Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Releases Restricted NATO Document

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the more-where-that-came-from dept.

Security 187

angry tapir writes "Anonymous has released a document marked 'restricted' from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The 36-page document, which is dated Aug. 27, 2007, appears to be budget and equipment outlays for what was termed a new 'HQ ISAF JOINT CIS CONTROL CENTRE.' NATO's press office could not be immediately reached. Anonymous claimed on its 'AnonymousIRC' Twitter handle that it has 1GB of material from NATO but said that most would not be published because it would be 'irresponsible.'"

cancel ×

187 comments

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36843968)

You heard!

Re:Yawn (1)

Medevilae (1456015) | about 3 years ago | (#36844064)

Calling their bluff on having anything valuable.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844482)

Agreed. It is so not like Anonymous to be 'responsible'

Re:Yawn (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 3 years ago | (#36844610)

Agreed. It is so not like Anonymous to be 'responsible'

They are just doing that to get attention.

Restricted doesn't mean anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36843972)

It's the lowest level of classification, just above Unclassified. Doesn't prove anything so far as Anonymous hacking skills. They make it seem like they're taking a bug risk but they aren't.

Re:Restricted doesn't mean anything (2)

FunkyELF (609131) | about 3 years ago | (#36844666)

Restriced should be just as secured as Classified, Top Secret, Über Top Secret, etc.... in that only those two should see it are allowed to see it.
Why have more than one security scheme. Have one that works and use it.

Re:Restricted doesn't mean anything (1)

Braedley (887013) | about 3 years ago | (#36844942)

What should be done and what is done are two completely different things. The only real requirements for storing Restricted documents is that they be stored in "secured areas". I work for a defence contractor. If I have physical possession of Restricted documents (I don't, and I rarely would), I would only need to place them in my desk drawer at the end of the day since the office meets the requirements to store material that's classified higher than that. They don't need to be in a safe, or even in a locked filing cabinet. Consider that (at least in Canada), an Access to Information request can get you many restricted documents (albeit usually with an attached NDA), and you see that Restricted documents aren't all that special.

Link is already broken :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36843982)

just like your mom. :(

Irresponsible? (1)

cpscotti (1032676) | about 3 years ago | (#36843988)

Jeezz! They've probably ran into pretty nasty bits there..
Or they are actually becoming responsible ..
OOOR Anon is trying some cool PR stunt! :D

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

Threni (635302) | about 3 years ago | (#36844030)

It's probably more motivated by a desire to not spend the next 30 years discussing word documents with Bradley Manning.

What's the point? (1)

OnionFighter (1569855) | about 3 years ago | (#36843992)

So I RTFA. What I didn't see was whether there was a point to it or not, unless it was to point out insecurities.

Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36843994)

Since when does the Anonymous care if something they do is irresponsible?

Re:Irresponsible (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36844040)

"The Anonymous"?

If anything, it seems that this person/group acting under the guise of the Anonymous logo thinks it would be irresponsible. That doesn't mean that "The Anonymous" thinks that way. Because the next "Anonymous" hacking something might be someone completely different with a different set of morals. If any.

There is no "The Anonymous". When will people stop to act as if Anonymous is a hierarchic group of people, organized like an average crime syndicate or nation? But then, I shouldn't be surprised, after all "The Al Qaida" has been a staple of the terrorist craze for a decade now without anyone wanting to know that it's mostly a very loosely connected network of people acting. But they at least had a figurehead, Anonymous doesn't even have that.

And before someone starts crying, no, I don't equate terrorists with Anonymous, I just didn't find a better example. If you have a better parallel for an "organization" without a strict hierarchy, one that is an organization mostly by name rather than concerted, centrally planned action, I'll gladly replace it for that one. The only common ground I can see in Anonymous is a fondness for certain message boards.

Anonymous is by no means more a group than "the hippies" or "the hackers". Ok, maybe they at least communicate with each other more, I don't know for sure. The point is, yes, they have a more or less common definition of what's right or wrong, with even more lenient edges than the aforementioned groups maybe. I wouldn't even dare to say that they have a common goal. But there certainly ain't no entity that sets a policy or defines rules the others have to adhere to to be part of "The Anonymous". There is no code of conduct or a contract to sign.

And I wish people would finally realize that. You are not dealing with a homogeneous group of people. At best, you have a lot of individuals and groups that share maybe a more or less common ideal. And even that's something I'm rather unsure about.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

six025 (714064) | about 3 years ago | (#36844606)

If you have a better parallel for an "organization" without a strict hierarchy, one that is an organization mostly by name rather than concerted, centrally planned action

News International?

Re:Irresponsible (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 years ago | (#36845414)

But they at least had a figurehead, Anonymous doesn't even have that.

Winning with the double entendre.

Re:Irresponsible (4, Insightful)

miro2 (222748) | about 3 years ago | (#36845432)

If you have a better parallel for an "organization" without a strict hierarchy, one that is an organization mostly by name rather than concerted, centrally planned action, I'll gladly replace it for that one.

How about sports team fans? I hear Yankees fans gather in message boards, declare a unifying ideology, and even have a logo/banner that they identify themselves with, even in public. There are several official clubs, and spokesmen often issue their rants and decrees on a network of blogs and twitter accounts. They are like a multi-headed hydra. You can try to stop some of their leaders, but other Yankees fans will just pop up to take their place!!!

Not released? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844000)

"most would not be published because it would be 'irresponsible.'"

The Anon's get a conscience? Ha ha! Best laugh I've had all day!

NATO "restricted" is about a low as you can get on the secrecy scale in NATO docs, it's just a bit short of publishing in public forums! Now when they get hold of docs marked "top secret" or is it the mysterious "J" grading I beileve, then I'll pay attention!

Re:Not released? (2)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 3 years ago | (#36844224)

There might only be one person who did the hack and has the documents. Maybe that one person has a conscience.

Irresponsible? (3, Insightful)

Beautyon (214567) | about 3 years ago | (#36844008)

It's an interesting idea that it would be 'irresponsible' to release these documents in full.

I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afganistan irresponsible. I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible. If you are going to use conventional, State / MSM thinking to restrict and control your actions, then apply this thinking evenly; the State is dropping bombs on people for the 'greater good' (to 'spread peace and democracy') and so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths is completely justified and not at all irresponsible. It is in fact, the only responsible thing to do, since more people will be spared a horrible death for no reason, than could possibly be harmed by the release of the information.

That being said, the documents are under their control, they took the massive risk in getting hold of them and its entirely up to them what they do with them.

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844016)

What if releasing them could cause World War III? Seriously?

Re:Irresponsible? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844054)

IF WW3 would result from that, it wouldn't be the fault of those who released the documents but those responsible for the action in said documents.

I find it hard to understand why people try to blame the messenger, while the original perpetrator is ignored completely. Are people really this stupid?

Re:Irresponsible? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36844090)

Are people really this stupid?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

somersault (912633) | about 3 years ago | (#36844112)

What if the documents were all garbage that had been rejected? What if those who had created the documents were fired?

There are people who would actually like to start WW3. We don't need to give them a semi-legitimate excuse to start it.

Re:Irresponsible? (2)

karuna (187401) | about 3 years ago | (#36844386)

Nah, there isn't even the most remote possibility that the released documents will initiate any conflict. Thing about it, if script kiddies can download these documents, the really interested parties can get them as well. Most probably China, Iran etc. already have them. NATO might even act on assumption that they are no longer secrets. They are only hiding them from the general population of their own countries out of fear that it will expose their dirty laundry.

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 3 years ago | (#36844266)

What if releasing them could cause World War III? Seriously?

Then they should have a much more secure classification than "restricted", unauthorized disclosure of which is merely "undesirable".

Re:Irresponsible? (4, Interesting)

jovius (974690) | about 3 years ago | (#36844042)

It's interesting if Anonymous is actually taking that stance about the docs. I understood they were being sarcastic. The documents should be published in their entirety or Anonymous would appear to support the militarist and secretive paradigm they claim to oppose.

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | about 3 years ago | (#36844114)

It could be fear and not support; they're willing to engage in some level of harassment, perhaps probing NATO to see what their response will be, before they really drop a bomb on them.

Re:Irresponsible? (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 3 years ago | (#36844124)

You do know that Anonymous isn't one grandly unified body, and that it's made up of individuals who may have slightly differing opinions to the rest? Why do they all have to subscribe to the groupthink?

Anyway, we're talking about Anonymous, not Wikileaks.

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

poity (465672) | about 3 years ago | (#36845602)

Well, it takes coherence and coordination to pull off any type of complex group action. Flashmobs too -- as anonymous, random, and simple as they are -- but there's no flashmob without someone making the facebook page and others spreading the link. There is structure and a hierarchy of influence. Additionally, perhaps you're right that referring to Anonymous as a whole is imprecise. Perhaps we can call last month's hacks the work of Anonymous.antiSONY();, and this month's silly antics performed by Anonymous.antiNATO();

Would that make you Slashdot pedants happy?

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844142)

It depends on what they are holding back. This isn't zero sum/binary where you are either with them or against them. Take that view and you are no different than Bush II and those like him in mentality.

We can't say how much of the material is irresponsible to ever publish, how much needs names of "innocents" removed* and how much of it is near worthless and not revealing it is part of a bluff**.

*Goat Farmer X told military officer Y he saw a group matching the description of Z we are hunting. Turned out to be Z. The goat farmer likely could have his name blocked out.
**The released is a budget. How many of these documents are near pointless inventories? "We have 30 rolls of toilet paper in stock, 413 blue pens, 612 red pens, 22/7 rolls of red tape."

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 years ago | (#36844556)

Well, we shouldn't say that some of the materials should never be published. Everything should be published after some time, no matter what. The real question is only how long to wait for various types of documents.

Also, budgets can be highly interesting, at least for people who are into datamining, which probably includes a sizeable slashdot contingent. To take an analogy, mining webserver logs can be highly interesting because there's a lot of indirect information in them. Same with budgets, they are just financial logs and can tell a lot of indirect information to someone who knows how to read them.

Re:Irresponsible? (4, Informative)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | about 3 years ago | (#36844106)

I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.

I'm not sure that a million Iraqis have actually died in the conflict. Too damn many for sure, but I'm not so sure it's a million. In any case, you give the current and previous operators of this particular war far too much credit. Oil? Dollar supremacy? That would actually be some sort of goal. A terrible way to achieve that goal, but a goal nonetheless. Personally, I'm going for arrogance as the root cause of the war with a side order of finishing his father's business and the bullshit "stay the course" nonsense as to why it is still going on in another administration.

Re:Irresponsible? (5, Informative)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 3 years ago | (#36844164)

I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.

I'm not sure that a million Iraqis have actually died in the conflict. Too damn many for sure, but I'm not so sure it's a million.

You're probably right. Figures vary a lot but most of them are far below 1 million. Only the "Opinion Research Business Survey" reports more than 1 million deaths. The controversial Lancet survey reported 601,027 deaths while the extremely well-confirmed minimum figure of Iraq Body Count lists 101,906 civilian deaths. (Notice that Iraq Body Count only counts cases with multiple sources of evidence from the international press, though. So the actual number of deaths is very likely significantly higher and could be well in the range of the Lancet survey.)

However, there doesn't seem to be any reliable source about violent deaths of Iraq military combatants. I've seen estimates ranging from ten thousands up to several hundred thousands, but nobody seems to know for sure.

Anyway, considering all the evidence, it seems likely that less than one million people died in Iraq as a result of the US intervention. (not taking into account the first Gulf War)

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

radtea (464814) | about 3 years ago | (#36845476)

the extremely well-confirmed minimum figure of Iraq Body Count lists 101,906 civilian deaths. (Notice that Iraq Body Count only counts cases with multiple sources of evidence from the international press, though

Only the population of the town I live in? Well that's OK then!

I really wish anti-war idiots like the one you are replying to would get with the program and start protesting the most realistic numbers, as it would shut off this ridiculous line of debate where some faux rationalist like you starts debating precisely how dreadful the event is, and implies--whether you mean to or not--that if the best estimate is "only" 10% of the estimate given by the maximally outraged nitwit that they should only be 10% as outraged.

Environmentalists, AGW advocates and deniers, anti-scientific irrationalists of all stripes, conservative and liberal and libertarian, all do this, and there has to be a way to teach them that when you make an argument like: "False claim X should motivate everyone to behave the way I want them to!" you are inviting people to debate the truth or falsity of your claim, and when it proves false--because the truth will out--you will lose credibility with everyone except those who already believe in the values you don't have the guts to promote honestly, hiding instead behind false claims of fact and hoping they will carry the weight.

While there is no doubt that "more deaths are worse than fewer", it isn't a cardinal scale. A million is not ten times worse than a hundred thousand, a hundred thousand isn't a million times worse than one. But to anyone who is sane it is clear that far too many innocent people have died in Iraq--not least the good samaritans we saw illegally killed in the video "Collateral Murder". And it is also clear that those people died for no noble cause, but in an unjust, illegal war started by the United States and Britain (which was under a socialist government at the time, by the way.)

Re:Irresponsible? (2)

digitig (1056110) | about 3 years ago | (#36844306)

I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.

I'm not sure that a million Iraqis have actually died in the conflict.

It's not just the armed conflict; the sanctions count too. Madeline Albright famously didn't challenge the figure of half a million children killed by the sanctions alone, so although nobody is sure about the figures one million is probably on the low side.

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | about 3 years ago | (#36844560)

Ah yes, the sanctions! I had forgotten about those; the actual armed conflict has (probably) not killed 1 million, but it would not surprise me if, with the first war and sanctions, more than a million have been killed.

Re:Irresponsible? (2)

adamchou (993073) | about 3 years ago | (#36844122)

Just for clarification, anything I'm referring to below is strictly regarding Afghanistan

I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afghanistan irresponsible

Its irresponsible if they're being careless about where they're dropping bombs. It is not the agenda of the state to intentionally target innocents. Innocents are a casualty of war, most of the time.

to 'spread peace and democracy'

I'd say its more to maintain peace and democracy in the State. An extremist Muslim nation will never allow for peace and democracy in any of the nations that fall under "the State"

so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths

How do you know what the documents are? For all you know, these are documents that contain the names, locations, and methods of access of the most important world leaders. I don't see how releasing a document that potentially puts more peoples lives in jeopardy would help save lives.

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844176)

So it's not irresponsible to drop bombs when you know that no matter how careful you are, innocents will be killed by accident?

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 3 years ago | (#36844284)

Is it irresponsible to allow people to drive cars, knowing that no matter how careful you are, innocents will be killed by accident? With any national or global policy decision there will be winners and losers, and there will be deaths. Is war always irresponsible? Not in my opinion, I think there have been legitimate reasons for war in the past even though innocents died. Is bombing always irresponsible? No, because bombing is a necessary component of any modern war, and nowadays results in fewer lives lost than most of the other means. Is the Afghan war irresponsible? I'm not sure. If I could read a history book written 50 years from now, then I could answer that question.

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844294)

Its irresponsible if they're being careless about where they're dropping bombs. It is not the agenda of the state to intentionally target innocents. Innocents are a casualty of war, most of the time.

First of all, the USA has not declared war on A-stan. There is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever for the soldiers of the USA to be in A-stan, or for its pilots to be dropping bombs from flying drones on that country.

I'd say its more to maintain peace and democracy in the State. An extremist Muslim nation will never allow for peace and democracy in any of the nations that fall under "the State"

It is not the job of America to maintain peace and democracy anywhere except inside the continental USA. They have no right to promote their ideas in other countries through war, and have no right to tell people how to live in their countries.

There is no such thing as an "extremist Muslim nation". This is pure mainstream media brainwashing. If the people of A-stan want to live in a muslim caliphate, that is entirely their business, and not yours and mine, and Americans should not be spilling their blood over the political systems of foreigners.

How do you know what the documents are? For all you know, these are documents that contain the names, locations, and methods of access of the most important world leaders. I don't see how releasing a document that potentially puts more peoples lives in jeopardy would help save lives.

OP doesn't know what they are, and no one except NATO and Anonymous knows. What this is about is the thinking behind not releasing the information in full, all at once, because 'someone might get hurt'. This is not logical, and it is the reasoning used by the warmongers to keep their own operatives free from harm while they murder tens of thousands with impunity.

Wikileaks is completely wrong in this respect also. They have documents and are releasing them through newspaper outlets like the Guardian, which are State gatekeepers who will never do anything that will unseat the State. This is not only because the State has the D Notice system hanging over their heads, but because they actually believe the State to be a good thing, despite its mass murder and endemic, inherent corruption.

Wikileaks should have simply released it all from the beginning, for everyone to pour through. Instead, they are cherry picking the documents, witholding anything that is really dangerous to the state, and meanwhile, the killing in A-stan goes on, as does the illegal occupation of Iraq. No politician has resigned due to Wikileaks, no war action has been halted, and no war action has been prevented; in fact, drones are now dropping in Somalia, an entirely new war front post Wikileaks Cablegate / Collateral Damage. Wikileaks, for all its good intentions has not managed to stop the mass murder continuing and spreading. In this respect, it is a total failure.

Anonymous, in order to not make the same mistakes as Wikileaks should not be copying what Wikileaks is doing if they want to have a different effect. Anonymous is working with mainstream media outlets on releasing the documents they have accessed and are witholding stuff, just like Wikileaks. What they can expect is exactly what Wikileaks has received; the scrutiny of the police, and no cessation of the State violence, corruption and theft. Its a shame, because they are really smart people with high moral standards, hight technical skills and a genuine desire to do good. They will fail if they copy Wikileaks.

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36845216)

If they were really worried about an extremist Muslim government taking power in Iraq, they should have left the secular dictator in place.

Re:Irresponsible? (5, Insightful)

stms (1132653) | about 3 years ago | (#36844138)

It's an interesting idea that it would be 'irresponsible' to release these documents in full.

I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afganistan irresponsible. I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible. If you are going to use conventional, State / MSM thinking to restrict and control your actions, then apply this thinking evenly; the State is dropping bombs on people for the 'greater good' (to 'spread peace and democracy') and so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths is completely justified and not at all irresponsible. It is in fact, the only responsible thing to do, since more people will be spared a horrible death for no reason, than could possibly be harmed by the release of the information.

You're being very assumptive by saying releasing these documents would save lives they could just as easily get people killed. Don't get me wrong I support more freedom of information but neither of us have any idea whats in these documents.

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844950)

Don't get me wrong I support more freedom of information but neither of us have any idea whats in these documents.

Which makes one wonder wth is in there that would make even Anonymous take a moment to consider the consequences of releasing it, and to decide not to. It suggests some very nasty shit, liable to start some wars. Which wouldn't be surprising, given we're talking about NATO.

Re:Irresponsible? (3, Informative)

jp102235 (923963) | about 3 years ago | (#36844182)

trying to find morality in war is quite futile: so to say that dropping bombs on "innocents" is bad, sorta seems like saying dropping bombs on non-"innocents" is ok. none of it is good. but that is why we call it war and avoid it at all costs (if we can). unfortunately, _some_ people won't listen, and they need the motivation of bombs to get them to the negotiating table.

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844198)

NATO exists because it's a lesson learned from the Second World War. My guess, in your hatred for Americans you're confusing Afghanistan with Iraq, where NATO played no role.

They break in and steal information, that, poorly used can kill innocents and they don't consider THAT irresponsible?

And you know what's funny? Those hackers are just that, hackers, they don't have any military background or political, what they consider harmless can be very damaging and vice-versa.

What's irresponsible is NATO's shoddy security if a bunch of idealistic little morons with some computer skills can steal some important documents. Which I doubt they did. I really find it hard to believe any valuable data was stored on a server accessible from the internet.

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844222)

> killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy

[citation needed[

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

MasaMuneCyrus (779918) | about 3 years ago | (#36844404)

We're assuming that they have documents showing conspiracy to falsify evidence in order to go to war and unsavory war actions. For all we know, anon could have gotten a hold of information of a a huge corruption and bribing scandal involving the Russian mafia. It could be anything. Perhaps anon doesn't look forward to being tracked down and assassinated.

Re:Irresponsible? (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about 3 years ago | (#36844408)

releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths is completely justified and not at all irresponsible

How will releasing these documents prevent millions of deaths?

If they find some document that proves that there is some great conspiracy to engineer wars to increase defense contractor profits or something, I'd say that would be something to release. On the other hand, how is publishing the operational budget for the construction of some base somewhere going to prevent millions of deaths. Do you think the leaders of NATO nations are going to say "whoa - our line-item for $20k in toilet fixtures has been leaked to the world - let's change our foreign policy!"

Wars happen because elected leaders issue orders to pursue them. All NATO does is drop the bombs. I doubt there is some document that shows that innocent people were deliberately targeted/etc. Most likely the best you'll find is some map that labels a building as weapons factory and it turned out it was an orphanage or whatever. Besides - anything actually dealing with targeting decisions is probably classified way beyond the stuff that Anonymous got a hold of.

And for the record, I'm all for having less intervention overseas, and fewer long-term engagements. Leaking military operational information isn't likely to change that, and may just end up getting people killed. The wars are started by politicians, so that should be the focus of reform.

Re:Irresponsible? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#36845230)

The wars are started by politicians, so that should be the focus of reform.

I used to think that too. I was really upset at Bush during the buildup to the Iraq war because I thought he was pushing us into a war that no one wanted.

Then I looked around and realized the truth: most Americans actually wanted to invade Iraq. Some of it was because of Bush's convincing (or shall we say, deceptions?), but if you remember the poster from those days, "no blood for oil!", one American commentator said, "some people will answer that with, 'why not?"

In other words, if you want to end war, start by convincing people around you. Then politicians will have no power.

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844414)

How do you feel about a president going to war with Libya without congressional approval?

The problem is, what is more irresponsible? (3, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | about 3 years ago | (#36844448)

The problem with your examples, all but is very vague, is that there are at least two sides to every story.

In the case of your specific claim, I am quite sure that NATO does not purposefully target innocent people in any country. If anything it is because it is so uncommon for them to kill a large number of innocent civilians that it gets so much press. The greater good is not always about "spreading peace and democracy" ... the greater good can be also removing the ability of a specific aggressor to continue their ways.

So it is not completely justified to releasing all documents. Some yes, but not all. We read the results of the Afghan dump which revealed sources of intel and such, was that responsible? I think not.

Your openly declaring that there is no reason behind the deaths caused by NATO. I say there is justifiable reason, it all comes down to. Are we protecting a greater good. Yes there are going to be accidental deaths and those are to be regretted. But does the possibility of accidental deaths excuse of from acting to prevent hundreds if not thousands of deaths?

Tell me, when does it become responsible to ignore genocide or mass murder? How many have to die before its not irresponsible for NATO or America to act? I am curious as to the limits. We ignored hundreds of thousands of Africans dieing in the 90s, we do it even to this day for the most part completely glossing over the violence in Sudan and Ethiopia. We seem quite content to ignore the hundreds dieing in Syria and no one bats an eye at what goes on in Lebanon.

Flame on, I have karma to burn. Strawmen and hyperbole are all you are.

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Dachannien (617929) | about 3 years ago | (#36844604)

I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.

I call it irresponsible to inflate reported numbers of Iraqi deaths [iraqbodycount.org] by an order of magnitude and to implicate coalition members as causing most of those deaths rather than AQI, Syria, and Iran. If we can't trust your judgment when it comes to getting simple, verifiable facts correct, why should we trust your judgment when it comes to an assessment of whether releasing the NATO documents would save lives rather than cause further bloodshed, especially when you haven't even seen the documents in question?

Re:Irresponsible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844782)

Your nitpicking over the number is really distasteful and ignorant; people are dying in unbelievable number and all you care about is an accourate count, not stopping it. Very very sick and twisted.

For your information, you can find many sources that quote that number:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq [justforeignpolicy.org]

but that is not my point. People like you are part of the problem, with your autistic logic, infantile belief systems and brainwashed babble.

Go back to sleep you pabulum gobbling moron.

Re:Irresponsible? (1)

Cant use a slash wtf (1973166) | about 3 years ago | (#36845388)

I think everyone is over-estimating Anonymous. I wouldn't be surprised if they just said it would be "irresponsible" as a way of trolling EVERYONE. I mean, you would expect them to just release them with little care for anything else, but why would they just hold on to them?
Answer: It's fucking funny.

@Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844036)

We don't want your crap.

Put it on the recycle.bin, or /dev/null

Thanks (not).

--Internet.

Why no releases of secrets from potential enemies? (4, Insightful)

cavehobbit (652751) | about 3 years ago | (#36844060)

Releasing secrets is often good, as many secrets just protect the asses of corrupt vested interests. But why do we see no releases of secrets from potential threats to free societies? Like China, various idiot countries like N. Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc? Just sayin'...

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36844110)

Maybe they got better security in place?

A lot of the Anon hacks seem to rely on simple SQL injection and other exploits. Could it be that these countries (aside of NKor, which probably is not connected to the internet at all) have better security standards in place?

They might not consider a budget that big of an issue when dealing with petty things like security.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 3 years ago | (#36844160)

Could it be that these countries (aside of NKor, which probably is not connected to the internet at all) have better security standards in place?

Or maybe the penalties for violating security are a little more severe?

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 3 years ago | (#36844304)

Or maybe nobody would be really "suprised" hearing about human rights violations by North Korea, and all such a publication of documents would cause is answers of "well, water is wet, what did you expect"? No hacker worth his salt would volunteer losing time for such a let-down. Better try to embarass countries which are supposed to be democratic...

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36845036)

Perhaps targetting western governments like this is their attempt at improving them. Doesn't seem to far fetched. NATO is doing the same in Libya, but with bombs. And does anyone believe the Taliban fight just because they like to hurt people?
It's just a radical form of "affirmative action"

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (2)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 3 years ago | (#36844310)

Why would a hacker in New Jersey or Finland care about the penalties for violating Chinese state security?

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36845010)

Western democracies are less likely (though it does happen) to use an extrajudicial method against troublemakers overseas so long as they don't constitute a material threat. However that sort of attitude is not so true of totalitarian autocracies with terrible human rights records. If somebody managed to upset China enough, an agent or mercenary might find a way for the hacker to have a 'tragic accident'.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | about 3 years ago | (#36844706)

Slashdot had an article [slashdot.org] not too long ago saying China's defensive security is actually quite bad. China has a huge bureaucracy that provides many opportunities for people to screw up security so inevitably they do.

The researcher quoted in the article attributes the lack of attention to the language barrier. English-speaking script kiddies doing a mass search for SQL injection vulnerabilities won't even know what they've found if they manage to break into a Chinese government website.

Still, the researcher himself has found and publicized several vulnerabilities in Chinese government websites, so I think the other aspect of this is just the attention paid by the media. If Anonymous hacks NATO, that fits into an ongoing news narrative about "The US Government vs. Hacktivists". If a white hat responsibly discloses a bug in Chinese SCADA systems, it won't make any headlines.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#36845254)

I'd bet it's more likely that most Anon hackers don't read Korean, Chinese, or Russian, which is kind of important if you want to make sure you are stealing important documents, and not a PDF format of "Gone With the Wind," or really even to know what computer you hacked into.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36845338)

Ummm... how about "Hey guys, here's what we found, anyone able to translate it?"

For centuries, people have put their faith in the heavens, why shouldn't we have faith in the cloud just because we're atheists? :)

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#36845488)

It's not a matter of should they hack foreign government websites, but so far it seems lulzSec/anon hasn't hacked ANY foreign language website. There is no particular reason to be afraid of McDonald's Taiwan, so I assume mainly they choose their targets based on the language they understand, English; not because of a fear of a foreign government that poisons with Polonium.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

npsimons (32752) | about 3 years ago | (#36845534)

(aside of NKor, which probably is not connected to the internet at all)

That's actually a valid security approach; US DoD uses it all the time.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

somersault (912633) | about 3 years ago | (#36844134)

Because they're not "technologically advanced" enough to digitise their top secret files and make them available to any interested script kiddies?

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844428)

Because they're not "technologically advanced" enough to digitise their top secret files

Arrogance will be the fall of the Western Hemisphere.

Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran have a lot more capability (and money) than you realize. The first two have the ability to seriously harm your US economy is they threw hissy fit (OPEC).

Please smarten up.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

somersault (912633) | about 3 years ago | (#36845040)

First, I'm not American, nor do I live in the US.

Second, my post was just a joke, which managed to fly way, way over your head apparently. While we're talking about "smartening up", please go and read up on the uses of quotation marks, and the definition of irony before reading my previous post. Then read them again and read your own post. Then hang your head in shame.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844146)

Iran never tries to put down free speech or illegally imprisons people for rallying for freedom. They definitely would not kill or torture such people. Nothing to see here folks. Move along and keep hacking the US. Yep.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 3 years ago | (#36844162)

Maybe they're not storing everything on computers? Or maybe they didn't trust a US-based closed-source software vendor with their secrets and preferred to use a harder-to-hack OS instead?

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844168)

But why do we see no releases of secrets from potential threats to free societies? Like China, various idiot countries like N. Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc?

The world is a complex and deceitful beast.

I suspect you're from the US. The French (especially their companies) may not have the same opinion about Iran. Spain may feel differently about Venezuela. China is the "new Soviet Union" (tm); NATO would most likely not confront or expose them directly especially when Western Europe and the US are competing for the same oil fields, grain, and minerals across the world.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844208)

because that stuff isn't in english

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (2, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | about 3 years ago | (#36844254)

Releasing secrets is often good, as many secrets just protect the asses of corrupt vested interests.
But why do we see no releases of secrets from potential threats to free societies?
Like China, various idiot countries like N. Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc?

Because those secrets are not in English. So it's harder to find them. You need Chinese speaking people to enter those systems. Even if their servers are linux or windows based, still you need to know where to look. So you think you can just download a user directory, or download all word-documents. True, but you still need to be on the right server. And then, if you have those documents, you need to translate them to English, to gain the attention of the West.

All those non-latin languages, forget about it if you cannot read them. English is still the language where it all happens.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36845228)

To further expand on the China scenario specifically, one of the few places where there are both persons with the requisite technical skill and the political passion to oppose the CCP directly is Taiwan. However, the Taiwanese, even independence extremists, know that if they publicly hacked and released secrets from the Chinese mainland it would quickly be used by the Chinese as a pretense for war. Many would die and Taiwanese autonomy would be crushed, and if the US actually went through with OPLAN 5077 it could damn well bring about WW3.

The stakes for hacking China are much higher for something which is ultimately less interesting. As callous as it is, everybody already knows China is doing bad things to otherwise innocent people, so there is not really any surprise to reveal. However, if all their dirty laundry were aired, it might provoke a disproportionate response, either personally in an extrajudicial attack to punish the hacker(s), or geopolitically to the point of even open war.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (2)

Xest (935314) | about 3 years ago | (#36844282)

A few points:

- If hacks rely on social engineering, or even being able to understand what a page, for example, an admin page, is saying to figure out whether there's something you an exploit there, then language may be a massive barrier. Then even if they did leak it their Western audience wouldn't be able to understand it. It's challenge enough trawling through a dump of Western documents when you know the language to spot something important, let alone in a foreign language. Let those who know that language deal with that.

- The West is much more interested in documenting things because it believes it's the right thing to do in terms of accountability, but then never follows through on releasing said documents in response to controversal incidents and covers it up anyway- effectively it often becomes a box ticking exercise, to say "We're transparent and accountable". Other nations like Iran, North Korea etc. just drop the charade and don't even waste their time pretending to be accountable/transparent, or at least don't bother digitising everything

- There have been some foreign leaks, IIRC anonymous grabbed about 10,000 Iranian interior ministry files or similar not so long ago.

- These hackers are really mainly just interested in cleaning up their own backyard first- they're sick of government encroachment on their lives, or government spending their tax dollars on wars the citizens of said nation don't really agree with etc. and want to deal with that primarily.

Because most Anon's aren't American. (1, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36844396)

It should be obvious that most Anon's are foreign nationals, or from places like Europe, China, Russia, etc.

Most Anon's are focused only on hacking the US/Western establishment. That being said there have been Anon's who were American nationals.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844438)

Releasing secrets is often good, as many secrets just protect the asses of corrupt vested interests.
But why do we see no releases of secrets from potential threats to free societies?
Like China, various idiot countries like N. Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc?

Just sayin'...

Actually, Wikileaks did just that, and I don't think it's entirely coincidental that the Arab Spring uprising followed shortly afterwards.

A lot of dirt got exposed to the light of day, and while there were few "smoking guns", a number of suspicions were confirmed. The US made such a big deal about THEIR secrets, but we can stand some embarrassment. And should, to keep us humble.

Countries which are less free can't afford to be embarrassed, though. It destroys what little credibility they could claim, and despots aren't big on any humor that doesn't involve battery cables, simulated drowning, and so forth.

Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36845472)

Possibly because none of these hackers actually speaks those languages which would make figuring out what they were actually going after very difficult.

Not irresponsible, useless (2)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | about 3 years ago | (#36844076)

Funny, whenever some talks about the bytes obtained rather than the number of documents, it tends to indicate that the information obtained was useless. Perhaps they found a 700MB Access file with the commercial ship traffic in the Atlantic Ocean.

Chances are it's not important what they found. NATO is a collection of countries with diverging view (e.g. Turkey&Greece, France&UK&US) and with a lot of attention-seeking military personnel who have been shunted to this multi-national effort. Anything juicy or of significance would have been exploited by internal personnel a long time ago.

Not irresponsible (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 3 years ago | (#36844084)

NOT IRRESPONSIBLE AT ALL.

"NATO Restricted" = US FOUO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844096)

FWIW, this is not a classified document. NATO restricted is the equivalent of US UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO.

While any release of restricted information is not helpful to NATO, please keep this in perspective -- this is the equivalent of an unauthorized release of an office memo.

Who are you to question Anonymous? (1)

adamchou (993073) | about 3 years ago | (#36844140)

Tired of people saying its not irresponsible and they should post the rest of the documents. You don't know what the rest of the documents are. Maybe the documents are an assessment on whats the best way is to acquire and sneak a nuclear device into your country. Do us a favor and stop speaking out of ignorance.

Re:Who are you to question Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844740)

Let us assume that you are right and the documents are in fact an assessment on whats the best way is to acquire and sneak a nuclear device into my country. (Where the latter part probably is something like loading it in a van and drive over the border.)
By not publishing the documents this particular security issue will not be dealt with and anyone who has the same resources as the one who wrote the document will be able to do that. (Or have access to a geek in a basement that knows how to do SQL injections, either will do.)
By publishing the documents there will be a pressure to fix this issue.

If the documents do contain the information you suggested then it is highly irresponsible to not publish them since this allows for continued negligence in a matter of national security.

Troop Numbers (1)

Tempest451 (791438) | about 3 years ago | (#36844150)

I guess they actually draw the line at actually sensitive information. Troop numbers and movement information cost lives. I doesn't matter, the bolder they get the more severe the charges will be when they get caught. I am waiting for the first executions on the grounds of treason.

Anonymous: Internet's worst enemy? (2)

jimicus (737525) | about 3 years ago | (#36844152)

I reckon Anonymous could turn out to be the modern Internet's worst enemy.

Before you flame me, hear me out.

Historically, first-world politicians have not really understood the Internet. What they have understood is that while it's a fantastically useful tool, it has aspects that (to society as a whole) are less desirable. Child porn is the obvious one that gets banded about fairly regularly, but by regularly hacking high-profile targets, Anonymous are practically guaranteeing that national security will also wind up on the political radar.

Many on /. will say "Well then, the likes of NATO should hire someone better to secure their networks" - and while there may be some logic to that, I can see a lot of politicians suggesting a rather different solution - one involving censorship and tracking people online. We pretend that the Internet is immune to much of this, but China, Iran and Tunisia have proven that this is not true.

What we have here is the technological equivalent of a bunch of kids causing a great deal of disturbance in their school lunch hall - and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it dealt with using the age-old technique of "If we can't figure out who the troublemakers are, we'll instigate a bunch of new rules which inconvenience everyone."

Anon could be controlled by foreign nationals. (1)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36844412)

Which would explain why the US government is usually the target.

Nice to see the KKK alive and well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844158)

The KKK started as a group of men bullying delinquent-men who weren't taking care of their wife, kids, family.

E.g. Frustrated men who took the law into their own hands.

Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets. [wikispeedia.org]

di3k (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844172)

And The bottom [goat.cx]

Boring (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844236)

How boring. Put your skills to real use.

Here's what I love (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 3 years ago | (#36844250)

Now that we've established that private individuals can hack real secrets out of the government, how fun would it be to plant false information among the nuggets of truth? Nothing outlandish like aliens and mind-control, I mean stuff that's completely plausible and realistic but you would require proof of it being real. For example, I think it would be completely awesome if they leaked something about a special group taking care of "Renegade's Kenya question." The Birthers would splooge all over themselves at that!

Hastening the demise of freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36844526)

All these attacks do is ensure there will be less and less 'freedom' in the future. All these anarchists will achieve is creating more and more laws to squash freedom just like the Patriot Act. We'll get something 10x worse when they feed some bullshit law down on us.

And for those saying these are 'secret' documents. These are 'restricted' which is much different than secret or top secret documents. Restricted documents are only one notch above unclassified information. So basically any that makes a reference to something that may in some way mean something useful, they tag restricted. 99% of the information in that document and the other 1GB of documents is all normal unclassified BS. This is much ado about nothing.

Particular selection is more irresponsible (1)

Spiked_Three (626260) | about 3 years ago | (#36844622)

As soon as anyone starts choosing and picking what they release to the public, then they are doing the exact thing as those who hide the information. If your are going to break a law (no arguments as to whether it should be a law or not, but it is) then decide to only post the part that tells the story you want told, then it is clear you have an agenda, and it is no longer about letting the information be free. if people get hurt because of it, well then maybe none of it should have been published. as of now, the only thing anonymous stands for is whining.

"Irresponsible"? (2)

theIsovist (1348209) | about 3 years ago | (#36844640)

'AnonymousIRC' Twitter handle that it has 1GB of material from NATO but said that most would not be published because it would be 'irresponsible.'"

I often wonder if the real reason they don't post these documents is that they are simply not interesting. Lulzsec and Anonymous are both quick to say that they've hacked into servers, and as they've shown, they've been very good at exploiting holes. However, they seem to be finding holes into low level information, and the "scandal" they find is generally nothing more than mundane information. Do you recall Chinga La Migra? They released tons of personal emails against the Arizona police department, and the only thing that these emails showed is that they were a pretty normal operation, including the fact that this department, too, hires idiots who like to send chain mail through email. So in the end, they found a few gigs of unprotected email, bragged about it, and never bothered to realize that this wonderful treasure trove of information was essentially trash. At best, they created harassment for the officers who, as far as the documents show, weren't involved in anything illegal. The most damaging release of information so far has been usernames and passwords of a porn site, which only exposed the dangers of having the same log in and password information for multiple sites.

More vaporware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36845096)

This is at least the second time they've done this. They announced they would released Sun/News of the World/News International but then they back down.

This "just wait till you see what we have" is getting old fast. It's not a good symptom at all, it reminds me of when Julian Assange announced Wikileaks was "about" to release documents from a major American bank. Turned out it was just an empty threat - probably not what the whistle-blower who leaked the documents to Wikileaks had in mind.

I have a lot of admiration for some of the things Anonymous and Wikileaks have done, but they're both drunk on their own fame now. They need to sober up and keep their inflated sense of self importance in check. It would make them a lot more efficient.

Don't tell us you have important data/documents, either release or shut up. What ever happened to "Anonymous delivers"?

Re:"Irresponsible"? (1)

matt007 (80854) | about 3 years ago | (#36845398)

exactly my thoughts.
I am still hoping something serious comes from anonymous. so far what we saw is negligible compared to their mission statement....
the whole thing might very well be counter productive. a lot of talks about something minor about internet might help new regulations appearing.

Anonymous = bs (1)

bender183 (447302) | about 3 years ago | (#36844868)

Ok seriously.....they aren't releasing all the documents because it would be irresponsible? Do those words sounds like the words of a suicide hacker to you? Or the words of a badly trained actor pretending to be a suicide hacker? Only a suicide hacker would go after the US government. I have read the laws pertaining to internet hacking for the US (Or as much as I could since it was written in some strange form of english called legaleeze) And the laws are so extreme that you could go to jail for even pinging a US government server. Does anyone else see the rather large gaps in logic here?

Irresponsible maybe for themselfes (1)

cm017510 (2400266) | about 3 years ago | (#36845270)

Who really cares about budget and equipment outlays from Nato. These Anonymous guys are probably not dumb and know when a story gets to big. Maybe they ARE clever enough to remain undetected (I doubt that), but even then it's surely not a good feeling walking around and knowing the military is after you because you just unfolded the next two or three strategic operations. Thats not fun anymore.

but what if these documents contain instructions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36845626)

For making weapons that can destroy city blocks . Then any idiot could become a death ray of violence.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...