
War on Anonymous: British Spies Attacked Hackers, Snowden Docs Show - sethbannon
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/war-anonymous-british-spies-attacked-hackers-snowden-docs-show-n21361
======
redthrowaway
You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved _really_ think Anonymous is
worth their time? Are the people actually carrying out these attacks convinced
that their efforts are better spent on that than identifying and infiltrating
terrorist networks?

I get spying. I get compromising and penetrating the networks of rival
countries. I even get economic espionage, in the same way that I understand
why the US Marines overthrew sovereign governments in service of United Fruit.

But DDOSing _Anonymous?_ Were they loading up LOIC and firing their lazors at
freenode? That just seems fucking _pathetic_. It looks like a bunch of
children got written a big cheque and were told to go play.

We're constantly inculcated with notions of spy agencies as supremely
powerful, supremely competent cloak-and-dagger organizations that work in the
shadows to guide world events. But this just makes them look like bratty kids
with a rich uncle. It's pathetic.

~~~
oracuk
Anonymous DDoS'd bits of the UK govt ([http://www.out-
law.com/page-11476](http://www.out-law.com/page-11476)). Not critical bits but
enough for them to take notice of the threat.

Much of the (UK) law enforcement response to potential civil unrest is to try
to prevent escalation, this would seem to be in line with that.

Also the tactics and techniques used are frankly not something any of the
other bits of UK govt outside the MOD would understand or be able to deploy.

~~~
grugq
That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be
tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state
level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications
infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea.

I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth
was used? Where was the target server hosted? Is it legal for an intelligence
agency to launch a denial of service attack against civilian infrastructure in
another sovereign state to disable dissident political speech? And if it is
legal for GCHQ to do it, then why is it not legal for MSS to do the same
thing? If GCHQ can DDoS Anonymous, then MSS can DDoS Falun Gong. If GCHQ can
hack Anonymous' laptops, then the PLA can hack Tibeten government in exile's
laptops.

Allowing GCHQ to be used like this undermines the ability of the UK to be a
force for good in the world. Losing the moral high ground for something as
pathetic and petty as this? It is embarrassing to see Western Democracies
behaving like script kiddies.

~~~
DanBC
> That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might
> be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation
> state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the
> communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or
> even a good idea.

Using special branch to infiltrate political groups is commonplace. So much so
that there are recent scandals from officers living false lives having
children with the people they are surveiling, and trials collapsing.

GCHQ have to obey the laws of England. They are usually mentioned in law to
give specific exemptions.

I have no idea how they handle the laws of other nations. I'm guessing that
they obey those laws where they align with English law.

It's not the first time they've done "script kiddie" antics. Hacking terrorist
information websites to replace bomb making instructions with the recipe for
cupcakes is another example.

~~~
bediger4000
I realize this sounds snarky, but I'm just a North American from the middle of
that continent...

Who is deemed capable of deciding which political groups to infiltrate? It
seems to me that there's a narrow line between manipulating politics the way
you want them to go and observing threats.

~~~
DanBC
I agree with you that it is fantastically problematic to infiltrate political
groups.

In theory _all of them_ get scrutiny.

The UK has had considerable trouble with things like employers compiling
blacklists of political activists and union activists in order to deny them
employment.

Some of the police infiltration scandals have been bad - police either get
converted and refuse to provide evidence (while still being paid to gather
evidence) or they encourage law breaking amongst legal groups.

I can understand monitoring all political groups (although I don't agree with
it) but the UK does this poorly.

------
higherpurpose
> the British counterpart of the NSA, shut down communications among Anonymous
> hacktivists by launching a “denial of service” (DDOS) attack – the same
> technique hackers use to take down bank, retail and government websites –
> making the British government the first Western government known to have
> conducted such an attack

I remember when this idea was still pretty much seen as a "conspiracy theory"
around the time when Wikileaks was getting DDOS'ed.

------
higherpurpose
I urge everyone here to read this article about Congressman Pike's fight
against the NSA:

[http://pando.com/2014/02/04/the-first-congressman-to-
battle-...](http://pando.com/2014/02/04/the-first-congressman-to-battle-the-
nsa-is-dead-no-one-noticed-no-one-cares)

This part especially stuck out to me:

> Pike was less interested in sensational scandals like Church’s poison darts
> and foreign assassination plots than he was in getting to the guts of the
> intelligence apparatus, its power, its funding, its purpose. He asked
> questions never asked or answered since the start of the Cold War: What was
> America’s intelligence budget? What was the purpose of the CIA, NSA and
> other intelligence agencies and programs? Were they succeeding by their own
> standards? Were taxpayers getting their money’s worth? Were they making
> America safer?

> Those were exactly the questions that the intel apparatus did not want
> asked. The Church Committee focused on excesses and abuses, implying that
> with the proper reforms and oversights, the intelligence structures could be
> set right. But as the Pike Committee started pulling up the floorboards,
> what they discovered quickly led Rep. Pike and others to declare that the
> entire intelligence apparatus was a dangerous boondoggle. Not only were
> taxpayers getting fleeced, but agencies like the NSA and CIA were a direct
> threat to America’s security and democracy, the proverbial monkey playing
> with a live grenade. The problem was that Pike asked the right questions—and
> that led him to some very wrong answers, as far as the powers that be were
> concerned.

From what I've noticed, nobody is asking these questions today, and yet NSA
and CIA keep getting bigger and bigger funding, with NSA having nothing to
show for it and yet with expanding capabilites, and CIA wanting more funds
mainly to operate more drone strikes in secret (i.e. covert wars). This is a
path that's actually _dangerous for national security_ , either because they
are collecting data on people that can later be hacked and gotten by rival
nations, or because they're starting wars with other nations who knows for
what selfish reasons, without the people knowing anything about it. We should
have a big debate about it, yet no one seems to be starting it.

~~~
smsm42
So he expected a government agency to track its efficiency and see if the
money spent is really warranted compared to the effects produced? That's crazy
talk. That would be running the government like a good business. Nobody does
that. And yet less folks like CIA or NSA. They protect us from evil, so people
should shut up, pay up and be quiet and trust them, they're the good guys
after all.

~~~
fit2rule
>they're the good guys after all

Nothing could be further from the truth. The NSA, CIA, GCHQ - these are the
_most_ corrupting influences on western society, and they are responsible for
a great deal of terror, instability, and insecurity in the countries they
operate.

The day we depose these people and put them in the asylum where they belong,
will be a bright one indeed.

------
peterwwillis
Anonymous channels existed in IRC servers around the globe, on million-user-
plus networks and tiny networks alike. It's chilling to think whole networks
of people completely unrelated to Anonymous could get taken down just because
a few morons were using a channel to organize attacks.

(Also, am I missing something, or did they completely miss an opportunity to
collect intel by taking them offline and making them move to more private
channels?)

~~~
fafner
Freenode regularly suffers DDOS attacks. Scary to think that the British
government might be behind this...

------
dispense
I would like to see more information on the botnet were or are operating. Is
it fully theirs or did they rent it? If they rented it, how and from whom? If
it is fully theirs, what did it consist of? Did they rent a bunch of servers,
or did they use a collection of residential connections? Were these
connections used with the consent of their owners, or did the GCHQ hack them?
If there was consent, who gave it to them? ISPs?

The legality of this is interesting. I suppose it takes a peculiar legal
structure to operate a botnet lawfully.

------
NickSharp
The original documents, with some interesting logs.

[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_anon...](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_anonymous_nbc_document.pdf)

~~~
NickSharp
Related article: [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sentencing-lulzsec-hacker-sabu-
dela...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sentencing-lulzsec-hacker-sabu-delayed-once-
again-1432135)

"For the third time in less than a year the sentencing of Hector Monsegur (aka
Sabu) has been delayed without explanation."

Subu as a founder of Lolzsec, organized "elite hackers" to attack a number of
targets, until (and after) he was arrested and immediately turned informant.

Working for the FBI, Subu continued to recruit new hackers for new operations
while feeding all information to his government bosses.

Read these chat logs. How is that not entrapment?

------
samstave
We need a War on Politics.

~~~
nsns
Politics is not the problem, politics is essential for our lives, what's wrong
is that it simply serves big capital these days, with growing disregard for
civil rights.

~~~
nitrogen
I'm sure there are ways we could update the political process with more modern
ideas of logic, science, election theory, and consensus.

~~~
detcader
look up Fair Elections. It's simple and promising.

------
Bahamut
I have no love for Anonymous (far from it), but some of this is disturbing.

------
etanazir
Has anyone ever done a kickstarter to bribe government employees to
whistleblow on other government employees?

~~~
a3n
Bribery is illegal. That would be a very risky thing to contribute to.

Has anyone done a kickstarter to buy cocaine in bulk?

~~~
dopamean
Yes. It was done on The Wire. They called it the Co-op and they bought heroin.

------
websitescenes
Anonymous failed because its members were systematically targeted, falsely
accused and in some cases assassinated. The only thing the group stood for was
the inherent right to information. Information should be freely available.
This is the only route to true security.

The government says if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
We'll wtf governments?! Why you so scared? If I were to apply the same logic,
I could get the impression you're hiding something.

------
detcader
Wish this had the whole title not just "War on Anonymous"

------
johnwalker
Interesting that there are still services around that are vulnerable to syn
floods.

~~~
oracuk
With enough bandwidth everyone is vulnerable.

------
blendergasket
Why is the lady in the video on this page reporting this from Russia even
though she said they got the docs from Snowden before he went to Russia? Are
ALL their pundits in Russia for the Olympics?

------
StuartWalker
Good read.

------
monsterix
So it was never about terrorism to start with; it was and has always been
about retaining power & oversight by selling "security" to the cheap sheep.
Was there a doubt on its true motivations? No, I don't think so.

But looking at how things have been in America for the last 10+ years (since
the justification of WTC) I don't see much hope unless the citizenry rises to
the occasion and fixes these rascals to their place. I sincerely hope they do,
but I am given up on this already.

