Anonymous takes down internet security firm

JR: Trolling the WBC is like attempting to troll anon. It doesn't work. Pretty stupid to even try. Anything more serious than trolling - i.e. actually thinking you're on a crusade to stop stupid people like the WBC - puts you in the same category as those idiots from Project Chanology, which is worse than stupid.
If they are objectively unfunny, they tend to not spread though. Unless it is because they aren't funny, which would be humor from the lack of humor. :crazyeye:
They spread through the persistent action of those who create them and similarly unfunny persons. This really shouldn't be hard to understand.
 
JR: Trolling the WBC is like attempting to troll anon. It doesn't work. Pretty stupid to even try. Anything more serious than trolling - i.e. actually thinking you're on a crusade to stop stupid people like the WBC - puts you in the same category as those idiots from Project Chanology, which is worse than stupid.

Can I use this opportunity to bring to attention the activities of these people, who certainly gave me reason to believe humanity might be better than we're often painted. A credit to their nation.
 
By the same logic, not unless you're a criminal.

But therein lies the rub. What if the authorities look just to check that you're not a criminal?

There's sixty million of us. Do you think the government can seriously be bothered to check what everyone's doing beyond the obvious? That's a bit paranoid. Besides, I wouldn't care if they were, because I trust my government to govern responsibly. I don't trust everyone I meet to act responsibly.

That rather depends on what the goals of government are, doesn't it? Do you understand completely the goals of your government?

Irrelevant. Forced memes differ from actual memes in that they are objectively unfunny. Very few forced memes become real memes; Seaking never did (or will), Milhouse was never in the running, and (L-L-)Lunajacking was only ever fringe. YMMV, but desu is really the only successfully forced meme.

Nah, what makes some memes 'real' as opposed to 'forced' is the fact that there are no specific persons or groups that monopolise the interpretation of their meanings. Their rules of interpretation are constituted in and only through practices associated with them (e.g. I'd imagine, the activities through which they are learned and how they are used). Whether humour is the quality that governs the viability (which I take to mean primarily the survival) of memes is not something that is testable, given that 'funniness' is inherently subjective.
 
But therein lies the rub. What if the authorities look just to check that you're not a criminal?

See my previous post - I don't think they can be bothered, before we ask about resources and so on. Furthermore, I trust them to keep any confidential information confidential from the public at large.

That rather depends on what the goals of government are, doesn't it? Do you understand completely the goals of your government?

No, but I trust them that they do not include 'spying on our own citizens without a requirement of national security', and I know that I'm not a national security risk. Therefore I trust the government not to spy on me.
 
I wonder when the Jester will get around to curb stomping Anon
 
Nah, what makes some memes 'real' as opposed to 'forced' is the fact that there are no specific persons or groups that monopolise the interpretation of their meanings. Their rules of interpretation are constituted in and only through practices associated with them (e.g. I'd imagine, the activities through which they are learned and how they are used).
Nonsense. Under these criteria, I can't think of a single meme that isn't forced. :confused:
 
Nonsense. Under these criteria, I can't think of a single meme that isn't forced. :confused:

Which specific groups rule over the interpretation of memes?
 
I wonder when the Jester will get around to curb stomping Anon
Didn't he already compromise one of their DDoS downloads? I think he gets everything he needs to know about the person who dl's it. Kind of a "do you feel lucky punk" type deal.

Edit: Yep, paths, usernames, ip, MAC, sysinfo everything
http://theworldexposed.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/infection/

What is this force ye speak of that is allegedly capable of undertaking such an action?
It appears they hit each others radar when he took down wikileaks. Apparently, they have Westboro in common though. He's a military guy so I can understand why.

http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/
 
So we have a military (or ex-military) obviously right-wing elite cracker who is supposedly more powerful than anon. Well, all's well with the world, innit?
 
So we have a military (or ex-military) obviously right-wing elite cracker who is supposedly more powerful than anon. Well, all's well with the world, innit?
It's an interesting dilemma between those who perceive what is right and just versus what is wrong, unethical and/or illegal.

As we've seen in this thread some people feel they can walk right in someone's door and take all they can if it's left open. One poster said it's really no different than misdemeanor crime such as littering or graffitti, right?

So, are cyber vigilantes, like The Jester, or cyber anarchists, like Anon, really good or bad? In other words, is the bad guy’s bad (jihadist recruiting websites) much worse that the good guy’s bad (The Jester knocking them offline)?

Interesting that this week, despite their little war, Anon and The Jester seem to have found some common ground with Westboro Baptist Church. The Jester takes down some of their websites and Anon defaces them.

In fact, their website is defaced during this interview of a representative of Anon and a lady at Westboro.


Link to video.
 
So, are cyber vigilantes, like The Jester, or cyber anarchists, like Anon, really good or bad?

You could argue that they're both bad because they are breaking the law.

Then again, they do useful stuff like exposing shady government dealings, which is very very good..
 
There's sixty million of us. Do you think the government can seriously be bothered to check what everyone's doing beyond the obvious? That's a bit paranoid. Besides, I wouldn't care if they were, because I trust my government to govern responsibly. I don't trust everyone I meet to act responsibly.

A government doesn't have to bother to check on everyone. It just has to do two thinks:
- demonstrate the capability to check on anyone it wants to (access);
- not let anyone know who's being checked on (opacity).

Governments, or indeed anyone in power who wants to control other people through discipline, always strive to get these two things into law: access at will (for "special cases" only :rolleyes:), and no information about what is actually being done. Combined, they are meant to produce the same effect as the "Panopticon" which that oh-so-liberal Jeremy Bentham thought up, only applied across the whole of society.

More on-topic, a follow-up on the fallout for HBGary:

Dems push for Congressional investigation of HBGary Federal

HBGary Federal was hacked last month by Anonymous after Aaron Barr believed he had unmasked much of the group's leadership—and Barr's entire cache of corporate e-mails was made public. Those messages revealed that Barr had joined up with two other security firms, Palantir and Berico, to pitch the powerhouse DC law firm of Hunton & Williams on an idea to go after union-backed websites who opposed the US Chamber of Commerce. The scheme, if adopted, would have cost the Chamber up to $2 million a month.

The three companies called themselves Team Themis, and instead of providing simple "business intelligence," they had a few other ideas:
* Create a false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information, and monitor to see if US Chamber Watch acquires it. Afterward, present explicit evidence proving that such transactions never occurred. Also, create a fake insider persona and generate communications with [union-backed Change to Win]. Afterward, release the actual documents at a specified time and explain the activity as a CtW contrived operation.
* If needed, create two fake insider personas, using one as leverage to discredit the other while confirming the legitimacy of the second. Such work is complicated, but a well-thought out approach will give way to a variety of strategies that can sufficiently aid the formation of vetting questions US Chamber Watch will likely ask.
* Create a humor piece about the leaders of CtW.

Now, some members of Congress want an investigation. "The [Team Themis] techniques may have been developed at US government expense to target terrorists and other security threats," said a letter signed by the representatives.

"The e-mails indicate that these defense contractors planned to mine social network sites for information on Chamber critics; planned to plant 'false documents' and 'fake insider personas' that would be used to discredit the groups; and discussed the use of malicious and intrusive software ('malware') to steal private information from the groups and disrupt their internal electronic communications."

Did anything illegal happen? The letter suggests that forgery, wire fraud, and computer fraud might have taken place and that Congress should investigate the ways that private contractors turn their military contracting experience on private targets.

And this indignation is over the sue of such "personas" for internal politics. I can well imagine what use thy have for foreign policy, in this age of so-called "twitter revolutions".
 
That wasn't the only fallout from HBGary today. Should be interesting to see if the "G-zero" as Ian Bremmer calls them can sort these issues out.
Morgan Stanley experienced a “very sensitive” break-in to its network by the same China-based hackers who attacked Google Inc.’s computers more than a year ago, according to e-mails stolen from a cyber-security company working for the bank.

The e-mails from the Sacramento, California-based computer security firm HBGary Inc., which identify the first financial institution targeted in the series of attacks, said the bank considered details of the intrusion a closely guarded secret.

“They were hit hard by the real Aurora attacks (not the crap in the news),” wrote Phil Wallisch, a senior security engineer at HBGary, who said he read an internal Morgan Stanley report detailing the so-called Operation Aurora attacks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...same-china-based-attacks-that-hit-google.html
 
We know why we have criminals everywhere. An honest normal life is boring. Don't tell me you haven't done anything bad, ever.
 
A government doesn't have to bother to check on everyone. It just has to do two thinks:
- demonstrate the capability to check on anyone it wants to (access);
- not let anyone know who's being checked on (opacity).

Governments, or indeed anyone in power who wants to control other people through discipline, always strive to get these two things into law: access at will (for "special cases" only ), and no information about what is actually being done. Combined, they are meant to produce the same effect as the "Panopticon" which that oh-so-liberal Jeremy Bentham thought up, only applied across the whole of society.

British Law actually bans 'opacity' to some extent; the Data Protection Act stipulates that I have the right to ask anyone to reveal any and all information that they have about me, and that they may not keep said information for longer than is absolutely neccessary. But the point is that I'm not worried about being checked on by the government, because I know that the government don't vandalise things for kicks - I wouldn't say the same about the computer geeks in Kensington who went out for a bit of online fun with the cyberspace equivalent of a spray-can.
 
British Law actually bans 'opacity' to some extent; the Data Protection Act stipulates that I have the right to ask anyone to reveal any and all information that they have about me, and that they may not keep said information for longer than is absolutely neccessary. But the point is that I'm not worried about being checked on by the government, because I know that the government don't vandalise things for kicks - I wouldn't say the same about the computer geeks in Kensington who went out for a bit of online fun with the cyberspace equivalent of a spray-can.

Are you content with businesses sneaking malware onto your system and reporting back to base?
 
Back
Top Bottom