Anon reminds me of the bomb-throwing-anarchists of the 20th century. Their bombings gave the government the exact reasons they needed for more government (the exact opposite of what they wanted).
Anon wants an internet free of surveillance. But they're doing exactly what they need to in order to justify that reality.
It's why Anonymous is ill-suited to go after government and intelligence agencies: it's trivial to infiltrate, and there is effectively zero way to tell who is actually behind any particular action.
With the passwords on this list like "gibbs", "campbell", "Dominican2009!", and... my personal favorite... "Password12" ... I don't even have sympathy towards this situation.
Such incompetence at security with such importance attached to it should result in prison time and a life-time banishment from office...
How much sympathy do you have to parents whose homes get broken into who used poor-quality locks on their front doors. After all is it not their responsibility to provide for a safe home for their kids?
Sigh... I suppose the victim blaming is a necessary consequence of a community that actually thinks about how to defend against attacks...
Are you unable to see the differences between buying a lock on a door to protect your children and being constantly reminded to pick a secure password to protect national security?
To those that detract anonymous as a sort of rabid crazy dog that charges into attack without aim...
I think that is EXACTLY their intention, like the US government puts crazy pressure in Snowden as a "warning" to future whistle blowers, anons are using the same tactic against US government itself...
If it works or not, I am yet to see, but I can agree with two things:
One, it might make sense.
Two, it is highly dangerous and might cause lots of unintended collateral damage.
My worry is that I think it is premature to abandon our legal methods to fight back against government tyranny and the abuse of the constitution.
I know that is exactly what Snowden has done (in some ways) but he also had restraint and wasn't attempting to harm the US. By engaging in war (which is what the administration will see this as) they could undercut all the work that other activists are doing.
But like you I can see another possibility, one where this is necessary and the only way the US will get the message. But I feel it is more likely a option 2 Two, it is highly dangerous and might cause lots of unintended collateral damage.
If you look at the UK as a prime example, all hope of legally destroying the tyranny has been lost thanks to the various terrorism related laws that have been introduced. The same is true of the US as well now thanks to the ability to detain people on suspicion indefinitely. The legal system is beyond repair.
Revolution has been destroyed too as the very act of promoting or discussing it is terrorism under law and people will just be locked up before they have a chance to express or organise. Our modern communication infrastructure supports this outcome.
The best thing we now hope for is to survive in quiet obedience or await for a natural disaster to shift the balance.
Thank goodness all those oppressive dictatorships didn't know that they could outlaw revolution. Otherwise, everyone would have just sat around twiddling their thumbs because, "Well, it's illegal!"
The fact of the matter is, no one other than a few crazies on the internet think the UK is a tyrannical state. If it really was, you would have unrest similar to actual dictatorships, like Syria and Libya. You wouldn't be able to type out your conspiracy theories, because the internet would be shut off.
False dichotomy. China is a de facto dictatorship (and a de juris Republic), however their citizens can still surf the internet and type out things (censored, for sure, but a far cry from 'shut off').
Do you really want society to collapse to the point of Syria or Lybia before you want the citizenry to stand up for themselves? Or is everyone just a tin-foil hatter until secret police starts wisking people away?
Well, there were at least two guys from the NSA who blew the whistle before, the legal way, and it got them a whole heap of trouble and nothing came of it in the media. So far, going outside the law seems to be the only tactic that garners any attention.
It's a human organization, not a school of fish. There are absolutely influential and directing personalities. That we don't know who they are doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's not an human organization, it's just a moniker. A couple of random people can get together and do whatever they feel like and say they are Anonymous, and they are. There's no membership, no initiation, no rules, no passwords, no mandatory places of meaning, and no real common goals or principles. It's free-for-all.
Anonymous is just a /b meme, suspended in thin air. And it makes no more sense to talk about anonymous as a group as it makes sense to talk about protesters as a single group, without specifying if you talk about the Syrian opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood or the local NIMBY initiative.
Highly dangerous and unintended collateral damage are hallmarks of terorrism, especially considering random violence is a staple of terror tactics. Anon are playing with fire, and the Obama administration is definitely going to be stepping up the cyber-security rhetoric to garner support for the spying programs.
Actually, my point about Obama's cyber-security build-up is that they will get those kinds of people to work on securing servers like random FEMA servers.
I get the distinct impression that we're going to see a serious shift in the administration's attitude towards cyber-security, specifically a swooping change in direction from offense to defense.
I was making the point that Anon could potentially be a puppet whos "attacks" against orgs like FEMA are used to push a stricter control of on-line-everything, and that the skills of those who wrote Stux/Duqu should be sufficiently high that they actually have no real threat to worry about from a group like Anon.
They attacked FEMA probably because it's a soft target: sclerotic with bureaucracy and probably not able to admin their own systems, let alone properly supervise a hurricane rescue op.
If they had gone for the NSA itself they would have a) pissed it off; b) gotten party vans outside their homes.
I'm no fan on Anonymous, but it's worth remembering that any security hole that they can exploit can also be exploited by other, more malicious groups, and probably already has been.
I'm wondering if highly publicized attacks by Anonymous that do not yield any useful information or something that would be embarrassing for the government are actually done by regular citizens, and not by the employees of some government agency.
Great, exactly what this situation needs, a bunch of self-righteous vigilantes trying to evangelize themselves with another leak.
At least Snowden held back any state secrets that would have seriously compromised national security. I highly doubt that anonymous will be light handed in that matter. All we can do is hope they haven't found any information that may put people's lives at risk if leaked.
I'll guess it was because they are part of DHS and easy prey. Other than that it's kind of silly. FEMA is a federal backstop for state and local governments during disaster situations. I think anonymous picked the wrong agency.
Well, some would have you believe that all the secret FEMA camp locations, and body bags, are there to detain large numbers of US citizens during times of unrest.
With the DHS purchasing billions of rounds of ammo, thousands of MRAPs etc - people are worried that the government is specifically gearing up and preparing for civil unrest.
I agree with you 100% I think that the difference between Anonymous and Edward is that he was public with his identity, and has (IMHO) held back information that is detrimental to the security of the USA.
This seems to be an attempt to stay in the spotlight so they can get their message out. And we are gaining traction from the NSA leaks, I hope that the attack by Anonymous doesn't negatively affect our forward movement through open and above board activist groups.
Well said, I was trying to be a little too PC. I don't particularly like their methods or ego either.
Something about this attack feels... "wrong" to me. Like a petulant child who is angry and lashing out, rather than a concerned citizen who is attempting to do the right thing at the cost of his own welfare. It's a mighty fine line though.
>...information that is detrimental to the security of the USA.
"...A few months following the “successful” exercise in cyberattack response, FEMA Chief of Staff Jason McNamara joined Obsidian Analysis as vice president. For the hackers, the quick switch from the public sector to a closely associated private contractor was enough to raise suspicions of collusion. Anonymous alleges that McNamara’s transition to the private sector is evidence of a profit-driven motive for the escalation of cyber warfare. "
If the underlying suspicious implication is true, it is these revolving door collusions for profit abusing the public trust and federal budget theft, that are seriously threatening. It can only snowball without any oversight. If more than just scree smoke, I welcome anyone, anons, script-kiddies, whomever, to expose these potential cases of alleged abuse of this potentially unchecked escalating corruption.
Where TF have you been? weev has always been one of anon's spiritual leaders. Hell, his tactics are probably the template for the sort of griefing, trolling, and hacking we associate with anon.
Anon wants an internet free of surveillance. But they're doing exactly what they need to in order to justify that reality.
Idiots.