4 ms·
Anonymous Divided: Inside the Two Warring Hacktivist Cells Fighting ISIS Online
- probablyfiction 11y ago"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?
- jdimov10 11y agoAnd even if it were, the "good guys in government" presumption is quite a stretch. Especially in this case!
- fossuser 11y agoIt's highly likely the intelligence agencies already have people involved in the anonymous stuff.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cconcepts 11y agoIt 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 11y agoI 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 11y agoSorta 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.
- at-fates-hands 11y agoMoney 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 11y ago>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.
- hoopism 11y agoIsn'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?
- cagey_vet 11y agoreally, buncha skids in the trenches perpetuating victimless crimes. non-news.
- unics 11y agoSAD & 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.