×

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 Hacks UK Government Sites Over 'Draconian Surveillance'

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the revolution-will-be-cctvified dept.

Security 151

Krystalo writes "The hacktivist group Anonymous today hacked multiple UK government websites over the country's 'draconian surveillance proposals' and 'derogation of civil rights.' At the time of writing, the following websites were taken down: homeoffice.gov.uk, number10.gov.uk, and justice.gov.uk. The group is not pleased with the UK government's plans to monitor Internet users."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

151 comments

Surveillence State (4, Funny)

cusco (717999) | about 2 years ago | (#39610609)

Maybe their 2,000,000 cameras aren't helping as much as they thought they would?

Re:Surveillence State (2)

jimicus (737525) | about 2 years ago | (#39611467)

You've never seen the results of the cameras. The suspect is seldom co-operative enough to face the camera straight on, and when they are it's usually a case of "Have you seen this amorphous grey blob? Police would like to speak to him..."

Re:Surveillence State (3, Insightful)

beh (4759) | about 2 years ago | (#39611561)

I'm not sure whether either the Anonymous attacks or the funny quips will help the case of civil liberties.

Sure, you and I know that the way civil liberties have been eroded in the past decade is a bad thing. Unfortunately, most voters really haven't. And if people attack government websites, it will only strengthen THEIR case, not the case of those who want civil liberties restored.

You taking the liberty of bringing down websites to ask for more liberties is roughly the same as if someone started to randomly shoot people proclaiming that he will continue killing people until murder will finally become legal.

It's entirely irrelevant whether your point is a valid one (as, in my opinion, it is in the case of civil liberties -- for most bystanders that really don't have a clue on why this is even important. To them, the government is doing the right thing, seeing that that kind of surveillance would actually be needed to prevent further attacks on government websites.

Right now, I don't know what the right course of action is to convince the governments that more and more surveillance is a bad thing. I wish I knew what the right course of action would be.

What I do know, though, is that attacking government websites is the WRONG way.

Re:Surveillence State (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#39611795)

You taking the liberty of bringing down websites to ask for more liberties is roughly the same as if someone started to randomly shoot people proclaiming that he will continue killing people until murder will finally become legal.

Er, you understand that the whole point of protest is to cause disruption, right? It is a vital part of democracy, the option to march down a street and hold the traffic up because there is no alternative. It's just a shame that we have got to the stage where it is pretty much the only option.

DDOS'ing a web site doesn't seem to be any different that DDOS'ing a road by walking down it in a large group.

Support Them? (5, Insightful)

tvlinux (867035) | about 2 years ago | (#39610623)

Hacktivisim at it finest. The more governments restrict freedom the more "terrorist" there will be.

Re:Support Them? (4, Insightful)

muuh-gnu (894733) | about 2 years ago | (#39611215)

Hactivism (or any other sort of activism for that matter) is a rather desperate and pointless endevour because it will not lead to any change whatsoever in the direction the hacktivists hope for. It is just useless effort, often even damaging to their cause.

The only way to change things is to make people at large stop voting always the same parties into the parliaments. If you have effort or money to spend, support your local pirate parties. Persuade eligible voters to vote for them.

Whatever you do, have a clearly defined and well distinguished political party to be able to channel the support you gained. Votes are the only currency that counts. Hacktivism, demonstrations, OWS, etc are all just useless masturbation if they dont rally around a specific political party.

The problem is political. You wont solve a political problem by non-political means. You cant beat them at their game without playing the game. You have to get in there, however dirty and rigged it may be in ther favor, and win against all odds. Only by winning will you get to change future rules.

Hacktivism is none of that. It is a vulgar display of wretched, powerless frustration and doesnt indicate that you are or ever will be, a winner. It communicates the exact opposite, even more so.

Re:Support Them? (4, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 2 years ago | (#39611241)

Hmmm. While mostly I don't agree with Anonymous in some cases they are outlaw 'Robin Hoods' - in the fact they are outside the law opposing bad and corrupt governance. This law, and many of those recently proposed in the UK, are just *bad*. Hopefully the sensationalist nature of this (which is relatively harmless as far as protests go) will draw the attention of the citizenry to these bad laws.

Re:Support Them? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611393)

"You wont solve a political problem by non-political means."

Really? The English gave you the colonies just like that, because you voted for it?

Re:Support Them? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612259)

"Really? The English gave you the colonies just like that, because you voted for it?"

Yes. Oh, wait, did you think you were talking to an American?

Re:Support Them? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611641)

Hactivism is an (illegal) method of demonstration.

Demonstrations are a way to both demonstrate to the politicians that you personally care about something, and to bring awareness of an issue to the larger public. Making the public aware of issues is critical to persuading them to change their voting.

The first step to a public debate is making the media discuss it. All the better if it's about something the politicians don't want to talk about.

Your last line is a putrid display of rhetoric. You're trying to display hacktivism as powerless and impotent because you don't want it to work. But really, it is a form of media whoring, and media whoring is astoundingly effective.

Re:Support Them? (0)

muuh-gnu (894733) | about 2 years ago | (#39611719)

> demonstrate to the politicians that you personally care

They dont care whether you care or dont care because they know that they will be elected anyway.

> bring awareness of an issue to the larger public.

Irrelevant. If they dont have a party sympathetic to the demonstrated cause to vote for at the next elections, the awareness alone will not lead to any change. You have to have a party channeling the awareness into political change.

> The first step to a public debate

If theres no "other" party to vote for, public debate withing the existing party space is just a superficial ritual. It leads to no siginificant change whatsoever.

> because you don't want it to work.

Because it doesnt work. It will not make members of existing parties sympathetic to the hacktivism cause.

> media whoring is astoundingly effective.

Only if you already have political power. Neither the hacktivists nor their political representatives (if they existed, but they dont even exist) will get political power because of hacktivism. It serves no measurable purpose.

Re:Support Them? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612413)

Ok, so you're in a political mindset where only politicians have the power to change things.
But that's not true. Politicians have to suffer consequences of their actions. Politicians who are exposed as corrupt face public outing and shaming. Politicians who do clearly do not have the public support may be forced to resigned.
And of course, as a notion spreads through the populace, people within the political parties are also likely to pick up such opinions.
I think your dismissal of demonstrations as a tool for effecting change is based on a far too limited view of the system. This isn't pure game theory.

Re:Support Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611663)

You jave a good point but apply it to politics too. Starting a change on the political level is technically impossible. Winning against all odds doesn't work, and that is precisely why hollywood propaganda embrace the lone hero.
Politics grant the rights that a class has gained de facto. It happened exactly that way when the class of thieves prevailed over the class of thugs, which is my rationalization of what we call the revolution and modern era.
The class of thieves used the lower classes to destroy all the aristocratic systems all the values systems, all the ethical/religious systems. Fascism did that, communism did that, capitalism does that, while we concentrate on who owns what, very few people notice the devastation at cultural level.
Having largely completed the transformation of people into whores, they are putting lower classes back in their place, because they intended democracy and rights only as propaganda. Why not take that propaganda and believe in it, and use it against the thieves? If enough people act free, freedom will have to be granted - until the next traitors come around.

Re:Support Them? (2)

muuh-gnu (894733) | about 2 years ago | (#39611785)

> Winning against all odds doesn't work

Pirate parties in Sweden and especially Germany have won a significant amount of votes. They now have approx 10% acceptance according to polls, and are already making goverment coalitions impossible that have been the norm for the last 40 years.

> Starting a change on the political level is technically impossible.

Paralysis by analysis. If the pirate party founders thought in terms of impossiblities, not formed a political wing, and only resorted to desperate and useless demonstrations, protests, and "hacktivism", we wouldnt be where we are right now. All the existing power, drive, awareness and frustration of millions of people would have dissolved into nothingness. But happily they reckognized this, and now we have someone to vote for, and believe it or not, IT ALREADY CHANGES STUFF. Significantly. We've not even entered the German Bundestag yet, and there already are chages. All the other "established" politcal parties are already reacting to the "new power".

You absolutely need a politial way to channel peoples will. Trying to impress and appease existing entrenched political parties by merely demonstrating is an excercize in futility. NOthing will change until you dont start throwing out the bad guy out of the parliaments and getting in yourself.

Re:Support Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612375)

> Winning against all odds doesn't work

Pirate parties in Sweden and especially Germany have won a significant amount of votes. They now have approx 10% acceptance according to polls, and are already making goverment coalitions impossible that have been the norm for the last 40 years.

Yes. Germany is a democracy: every vote counts. In the UK, not so - the majority of actual ballots cast is disregarded. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Support Them? (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#39611871)

The only way to change things is to make people at large stop voting always the same parties into the parliaments. If you have effort or money to spend, support your local pirate parties. Persuade eligible voters to vote for them.

The previous government tried to bring in something similar, and both the parties making up the current coalition opposed them but are now pushing forwards with basically the same thing. The Lib Dems even got as far as setting up a web site where you could tell them which freedoms you wanted back, but that seems to have been forgotten now.

You could vote for a non-mainstream party, but that is just a wasted vote under our system. Really the only option is to pick Labour or Tory based on who you think will fuck up the economy less or reduce your personal tax burden.

Protest is all we have left, and they have done their best to ignore that. How many protests can you remember hearing about so far this year? Occupy ended I suppose... But no-one else managed to even make the TV news. Anonymous's action got a response from mainstream politicians and hours of coverage this morning.

Re:Support Them? (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 2 years ago | (#39611475)

I can't agree. All they've done is create a scenario by which the UK government can say "See! We told you we need to stop these people!"

People were already railing against the new laws regarding data retention, it didn't need a protest and it definitely didn't need a group if stupid kids making it worse.

Re:Support Them? (1)

Mithent (2515236) | about 2 years ago | (#39611889)

Agreed. Demonstrating the dangers of the Internet isn't helpful at all, and is more likely to steel them against this threat.

Re:Support Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611555)

Cracktivism, you mean?
Hacking is creative not destructive.

Is it wrong to protest fascism? no, by all means. But opposition means building alternative systems, without them the game will always be of cat and mouse between who holds the power and who is subjected to it.

Is anonymous is part of the system. orienting people into ultimately harmless activities? hopefully not, because from what i gather anonymous has no leaders.

But IMHO member or prospective members of anonymous better concentrate on anonymous communication beyond the corporate internet, to get in the hand of the citizen the right that ideally are already theirs.

Re:Support Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611729)

I still don't see how defacing websites does anything to solve the problem.

Re:Support Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612141)

I still don't see how defacing websites does anything to solve the problem.

I still don't see how brandishing sign, blocking entrance and slowing traffic does anything to solve the problem. But then i am just a fascist left-wing asshole that hate union, free speech and democracy...

I'll bet that'll be effective (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#39610627)

"UK government has released a report today, announcing that as their crucial websites were taken down, they can no longer ignore the attackers, and have reversed the planned draconian surveillance."

More like in six months, there will be more arrests.

Re:I'll bet that'll be effective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610977)

"UK government has released a report today, announcing that as their crucial websites were taken down, they can no longer ignore the attackers, and have reversed the planned draconian surveillance."

When you say it like that, it actually sounds a lot like terrorism.

Re:I'll bet that'll be effective (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 years ago | (#39611129)

Nonono! It ain't terrorism until Tony Blair goes on FOX news and tells the world how the dangerous hackers could crack any UK website within 45 minutes!

Counter-Productive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610629)

While I agree with their sentiments, this is not the way to combat the surveillance proposals.

Re:Counter-Productive (3, Insightful)

http (589131) | about 2 years ago | (#39610643)

Really? Really? Tell us the way that is already proven to work.

Re:Counter-Productive (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610665)

Paying them to write laws in your favor like the large corporations do?

Re:Counter-Productive (4, Funny)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#39610775)

I say they discover a new land, live on this land for a few years whilst drawing monetary support from Britain, and then get all in a huff about tea time.
That will show em who is boss!

Re:Counter-Productive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611039)

hahaha, I have never seen a better way to dismiss the entire American revolution.

Re:Counter-Productive (1)

Phil06 (877749) | about 2 years ago | (#39612069)

I say they should go after governments that are actually draconian, like North Korea.

Re:Counter-Productive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612257)

Huh? Are you trying to imply that because there are worse governments than the UK government, that means that the UK government is good? "Sorry I murdered five innocent people, but that guy over there murdered twelve!"

Re:Counter-Productive (3, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | about 2 years ago | (#39610981)

SOPA and PIPA were shut down through legitimate protests with ACTA not far behind. The problem is often getting enough people behind it to make that difference.

Re:Counter-Productive (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#39611025)

Indeed. If enough people are willing to vote based on a particular point, politicians will pay attention. And if they don't, someone will be elected who does. Surprisingly, this is true whether we have a two-party system or a 10 party system.

Re:Counter-Productive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611045)

You seem to imply that it does work - Why don't you tell us exactly how anonymous hacking some websites yields a lasting benefit.

That's the way to do it... (1, Insightful)

Zcar (756484) | about 2 years ago | (#39610675)

Attacking the UK government over the internet is a sure way to get them to give up on internet surveillance.

Re:That's the way to do it... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611037)

Attacking the UK government over the internet is a sure way to get them to give up on internet surveillance.

Hackitivism by itself can't change anything, but that never was its objective. It's a way to call attention to an issue that the population has the right to be informed about (this is important dammit!). Aware of the issue, it's up to the people to force the politicians to behave.
Without stunts like this, how else is a small group of citizens who know more about X (in this case X=Internet/computers) than most inform the other citizens (who know little about X, but know about other stuff) that the government is about to screw them? Unfortunately, unless you have extremely rich friends your options are few.

Look, Anonymous attacked us! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610681)

THIS is why we need this bill to pass... Nevermind that the Anonymous group denied the attack, they admitted it!

sad... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610707)

Kinda sad when the only people fighting for your rights are a bunch of script kiddies in their basements.

Re:sad... (2)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 2 years ago | (#39611005)

I live in an apartment, thank you very much.

I don't even have a basement. Just don't tell the tornadoes.

Re:sad... (0)

turgid (580780) | about 2 years ago | (#39611685)

I don't even have a basement. Just don't tell the tornadoes.

Don't worry: God only sends tornadoes to His most devout Christian fundamentalists to test their faith.

Re:sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611445)

People live in fear's why. Many w/ good reason (not by wrongdoing either but by the changes occurring in society lately period, not good ones imo @ least).

It's a powerful motivator: Not fear for your individual self, but more for those that depend on you, the job you have that keeps 'em going etc./et al.

I feel that a lot of people, I'd go as far as to say most, do want to do "the right thing" (purely a relative term & matter of perspective - I don't claim here to know the "absolute good"), but they can't in any event, due to the above - ties that bind, can be chains, in other words - this is such a case/example.

Still - Makes you wonder who the real terrorists are sometimes when you take a look around you. The above's psychologically against you - not good: I think it's the most dangerous 'science' around in fact, because it's used to play us all.

E.G.-> "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men" - Ezekiel Chapter 25 Verse 17

(In this case, applying that? That's just another way of saying the "middle guy's" always taking a beating on all sides, from the poor on 1 end, to the rich on the other - especially taxes-wise, & doesn't everyone know it! What you're saying is the same pretty much... & only these 'script kiddies' in Anonymous know what they think about it)

As long as it's protest more than vandalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610715)

... I wish them well. We can live without the #10 Downing street website for a few days. And, it doesn't *seem* like it's a particularly destructive event. A DDOS attack means extra work for the IT staff and extra expenditures, but it's not like the servers go up in clouds of greasy black smoke, and it's not as if the IT staff will suffer anything worse than a few late evenings and missed cups of tea.

I can tell they did it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610717)

Some of the words, like "colour" "centre" and "organise" have been cannily vandalized.

It's quite a clevre plan.

When will governments learn? (1, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#39610729)

And they even get a choice of which thing they want to learn ... 1. How to respect the rights of the people ... or ... 2. How to make a web site and its servers secure. Sheesh. Did they set this up with "Government Websites For Dummies"?

Re:When will governments learn? (2)

qxcv (2422318) | about 2 years ago | (#39611255)

They probably already have 2) down pat if they're doing their jobs properly. Remember, all that happened here was a DDoS - there were no gaping holes found in the defences of the websites. Anonymous just happened to have more resources than the Government websites did and thus managed to make the sites unresponsive for a couple of hours.
 
But of course you already know this since you're the kind of discerning Slashdotter who reads linked articles and has at least a basic understanding of the topics on which they comment, right?

Answer should be obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611823)

When you make their guns and weapons disappear.

Anonymous? (5, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#39610747)

Can we just $_ =~ s/Anonymous/someone/i please?

It would be far less confusing to those who don't realize it's just your average every-day folk behind these stunts. It's really just the common man turned vigilante... Either this, or label all vigilante acts with unknown perpetrators as the work of Anonymous -- Because that's what it's come to.

Here, I'll demonstrate:

Today, someone hacked multiple UK government websites over the country's 'draconian surveillance proposals' and 'derogation of civil rights.' At the time of writing, the following websites were taken down: homeoffice.gov.uk, number10.gov.uk, and justice.gov.uk. Someone is not pleased with the UK government's plans to monitor Internet users.

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610789)

I have wondered this myself..

A. It is a close-knit community of hackers.. And they are referred to by the media as Anonymous.. And the hackers deny they have any face or name, but like the media's name calling.

B. Just random hackers following other attacks, IE, recent China hacks....

C. The whole point of being a hacker is to do damage and leave without any viable trace, thus any one person or group is unknown, hence Anonymous..

Maybe all the above!!!!!! No clear answer on this and I believe hackers prefer it this way, and why? It makes things interesting!!!!

Re:Anonymous? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#39610811)

I can tell you for sure though, if I ever hack some website, I won't be claiming it was anonymous.

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611055)

What's your point, Testicules?

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611147)

No shit Sherlock, that's why you're not posting as AC.

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610963)

It is A. They want you to believe they are unorganized but the very fact that they have organized means of communication with each other (IRC) means they are, in fact, organized.

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610969)

D. A loose knit decentralized group that use a name to show that they adhere to a shared set of memes / ideas which they hack to support / defend.

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611027)

Implying this isn't just weekly maintenance of said sites and calling it something else for publicity.

Implying Anonymous would care 2 cents enough during the weekend (when noone would need those sites) to plan said attacks.

Implying it could never be an inside job to push their agenda even further and use this as a scare tactic to pass more draconian laws.

Implying normal Joe's would go thorugh the trouble and have the knowledge to do said attack when they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Re:Anonymous? (2)

cavreader (1903280) | about 2 years ago | (#39610965)

The only positive thing the "hacktivists" accomplish is force companies to contribute more resources to securing their systems. Most of these attacks take advantage of poor IT practices such as not remaining up to date security updates. They also provide the politions with the ammunition to enact more stringent laws.

Re:Anonymous? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#39611497)

They are much better organised than their propaganda would led you to believe. This was a coordinated DDoS attack with dozens of members participating and Anonymous have claimed responsibility over it.

UK government = fucked. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610749)

The current state of the UK is a good example of a government
which has more interest in remaining in power than anything
else it might be doing which could be more productive and might actually
serve its citizens.

As an aside, this is pretty much a preview of what you will see the US
government do in the next 20 years. In both cases it amounts to the
pointless thrashing of an empire which is either already defunct or
will soon be.

You knew it was coming (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610755)

Obligatory XLCD

http://xkcd.com/932/

They have a right to be angry ... (2, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | about 2 years ago | (#39610799)

... but they should be locked up until they figure out how to press for change by democratic means.

This is a relatively small group of people, few of whom are UK citizens, that are using force to impose their ideology. They assume that their radical perspectives are supported by the majority, but are unwilling to test that by legally participating in the legislative process.

In other words, these are a bunch of hot heads that want to ram their ideas down everyone else's throats. In that sense they aren't terribly different from other religious or political ideologues.

(For what it's worth, I do support privacy. Yet I believe that the rule of law and democracy are far more important.)

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (3, Insightful)

cathector (972646) | about 2 years ago | (#39610841)

by that reasoning, revolution is never an option.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (4, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | about 2 years ago | (#39610901)

Revolution is only an option when democratic and legal institutions do not exist, or there is concrete evidence that they have failed. If you seek revolution when those institutions exist, you are basically saying that your opinions are more important than those of the majority and that the courts have failed to protect minority rights.

Any such arguments for the UK, US, Canada, etc. are dubious at best. Yes, our institutions have problems but fixing those problems involves reform rather than revolution.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610961)

Well, if the government can hide concrete evidence that democratic and legal institutions have failed, then what do you do?

1) A few noble cyber-patriots who actually have concrete evidence are forced into revolution, or,

2) A schizophrenic hacker (off his meds, the poor dear) starts a cyber-terrorism campaign to make the world believe his paranoid conspiracy theories.

Which one will you read about in the news? Which one would have been more likely in Russia, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria? And did the CCTVs save the UK, or instead cause George Orwell (Eric Blair) to repeatedly turn over in his grave? How many laws authorizing how much surveillance have been passed/will be passed before the population says 'enough is enough'?

Sleep well!

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#39611019)

Well, if the government can hide concrete evidence that democratic and legal institutions have failed, then what do you do?

They haven't failed. Most people don't care about these proposals. And in a democracy, 'most people' is kind of the point.

Although your question is a good one. If you don't have freedom of speech, you don't have democracy. The #1 problem facing democracy in Russia is the lack of free speech.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (4, Insightful)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | about 2 years ago | (#39610971)

So-called "democracy" as it exists in countries like the US is a complete sham. The government can act against the public interest on literally every single issue and still stay in power: any individual is only going to be knowledgeable about a small fraction of what the government does, and a majority of people will just take the media's word for it that they're doing right on most everything else.

The only issues on which the public actually has any influence are those which our rulers recognize to be of relatively minor importance, so the parties can put on a show of virulently disagreeing on them, which makes people feel like they're actually making a difference when they throw out corporate-owned party A and put into power corporate-owned party B. On the most important issues, there's always bipartisan agreement on the wrong side.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (4, Informative)

trevelyon (892253) | about 2 years ago | (#39611521)

The government of the U.S:

1. has suspended Habeas Corpus
2. has taken and imprisoned citizenry from the street without being charged with a crime or receiving due process
3. allows police to detain and strip search anyone for any accusation
4. has not followed it's own laws for electing a president (see bush vs gore)

I'd say it's safe to assume the rule of law in the U.S. is long gone. When you've discarded the highest law in the land (the constitution) so blatantly and completely what law exactly is there left to respect? These are not "problems with institutions" but rather a complete and intentional disregard for the law as stated. This is not to mention the unending general surveillance of it's people which is rather clearly protect by that same constitution. What exactly do you require to classify it as beyond the rule of law?

I can't speak to the case of the U.K. since I am ignorant of the specifics of the laws there but I suspect there is some basis for the protection of liberties and privacy of the people in the law there. How that reconciles with what seems to be the population under the greatest surveillance by their government is beyond me.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (4, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 2 years ago | (#39610907)

Revolution should be an option, but it should always be the last option. The problem with responding drastically is that the people who are abusing the power to begin with will only abuse it more to counter what they see as a threat. The cycle feeds itself.

That's why violence is such a lousy idea. Sure, it may sound gratifying to give the bastards what they deserve, but the bastards will always come back with even more violence.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (3, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#39610941)

by that reasoning, revolution is never an option.

Revolution is the ultimate democratic action: the people rising up en masse against tyranny (or for tyranny, in some cases. Democracy doesn't always work for freedom).

Far different from script kiddies "hacking" (actually DDoSing, which isn't "hacking" any more than driving a Fisher Price toy is "driving") a few government websites because they are pissed off over something (even if they are right to be pissed). That is more like scribbling graffiti: not democratic, just annoying.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610849)

The current UK government is currently operation without a democratic mandate, pushing through legislation that it directly promised the electorate not to - the young in society particularly feel lied to and with democratic means of redress. What have you done?

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610899)

The UK is worse than even the US in terms of having the majority tacitly throw their support behind anything proposed (e.g. pan-surveillance and complete removal of any sort of personal defense) regardless of the tyrannical governmental momentum involved. A blindly accepting majority coupled with an increasingly restrictive government is a recipe for democracy breaking. the fuck. down. Their ideology rejects the progression of this perceived breakdown, and implicates the mechanisms by which a populace is tricked by a superior effort into accepting anything, and your response is "well they should accept democracy. They're upsetting the glorious status quo." Bravo shill... bravo.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (0)

Totenglocke (1291680) | about 2 years ago | (#39611053)

For what it's worth, I do support privacy. Yet I believe that the rule of law and democracy are far more important.

You do not have the right to vote away someone else's rights. It doesn't matter if 99.9999999% of people support it, they do not have the right to strip another person of their rights. Then again, I suppose this IS the UK we're talking about where people don't have rights because they're subjects, not citizens.

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611059)

... but they should be locked up until they figure out how to press for change by democratic means.

Should they? what exactly do you mean by democratic means here? , All kinds of illegal activity is done via members of office and civil servants, does that make them exempt because they work for the government? I live in the US and and from the UK. I am also a veteran of the US Navy. In both countries I see actions that if someone who was not a goverment employee did x,y,z, they would be arrested on the spot and tried in court.

Democratic means? I did not vote for president obama or david. Ever heard of the electroal college or how about the house of lords!!!!!!!!!

I got a great idea, why don't you go sit in a park, give me your location and I come harass you in a police uniform.

We could do this everyday, and by the way I will use the same amount of force as the average american copper, You better watch all those occupy police videos!
Cos that whats coming to ya!

Now if your protest what i am doing, I make it worse on you.
I can, I am a member of authority. I own you.
what you going to do about it?

CALL THE POLICE!, HA I AM THE POLICE, and by the way, we are the police, we do not forget, we do not forgive, expect us!!!!

This is a relatively small group of people, few of whom are UK citizens, that are using force to impose their ideology.

It dosent matter what the citizenship is, we all bleed!

Using force to impose their ideology...Really, Love those taxes and all that war!!!!!, How about all that money that came out of your pocket to the bankers? I dont remember wanting to get screwed by some devious sod with a big vault with a awful lot of tricks up his sleeve. Oh, they took my money for something i didnt do, HMMM..... thats stealing.......Oh wait a minute, thats just bad customer service......same for the copper right, I pay them for services via taxes, i am the customer, i am supposed to be protected as long as I am not harming others.......

    They assume that their radical perspectives are supported by the majority,

Really?????????, you must be able to read minds, either that or you are member of anonymous yourself!!!!!!!

but are unwilling to test that by legally participating in the legislative process.

Legislative process????????? Whens the last time you tried to get anything through a legislative process, what was your experience, how much did it cost you out of pocket to begin with? How long did it take?

do you dare to suggest that David Cameron is going to drop his plans because possibly the majority doesnt like them, HMMMMM IRAQ!!!!!!!!

In other words, these are a bunch of hot heads that want to ram their ideas down everyone else's throats. In that sense they aren't terribly different from other religious or political ideologues.

EXACTLY!, just what is a government, a democracy supposed to be???????????????????

(For what it's worth, I do support privacy.

I AM NOT CONVIENCED!

Yet I believe that the rule of law and democracy are far more important.)

Well we have two groups of people doing their best to shove what they think is right for you down our throats, and drawing a lot of attention to themselves in the process! Sounds like normal everyday democracy to me.

Just what is Rule of law???? is it a bunch of people in uniforms with weapons doing as they please??????

You are a very confusing person!!! I Really dont get you at all. I suppose you think that you goverment needs you and respects you, Hopefully you are right and i am wrong, but my personal experience in life tells me what i know, how about you?

Re:They have a right to be angry ... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 2 years ago | (#39611397)

Wether the majority would support their goals or not is irrelevant, they don't have sufficient access to the media in order to inform the majority of what their goals are... The majority only reads what the large media companies want them to read, and those companies have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

hey, morons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610857)

thanks for helping prove the government's case for more control and monitoring of the internet.

DDOS = Hacking? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39610943)

From the first line of the article "Summary: Anonymous has launched a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) against multiple UK government websites."
Far less impressive than hacking the sites IMO. Then they could have left a message.

Not Hacks (4, Insightful)

pgn674 (995941) | about 2 years ago | (#39610949)

The defacing of Chinese government's websites were hacks. This is just a DDoS.

Re:Not Hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611125)

Does this mean that all the people crying foul and saying anon doesn't represent a significant portion of the population are full of crap? How many people do you need to take down a website? Is this really just 3 skiddies?

Re:Not Hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611239)

Ýou only need 1. 1 person with access to a botnet C&C

Oh fa chrissake (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | about 2 years ago | (#39610975)

A DDoS is NOT a hack. Turning on LOIC, Longcat Flooder, Pissblaster 9001, etc is not hacking. All you're doing is pointing a hose and turning on the water.

Re:Oh fa chrissake (2)

Mouldy (1322581) | about 2 years ago | (#39611207)

Which I believe is actually illegal in the UK right now - I think the hose pipe ban is already in effect this year

There are more effective things (2, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | about 2 years ago | (#39611009)

to do. Who cares about a website? Websites are superfluous. But hack their Blackberries and you will get their attention. Hack their family's accounts, and you will get their attention. The politicians of the world need to know that their very lives are at the mercy of geeks, and that the geeks are not pleased.

If geeks would work together, this kind of BS would nearly instantly stop because modern life would be impossible without the active or passive participation of geeks.

Re:There are more effective things (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611145)

Hack their Blackberries and they'll pay other geeks enough (or just allow them to keep their jobs) to fix the problems. Hack their family's accounts and they'll find a way to track you down and imprison you.

Their lives are not at the "mercy of the geeks", and it doesn't matter one little fuck that the "geeks are not pleased". People with technical skills are commodities to those in power; those whose primary skills are amassing fortunes through corruption, building high-level relationships and brokering power- things that 98% of geeks are unable to accomplish.

Geeks are like honeybees- You give them a nice little hive to buzz around in with Aeron chairs, free snacks, and maybe a few stock options, then point them to a pretty field of flowers in which to gather pollen and keep them focused and happy, then every once and a while you open the hive and take the honey that they bust their asses to make. Piss them off and you might get stung once and a while, but 99% of the time, you're going to get the honey. "But, but look at Google and Facebook and Amazon, and, and...." Yep- and look at who steers those corporate ships now, Sparky. In the majority of these types of successes, the geeks took their cash and split- Don't ask them to organize your little geek uprising.

"If the geeks would work together".... yep, If only they would. If I had wheels I'd be a fucking wagon. If only, for that matter, anyone that feels outrage against an unfair or oppressive system would actually "work together". You need a leader, and organization for that to happen, which involves actually finding someone who is a geek (or maybe just technically literate) AND a leader AND willing to put his or her neck on the line against existing power... good luck with that, pal.

Your post is so heart-breakingly naive and cliched that it's not even worth making fun of. What's really disturbing is that you have a low number next to your name- You're too damned old to be that damned naive.

Re:There are more effective things (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 2 years ago | (#39611587)

You see, there's an easy and elegant solution to this: kill all the geeks. Bury them alive in a mountain of dung, then set it on fire. It will be a good start, even if a little smelly.

Re:There are more effective things (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611461)

"But hack their Blackberries and you will get their attention."

You mean "hack their assistants' Blackberries", themselves they wouldn't know one if it bit them.
They'll just fire the assistant.

must be total chaos ... (1)

drrilll (2593537) | about 2 years ago | (#39611141)

They took down some websites? It must be complete anarchy over there. A total breakdown of moral order. Its tough but fair. Well played Anonymous.

Never mind the bullox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611501)

It must be complete anarchy over there.

You mean....Anarchy in the UK?

oh look, the Reichstag's burning (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611243)

We need some sort of Enabling Act to hurry through legislation to protect us from these terrorists.

Re:oh look, the Reichstag's burning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611777)

Anonymous seems to be kicking an awful lot of own-goals. I'm suspicious that intelligence orgs are so incapable of tracing these elite h4x0rs.

We have it: the Civil Contingencies Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612393)

Part 2 was seemingly modelled on Hitler's Enabling Act.

Ep+? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611313)

bloc in order to and other party may do, may not we all know, which don't use the fucking confirmed: engineering project counterpart, Obseesed - give

I never felt more proud... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611435)

...to post as an Anonymous Coward!

(*dons monocle and top-hat, and raises glass of sherry*)

A toast...to Anonymity!

- A.C.

That Should Do It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611991)

Thanks Anonymous. That should stop them. Just in case though, my baby brother is going to put graffiti on a closed circuit TV camera. That will solve the problem.

Non-political means (1)

Mongo T. Oaf (2600419) | about 2 years ago | (#39612197)

Anybody that knows about the Revolutionary War, can see that they tried politics, but that didn't work. And the script kiddies, at least they're doing something. Better than /.'s just giving their personal opinions. If your government doesn't listen to the people, it probably won't survive for very long.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...