Re:Impossible! (2, Insightful)

shish (588640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114924)

So, basically, a nobody commented.

This is Anonymous -- if they weren't a nobody, then their opinion would be invalid. As it is, they are the most appropriate person to ask.

Re:Impossible! (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114990)

I am anonymous from time to time and I even post on "chans" when I feel like it. Who is that guy speaking for me? See my point? Anonymous doesn't exist.

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115028)

Tell that to anonymous.

Re:Impossible! (2, Funny)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115066)

I told it to myself. Now what?

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115120)

I am anonymous from time to time and I even post on "chans" when I feel like it. Who is that guy speaking for me? See my point? Anonymous doesn't exist.

Either your anonymous self, or no one. Stop being retarded lest the /b/tards take notice of you.

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115558)

Exactly. you can't sue what doesn't exist.

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115192)

I declare that the article is nonesense, and that I have never DDOSed the Australian government. -Anonymous C.

Anonymous isn;t really a group (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114872)

It's more of an activity. Possibly a culture. It certainly doesn't have anyone who speaks for the group as a whole.

Re:Anonymous isn;t really a group (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31114940)

How can you speak for an anonymous group without exposing your identity?

You can bet they aren't anonymous to the NSA.
"Future prisoner 849027-6B"

Re:Anonymous isn;t really a group (1, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115114)

Exactly. You can either think of it as a group of individuals who merely believe the same ideals and co-operate in order to do what makes each individual happy. OR they are a collective consciousness where they are all controlled by one will, but they simply don't know it. I think its the latter.

Re:Anonymous isn;t really a group (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115630)

Agreed. The only way to know what Anonymous actually thinks is to go ask them.

It's entirely possible that this "statement" came in parts from multiple non-individuals. There are ways to know, but none that the writer would be able to access.

I do think that there is an emergent consciousness here. Not just the memes that 4chan spins off, but the morality. Known individuals are afraid to do anything that would result in "the right thing" happening. By being a multiparte beast with segmented knowledge of identities and individually consenting to take action under cover of anonymity and the knowledge that the very swarm itself lends protection from identification, Anonymous can get things done that society needs to have done that it cannot accomplish on it's own as currently structured.

Is it vigilanteism? Is it nonviolent nonconformist civil disobedience? Eye of the beholder. I think that the causes they have adopted to date are either harmless or good, even if the means are questionable.

Anonymous to Australian Government: (4, Funny)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114894)

Pool's Closed.

Good Gravy (4, Informative)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31114896)

...(who insisted he or she is not a spokesperson for the group)...

...because the “group” does not have a spokesperson. Remember the “loose-knit” thing?

The site where some members of Anonymous are said to hang out, 4chan...

Yeah, let me know when you see Anonymous on there. They're totally a bunch of black shadowy figures hanging out in /b/. Also, last time I checked, this was 4chan rule #4 [4chan.org] :

The posting of personal information or calls to invasion is prohibited.

4chan has a reputation for being a launchpad for this sort of thing, but it's not, at least, not any more. Go blame IRC, go blame any of the dozen clone boards, but it's not 4chan now.

      --- Mr. DOS

Re:Good Gravy (0)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115160)

Sure man, that's why there were active threads about it on /b/ at 4chan every single day, every single hour, before the attack. Sure they were referring to IRC channels and such but that doesn't change the fact that 4chan (easily the *chan with the most visitors) provided the most recruits.
I for one do not condone the way they try to make a point here. And they're not hackers, not even close, just a bunch of sheeps running LOIC.
And as said before, this article is useless, you could quote any random person with an opinion about this from the boards and write an article about that too..

Re:Good Gravy (5, Funny)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115200)

Ebaum's world is where all this stuff blamed on 4chan comes from. It is all Ebaum's World fault. And Gaia.

Re:Good Gravy (-1, Redundant)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115336)

Yeah you've got that backward. [youtube.com] Ebaum's World is the biggest rip-off site ever, and has been doing so since before 4chan was gleam in moot's eye.

Re:Good Gravy (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115812)

Whoosh.

Re:Good Gravy (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115350)

I'm sorry, did you just reference a rule as evidence of the activities from a website? I wonder what The Pirate Bay's rules say.

Re:Good Gravy (3, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115718)

The site where some members of Anonymous are said to hang out, 4chan...

Yeah, let me know when you see Anonymous on there.

"Anonymous" is on 4chan all the time. He also posts on this site quite a bit, but we've made it our official position to question his courage. "Anonymous" shows up everywhere, and that's exactly the point.

We're not talking about a person or even a group called "Anonymous". The point is that it's a ad hoc collection of anonymous people. Are the anonymous on 4chan or the anonymous on Slashdot the same as the anonymous creating this attack? Well... not as a group. It's not like it's all the Slashdot Anonymous Cowards are a codified group somewhere making subversive plans. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone involved in the Australian attack had posted here as AC at least once.

Anonymous? Silence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31114934)

Just read 4chan or Encyclopedia Dramatica and you can read the latest groupthink. Anon isn't a real group and it doesn't have official announcements.

The most likely long term effect (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115000)

Is going to be a rapid acceleration in the restriction and closing off of the Internet, greater activity by Governments in monitoring and repressing activity, and eventually a culture in which computer users are licensed and all computers outside the Government and academia run limited, crippled operating systems and applications.

Way to go, guys. You need to learn some history and some sociology. Then you will understand that the most successful criminals DO NOT ADVERTISE their existence. At a certain nuisance level, the cost of your attacks will exceed the cost of fixing the system to stop you. And the rest of us will be made to pay for it.

Re:The most likely long term effect (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115100)

The most successful criminals are actually those in government and big business, some of which are in very visible roles.

Re:The most likely long term effect (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115216)

Is going to be a rapid acceleration in the restriction and closing off of the Internet, greater activity by Governments in monitoring and repressing activity, and eventually a culture in which computer users are licensed and all computers outside the Government and academia run limited, crippled operating systems and applications.

Way to go, guys. You need to learn some history and some sociology. Then you will understand that the most successful criminals DO NOT ADVERTISE their existence. At a certain nuisance level, the cost of your attacks will exceed the cost of fixing the system to stop you. And the rest of us will be made to pay for it.

Both St. Augustine ("an unjust law is no law at all.") and MLK (Letter from a Birmingham Jail) have tread this road before..ya know Just and Unjust laws?

Anonymous Users vs Anonymous Government (5, Insightful)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115064)

It is an appropriate response to a figurehead politician making these rules, because it is a bunch of anonymous peons that are implementing them. The peons hide behind the facade of a government which they don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

Governments love when an individual speaks out, because they can release a bureaucratic horde of government employees to crush them. An individual who cannot be expected to address numerous rules, regulations and pressures a government can bring against them.

So Anonymous vs the government, as far as I am concerned is a fair fight.

Re:Anonymous Users vs Anonymous Government (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115506)

Very well put.

If the individuals in government can't be held accountable for their actions, neither should any individuals part of any collective group.

Re:Anonymous Users vs Anonymous Government (2, Insightful)

silverbax (452214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115620)

That's an interesting take, when I read the section about how the group flooded the emails of politicians and DDoS'd their websites, my first thought was of politicians who don't even know they have a website and don't know how to use email. So basically, an anonymous, faceless group sending massive digital attacks against email boxes that never get checked and websites nobody reads.

It brings into full discussion the group's claim that attacks are more effective than petitions...are they actually more effective? It's an old argument about terrorism, where the organization under attack is forced to do nothing because reacting simply brings more attacks. While I agree that petitions rarely bring change (the Turing case in England being an instance where a petition actually worked), how 'effective' is an all-out digital attack at forcing governments to change policy?

I will say the only effect thus far seems to be creating discussion of the issue (of which I was previously ignorant), but if Slashdot is any indication, people will discuss the idea over an 'Anonymous' spokesperson far more than the merits of their methods or their cause.

Re:Anonymous Users vs Anonymous Government (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115720)

Question is - were you aware of the attacks of Anonymous on the Australian government before this article?

A large number of us were. This article is merely a badly formed follow up.

I would agree that even if the digital attack does nothing to the governments operability, its bringing light to the issues that they are against. That alone makes it more effective than a petition. This way - they don't have to form the petition, the public is informed and if its truly an outrage THEY will form a petition

How isn't this a form of terrorism? (0, Flamebait)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115068)

According to Merriam-Webster, terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion while terror is defined as a state of intense fear.

Nice going anonymous. While I applaud how you've peacefully gone after the Church of Scientology; DOS attacks are going a bit too far. You probably picked this type of attack because it's hard to determine who's actually launching it.

Cowards.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (5, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115112)

DDOS is civil disobedience. They're just loading a site a bunch of times, making the site useless. It's no scarier than protesters having a sit-in, making the area they occupy useless. In fact, it's very similar.

Not a sit in (1)

nten (709128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115474)

If they used their *own* machines to do the loading I'd agree. But they almost certainly used a small botnet or at least the compromised machines of others to do the dirty work, so they would remain, er, anonymous. Taking over other peoples machines isn't civil disobedience, its quite uncivil. Part of civil disobedience is getting hit by the water hoses to make a public point. If there are no repercussions, its just ignoring laws you don't like, not civil disobedience. A more appropriate analogy would be stealing cars from everyone along a block and putting them in front of a store's entrance so no one could use it until they were removed. Everyone loves car analogies.

Re:Not a sit in (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115624)

It's likely they used proxies (public ones, usually), but the children of 4chan? Unlikely they've got the reigns of a botnet.

Re:Not a sit in (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115708)

based on previous reports of things this group has done, i would bet against the bot net. I'm betting someone posted an app to "help in AU", and people downloaded installed and ran the app, knowing full well that it would attempt to load a page as many times a second as it could.

Re:Not a sit in (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115754)

DDoS in 3 easy steps:

Monitor which routes with adjacent routes to your target network carry the most VoIP data. (Vonage and pals)

Initiate a coordinated ARP poisoning attack, to redirect that flow of heavy, high QoS demanding traffic from the routes they currently use, through a new route through the network you want to cripple. (say, the ISP, or datacenter that hosts the AU govt websites, or access)

actively maintain the ARP poisoning to keep the route from switching back.

Sit back with a margarita, and enjoy the fireworks.

Re:Not a sit in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115808)

And of course the government officials who were doing the nasty work here are vulnerable to being ousted by election...well, actually, they hide under the skirts of other public figures who swallow the brunt of the attacks, who won't be easily sunk by single issues because, of course, they're working on something ELSE critical, and we wouldn't want to change horses midstream, mmmmyes?

Similarly, the people whose computers get compromised won't get in much trouble. "Oh, crap, coming from MY computer? Dang, I had no idea. Let me take that to the store and get it fixed..." They're not out a car; they're out maybe $100 -- if anybody even bothers to point out their computers' subversion at all, EVER. Meanwhile, the Anons get to hide behind that forest, and they get their chosen platform, for better or worse.

I'm not seeing anything but gray kettles and gray pots here, tactically speaking. If you disagree with one side's GOALS, that's a whole 'nother issue, since we're talking methods here.

Re:Not a sit in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115940)

If they used their *own* machines to do the loading I'd agree.

You really don’t understand how these attacks work, do you?

Several hundred or thousand anons are running the LOIC. Most of them are using their own machines. A few are probably doing it on their neighbour’s wi-fi to avoid getting caught. Most, however, are just relying on the probability that the vast majority won’t face any repercussions, and it would be completely ineffective to even try to go after individuals in a group so large, so it is quite probable that nobody will try. The attack will be dealt with by beefing up the infrastructure and firewall, or by simply waiting for anon to get bored.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115672)

The higher the punishments for civil disobedience the deeper underground the protest will go.
It would be the equivalent of a 'sit in' if the response would be the equivalent of getting hit with the hose. When instead the response is 'evil child-porn-network-supporting terrorist hackers' you know no-one is going to stand up to identify themselves...
This could possibly escalate to the point where freethink will get you executed, by that time the only protest by that point is deep underground and more and more likely to have lethal consequence.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (1)

quadelirus (694946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115800)

Except that a very small number of angry people can make a very large impact, whereas in your sit-in example it takes a lot of people who feel strongly to pull off a decent sit-in which means that the protest is more likely to reflect public opinion. DDOS is too easy for an individual or a very small group of individuals. This cheapens the process and makes the voice of one count more than the voice of many. The bottom line is that Australians need to be working against this in their political process not a bunch of holier-than-thou American youth. Let's see someone actually organize a big protest in Australia about this--that would be worthy and honorable. This is not.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115136)

If your response to a DDOS attack on the a few websites is "a state of intense fear", you need to get out more.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115152)

Coward.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (1)

Bluebottel (979854) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115182)

Jailed toughguy vs free coward. Hmm... have you seen any rambo movies lately? Ask someone in the army if they need more people like him.
And stop confusing the /b/tards with capital-A Anonymous. They might overlap in some areas but they are different enough to not be seen as one.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115198)

OH NOES! MY WEBSITES IS NO LONGER SAFE! PANIC! FEAR!

Stupid filter. Of course I'm yelling. It's because I'm terrified because my website is down due to a DDOS.

GODDAMN, CAN YOU HAZ READING COMPREHENSION?!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115204)

you quoted:

According to Merriam-Webster, terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion while terror is defined as a state of intense fear

It's not like annonymous is running around chopping people's arms off with machetes and raping them. Or disappearing them in to covert prisons. GET A FUCKING GRIP

Re:GODDAMN, CAN YOU HAZ READING COMPREHENSION?!!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115302)

It's not like annonymous is running around chopping people's arms off with machetes and raping them.

No, that's just /b/. The rest of the boards are pretty laid back.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115250)

I wish that word would get pulled from the English language it's been stretched and misused so much.

And who in their right mind would allow themselves to be identified? That's not cowardly, that's smart.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115398)

This is what's called "Hacktivism".

It's no more a form of terrorism as is honking a horn at a car that cuts in front of you. (car analogy, just for you)

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115416)

Wrong.

Firstly, this isn't terrorism according to your own definition, because the recipients do not enter a state of intense fear. In fact, if I write you a letter saying that next year on a certain date I will burn down your house, and the exact method I will use so that there is nothing you can do about it, warning you to stay outside, that is not terrorism either, because you wouldn't be in a state of intense fear. Neither if I notify you that I will streak past your house covered in dog poo. You would be annoyed and pissed off, but if we broaden 'terrorism' to 'when one or more people cause others to be pissed off' we have gotten quite out of the original scope.

Conclusion: It is the reaction of the people subject to an attack that define whether it's terrorism.

It's also debatable whether attacking _and not saying who you are to someone who could destroy you at will_ is more cowardly than _saying who you are but being in a situation where there is nothing the target can do to reach you_. If it's not, the US would be enormous cowards for using flying drones.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115428)

Why does it matter whether it's terrorism or not?

It is arguably damage. It isn't killing anybody. It is a political act. Labelling it terrorism just muddies the water by using emotive language.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115538)

while terror is defined as a state of intense fear.

So you get intensely afraid when your computer doesn't work properly?

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (1)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115724)

How isn't this a form of terrorism?

*ahem*

terror is defined as a state of intense fear

My work here is done.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (2, Interesting)

fdisk-o (754721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115842)

I'm glad you pointed out the definition of 'terrorism'. Those particular words were well thought out, I believe.

How much real fear in instilled in you, the Australian people, the Australian government, or the target site's admins as a result of this event? Any fear at all? Is this fear a reasonable response to this event? It's just computer systems and public websites, after all. Do you equate 'inconvenience' with 'danger'?

We're being conditioned to experience fear when we're told, on demand. We're told that an attack against a server is an attack on the people and therefore the expected response is fear, nee 'Terror'. As an individual, I ask you if you choose what you are afraid of? Do you hold in yourself the determination behind your actions, your beliefs, and your responses to external events? Do events out of your control cause you to fear them and their instigators because you believe that you are truly in danger, or because you have been conditioned to respond as if it were so by people who have a specific interest and benefit by your fearful response?

If you want to call these events 'Acts of Terrorism', if you want to be afraid, please do so on your own terms and not those handed to you along with the blindfold and handcuffs. You are a powerful individual, my friend, and you are capable of deciding for yourself what is right if you will only objectively view the events and effects that you experience. Keep that power to yourself, instead of simply handing it off to those who would manipulate you for their gain.

Re:How isn't this a form of terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115922)

According to Merriam-Webster, terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion while terror is defined as a state of intense fear.

Nice going anonymous. While I applaud how you've peacefully gone after the Church of Scientology; DOS attacks are going a bit too far. You probably picked this type of attack because it's hard to determine who's actually launching it.

Cowards.

1. Terror* is the over-used buzzword of the decade. Yes, there are instances where it should be applied, but its been used way too much, and I do not think a DOS is causing intense fear. Its probably pissing off a bunch of people, and could be called blackmail or racketeering by a stretch (ie: undo the filters and the anonymous DOS will probably cease) but this is not terrorism, stop watching FOX NEWS
2. You refer to anonymous as if it were a single defined entity, and reference other acts as if they were perpetrated by the same organization or individuals. You have failed to comprehend the very definition of "Anonymous". There is no organization. The individuals perpetrating the current DOS might or might not have any connection with previous events or with each other. This is the power of Anonymous as well as its weakness if it even cared about such things. It could be anyone, it could be no one, it could be someone else posing as anonymous. As there is no organization, there is no leader, only individuals, only nobody, there is no way to address or control the actions attributed to it. The only thing that ties all this together is the action and conjecture by the press. Sure, there are places where ideas around a common theme are shared between some of the individuals that might be part of this, but even without the specific one cited in TFA there are innumerable others that are also anonymous. Anonymous did not pick or choose anything as it cannot, "IT" does not exist, the action happened as the will of individuals sought a wrong to right and came to an idea of how to do so, and thus acted.

Boo! (0, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115072)

Al Qaeda should sue for patent infringement.

Inconsistency. (4, Informative)

ladadadada (454328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115094)

Summary says:

"An individual (who insisted he or she is not a spokesperson for the group) said..."

TFA says exactly the opposite:

"...received a reply from an individual claiming to be a spokesperson."

Authenticity of said spokesperson: YMMV.

Re:Inconsistency. (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115364)

Not sure what article they even got the "insisted he or she is not a spokesperson for the group" part from, but the first linked article is about someone who does claim to be a spokesperson while the second linked article (not the slashdot story) is a different source. So the subject of the second article is the one who insisted.

Re:Inconsistency. (3, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115504)

The meme called "Anonymous" (it's isn't a "group") can't have a spokesperson because there is no official "group", no "membership", no shared beliefs, no secret-handshake.
Someone gets an idea to do something, and posts the idea on several popular websites. Anyone who agrees the idea is a good one and takes the suggested action is, for that moment, part of "Anonymous". An hour later someone posts a different idea, some different people agree with that one and take some action and for that moment THEY are "Anonymous".

Some people who may or may not have ever joined in on suggested ideas under the banner of "Anonymous" understand that there is strength in the concept of NOT having any set membership or agenda that can be attacked, responded to, or replied to. Although I, myself, have never participated in any actions proposed by anyone under the banner Anonymous, I can see that this can be important especially in this day of increasing surveillance and abusive governments.

The idea of having a spokesperson for an un-group is preposterous.

SPEECHPOCALYPSE 2010! (1)

RomulusNR (29439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115144)

could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comments written

It's a word! It's a claim! No, it's FreeSpeechMan!

Whatever will we do when Iceland is overrun with people with the power to say whatever they want?

Freedom Of Speech -- It's Scary!

from the drek and morass (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115180)

of the stupidest lamest waste of time on the internet

comes the most effective force for progressive change

the one thing that an idiot has, that a wise man does not seem to have, is freedom to act

when your education acclimates you to acceptance of a lame status quo, then your education is worth less than being an idiot

Democracy in action. (3, Interesting)

Aequitarum Custos (1614513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115214)

The will of the people is the true purpose of democracy. Regardless of the fact that people are doing this anonymously, this is similar in line to the rebellion against a tyrannical government. Just because the tyranny is not as bad (censorship of porn), and the attack by the people (DDoSing government websites) does not make it a "joke" or an immature prank. If the government was actively rounding up thousands of people from a certain ethnic group for "cleansing", you could expect everyone to gather guns to kill them. Since it is not that serious, you get a less serious, albeit effective response. It made them realize what the public wants. And I don't believe this is a symptom of the "vocal minority" simply because people don't get involved with something for no financial gain, unless they genuinely believe in it, and while it could be the act of a few, it is most likely the act of many. Even if it were a vocal minority, in the US, the constitution was created to protect the freedom of the minority. I don't know how Australia views it's minorities, but I would hope a country that everyone considers "western" holds the same ideal. Anonymous is the true unhindered will of the people. It does not give in to socially acceptable norms, or anything that hides what someone truly wants. If people want porn, they will do so under anonymous. Anonymous is legion.

I'd expect more from Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115276)

I'd expect that Slashdot moderators would be savvy enough on the internet to know enough and know enough about 'anonymous' to post a news item that's not an unknowing parody of mainstream news sites. When Fox news gets the internet completely wrong, that's funny... but Slashdot? C'mon Kdawson.

operation titstorm (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115322)

Where can I sign up to be ddos'd by this?

Be glad it's only DDoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115402)

Around sixty years ago some rather clever, industrious American physicists, engineers and other scientists invented, designed, tested and produced an ingenious device that can solve troublesome problems like Australia for ever. Allowing them to collect rust underground unused would be a great insult to their dedicated service to their country.

And honestly, with all of the crap Australians allow their government to get away with (e.g., 'cyberbullying panic button', ISP-level filtering, refusing classification to L4D2 while allowing a game with an airport massacre scene untouched, and so on) and the potential for it to corrupt the rest of the world, they've had it coming for far, far too long.

The end doesn't always justify the means (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115410)

Blowing up the buildings housing the filters would also be more effective than a petition, but that's not legal either.

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115434)

All these periodic "public raids" do is stuff b full of what is commonly called "cancer" (I call them IE users who click on the ads that infest b). Anyone who had been paying attention lately knows that the scroll rate of b was down significantly. people were even able to pull off slowpoke combos. So I guess mootykins (or one of the mods) decided it was time for a new cause complete with raids and IRL failfests.

This whole idea of anonymous was created by a group of young men trying to monetize a website. It is one of the largest trollings in the history of the internets. If they were doing it for the lulz then it would be fine but i suspect they do it for the ad dollars (despite Christopher's strong denials).

I am not Anonymous, you are not Anonymous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115478)

People in positions of power are afraid of unfettered access to information of all sorts. They are afraid of arenas where the "regular" people can say whatever they want. They are scared of anything that allows the "regular" people to exchange information and ideas. This is why the first amendment was placed where it was.

I will submit a WWII example, but not the one you're probably thinking of.

What would have happened if there was an internet during WWII where Americans could find out what Stalin REALLY was? People in positions of power knew he was a mass murderer and genocidal maniac. Instead, he was routinely referred to in propaganda, mainstream news, and the general public as "Uncle Joe". Think about that for a minute.

People in positions of power have, in the past, relied on the control of the flow of information in order to maintain control and steer "regular" people toward a desired response. This is how they maintain social/political control. There are so many articles and documentaries about this it isn't funny. There are various ways of doing this. Basically through the use of framing through the control of information and propaganda you can be fairly sure to condition a desired response.

This is why there will be filtering. Not to save the children, not because of libel, not because someone may be offended. Those are just ways to sell the public on it. It is because it makes it easier to condition a response and thus people easier to control. It won't just be China, Iran, Australia, etc, either.

This filtering is just one part of a larger issue for everyone who cares about the truly free exchange of ideas and information.

Anonymous declared terrorist organisation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31115650)

in 3...2...1...

Oh boy. All those hipster college kids are gonna be in for a NASTY surprise when Teh Party Van sweeps them away to gitmo....

"Don't Mess with Football" (1)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115730)

I think the Jake Brahm incident (when he threatened to bomb stadiums) may have been a better avenue for saying that anonymous sites can still track someone stupid down and work with government officials.

Don't mess with football [wikipedia.org]
Jake Brahm [encycloped...matica.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>