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!

Purported FBI Report Calls Anonymous a National Security Threat

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the throw-in-some-typos-bill-so-we-can-deny-it dept.

Crime 159

itwbennett writes "According to what purports to be a leaked psychological assessment of the leaders of LulzSec and Anonymous by the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, Anonymous is not only not a collection of individuals, it's a coherent group that poses a threat to national security. Neither the FBI nor the Dept. of Homeland Security have commented on the document, which may well be a fake, but seems to reflect accurately the thinking behind a series of DHS warning bulletins and crackdowns that have resulted in 75 raids and 16 arrests of Anonymous members just this year."

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

HOW CAN IT BE ?? IT'S ANONYMOUS !! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388640)

How would they know it is or isn't ??

Hackers on steroids. (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388654)

FBI should buy more dogs.

Re:Hackers on steroids. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388948)

Don't forget the curtains! The ultimate in protection.

how long (3, Funny)

jbohumil (517473) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388656)

How long before they finally crack down on all those Anonymous users posting on Slashdot

Re:how long (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388670)

Are you retarded

Re:how long (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389168)

wooooosh

Re:how long (0)

tqk (413719) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389438)

Frankly, I wouldn't put it past 'em. "Hey boss! I just found a whole bunch of 'em posting on this Slashdot web forum!"

Considering what the TSA has been up to, it's not all that far fetched.

Re:how long (2)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389102)

And what about those anonymous ftp users, there are thousands of them based on some logs I saw.

Re:how long (0)

Adriax (746043) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389430)

Don't worry, soon all communications will require a 3 document identity verification and will be recorded in permanent storage for a minimum of 50 years. This includes not only internet communications of all kinds, but also phone calls, physical letters, and face to face communications. I hear the identity badges they're planning for every american to wear comes in a rather fetching grey, makes it easier to read the photo, full name, date of birth, social security number, listing of immediate family names, pet names, political party affiliation, job status, and citizenship status.

Re:how long (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390158)

They've already started, dude... Google's helping them. Slashdot+ will be announced next week.

Of Course (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388660)

Anything the government can't understand or control is a security threat.

Re:Of Course (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388730)

Of course it's a national security threat. It's not because the government can't understand it, it's more for the same reasons Wikileaks is a national security threat--their operations may lead to the release of secret information.

They may also embarrass people a lot and be a good bogeyman, which doesn't hurt in terms of getting funding to go after them.

Re:Of Course (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388964)

Anything the government can't understand or control is a security threat.

Right. If there's a chance it could undermine the continuance of government, even if it's totally within constitutional an legal bounds, it will be prosecuted and found valid in the US Supreme Court. There's precedent case law from the early 20th century. The court has decided, roughly, "the defendant is correct on the merits, but his actions threaten the continuance of government, so he'll rot in jail 'till he dies."

Re:Of Course (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389540)

Your saying there not a threat?

Re:Of Course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389568)

Correct, the threat is here.

Re:Of Course (4, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390140)

Anything that resembles a conscience is a security threat.

Re:Of Course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37390206)

But they understand and control A perfectly well. It's just another compartmentalized counterintelligence asset, willing or not, knowing or not, like it or not. Very "smart" and clever, but in the end just another tool of the Man. Something like the bastard child of rtmark and crowds. Ingenuious, but in the end of little practical utility or genuine merit.

Anyone doesn't like? Can't blame you, but think about it. Guy Fawkes? Really? Come on. Wake me up if they do anything really interesting or useful, like elect a President who will lead and get Congress to abolish the Fed, for instance. Impeach a few thieves and traitors, prosecute some bankers, hang a few war profiteers. That sort of thing. Something REALLY threatening to the current regime, not just idiot squandering of hacker capital simply to advance the inevitable reactionary, opportunistic backlash and police state agenda on innocent and guilty alike. Or, if you can't handle anything so grandiose, how about just some auric liberation at the Fed vaults in NYC.? If you're going to taunt the fibbies, at least make it worth their while, NOT TO MENTION YOURS, and at least halfway relevant. I mean, jeezus, give me a fucking break.

Appropriations Needed (4, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388678)

Money is needed to fight Anonymous. Give us money. More news at eleven.

GTMO called to get some new material (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389232)

Exactly.

Some more money needed badly and not only permission to sue arse off, but to haul any captured suspects at gitmo for some waterboarding excercise, please. Heard that they are running low on quality terrorists these days.

They have leaders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388690)

Really?

In Other Words (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388700)

Online Anonymity and Privacy prevents America Law Enforcement Authorities from spying on their own citizens.

KGB much?

Re:In Other Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389020)

pffft

FBI to Anonymous: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388710)

We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

Re:FBI to Anonymous: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389482)

Expect my foot up your ass.

Re:FBI to Anonymous: (-1, Flamebait)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389576)

115 grain jacketed hollow point to Anonymous: Because your actions don't hurt your targets but DO hurt ordinary citizens, you will have no significant popular support; you are seen as vandals and looters, not Robin Hoods. You're dealing with people with guns, badges, prosecutorial immunity (in practice, if not in law) and a memory and unforgiving mindset far greater than your own. This isn't a game. This isn't a movie. But you fail to recognize that.

If you're going to play "Revolutionary" like the big boys do, you'd better understand what that means: secret jails, warrantless raids, and "shot while resisting arrest". That's how governments... ALL governments... deal with dissidents, particularly ones who are popularly despised.

Re:FBI to Anonymous: (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389814)

And where's your rage at the bankers who tanked the economy, whose actions have affected far more people more drastically than anything Anonymous has done?

Or how about the Tea Party idiots in the House, who played chicken with the economy as well?

Re:FBI to Anonymous: (3, Insightful)

WNight (23683) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390470)

I dunno, everyone I've ever seen mention Anonymous in person mentions the Scientology thing and is at least semi-positive about them. They often don't have a clue what's going on but they know what Scientology is (if only a little) and that they hate it so it must be a good thing.

On the other hand FOX news has yet to say anything positive about Wikileaks so of course they're spinning Anonymous, if they come up, as atheistic anarchistic monsters.

If that's your only measure, that the USA is so full of retards that the propaganda is accepted uncritically by a majority, then yes. But at that level, the majority believes that god exists. But that's not public opinion being against Anonymous, that's your whole fucking nation being addicted to the daily hate and willing to accept any story for blood. As you say, they'll gleefully watch thugs blowing away teenage "hackers" if they've been assured that these kids are against baby Jesus. Yay USA.

If you're going to play "Revolutionary" like the big boys do, you'd better understand what that means: secret jails, warrantless raids, and "shot while resisting arrest". That's how governments... ALL governments...

Yeah, that's pretty much why you're universally despised. One minute you're all like "We're the USA, best in the world", and the next it's "Did you look at me? I'll fucking kill you if you looked at me!"

If you treat harmless protests as terrorism you can expect terrorism because there won't be any enforcement difference. In for a penny, in for bringing down the power grid to fuck the pricks who shot your friend for DDoSing Sony. If that means China invades, oh well - you're gonna get shot anyways.

Think about the message you really want the government to send to our kids.

Re:FBI to Anonymous: (1)

said213 (72685) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390778)

you seem like a pretty tough guy.
rawr to you and way to go with the threatening language!

"This isn't a game. This isn't a movie. But you fail to recognize that."
ooh... and hollow point bullets! just like the big boys?!!

stfu.

It's about time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388724)

Since Wikileaks popped up, and then these guys rose to prominence, it's been hard to ignore the parallels between their mission and the anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I know, I know, transparent government and pure democracy -- but transparent government is not realistic and few really want pure democracy. The result of Wikileaks/Lulzsec/Anonymous is hurting the US, and the FBI, as a US institution, is labeling them as such.

Re:It's about time (2)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389286)

Government shill detected.

Re:It's about time (3, Insightful)

tqk (413719) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390162)

The result of Wikileaks/Lulzsec/Anonymous is hurting the US ...

How? They're embarrassing a lot of political office holders and appointees by holding their actions up to the light of day. How does that hurt the US or its citizenry? Why shouldn't US citizens know what their elected/appointed officials have been up to? They're paying for all of it (supposedly), and a lot of them question out loud whether what they're doing is the right thing.

If you don't want to look like fools, don't do foolish things. Smiple.

If you want your voters to become disillusioned with "The American Way", by all means keep toadying up to special interests, ignoring your citizens, and run the country into the ground via back room deals.

Anonymous did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388728)

Anonymous is nothing more than an escapegoat for anything anyone wants to do and get away with it. If the fbi doesn't like iran bank.. anonymous did it. If the NSA DDOS chinese website... Anonymous did it.

Anonymous is nothing more than The Brotherhood (Nineteen Eighty-Four). At best a silly outlet for people who would oppose oppressive governments. At worst a cloak for the planned destructive acts by NSA against anyone who would upset the status quo.

Anonymous did it.

Re:Anonymous did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389108)

All right, so who hacked Sony?

Re:Anonymous did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389698)

Same group that shot JFK.

Re:Anonymous did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37390330)

And faked the moon landings.

Re:Anonymous did it. (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390792)

and ate all the pancakes...

Anonymous? (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388740)

Please, Wall Street and companies like Goldman Sachs are far greater National Security Risks than any conglomeration of people in their basements DDoSing websites.

Re:Anonymous? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389032)

Please, Wall Street and companies like Goldman Sachs are far greater National Security Risks than any conglomeration of people in their basements DDoSing websites.

How do you figure? I don't see Anonymous on the list of big campaign donors.

Re:Anonymous? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389178)

Please, Wall Street and companies like Goldman Sachs are far greater National Security Risks than any conglomeration of people in their basements DDoSing websites.

How do you figure? I don't see Anonymous on the list of big campaign donors.

You don't see Goldman Sachs either, they are anonymous.

Re:Anonymous? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390850)

You mean Goldman Sachs hacked Sony? That's really wild.

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389610)

To paraphrase a famous quote, there is no greater hatred and contempt for that which we don't understand. When government doesn't understand what they're up against, they coil and strike blindly like a cornered snake. Justice be damned -- the goal now is to demonstrate raw power. The criminal will pay not for his crimes per say, but for highlighting incompetence of the power elite.

If you want to be a criminal, you are much better off a brute than a genius.

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37390638)

Man aint that the truth, they've stolen more money from Americans than anyone in history and the US gov't is helping them stay in business. If Al Capone where alive today he'd be an investment banker for sure.

Interesting... (4, Interesting)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388752)

I found this to be the most interesting part of the TFA:

"The Anonymous ‘collective’ has risen from an amorphous group of individuals on the Internet to the current state of a potential threat to national security. Due to the nature of Anonymous, they believe that they are a leaderless collective. However, it has been shown that there is a defined leadership group," the document reads. "A thorough assessment of each UNSUB’s online activities, speech patterns, and general writings was collected by the FBI. Each UNSUB was individually assessed by members of the SBU (sic) and a psychological profile created from these datasets."

(emphasis mine)

This is what some people on /. have been arguing for some time.

Regardless, the document itself (linked to in the first article) is kind of fun to read.

This is what some people on /. have been arguing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388950)

Yeah, but nobody listened.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388976)

Anyone can take up the mantle of anonymous. Just because these people call themselves anonymous doesn't mean that they are all of anonymous. I'd say they're just a vocal minority.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388984)

I don't doubt that there are currently people who others rally around. But nobody can speak for the whole group. There is no real leadership. If someone tomorrow decided to do new and horrible things in the name of Anonymous, nobody could stop them. It's not owned by anyone. If every person who had ever said they were part of Anonymous died today, the group would still exist tomorrow. That's the very nature of it.

So you can't treat them as a group and call that group 'Anonymous'. You can target certain people who claim membership, but you can't target the group and have any meaningful data.

That they ran an assessment and decided that just means that they don't understand the group.

Re:Interesting... (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389714)

If every member of Anonymous died today then I doubt anyone would feel like being part of a similar group for a long time.

Re:Interesting... (2)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390866)

And the day after every member of Anonymous died of a heart attack:
Anon: I wish I could DDoS this site
Anon: I wish that too
Anon with hacking skills: I have this script for it.... let me see if I can find it
Anon: TITS!
Anon: I wish we rather did this against X instead of Y
Anon with hacking skills: Ok, here is the script: *pastebin link*. Just make a bat file out if it, and use it, i also know a few guys who have botnets, shall we do it?
Anon: TITS!
Anon: Do it faggot!
Anon: Nice script, i think I shall use it to create a botnet over my local email groups :P
Anon: Hmmm, improved version: *pastebin link, but script is actually broken now*
Anon with hacking skills: Ok, commencing attack. Chatroom over at rizon behind a proxy.
Anon: COMMENCING ATTACK!
Anon: *Posts CP*

Anonymous is per definiton just people who get together to do stuff for the lulz, meaning that losing every today would not have any impact on them tomorrow.

Re:Interesting... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390664)

Don't be fooled into thinking that the FBI's procedures and assessment techniques can't account for nebulous or transitory groups, and don't be fooled into thinking that because a group is nebulous or transitory, that it doesn't have quantifiable and traceable characteristics.

Re:Interesting... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389096)

The idea that any group of humans can achieve anything as a "leaderless collective" is a fantasy totally at odds with every prior historical instance of collective human activity. It doesn't happen. Give any group an hour, a task to perform, and they'll be well on their way to disproving this myth. It is against our fundamental nature.

The instant and widespread communication of the information age doesn't change this one bit.

What this does demonstrate, however, is that one way to get people to do things is to have them believe that they're as much in charge as anyone else. Especially if the they're dis-empowered in all other aspects of their life.

Re:Interesting... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389314)

The idea that any group of humans can achieve anything as a "leaderless collective" is a fantasy totally at odds with every prior historical instance of collective human activity. It doesn't happen.

Yep that's why angry mobs are just a scary campfire story.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389516)

I would argue that angry mobs do not in fact accomplish anything.

Re:Interesting... (1)

DaScribbler (701492) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389650)

The idea that any group of humans can achieve anything as a "leaderless collective" is a fantasy totally at odds with every prior historical instance of collective human activity. It doesn't happen.

Yep that's why angry mobs are just a scary campfire story.

Angry Mobs rarely accomplish anything but random destructive results and don't have a focused collective agenda, and as a result most likely will not achieve anything. Those that do, have somebody/somebodies directing traffic, thus negating the assumption of a "leaderless collective".

Re:Interesting... (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389854)

But did Anonymous ever focus on a collective agenda? They were always bored, and someone gave them a target, and if the target was "lulzy" enough, they would "raid". The irl actions followed exactly the same pattern.
At best, they have momentary flagships they follow. At worst, they are just picking at random things for the lulz.

Re:Interesting... (1)

DaScribbler (701492) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390440)

But did Anonymous ever focus on a collective agenda? They were always bored, and someone gave them a target, and if the target was "lulzy" enough, they would "raid". The irl actions followed exactly the same pattern. At best, they have momentary flagships they follow. At worst, they are just picking at random things for the lulz.

The statement in bold points out that there's a structured agenda on the table. It's not like a random group of people coincidentally happened to be in the same place at the same time and their actions just miraculously worked in sync with each other.

Re:Interesting... (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389236)

People on Slashdot are easily confused by the fact that the group is called "Anonymous", which is the same as an English word with a particular meaning.

Re:Interesting... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389290)

If there is a defined leadership group they're damn well hidden and are somehow able to anonymously steer the will of the collective despite being a minority.

So either the FBI is ultra-brilliant and knows more than everyone else or they're just misunderstanding Anonymous as law enforcement usually does.

Also it's odd that they'd use speech patterns and general writings to analyze a group known for speaking in memes.

In Anonymous anyone can be a leader. (1)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389484)

Of course Anonymous has leaders. A leader is someone who inspires people to follow them. However those leaders normally aren't "defined" (ie have names, ranks, titiles etc) and arise out of the masses when someone feels strongly enough about an issue. There are plenty of people who organise outside the Chans on IRC etc and think themselves bigshots, but they have no more influence on Anonymous then any other anonymous poster*.

However if you lurk on the Chans enough, and spam your message enough, you will gain a following no matter how weak. But Anon will do anything, ranging from abusing 12 year old girls to tracking down animal abusers, if they find it amusing.

The problem the MiB types have is that they think that they can just identify a core group and remove them. That wouldn't stop the random chaos that Anonymous partakes in, because new "leaders" with new ideas for lulz would emerge.

The high profile hacking attacks aren't really "Anonymous" though, they are people who met on the Chans that decided to create more formalised groups with fixed agendas. Anyone can call themselves Anonymous, but the strength of the original idea relies on the Anonymous nature of Chan style image boards.

* Which is why I go to 4chan. It is interesting to have discussions without reputation and the like clouding the strength of an argument. On other forums you normally get insiders and outsiders and people react very differently to the same argument depending upon the screen name attached to it.

Re:Interesting... (1)

StickyWidget (741415) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390392)

Remember kids, if your group declares that it has no real leadership, and is a decentralized collective of individuals that spontaneously gather together, than the FBI has a real tough case to justify to their superiors. But, if they start compiling evidence that there ARE leaders, and those leaders can be held responsible for the crimes of the followers, then they can pursue a case. That's RICO. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act], and it's a big freakin deal.

Everyone calls Anonymous a bunch of childish pranksters, but creating an organization that requires the FBI to jump through hoops just to open a priority investigation hints at deeper intelligence.

~Sticky

Re:Interesting... (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390646)

First, it's the government saying this, they'll say any convenient thing literally without regard for truth. Portraying some people as a leadership group is their way of trying to pin everything on a few people, having huge sentences, and declaring it solved. They'd never have said it truly was a leaderless collective - it would have scuppered their case.

Second, there's a difference between a leadership group and a collective of equals, some of whom just have more enticing ideas. Nobody in Anonymous can tell anyone else what to do because there is no hierarchy, no account to keep in good standing, no way to definitively identify each other, and thus absolutely no way to enforce anything.

All any reports of a leadership clique indicate is who the reporter personally finds influential/threatening.

Well, duh... (2)

trunicated (1272370) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388764)

Of course they're a security threat. However, I feel that the flaws that grant them access to they systems they get into are an even bigger security threat. Granted, they've done some pretty dickish things with the fruits of their endeavors, but nothing so horribly wrong that would make the surfacing of the attacks not worth the end result.

While I would prefer that they be a group of white hats informing the companies they break into of their ability to do so, I certainly prefer their gray hat, chaotic neutral mentality of "get in, get out, release a press release" over what others may do with the information they would be able to gain using the exact same tactics.

The type of Idiocy one expects from the feds today (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389264)

Again we have a case where people blame the crackers/hackers for pointing out security flaws and instead of focusing on the flaws which are the actual threat. So much MORE harm can be caused but when somebody exploits that in a relatively harmless way it is a constructive lesson akin to the master smacking you down (but not easily killing you.) This blame the messenger crap has got to stop!

They are not a real national security threat; however, they are a big threat to the corrupt and greedy... Even the more pointless attacks are not a real threat in that they do not cause great harm - like a REAL national security threat would cause. I don't care if they cause some big company to go broke (like sony) because if they can it shows there is something fundamentally wrong they are pointing out. If you assume we don't learn from mistakes, then one might think like the feds do...

The Chinese and other governments (including the USA) with any brains are exploiting and learning without disclosing what they find so that they can further infiltrate and pose a REAL security threat. Naturally, Anonymous becomes a great front with which to conduct constructive attacks... (the best probably being further intrusion until a truly devastating attack can be made.)

Stupid Americans... always trying to have a simple authoritarian villain. You'd think they'd tend to see things as democratic like groups instead of singular dictatorships....
Any decentralized group is going to have moments where some individuals will have a popular vision or best communicate or best organize RISE TO THE TOP but that does not make them leaders. If everybody was the leader the group wouldn't function; there is no formal leadership just those who take up positions needing to be filled - the highly successful or popular end up becoming leaders but such groups are not built upon those individuals and can sustain the loss. MLK wasn't the leader of the civil rights movement, he didn't start it either; he was just one who rose up above the others because of his communication skills to grab the nation's attention. Useful but non-essential and he himself knew this; despite the warped monument seems to project...(he'd not want it focused so much upon him...again, we repeat the mistake...)

Re:The type of Idiocy one expects from the feds to (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389454)

Any decentralized group is going to have moments where some individuals will have a popular vision or best communicate or best organize RISE TO THE TOP but that does not make them leaders. If everybody was the leader the group wouldn't function; there is no formal leadership just those who take up positions needing to be filled - the highly successful or popular end up becoming leaders but such groups are not built upon those individuals and can sustain the loss. MLK wasn't the leader of the civil rights movement, he didn't start it either; he was just one who rose up above the others because of his communication skills to grab the nation's attention. Useful but non-essential and he himself knew this; despite the warped monument seems to project...(he'd not want it focused so much upon him...again, we repeat the mistake...)

Reading missives from the FBI on Anonymous is like watching those poor people with the loaded for bear spaceship bearing down on The Festival in Singularity Sky by Charles Stross, as if somehow superior weaponry was the answer.

The only clueful thing in that document is when they say that actual deaths resulting from the attacks would likely have a very negative effect on Anonymous, which is likely true. Deaths of Anonymous members may or may not have an effect. If those deaths are caused by the FBI or other agent of a government, I would expect that to have a galvanizing effect.

There are other ways of disrupting Anonymous that I won't go into here. But taking out the 'leaders' isn't likely to accomplish a great deal.

Re:The type of Idiocy one expects from the feds to (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389820)

There are more constructive ways of informing out security flaws then publicly releasing compromised data.

You can argue that the threat imposed by the group is relatively harmless, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously. If a small group with questionable ethics can cause a big company to go broke by sabotaging their systems, they should be considered a potential security threat.

Re:The type of Idiocy one expects from the feds to (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390282)

Running around shooting random civilians will tend to show that, in general, street clothes aren't bullet proof.

Is the common person going to take away the idea they should be wearing body armor all the time or that there's thugs running around randomly murdering people?

Purported FBI Report Calls Anonymous a National Se (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388790)

Purported FBI Report Calls Anonymous a National Security Threat

I'm not seeing the problem here.

If 'Anonymous' falls, I hope another rises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388822)

They seem like the only ones willing to protest loudly and illegally.

Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388858)

We're really taking this posting at face value? It's clearly fraudulent. Ars does a good work-up on just how wrong this "document" is:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/bisexual-money-grubber-with-aspergers-how-to-troll-anonymous.ars

Garbage story.

Should be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37388868)

given the overwhelming "success" of the so-called War on Drugs.

Re:Should be interesting (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389400)

Up next: the War on Lulz

Thats Funny (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388886)

Because the biggest and most dangerous enemy this nation has is the US Federal Government themselves...

What constitutes membership? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388924)

For the record, (because I know someone is reading this) I am not, never have been and never intend to be a member of anonymous. But I have to wonder what constitutes membership? To be a coherent group, there has to be leadership of some kind and/or some form of permission or acceptance in the group. I have resisted the curiosity thus far, but what if I learned where the anonymous chatrooms are and joined them just to see what's going on? Does that make me a member? Does that prove or indicate my involvement? What if I decided to 'troll' said chatrooms and started spewing nonsense? Does that make me a member?

I worry about this because of the nebulous way people are grouped and prosecuted. The definitions need to be as clear as possible and words like "beyond a shadow of a doubt" keep ringing in my head.

What worries me more is that they are being classified as national security threats and stuff like that. This sounds like the precursor to adding to the residents of GITMO and denial of rights under the US Constitution as well as human rights violations.

I don't know why I am "worried" though... it's almost guaranteed to happen and I should be accepting of this right?

Re:What constitutes membership? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389226)

It's a practical measurement. Posit that there's a group of people who commit cyberattacks that are then attributed to the label "Anonymous". Functionally, that group of people is Anonymous. If you decided to, could you contact those individuals and work with them in the commision of one of these acts? If you performed a cyberattack and attributed it to "Anonymous", would standard outlets for "information from Anonymous" agree or disagree with your attribution?

Re:What constitutes membership? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37390414)

If you performed a cyberattack and attributed it to "Anonymous", would standard outlets for "information from Anonymous" agree or disagree with your attribution?

As you can clearly see from our username, we are Anonymous (in fact I have never until this moment participated in any "Anonymous" activity, but, being "Anonymous" a collective non-localized stochastic memetic entity with no defined membership, rules, leadership, or practically anything apart from some logos and slogans, I feel free to speak for - part of - the whole).

In my (admittedly limited) experience, I am quite certain given the situation you posit, "Standard outlets", such as they are, would both strongly aggree and disaggree with the action taken, and any point in between. Given the opportunity, both those who aggreed and those who disaggreed would call me (the perpetrator in your hypothetical situation) a "fag" or "faggot" (among other less friendly epithets), and proceed to post crudely edited photomontages adorned with (allegedly) humorous captions related to the action (and it's perpetrator's "faggotry"). Subsequently, they would return to their usual discussions about subjects such as "fapping", "raiding", "ponies" or "minecraft", among many others, and mainly to insult and attempt to shock each other with disgusting images.

The fact that you ask such a question, in fact, seems to indicate that you have little knowledge of the true nature of "Anonymous". I, personally, envy you.

Backwards. (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37388966)

The FBI is the threat to national security. Anonymous simply reveals how insecure we are.

"Clear and Present Danger" (1)

LoP_XTC (312463) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389004)

Sounds like they are a Clear and Present Danger ... time to send in Jack Ryan.

The Harrison Ford version, not the Ben Affleck version ...

Re:"Clear and Present Danger" (1)

jkiller (1030766) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390054)

What's a Ben Affleck?

Leader of Anonymous here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389014)

Hello Slashdot! Anonymous has disbanded because we realized we're a bunch of teabaggers.

Right... (2)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389028)

They are "group" or wannabes and losers. They aren't a security threat, they are a joke.

Re:Right... (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389652)

i dont see how releasing prison guards/police Officers info is a joke

Re:Right... (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389730)

i lold

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37390014)

I think you mean you LuL'd

ahem (1)

emagery (914122) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389046)

Starting to sound like the FBI is a threat to national security. I'm sure there are some really great people working there doing really important things; and investigating criminal activity (or protecting soldiers on the battlefield) is important! But when you start being afraid of the truth, you're also doing something wrong.

/. Full Of Anonymous Members (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389074)

/. is full of Anonymous members, but don't worry, we're all too cowardly to do anything.

Shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389128)

The profilers must've gotten their information from FOX 11 Los Angeles' gritty in-depth investigative report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY)

How is this debatable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389130)

An anarchist group which gloats about damaging government operations in the most general sense is viewed by that government as a potential threat to that government. So why the outraged reaction? We should be saying "well, duh" and going on to critique the psych assessments or discuss how what appear to be images of scanned papers got OCRed so well. It's also notable that the report uses "Anonymous" to refer to Lulzsec, that they believe they have the right Topiary when other analysts have said they got a script kiddie who used the same handle, and that they don't believe they have JoePie when other analysts have identified him with the Ryan guy who was captured.

Fake ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389132)

So first they write this: "Due to the nature of Anonymous, they believe that they are a leaderless collective." than a bit later "This will have a profound effect on the collective itself as the arrest of the core would demoralize the whole."
Which one is it ? If member of Anon believe to be leaderless how can arrest of the 'core' demoralize them ?

From the 'profiles' it looks like it's either a joke or someone who knows and dislikes the guys wants to mess with them.

Frist 4slot?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389164)

one or the otHer FUCKING UsELESS

FBI at work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389180)

At a maximum rate of 1 arrest per raid, they managed to troll the feds about 50 times. Not bad, not bad at all.
A bit more of this will keep them busy enough, and provide extra jobs at the same time!

This is about being embarrassed. (2)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389222)

Anonymous makes very public hacks, generally of pretty low impact. Are we to assume that they are the only ones hacking? What about the Chinese government? What about hackers who don't spin around and start bragging about their hacks?

How many times have credit card numbers and personal info been taken with no publication? How many times have organizations like the FBI and CIA been harangued or penetrated without public disclosure? If Anonymous can do it, it indicates a significant failure in security on the part of the hackee. You can't shut down all hackers. It's only going to get worse. Think of this as a wake-up call and start securing your systems/software.

In 20 years, I hope we look back on this era the same way we look back on medieval medicine. Public hackers like the members of Anonymous do more good than harm. Letting organizations (especially the government) keep a lid on hacks for fear of the public's reaction? That's the real threat to national security.

Hey guys! look what I just pulled from my butt (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 3 years ago | (#37389368)

which may well be a fake, but seems to reflect accurately the thinking behind a series of DHS

In other words, it probably fake, but we want to believe.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389378)

In related news, the DHS has begun an investigation of Slashdot's Anonymous Coward, who clearly is the mastermind behind this dangerous group.

Deliberate leak. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389528)

Regardless of whether or not this document is fake, it has been deliberately leaked (or made available) by the FBI as an attack on the organisation known as Anonymous.

Why?

Because the idea that there are (or could be) leaders in Anonymous will be an anathema to many of the "soldiers" in Anonymous that (want to?) believe there is no leader or leadership. What could be worse than being told by the FBI that the group you joined and believe has no leaders that tell you what to do actually does have a leadership structure that decides what you do? Depending on the level of paranoia and the form it takes within members, some may never believe any denial that there are leaders within Anonymous.

Without a doubt, the leak of this document is deliberate and an act designed to cause disharmony within Anonymous. The only question is whether the document is based on fact or fiction. Will the leak achieve its outcome? Unless you're in Anonymous (and I'm not), I suspect that there's no real way of knowing.

Objectivity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389546)

Let’s see, the FBI could either find Anonymous to be a loosely united group of disaffected nerds OR a focused super group of hacker masterminds out to topple governments. Which result is likely to get more funding steered towards the FBI?

Profiling Doesn't Work - Remove From Budget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389604)

The FBI profiles I've heard are all similar, e.g., "disgruntled single white male, between 20 and 55 years of age, ..." - in other words, the most common type of person in the male population. Victory is claimed when such an individual is arrested for the crime. Jeesh!

I have never seen a statistical study that confirmed the utility or accuracy of criminal profiling, regardless of the crime. Criminal profiling appears to be bad science poorly implemented.

Perhaps Obama could trim the FBI's "BAU"or "BSU" (or whatever unit(s) that do "criminal profiling") from the budget and give the money to something more useful than peace officers' pay.

I'd worry about yourselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37389726)

I don't give 2 cents about government services. Even if today Anon might be doing something you support who knows what they'll be up to tomorrow. They are uncontrollable and unpredictable. Its a mob mentality on a witch hunt. Facts are not important. Your favorite game or website or whatever could be the next target. Or even worse your ISP directly. And don't forget the mob doesn't need or care about a logical reason. The individual is generally smart and reasonable... the mob is not.

There's Another Reason it's a Nat'l Sec Threat.. (1)

StickyWidget (741415) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390096)

It opens up all kinds of legal methods to track, surveil, and identify potential Anonymous members that wouldn't be possible for a 'nuisance' group, and remove most of the privacy obstacles around getting information.

The FBI is building up evidence against Anonymous and Lulzsec to get a National Security Letter. After that letter comes in, the FBI has all kinds of new powers to work with under the Patriot Act. They won't need a court order to subpoena ISP, internet, and bank records, and wiretaps can be done with fewer obstacles.

~Sticky
/Yadda Yadda.

Re: Anonymous is not a collection of individuals (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390228)

The real reason the FBI found Anonymous not to just be a collection of individuals can be found in this leaked classified recording:
(Transcript below):

Subject: Secret Anonymous Gathering 20100924 03:24:36Z

(sound of chanting): "We are all individuals"
  "We are all individuals"
"We are all individuals"
"We are all individuals"

"I'm not!"

In other news (1)

madbavarian (1316065) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390534)

The groups trying to enforce security in government systems are no doubt smiling.

It is sad how the TLA's in charge of security standards are regularly ignored. Maybe these embarrassing break-ins will give them the power to force other government agencies to take security a bit more seriously.

who cares what the FBI thinks... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#37390814)

The FBI is ass backwards at this point, they are back in the dark ages, maybe NSA or CIA would have more up to date view points on what is out there, or maybe some of the consultants that are being used by the FBI, but they themselves have been the weak link in security for government run operations for years, they are the laughing stock.

Yes it is true any one possessing the knowledge to hack servers such as cnn, sony or even bank of america should be considered a threat, but not by this alone.
What makes Anonymous so powerful is that like a terrorist cell, they have heads or cells that will keep hacking even if you take the main cell down....
The difference to terrorists though is that they are doing it to show how corrupt our own government is.

When the Amercian govenrment can try to silence Assange and his wikileaks, with fraudulent charges....some hacking group will pop up to say "I DONT THINK SO"
When Sony goes after a small time tweaker only because he can figure out their code and allow others to bypass these limitations, and gets him convicted...
again they stand up and say "I DONT THINK SO"...we should have more people standing up for our rights, not less.....the government wants us stupid, weak, fat out of shape, thoughtless, automatons, watching tons of TV, eating chips and burgers...so that we do not question our place in society.

Sounds way to much like the matrix to me.. O_O

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?