

Anonymous takes control of North Korea’s Twitter and Flickr accounts - xmpir
http://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/04/04/anonymous-takes-control-of-north-koreas-twitter-and-flickr-accounts-defaces-websites/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheNextWeb+%28The+Next+Web+All+Stories%29

======
redact207
Most of the time the people who Anonymous give the stick to deserve it, but
this type of petty schoolyard graffiti attack is questionable. Given the
DPRK's sensitive ego, especially at this point in their international circus
show when everyone's doing their best to diffuse the situation, injecting
'porn and kitten images' into their network is not helping the effort. At the
very least, inject some propaganda or meaningful statement rather than self-
glorifying "I wuz here" junk.

The DPRK is a horribly repressed, poverty ridden hell-hole where the only way
out is death. I have nothing but pity for their every day suffering. A small
part of me wants things like this to tip the balance of a short-lived war that
ends in an open and free Korea. Why wait another 10 years where nothing's
changed except their childish tantrums and nuclear capability?

~~~
panacea
"Most of the time the people who Anonymous give the stick to"

I _really_ think it's important to our online discourse to unpack the proper
noun 'Anonymous'. "Anonymous" isn't akin to The Junta of NK, the Department of
State's actions on behalf of the Secretary of State, the UK Foreign Office or
whatever. It's ostensibly actions by actors outside the beauracratic system
performing anarchic acts. That's a pretty huge umbrella to use to
simplistically label the actors as 'Anonymous'.

~~~
saintx
Certain details about the images on the photostream at
[http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-
content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/...](http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-
content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/04/flickraccount.jpg) , such as the image that
reads "We are Anonymous", leads me to believe that "Anonymous" is, in fact,
the culprit in this case.

~~~
warfangle
Or someone claiming to be Anonymous. That's the whole point...

------
skore
I'm really tired of the people shouting " _THIS TIME_ Anonymous took it too
far!". It reminds me of an interview with Jon Stewart where he talked about
people telling him (paraphrasing): "I really like your comedy, but then you
talked about global warming and that's a really serious issue, so now I don't
like you anymore".

Look. "Anonymous" is a like force of nature. It is simply the current
collection of idiots with an axe to grind attacking whatever seems cool and
sensationalist. Some of them have skills, some of them don't. Most of the
time, what they do is childish. What they don't have is an agenda that you
could _argue_ with.

Yelling at them whenever they're on the part of your lawn that you care about
makes about as much sense as yelling at the rain for making the part of your
lawn wet that might rot from it. (Wow, that sure makes a contender for todays
price for most quickly tortured metaphor.)

The reason why "Anonymous does X"? "Because X is possible". Nothing more and
nothing less.

~~~
TrevorJ
You can state that something has been taken too far without the expectation
that that sentiment will change anything. Those are two separate issues.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the risk/reward ratio here is
quite a bit different than many of Anon's previous targets. As much as we
deride North Korea's military ability, they still have the potential to
inflict a great deal of harm to a large number of people. That risk hasn't
really been present to this level in many of the things Anon has been involved
in before as far as I know.

~~~
skore
> You can state that something has been taken too far without the expectation
> that that sentiment will change anything.

Agreed. It does make the sometimes a bit excessive complaining rather
pointless, though.

------
betawolf33
This made me smile.

I mean, sure, it's undeniably petty, and if it accomplishes anything then
it'll be to inflame the DPRK's temper. Maybe that's the point; maybe
highlighting the empty nature of their posturing with insults rather than
listening to their threats with prudent concern is a way to bring them into
line.

I don't really think that's the case, and I doubt the people who did this
thought that either.

But this made me smile. It's irreverent, questionably legal and of dubious
value. That's what Anonymous stands for, and I have to admit that I'm glad
that they're there to pull pranks like this.

~~~
crusso
_This made me smile._

You realize that lower level people within NK will likely be punished, perhaps
brutally because of the embarrassment? The people punished may not even have
been responsible for the security lapse.

------
darkchasma
I'm really getting tired of 'Anonymous'. They are simply internet thugs under
the guise of doing something important. But they don't do anything important,
they actually create that fear the causes governments to enact stupid laws to
prevent 'hackers'. So the result is an erosion of your freedoms.

~~~
xmpir
Anonymous raises the public's awareness for the weeknesses of internet
security. Whether they intend to do so or not: I think it is a good way to
educate people...

~~~
crusso
Just like breaking into peoples' cars raises awareness of automobile security?

Thanks a bunch for raising my awareness that my head has a weakness to blunt
trauma by hitting me in the skull with a hammer!

~~~
xmpir
Anon has no commercial reasons for their actions. Your head cannot be
protected by setting strong passwords - most exploits Anon provides are caused
by things that are easy to prevent (e.g. bad passwords, sql injection
weaknesses...)...

~~~
crusso
It doesn't matter whether or not Anon has a commercial interest or they're
just being assholes. Their behavior is still unethical.

Additionally, it doesn't matter if self-protection is easy as in setting
strong passwords or easy as in putting a helmet on my head or locking my door
at night.

The ethical lapse is in the person breaking into the server, hitting me on the
head with the hammer, or opening the door to my unlocked home.

Don't blame victims.

------
kyllo
It's just too bad the country's intranet is (supposedly) airgapped from the
internet. So they can't actually deliver any propaganda to North Korean
subjects without assistance from someone on the inside.

~~~
zalew
> they can't actually deliver any propaganda to North Korean subjects

if they could, they would be liberated with a tweet, democracy in 140 chars or
less.

~~~
kyllo
Which 140 chars, though?

------
barredo
Can even Flickr keep open an account made by the North Korean govt? Isn't that
sanctioned by the US Govt?

~~~
robin_reala
Flickr’s terms refer one to you Yahoo ID terms[1] which, in section 8 say:

 _"You agree to comply with all applicable export and import laws and
regulations[…] and sanctions control programs"_

The US / North Korea sanctions[2] don’t specifically talk about services, but
under the export of goods has this to say:

 _Treasury prohibitions on exporting goods to North Korea specifically relate
to sales involving parties whose property and interests in property are
blocked under E.O. 13551. Otherwise, there are no Treasury prohibitions on
exporting goods to North Korea. Depending on the goods involved (e.g., luxury
goods), the export may be subject to other U.S. export controls, such as those
administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce._

So I think they’re be OK as long as it’s the press and not the government
that’s running it.

[1] <http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html>

[2] [http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/sanctions/Programs/D...](http://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/nkorea.txt)

------
Mahn
This is very immature and very irresponsible IMHO. Poking fun of NK on the
internet is only going to aggravate the situation, because I'm _very_ sure NK
will end up interpreting it as "US doing", rather than some random
individuals.

~~~
executive
I'd be surprised if the US Govt wasn't behind this.

Remember Lulzsec? aka the FBI?

~~~
Mahn
But what could possibly accomplish doing this? I can't picture the rationale
behind it if it really were the US Govt itself.

~~~
executive
discredit the NK government by showing a bunch of kids can hack them.

enable the masses in NK to access the real internet.. create dissent..
initiate homegrown civil war.

~~~
Mahn
That... makes sense. To some extent. I guess.

------
xmpir
nice flickr uploads... [http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-
content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/...](http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-
content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/04/flickraccount.jpg)

~~~
rcavezza
Can someone confirm these are safe for work?

~~~
harrisonweber
It's just a flag, should be SFW. Edit: Oh and a goofy poster. Nothing crazy.

------
trumbitta2
"They are promising to ‘inject’ porn and kitten images into the network as
further proof of their level of access."

Lol? I guess?

Jokes aside, this seems - at least - irresponsible to me.

------
bsdguides
I hope this won't be what makes this whole thing blow up...

------
bzelip
Go home, you are drunk!

------
runn1ng
They could at least upload something genuinely funny.

------
causeisunknown
What if somebody gets beheaded for this?

~~~
RivieraKid
The beheaders would be primarily responsible for it, not the Anons.

~~~
swombat
The hackers would be indirectly responsible for it too.

Edit: I'm not saying they're guilty and should be put in jail for it or
something. Not that kind of responsibility. However, they do bear some
indirect responsibility that would cause most normal people to feel somewhat
guilty.

An analogous type of guilt would be if, for example, I mistakenly dropped
something while on top of a tall building and it cracked someone's windshield
in the street below, caused an accident, and 3 people died. I didn't kill
those people directly, and I definitely did not intend for anything bad to
happen, and probably it was also the fault of the driver who let himself be
distracted enough by something cracking his windshield to then proceed to have
a major accident. It's hard to blame myself for those deaths, but I most
certainly will, because I was involved in a critical part of the chain of
cause and effect that made these three people die.

Now imagine if you dropped that penny from a tall building, and it caused
100'000 people to die. Some guilt trip that would be...

~~~
RivieraKid
Yes, and also the victim's employer because they they hired him. Also Twitter
because they certainly could have make it harder to hack someone's account
even if the account holder makes mistakes. Thounsands of people would be
indirectly responsible.

------
speeder
I think this is extremely stupid. Usually I like anon plans, but this one is
poking a tiger with a short stick.

~~~
xmpir
Poking a tiger with a short stick is extremly dangerous - what danger do you
see in Anon's actions?

~~~
mikerice
NK could interpret it as US actions rather than Anonymous.

~~~
wladimir
My first thought was "these are US or SK actions". On further thought it
doesn't seem likely, but still, everyone can hide behind the Anonymous flag
for plausible denyability.

~~~
xmpir
For what reason should US or SK do such a thing. If they are capable of
hacking NK they don't need to deny that.

~~~
wladimir
One reason I can think of would be because it's "not done" in international
diplomacy to publicly admit of hacking. I don't think any country ever openly
admitted to building Stuxnet and other "cyberwar" botnets either. Or maybe
they did eventually (not sure), but only after very long suspicions. They
could still tell NK of it privately, threaten them in an indirect way.

Note that I'm not saying they did this, or have good reason to. It's just that
I'm a bit suspicious of anything Anonymous related after the Sabu/Lulzsec
story, especially when it relates to propaganda like this.

