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!

Thousands of Whistle Blowers Vulnerable After Anonymous Hacks SAPS

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the hacktivism-gone-wrong dept.

Privacy 132

First time accepted submitter fezzzz writes "Anonymous performed a data dump of hundreds of whistle blowers' private details in an attempt to show their unhappiness with the SAPS (South African Police Service) for the Marikana shooting. In so doing, the identities of nearly 16,000 South Africans who lodged a complaint with police on their website, provided tip-offs, or reported crimes are now publicly available." Reader krunster also submitted a slightly more in depth article on the breach.

cancel ×

132 comments

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

Out of character... (5, Interesting)

Draque (1367509) | about a year ago | (#43793685)

How on earth does this fit with Anonymous' general philosophy of helping the little guy against the oppressive regime? Nine times out of ten they take that philosophy to an insane extreme, but this seems just the opposite.

are you kidding (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793863)

they're in it for the lulz you dumbass

Re:Out of character... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793883)

The problem is that Anonymous isn't exactly organized so it might just be a small part of it or maybe even someone else trying to discredit them.

Re:Out of character... (4, Interesting)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year ago | (#43794533)

Actually, they aren't even an organization. Who is the head? Who decides what will and won't be done?

It seems to me that 'Anonymous' will eventually become synonymous with the term 'hacker' as the popular press uses it.

Re:Out of character... (3, Insightful)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#43794807)

Did the group called Anonymous do this? I question this act.

Re:Out of character... (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about a year ago | (#43796821)

or al-qaeda

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793885)

Well, hopefully that re-enforces the idea that "Anonymous" actually isn't an organised collective. "Anonymous" is merely a do-ocracy and anyone could choose to identify as Anonymous and act under that banner to do whatever they want to, if they so choose.

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793909)

You have a group which claims they aren't a group, but rather a bunch of individuals with a common motivation. How in the hell do you look for consistency of thought in such an organism?

Re:Out of character... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794021)

aren't a group, but rather a bunch of individuals with a common motivation

How in the hell do you look for consistency of thought in such an organism.

You just answered your own question in the very next breath. You don't believe that it runs counter to the stated "common motivation" you attribute to Anonymous members? If they decided to hack into a bunch of peoples' bank accounts and write checks emptying all the funds out and sending them as "donations" to the Republican National Committee - would you say "Hey, seems typical of Anonymous!"? I sure wouldn't.

We expect a consistency of thought because there has been a consistency of motivation stated by members of Anonymous, and generally evident in their (claimed) historic activities. For a more "typical of Anonymous" act, I'd have expected them to release personal data about the police officers. As it is, this has no consequences other than "oops, we screwed up, we're sorry about that," for the cops, while thousands of citizens will be endangered by having their names clearly identified as police tipsters and informants.

I don't expect every act Anonymous takes to be regimented and coherent, but I'll admit to a bit of surprise when they claim responsibility for an action so remarkably antithetical to every stated purpose they've ever publicized.

Re:Out of character... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43796193)

The problem is you are trying to use language designed for fixed, known groups of people, with regard to a banner that anyone can claim to be operating under. Saying that "Anonymous claims responsibility" is like saying "Christianity claims responsibility", or "Atheism claims responsibility". It just doesn't work.

Or put another way...

Disregard this [slashdot.org] , I suck cocks.

Re:Out of character... (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#43793931)

fit with Anonymous' general philosophy

A bunch of teenagers wanking off to a Natalie Portman movie have time to form a "general philosophy"?

Re:Out of character... (1)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#43794009)

That depends on which Natalie Portman movie... If it's Léon, eew...

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794127)

It's still Natalie Portman. I'll allow it.

Re:Out of character... (3, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43794411)

Obviously you don't have enough hot grits.

Re:Out of character... (2)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#43793973)

I think that this is more of a "government snitches get stitches" kind of thing, where one assumes that all functions of that organization are bad.

In my view, the problem is that since the police are the only official authority to take such crime-related complaints to in the first place, this leak punishes those that are simply trying to get justice served, who have no other authority to take their complaints or other information to.

On another note, isn't the point of "Anonymous", written into the name and everything, that there is no real structure, that there are no real decision makers beyond everyone individually choosing what they're going to work on, and if they're going to participate with an idea that someone else has? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare "Anonymous" the entity as a medium through which individuals can collaborate for their own projects?

Re:Out of character... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793999)

How on earth does this fit with Anonymous' general philosophy of helping the little guy against the oppressive regime?

Whoever said anything about helping the little guy? Anonymous is against the established legal system and for anybody who is against it, including terrorists (some of Anonymous's most high-profile actions recently have been lead by Hamas members, and core Anonymous members are not complaining). Dumping the names of people who cooperate with police to encourage criminal retaliation against them would be completely within Anonymous's character.

Mostly they're about exercising power to harm someone else because it makes them feel good, and making up a justification later.

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794049)

How on earth does this fit with Anonymous' general philosophy of helping the little guy against the oppressive regime?

Whoever said anything about helping the little guy? Anonymous is against the established legal system and for anybody who is against it, including terrorists (some of Anonymous's most high-profile actions recently have been lead by Hamas members, and core Anonymous members are not complaining). /p>

No. They attack CP sites in order to garner favor with the press and the law.

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43796367)

"No we don't!"
"Yes we do!"
"Technically, we're all right."
"Shut up us!"

Re:Out of character... (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43794151)

I generally agree, but since they aren't exactly an organized group, philosophical differences will come about from time to time.

That said, it's kind of hard to imagine doing something against their site without harming innocents while at the same time doing anything which draws attention to problems there. The SA police response was initially denial followed by "no comment." So they still aren't doing anything as far as anyone can tell. And according to the two articles, they are also quite negligent in some areas while active in others which speaks of agendas, laziness and/or political biases among other problems. This is "a shaming."

I have been casually following the problems of South Africa and I am less than impressed. Somehow I had rather hoped that they had learned that the answer to racist law and policy is to do away with racist law and policy, not to "reverse it" by creating more racist law and policy which punishes the "race" of a person rather than individuals responsible. So it goes to show that both the US and South Africa (as well as many others) have some growing up to do.

And seriously, while I wouldn't do it, I can understand why a group interested in justice and equality would expose the sensitive details of people in the databases. If/when harm comes to them as a result of the leak, it would bring more global attention to the actual problems. And it's not like there's not already a whole lot of danger and unfairness in South Africa -- the "net condition" will not really change. But pubic awareness and especially global public awareness will have been raised, which makes it a "net improvement."

Re:Out of character... (1)

hrimhari (1241292) | about a year ago | (#43795573)

I can understand why a group interested in justice and equality would expose the sensitive details of people in the databases.

I understand that as meaning "this group doesn't know how to pick their targets".

And it's not like there's not already a whole lot of danger and unfairness in South Africa -- the "net condition" will not really change.

So let's put people trying to make things better at risk?

(...)Pubic awareness and especially global public awareness will have been raised

The awareness I get from this is that hackers can give a huge blow against whistle blowers with no real "net gain" to any cause.

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794169)

Indeed this only motivates more control over internet by the authorities. If this was "really" Anonymous they simply work as agent provocateurs.

Re:Out of character... (2)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43794183)

It sounds like they are trying to hurt the particular police force an its abuses of other 'little guys', but also to highlight that people should not be using SAPS's 'whistleblower' system in the first place because it tracks personal data. They really should have anonomized it before posting, but the people in the database were already probably at risk from internal misuse an corruption.

Re:Out of character... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794523)

It sounds like they are trying to hurt the particular police force an its abuses of other 'little guys', but also to highlight that people should not be using SAPS's 'whistleblower' system in the first place because it tracks personal data. They really should have anonomized it before posting, but the people in the database were already probably at risk from internal misuse an corruption.

Am I the only one that is speculating that an Anonymous member got snitched out to SAPS and the larger release was just to hide the real target? Regardless, an organization based on anonymity should be careful about breaching that of others.

Re:Out of character... (0)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#43794229)

My tinfoil hat says that this isn't Anonymous.

This is SAPS getting back at people who rat them out. Covering it up with a tweet blaming Anonymous.

As long as you have a frightening scapegoat like Anonymous, you can do all sorts of things and get away with it. In the past, it was yellow peril, commies, etc.

--
BMO

Re:Out of character... (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year ago | (#43795307)

First thought I had was this as well.

Then I recalled the SAPS officer that struggled to write down a statement in printed letters and the officers without driving licenses. Those with the skills to do this are not the thugs on the street patrols that the complaints would have been about.

There was a joke in the old days about why there were 3 SAP officers in a van, one to do the reading, one to do the writing and the third to keep an eye on the two intellectuals. I suspect it is still much the same.

Re:Out of character... (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year ago | (#43795383)

And replying to myself.....

Reading the associated Twitter account, the voice seems young and very un-South African to my mind. Seems more like US or British youf.

Re:Out of character... (1)

eugene_roux (76055) | about a year ago | (#43796059)

Reading the associated Twitter account, the voice seems young and very un-South African to my mind. Seems more like US or British youf.

My initial reaction was one of incredulous fury...

And then I realised, based on last visit to my local cop-shop, that this probably had less to do with breaking in and more to do with some incompetent leaving the door unlocked...

I'm feeling sorry for the (probably last two) remaining decent cops in the SAPS. Stuff like this must be damned demoralising.

But I think you are right that this is a foreigner; but from the Twitter bio I get the feeling this is an Aussie.

Re:Out of character... (5, Insightful)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a year ago | (#43794301)

Anonymous is as much a organisation as people waiting at a bus stop are. And guess what, criminals also take the bus.

Re:Out of character... (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#43795507)

And guess what, criminals also take the bus.

Ahh, *this* is why buses are so slow to arrive!

Re:Out of character... (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about a year ago | (#43796447)

Anonymous is as much a organisation as people waiting at a bus stop are. And guess what, criminals also take the bus.

And I'm sure the rest of Anonymous will speak out against this action annnnnny day now. Right? After all, an "organization" that is strong enough to stand up to governments should be strong enough to self police their own ranks, right?

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794413)

"Anonymous" doesn't have a character to be "out of". It's just a catch-all term for unnamed individuals and groups, which started as a 4chan meme and eventually the media caught wind of it and started using it all over the place.

Because Anonymous has (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43795105)

.....become an oxymoron

Really, how stupid is this whole "Anonymous" thing?

"Oooh. Anonymous did this!"

"Oooh. Anonymous did that!

No. this and that were done ANONMOUSLY!

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43795425)

Sigh. This again.

Anonymous is not a group. It is not an organization. It fights for nothing. It has no ideology for the same reason as the "off" button on your TV doesn't have a political bias while the rest of the channels do.

Every time you read the word "Anonymous", replace it with "somebody" in your mind. This will give you the proper context.

Re:Out of character... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43795845)

Seems more likely that this was an effort by someone (using the Anomymous bogeyman name?) to put an end to that contentious debate over whether or not you could do actual bodily harm and cause actual death just by hacking.

Still the police fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43796031)

Firstly, maybe this wasn't Anonymous, maybe it was the FBI or the CIA. Anon is easy to blame.
Secondly, this leak implies that the SAPS kept a track of "anonymous" whistleblowers. It's still bad for the whistleblowers but WHY DID THE SAPS KEPT A DATABASE OF ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWERS?

This means that when you log a complaint the SAPS can use it against you. Anon simply uncovered information that the SAPS should have in the first place.

But then again. I'm not suprised, authorities record absolutely everything they can all the time.

So funny.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43796589)

that the CIA controls anonymous members now. see lulzsec busts and many more.

How slashdot falls for this shit is beyond me.

Idiots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793697)

Proof that Anonymous are idiots.

Re:Idiots (5, Funny)

Ultra64 (318705) | about a year ago | (#43793839)

"Proof that Anonymous are idiots."
                                                                                                - Anonymous Coward

Re:Idiots (2)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43794473)

That's a real life example of the Epimenides paradox at work.

Re:Idiots (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year ago | (#43795335)

Proof that whistleblowers who trust an organization named SAPS are probably a tad too foolish and gullible.

Seems counter-intuitive (5, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about a year ago | (#43793703)

Maybe someone else has a beef with some whistle blowers and wanted to expose some names.

Now you always have Anonymous to blame...

Re:Seems counter-intuitive (2)

second_coming (2014346) | about a year ago | (#43793831)

I will be very surprised if there aren't deaths directly as a result of this.

Re:Seems counter-intuitive (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43793897)

Agreed. This was a bad idea with 'target of opportunity' written all over it.

Re:Seems counter-intuitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793919)

Anonymous is not a group. It's different people that don't all want the same thing. But for the press it's easier to just call everything Anonymous.

Re:Seems counter-intuitive (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about a year ago | (#43794091)

It's not even that constructed. the problem is that ANYONE can say they're 'Anonymous' and you have as much chance of proving or disproving it as D-Wave does about their quantum computer in the previous slashdot post.

Re:Seems counter-intuitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794133)

Maybe someone else has a beef with some whistle blowers and wanted to expose some names.

Now you always have Anonymous to blame...

well.. them being the south african police, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if they had been selling the information anyways..

Re:Seems counter-intuitive (5, Interesting)

x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) | about a year ago | (#43794179)

Posting from Mozambique:

You don't know how right you are. This is REMARKABLY stupid and dangerous. The countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are developing and with development comes all the growing pains, not least of which is very very corrupt police. Police in South Africa and elsewhere on this continent can be very vindictive and outright murderous when upset about people disrespecting their authority. A few months ago a teenager from Mozambique was dragged to death behind a South African police car because the police who "randomly" stopped him felt disrespected. If the people on these lists know about this hack and their names being made public there is a very real and justified fear they now permanently live in. If they don't know about this hack (a bit more likely in a developing country with a not-so-exposed-to-the-internet underclass) they may be blissfully unaware of the danger they are in but that does not change the its depth.

Whoever released this info has very real blood on their hands. I don't give a damn about the title "Anonymous", the script kiddies who released this info are accessories to the horrible vindictive violence that will assuredly come, and the potential of the loss of life for many of the names released.

The stupidity of this move cannot be overstated. Be ashamed of yourselves "Anonymous". Be ashamed for your lack of disciplining your own.

Re:Seems counter-intuitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43795629)

You assume Anonymous doesn't include alphabet soup shills? False flag attacks are more common than you think (2 birds with one stone is always desirable).

Wait what?!? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793723)

Hackers ... This, they said was “for the 34 miners killed during clashes with police in Marikana on August 16 2012”.

So to protest the miners being killed by police, the hackers hack in, steal the information of other folks who had problems with police and then release it thus exposing those same people to reprisals?

What a bunch of fuck tards!

My comment about SAPS is no better. In short, they come across as brutish, stupid thugs. They are not police, just a gang with fancy uniforms.

Re:Wait what?!? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43793799)

No, these are folks who were helping the police.

Clearly the plan if we can even call it that is to punish those who assist the police.

Re:Wait what?!? (2)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year ago | (#43793859)

Has anonymous adopted the snitches get stitches policy of suppression?

Re:Wait what?!? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43793927)

It does appear that way.

I am not sure we should be referring to them as some sort of group though. my understanding is that right now I could do anything and claim I was acting as part of anonymous. So they really have policies in that case.

Re:Wait what?!? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#43794805)

Obviously taking their Cue for Julian Assange who has who seem to think rule 2 is "No member of the faculty is to maltreat the "Abos" in any way whatsoever—if there's anyone watching."

Re:Wait what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793959)

As I said: proof that Anonymous are idiots. And when lately have Anonymous struck a blow against Big Corporate Police Industrial Government Etc? All they've done for a year or two is DDoS a few kiddy porn sites, which is exactly what said Big Corporate Police Industrial Government Etc wants them to do, since it make for safe targets and press releases.

There's a meme going around on the darknets that says Anonymous have long been infiltrated by police and the 3-letters. This likely proves it.

Re:Wait what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794479)

Anonymous is a singular noun. It's a single collective group. Stop using it like it's plural.

It makes you look like an idiot.

Re:Wait what?!? (1)

pjk (66167) | about a year ago | (#43794699)

You'd prefer "Anonymous is an idiot" ?

Re:Wait what?!? (1)

neonKow (1239288) | about a year ago | (#43794809)

"The Red Cross is comprised of good samaritans."
"The United States is comprised of citizens."

-----
Also, stop signing your posts.

Re:Wait what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794025)

It was the SAPS website that was hacked. Those people weren't hiding from the police - they were the ones who submitted formal complaints to the police. SAPS already knew their names because they were working with them in their investigation of the officers involved in the incident. It's not as bad as you make out, but it does place put the informants at significant risk from the individual policemen accused, who would otherwise have their access to this data restricted.

irresponsible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793729)

while the police might have a PR nightmare, the whistleblowers are caught in the middle of Anonymous' vigilantism. They will be ones who will be hurt the most, while the cops will be fired at the most.

Can't see any comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43793737)

/. says there are three comments. These are not loading.

Re:Can't see any comments (1)

malakai (136531) | about a year ago | (#43793807)

The count of comments and the comment data themselves are cached at different times. It's quite possible immediately following an article being published, to see a difference between the count and the actual.

Re:Can't see any comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794051)

Anonymous strikes again! Take that, comment system!

You know what they say (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43793787)

Live by mob vigilante justice, die by mob vigilante justice.

One of the reasons that you generally dont want vigilantes running around is that its really hard to hold them accountable... especially when their very name is "anonymity". Of course, the "real" (?) anonymous could just deny involvement, and everyone can go back to cheering them on the next time they hack the current Big Bad.

Re:You know what they say (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794347)

It is interesting how mob vigilante justice doesn't seem to occur in places where there is a real functioning justice system in place.

Vigilantes is a symptom, not the problem.

worst, summary, ever. (5, Informative)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#43793917)

the entire summary and the first half of the article is basically an agenda for discrediting anonymous and whitewashing the local cops.
the leak was in response to the complaints from citizens sent to the police department, assigned a case number, and basically ignored by the police. what were the complaints about? the shooting death of 34 platinum mine workers by the police. you dont need to worry about exposing whistleblowers because the police killed 34 mine workers during a protest pretty much describes the suspects. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10016471/South-Africa-the-Massacre-That-Changed-a-Nation-BBC-Two-review.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:worst, summary, ever. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794313)

RTFA the complaints of ANONYMOUS are about that. The whistle-blowers are trying to put a STOP to various instances of police brutality. So anonymous is protesting police brutality by posting the personal information of the VERY PEOPLE BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON IT.

something is worst, ever alright. (3, Informative)

Main Gauche (881147) | about a year ago | (#43794429)

According to the second article above provided by krunster, the hackers posted this message with the data dump:

"South African Police Service Web site hacked saps.gov.za database and e-mails leaked. The reason for this action is to serve as a reminder to the government regarding the murders of 34 protesting miners outside the Marikana platinum mine by police. To date no officers have been brought to justice... This situation will NOT be tolerated. #OpMarikanaMiners @domaineranon.”

So in response to the alleged 34 murders, the hackers expose 16000 names of innocent people to "punish" the cops? This would be like punishing Hitler by gassing American Jews.

If even one of those 16K people is killed as a result of this, the hackers become accessories to murder, in my book.

Re:something is worst, ever alright. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794777)

Your daughter is an accessory to murder, in my book.

wOrs7. liter4cY; evar? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794735)

How did we ever get along reading and writing before we discovered that emphasis could be made by placing periods, or in this case commas, between words in the MIDDLE. OF. THE. SENTENCE?

Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (3, Insightful)

SoTerrified (660807) | about a year ago | (#43794015)

...It was always vulnerable. People seem upset that 'Anonymous' has revealed the list of whistleblowers. What you have to realize is that the police had that information so poorly secured, anyone with any computer knowledge could easily access it. So the police were leaving a list of whistleblowers out there dangling in the wind for anyone who had any ability to look. All Anonymous has done is reveal what the police were doing... Poorly securing important information. Hopefully that message won't be lost as people try to pin the blame for poor security on the people who revealed it was poor. Don't blame the messenger. Blame the people who have sensitive information and don't put in the effort to secure it.

Not this moronic justification again (3, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year ago | (#43794059)

Just because someone leaves something vulnerable does NOT give anyone the right to exploit that vulnerability under some phoney guise of showing them how vulnerable it was in the first place. Thats the logic of the self justifying fool.

Re:Not this moronic justification again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794421)

You missing the point. The point is that there are two wrongs done here, not just one.

Just because you can point at Anonymous and say that they are dickheads doesn't mean that SAPS are free from blame.

Re:Not this moronic justification again (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#43794499)

That old man was always vulnerable, it's not my fault for mugging him. If I didn't, someone would.

Re:Not this moronic justification again (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about a year ago | (#43794707)

I agree Viol8 AND not only that spread that information EVERYWHERE on top of that does not give them the right morally or ethnically release that information.

Re:Not this moronic justification again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43795229)

It's also completely true, but y'know.

Re:Not this moronic justification again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43796395)

I could swear that is the same justification people use for paying as little taxes as possible by using loopholes and screaming "la la la, it is moral because it isn't explicitly illegal! la la la" yet that attitude is considered completely justified and pointing out obvious security holes is tantamount to accessory to murder.

Re:Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about a year ago | (#43794215)

I think the brand of car you are driving is poorly engineered, puts your children at risk and was done so to save money for the company who created it. So to expose this, I'm going to crash into it while your wife is dirving the kids home from school. Sorry if your kids happen to die or get horribly mained as a result; but don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. Blame the executives at the car company who could of spent a little more money to engineer their product better and didn't put in the effort.

Re:Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794255)

Judge: You are accused of killing that man by shooting him. Do you plead guilty or not guilty?

Defendant: Not guilty. He was walking around vulnerable to bullets. I just demonstrated this vulnerability. I didn't cause this vulnerability. Anyone could have shot him. It was his fault to run around with this vulnerability.

Re:Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794351)

Potential =/= Application

Re:Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794399)

The way I look at it is that the police should not have kept the whistle-blower's information in the first place. Aren't they supposed to be "anonymous" tips for a reason?

Re:Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#43794461)

So, if I walk by your house and find out your front door is unlocked, you are ok if I open your door, walk in, and carry out all of your electronics and valuables and leave them on the front lawn for people to take? I would bear absolutely ZERO responsiblity if your stuff got stolen?

Re:Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794951)

or better, if your house has big windows, and I take a rock out of your yard and throw it through and then rob you, I'm not responsible because your house had poor security? After all, clearly your house shouldn't have windows, as they're easy to break.

Re:Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43795143)

It was always vulnerable

You're stupid and you're going to die eventually.

So why don't we just kill you earlier and save some resources?

Why the risk? (1)

disasm (973689) | about a year ago | (#43794125)

This article completely ignores the big elephant in the room. Why was this information on a server hosted on the Internet? Shouldn't information like this be separated on a separate subnet? It talks about Intrusion detection systems and all sorts of technology to mitigate the risk, but the answer is simple. If your business data is isolated completely from your public facing presence, you need an insider or a physical break-in to be at risk.

I guess 2013 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794149)

is finally the year of Hurd on the Desktop

Whistle Blowers? (3, Informative)

sesshomaru (173381) | about a year ago | (#43794157)

Look, police informants are not whistle blowers. You may think they deserve to be protected, but the term whistle blower has a specific meaning that does not equate to police informant.

Re:Whistle Blowers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794583)

whistleblower or whistle-blower or whistle blower (hwsl-blr, ws-)
n.
One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority

---

informant (n-fôrmnt)
n.
1.
a. One that gives information.
b. One who informs against others; an informer.
2. One who furnishes linguistic or cultural information to a researcher.

---

seems similar enough as not to matter...

Re:Whistle Blowers? (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about a year ago | (#43794591)

exactly! that distinction *totally* justifies putting their [human] life at risk!

Re:Whistle Blowers? (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a year ago | (#43795377)

exactly! that distinction *totally* justifies putting their [human] life at risk!

Congratulations on completely failing to read the post you were responding to.

Re:Whistle Blowers? (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about a year ago | (#43795955)

thanks!

Mod parent up. (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#43795883)

mod up

Good For Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794235)

The entire concept of informing the public is to effect change. By releasing details about 16000 complaints the chances are that the police forces involved will be forced to make sweeping changes and we would expect a lot of arrests of officers who committed some of these crimes as well as officials who allowed it all to continue.

Congratulations (1)

coogan (850562) | about a year ago | (#43794269)

In a country where many law abiding citizens are literally held hostage in their own homes due to the amount of violent crime and we plead for people to come forward with information and they actually do, and we have success in many cases due to these tip offs, some asshat goes and publishes the list over the Marikana issue which they most likely have no clue about since I suspect they are not from South Africa to begin with. Congratulations - innocent blood is going to be spilled because of this and its on your head. Whether SAPS was vulnerable or not is besides the point - you brought innocents into this. In fact, you could rather have used your skills to find the details of all the covered up corruption cases if you were so interested in JUSTICE.

how this happened (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43794343)

I have 2 theories. One is Anonymous didn't do this and someone else is lying. Two is anonymous is just as stupid as they seem and just as stupid as any other hacker. Defacement, data stealing, database leaking, causing downtime, they're all considered some pretend major victory by those mostly incompetent morons and script kiddies. They pretend like they can do anything but back in real life you need vulnerable system and specific security flaws to get into something. So if they can't bring the site down and can't deface it or modify it but they found an SQL injection vulnerability in the database so they went with that because at least it's something. Also, they just wouldn't feel special and amazing in their little pretend world if they weren't able to do anything at all to SAPS. So without thinking, they leaked all the data just to prove how "awesome and all powerful" they are. Ugh, give me a break. It's no wonder most of them don't have professional IT jobs. Set aside the clear lack of skill, they have no common sense or planning ability.

Was it really Anon? (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#43794407)

From the second article, emphasis mine:

"The hackers (@DomainerAnon) â" believed to be associated with hacktivist group Anonymous..."

Has a confirmed Anon source stated that it was an Anon op? A splinter group like LulzSec? An agent provocateur?

This reeks of a frame. It's out of character.

Re:Was it really Anon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794537)

The entirety of Anonymous ARE a bunch of splinter groups.
There is no such thing as "Anonymous", it is a blanket term for hundreds of cells of people who work together, work against each other, fuck around or even help people.
It always has been this way when the actual Anonymous movement started. (not when it used to just be a funny joke on 4chan)

Re:Was it really Anon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43794683)

well if you want someone killed, you could just add their names with some incriminating I love the police/hate local warlord garbage text files, release the lot under cover of anon. sit back and wait for either the warlord/police to kill them off for you, while you laugh into your text editor...

revenge is yours !!!

Anonymous is a bunch of idiots (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#43794649)

They're trying to paint juvenile attacks and posting private data with a veneer of social justice. I've actually wasted my time digging through a couple of their dumps. They're completely arbitrary. I'm sure their membership trawls the interwebz looking for vulnerable systems, and when they're digging around one associated with a "bad guy," they post what they've found and pat themselves on the back. Real social justice is based on a philosophy more distinct than "ooh lookie what WE found!".

What a bunch of "we-know-what-is-best" morons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43795455)

First thing that came to mind when I read this, who or what gives them permission to do what they are doing? Sooner or later this had to happen. When you think that everything you do always leads to a noble outcome, sooner or later you will really mess it up if there are no "checks or balances". I'm not surprised.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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