4 ms·
This is something I wonder about a lot. It seems like it would be SO easy to carry out a false flag attack with computers. What stops a random malicious perso
by awakeasleep 15y ago
This is something I wonder about a lot.
It seems like it would be SO easy to carry out a false flag attack with computers. What stops a random malicious person from popping a few boxes in Country X and using them to base his attack? And if Country X was engaged in bad behavior, why wouldn't they take a similar step?
Now, if it's true that the attacks focused on human rights workers that gave China trouble, the claim is a bit more substantial, although it's not hard to imagine tacking those names onto your list to disguise what was really important in your unrelated attack.
However, attributing attacks to Anonymous really makes my head spin. By definition, Anonymous doesn't even exist as a group, it literally means anonymous in most contexts, yet the media report as if they're saying something other than 'unknown'.
Craziness, and as far as I see, details about the foundation of these claims are never released. How the hell does Google know the Chinese attackers weren't proxy boxes?!
- fauigerzigerk 15y agoI think we should keep in mind that the damage done to Google's business interests as a result of this conflict is massive. That's why I tend to think that the data they see leaves little room for other interpretations.
- anamax 15y ago> By definition, Anonymous doesn't even exist as a group, it literally means anonymous in most contexts, yet the media report as if they're saying something other than 'unknown'. "Anonymous" doesn't mean anything more than "unknown names" - it doesn't imply "doesn't exist as a group". Moreover, "anonymous" is the name that they've chosen. It describes some of their attributes, but not all, and certainly doesn't define them. (If they called themselves "superheroes", would you think that they could fly?)