×

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!

NATO Report Threatens To 'Persecute' Anonymous

Roblimo posted more than 2 years ago | from the who-did-you-say-you-were? dept.

Security 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

388 comments

oh wow rlly? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36309904)

lul.

right. sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310446)

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.

Motivation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36309914)

I wonder if they mentioned they're just doing it for the lulz.... xD

PS3 Account Information Breach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310368)

If a hacker gets my PSN account information I hope and expect our military to drop some bunker busters on his punk ass.

Anything less than lethal retaliation for annoying hacking incidents [washingtonpost.com] is unacceptable.

Anonymous is targeting people and companies that I don't particularly hate, and it's starting to piss me off. I say the more precision bombs that fall on Anonymous (and their army of basement dwelling poseurs) the better.

HA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36309918)

Toughly worded, you say? Goodbye Anonymous!

Re:HA! (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310246)

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...

War no longer has borders (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36309922)

It will spread everywhere

NATO just declared war on Anonymous. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310196)

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.

NATO just declared war on mosquitoes ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310398)

More than two months and NATO can't topple Gaddafi.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

good luck (5, Funny)

Nihn (1863500) | more than 2 years ago | (#36309928)

the term "kicking water up hill" comes to mind.

Re:good luck (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310516)

I think the phrase Anonymous likes to use is "pissing in an ocean of piss."

I guess we'll find out... (3)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#36309946)

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.

Re:I guess we'll find out... (1, Flamebait)

Captain.Abrecan (1926372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310120)

"as anonymous as they think they are" As a bunch of 15 year olds using the same proxy to look at 4chan, I'm guessing their true anonymity is quite non-existent. On a related note, how would one go about actually being 'anonymous' on the internet? I don't think you can get 100% safety.

Re:I guess we'll find out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310136)

You would use TOR

Re:I guess we'll find out... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310390)

Let me know how that works out for you.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/hacker-builds-tracking-system-to-nab-tor-pedophiles/114?tag=col1;post-5351

Re:I guess we'll find out... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310532)

Note that that attack relies on the user allowing an applet to run on their system; a user who is serious about anonymity is probably not going to allow applets to run (or they are uninformed; the point is that this attack is fairly easy to defend against).

Re:I guess we'll find out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310184)

I don't think anonymous is a bunch of 15-year-olds behind a proxy. Who knows, maybe that so-called Lord Jopling is a member...

Oblig.:
In Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia is anonymous!

Re:I guess we'll find out... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310504)

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.

Persecuting your own citizens (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36309948)

Let us know how that works out for you!

Re:Persecuting your own citizens (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310020)

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:Persecuting your own citizens (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310218)

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.

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 protesting against oppressive regimes they don't like and this -- they might have to arrest you for pointing out their logical failure.

Of course, their own usage of the word persecution is interesting in this context.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310430)

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:Persecuting your own citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310024)

Get them all I doubt it. Pick off a few I imagine. When Citizen break the law they get a fair trial. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310072)

Who else are you going to persecute? Other peoples citizens are kind of out of reach.

Re:Persecuting your own citizens (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310190)

Haven't you heard of Seal Team 6?

Re:Persecuting your own citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310448)

Haven't you heard of Seal Team 6?

that's the new Disney show?

Re:Persecuting your own citizens (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310198)

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.

Great idea! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36309956)

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:Great idea! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310070)

Right. Because nobody else in al-Qaida has been caught/killed. Especially no other leaders. Idiot.

Re:Great idea! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310356)

And all those captures has TOTALLY stopped the terrorism. Nope, not a single al-Qaida event since 9/11. Idiot.

Re:Great idea! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310306)

I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent announcement that the Pentagon will regard cyber-attacks as acts of war? Does that mean that Anonymous folks can be sent to Gitmo to face torture Military Tribunal as enemy combatants?

Good Luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36309966)

Didn't anyone tell them that Anonymous is Legion?

Will they persecute rain next? Maybe they shall outlaw the sun from shining too brightly or for too long on any one area. See how far that gets them.

Anonymous will exist long past the point where NATO is little more than a footnote in history books.

Re:Good Luck (2)

GreyLurk (35139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310436)

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, there's an evolution, from LOIC downloader, to someone who understands the security concepts better, to those who are able to plan and mount real attacks. If you cut the script kiddie population down drastically, and make it hard to recruit people into Anonymous, then it's going to diminish the population of higher-up members.

The strategy ends up being just like a real war: attack and pick off off the soldiers, until the generals are exposed, then go after the generals.

Good luck with that (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36309972)

I am Spartacus!

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310100)

I am Spartacus!

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310414)

I am Spartacus!

I am Spartacus!

I am Spartacus!

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310490)

No! I am Spartacus!

General Rapporteur Lord Jopling (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36309974)

I think his parents named him after consulting once of those "What's your Star Wars name?" pages.

Re:General Rapporteur Lord Jopling (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310478)

As a native french speaker, I find it especially hilarious since "rapporteur" essentially means "snitch".

Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36309978)

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:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310354)

(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 emails and deleting backup servers are all illegal actions regardless of whether the stupid person "deserved" it or not.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310500)

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 emails and deleting backup servers are all illegal actions regardless of whether the stupid person "deserved" it or not.

Do you even understand the difference between the charges of "assault" and "aggravated assault"? They vary greatly by locality but I assure you that they come with completely different punishments.

Re:Gross Oversimplification of the HBGary Incident (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310534)

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.

Acts of War (5, Insightful)

Alphanos (596595) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310012)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310148)

Hackers, of course.

Using the definition of "anyone who works with computers outside the employ of a major corporation." Not that silly "people who break into computer systems" new definition. That's would limit them to going after actual crime and not thought-crime.

Re:Acts of War (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310160)

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:Acts of War (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310238)

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:Acts of War (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310396)

Yeah, you thought the "War on Terror" was vague? How about a "War on Anonymous?" Anyone and everyone could be an "enemy combatant."

Not me, my name is David!

Re:Acts of War (1)

GreyLurk (35139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310472)

And they could be shipped off to Gitmo for torture^H^H^H^H^H^H detainment in preparation for a military tribunal.

Not rocket science (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310334)

I didn't understand the purpose of such a statement

War is the most profitable sector in the business of government. The more "acts of war" you can point your finger at, the more spending, borrowing, and taxing you can justify. The bigger your budget, the bigger the profit when you leverage that cash flow for personal gain. (Not directly, of course, but indirectly via your associates in the "private" sector.)

You're not in the business of government, are you?

"The tighter you grip ... (3, Insightful)

DaGoodBoy (8080) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310038)

... the more systems will slip through your fingers."

Re:"The tighter you grip ... (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310256)

"... 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. "

New hunt :D (2)

vikisonline (1917814) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310044)

Well Bin laden is dead so we need the next witch hunt! So lets invade the country where most of these "anonymous" live. Oh wait, we are invading usa?

Re:New hunt :D (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310548)

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? (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310046)

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:Why is NATO Involved? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310130)

Well, let's see here: NATO basically exists because The Evil Empire was super scary back in the day, and the prospect of a zillion Ruskie tanks rolling across Europe was kind of disheartening. Since then, they've had some penny-ante villains; but nothing like the good old days.

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 have been rooting through the American underwear drawer?

Re:Why is NATO Involved? (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310328)

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?

Re:Why is NATO Involved? (1)

jd.schmidt (919212) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310444)

The real reason NATO is involved is because for one of the few times in a long time, you have a vital resource, the "Internet" that literally can't be controlled and regulated by government entities effectively. Certainly not merely by physical force (unless you say no "Internet" at all) Worse yet, the people who run and understand the thing don't all buy in on national agendas and see their world, the "Internet" again, as largely without boarders and have a much higher belief in personal freedom (both of the liberal and conservative variety)

However it turns out no one can live without this "Internet" thing, of if you try you are just cutting of your nose to spite your face.

Needless to say, government are pretty terrified and perceive this as a huge threat to national security (agenda).

A wiser path would be to understand what you can and can't control and take steps to protect things you really care about within what you can do.

how tough is anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310056)

Its easy to act all hard on the internet. But when guys with machine guns come kicking in your door..lets see how many of these dickweeds shit themselves.

Still stings? (2)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310058)

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.

"persecute" != "prosecute" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310060)

I mean, come on, it's almost a homonym... It's not like those people all speak English anyway...

Re:"persecute" != "prosecute" (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310150)

It does seem atypically honest to admit that they are going to persecute them, rather than simply claiming to act under color of law and then persecuting them anyway... Now that our frenemy Mubarak is on the outs, who do we outsource torture to?

Again, in English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310074)

I presume this is written by somebody whose first language is not English. Surely they meant prosecute and not persecute...

What if? (3, Interesting)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310076)

What if the individuals they employ to do the persecution are members of anonymous? What if members of anonymous worked for Sony? Everyone seems to assume anonymous is made up of script kiddies with no real jobs or responsibilities. Granted what I have heard about their behavior on 4chan could lend credence to that presumption but don't we all get a little emboldened when we think we are "anonymous"? What if your co-worker is actually a member of anonymous? It could explain why your PC crashed after you pissed him off the other day.

Re:What if? (3, Insightful)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310338)

We cook your food. We pick up your trash. We are your doctors and sysadmins. We manufacture your weapons and security bunkers. We are your IT and shipping departments. We distribute the mail and clean your cum-stained hotel rooms. DO NOT FUCK WITH US.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310360)

Please everybody stop with this "member of Anonymous" silliness. Do you honestly think Anonymous has membership cards? Do you know what the word means?

another quote from a NATO official (1)

Tikkun (992269) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310094)

"Anonymous penetrate and ravage delicate public and privately owned computer systems, infecting them with viruses, and stealing materials for their own ends. These people, they are terrorists."

Re:another quote from a NATO official (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310352)

"Anonymous penetrate and ravage delicate ... private[s] ... infecting them with viruses."

Someone has rape fantasies.

--
BMO

Epic (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310110)

So, is this a declaration of war against Anonymous? Because if it is, I'm gonna need some popcorn for this. Epic war is gonna be epic. Or not. We'll see...

Re:Epic (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310156)

Can't wait till I hear about some high level NATO officials get Swatted.

Re:Epic (1)

Spritzer (950539) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310416)

I can't wait till some jacktard decides it's OK to drop a JDAM into a house where some 15y/o is jerking off to pr0n and hacking PBS.....because he's committing "an act of war".

Anonymous a threat to NATO? doubtful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310138)

Lockheed Martin data breach? -no concern whatsoever. God forbid HBGary is hacked and they put a jihad an Anonymous. I am glad their priorities are straight.

Or It Could Just Be A Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310174)

Given the wording in the original document, it's likely that they meant to say "prosecuted". Here's the original:

"The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted."

It would make a lot more sense if they intended to say that the perpetrators would be prosecuted. But it's a pretty big mistake to make.

Great, a new war (1)

Lord Juan (1280214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310178)

So now we have the war on anonymous, as if we didn't have enough wars on abstract things already. Next we are going to see the war on obesity, the war on atmospheric carbon dioxide, the war on everyone, and the war on wars.

Re:Great, a new war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310340)

Excellent comment. Let's see how well this goes. It was easy to see a war against Osama, because they had a name, and a general idea where he was. How exactly do you explain to the people you are waging a war against "anonymous" hahaha,

But, on another more serious note, I believe it is time that the war on wars started.

Wars on ideas (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310272)

The whole purpose and background for each of these wars is to provide politicians with money and power. It's time to recognize this and stop playing the game. Don't rally against the "war on anonymous", rally against would-be tyrants.

How about... (2)

pasv (755179) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310326)

How about you start prosecuting nations actively participating in cyber attacks on your countries? Surely it's more of a threat!

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 once they start openly prosecuting who they think is "Anonymous" every blackhat will be given an excuse to start their campaigns on them. "Provoking the wrath of anonymous" actually means "painting targets on hackers and paying the price". Anonymous wants to stay anonymous they shouldn't go provoking an enemy they don't know or understand.

The quintessential example is HBGary; learn from history.

Anonymous retaliates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310336)

Quick, someone dox this Joppling guy and fax him sheets of black paper! Send him pizzas! That'll teach him.

Seriously though, good luck prosecuting everybody. That's a good way to look busy. Meanwhile I'll be over here looking at funny cat pictures with the rest of the world that doesn't know or care who you are or what you think.

If... (2)

RdeCourtney (2034578) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310362)

If Anonymous have the potential to hack in, then China, North Korea and the NATO's other "non-allies" could hack... The US and NATO should use this opportunity to toughen up their systems and defences rather than fight a war with lawyers and words that are likely to provoke rather than fix..

Governments should be afraid of their people (4, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310364)

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:Governments should be afraid of their people (2)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310542)

I would agree with you but I'm too scared of what would happen if I did so publicly.

Oh yeah? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310366)

What's the line I keep hearing when I complain about the TSA and being freedom fondled??

Oh yeah, "If they have nothing to hide, what are they worried about??"

Meanwhile, states left and right are giving police the right to search cell phones without a warrant...

hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310374)

....'could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files.'"

hahaha what makes you think they or someone else hasn't already?

i just love these no-nothing figureheads.

Streisand? (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 2 years ago | (#36310386)

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?

Not anonymous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36310482)

...lulzsec
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...