
Anonymous Divided: Inside the Two Warring Hacktivist Cells Fighting ISIS Online - nkurz
http://mic.com/articles/129679/anonymous-vs-isis-how-ghostsec-and-ghost-security-group-are-targeting-terrorists
======
hoopism
Isn't the likelihood of an Anon member infiltrating ISIS just was likely as a
ISIS member infiltrating Anon?

This seems like a brilliant tactic.

1) Join Anon and provide "stolen" intel on low level terrorist plot 2) Gain
confidence of respected entity (This Michael Smith guy?) 3) Create conduit to
pass phony intel to feds to distract from real plans

Best of all, nobody will question your motive to stay anonymous.

Normally I wouldn't worry much about this as I am sure Intelligence agencies
are working to verify intel and sources... but... are they?

------
cconcepts
It would seem they could cause a lot of unnecessary damage IE: "shooting in
every direction at once and asking questions later".

It would seem logical that, given their demonstrated capabilities,
intelligence would feed them helpful projects; "here, break this for us"
allowing them to make the difference they want to make rather than potentially
damaging the efforts of coalition forces; "Sir, we were about to find the
location of target X through a private chat platform we had infiltrated,
however, Anons got there and destroyed the platform...."

~~~
dhimes
I think the "damage"-causing one is the ghostsec; "The Group" does work with
law enforcement/intel.

It might actually be better to have a little chaos in there. That may make the
situation harder to game and predict.

------
MichaelGG
Sorta strange they're kicking people off Twitter (that Twitter allows it). Did
they take down so many of those apparently otherwise normal French accounts
that were pro-attack? It sets a bad free speech precedent too. It's not like
it's exactly hard to host something on Tor.

I wonder if a Sybil-esque attack would be more fun on Twitter. Obviously you'd
need to understand language and ideology, but then post well-made materials
that are "subversive" and so on.

------
probablyfiction
"On top of that, a lack of collaboration with U.S. intelligence means that if
Anonymous and GhostSec are running the same game as the Group — creating moles
within online ISIS communities — the good guys in government could end up
investigating the Anonymous moles instead of the actual terrorists."

Pardon my ignorance, but is it even an option for civilians to coordinate with
a national intelligence agency?

~~~
fossuser
It's highly likely the intelligence agencies already have people involved in
the anonymous stuff.

------
at-fates-hands
_Money is a big player in the accusations. GhostSec insists Ghost Security
Group is under paid contract from the federal government now that they 've
gone legit. Members of Ghost Security Group, as well as Smith, have said this
is unequivocally false. They say the only money that sustains the Group comes
from donations._

If money wasn't a key factor in going legit, then why do it? You don't go to
the lengths they went to unless you have money to support a legit operation.
Clearly, they haven't registered as a non-profit, so saying they survive on
donations is a bit. . .well. . . suspicious.

~~~
CIPHERSTONE
>If money wasn't a key factor in going legit, then why do it?

Desire to see ISIS and its kind eliminated. Frustration with formal government
impotence. That would be my guess.

------
unics
SAD & USSOCOM, Mossad, CESG probably have a hand in it so why not? Lots of
Chefs too few bakers? Confusion is as good sometimes as concerted efforts.

------
cagey_vet
really, buncha skids in the trenches perpetuating victimless crimes. non-news.

