5 ms·
What's interesting is that the sophistication of the attack is immaterial to the fact that they achieved a significant security disclosure. You don't have to be
by bradleyland 15y ago
What's interesting is that the sophistication of the attack is immaterial to the fact that they achieved a significant security disclosure. You don't have to be a sophisticated hacker to perpetrate meaningful hacks, you just have to be more sophisticated than the target of your attack.
This is what makes the Anonymous movement so fascinating to me. In Anonymous culture, being "dox'd" is a big deal. That's kind of end-game stuff for hackers. Once you're outed, you're out. Coincidentally, the same rules apply for espionage.
What makes this doubly interesting is that Anonymous is made up of young, tech-savvy individuals. The establishment (government, large corporations, etc) increasingly rely on tools that are created, or at least well understood, by their attackers. It's a classical asymmetric battlefield problem. The attackers aren't big, but they have some very specific domain knowledge, and are increasing in sophistication over time.
That previous paragraph is probably way to generous in my evaluation of the skill level represented inside Anonymous, but that's a large part of the problem. We don't really know much about the insides of Anonymous by design. As the establishment pushes harder and harder (SOPA, PIPA, ACTA) to enforce the status quo, who will turn? There's a tipping point at which the establishment can no longer wage the battle. Acquiring the talent becomes too expensive and breaks their business model.
- stfu 15y agoThe attackers aren't big, but they have some very specific domain knowledge, and are increasing in sophistication over time. -> ideal pathway to terrorism analogy
- Retric 15y agoThere are fundamental differences between civil disobedience and terrorism. It's much more efficient to find people after the fact than it is to prevent such attacks. However, there is also a tiny number of terrorists in the world and a huge reserve of people willing to disrupt systems so prevention is far more effective when dealing with anonymous than it is terrorists. PS: Want to attack the FBI, just set them as your homepage. It costs them real money, and does not end up with you in jail. Thus the appeal. (Note: It also tells them who you are...)
- batista 15y agoPS: Want to attack the FBI, just set them as your homepage. It costs them real money First of all it's pennies, and second of all it's the taxpayer's money, it doesn't cost FBI a thing.
- Retric 15y agoTrue, but to clarify. I was talking about the wide group of people living outside the US, that 'hate' the US, but don't exactly feel like blowing themselves up. For someone living in the US direct attacks are largely meaningless activity. If you want to change the system start a movement, a mime, or even just a blog. People may notice something like 9/11, but it simply reinforces existing beliefs. Because change takes ideas not just loud noises and death.
- Karunamon 15y ago>It costs them real money, Actually, it costs us real money. They're financed from taxpayers just like every other federal agency :(
- tomelders 15y ago"ideal pathway to terrorism" don't be an idiot.
- Karunamon 15y agoWhen being a dick on the internet, it's generally best if you at least comprehend what you're being a dick about. There is a significant difference between "ideal pathway to terrorism" and "ideal pathway to terrorism analogy".
- jballanc 15y agoNo, not even close. While it is difficult to come up with a concrete definition of terrorism, let's at least acknowledge that it involves some form of fear/terror among the general public. I am confident that I have nothing to fear from Anonymous. Do you? Rather, the description (attackers aren't big...specific domain knowledge) sounds a hell of a lot more like classic guerrilla tactics. It's also worth noting that guerrilla tactics are most successful when used in defense of home territory, and I think that fits the analogy as well. The government, big media, and others are invading "the internet" which is, for all intents and purposes, anonymous's home territory.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoTerrorism: guerrilla warfare largely against civilian targets.
- jbooth 15y agoI'd say "political violence against civilians", in which case we're 0-for-2 with this being neither violent nor aimed at civilians.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoOh sure, this isn't terrorism, and calling it that is just silly. "Political violence against civilians" isn't quite right, because "civilians" can nevertheless wage war. What happens when two nations fight against each other with the full backing of their "civilian" populations, who actively provide all of the funding and materiel to fight the war? Is it off-limits to attack civilians? Should that sort of warfare be lumped in with terrorism?
- abk 15y agoNon-combattants should be off-limits imo, yes. However war and terrorism are completely different. It's generally accepted that there may be civilian casualties in a war zone, and that is clearly not terrorism (intimidation, maybe). Unprovoked, unilateral attacks seem to be the more traditional form of terrorism (basically using fear to try and influence behavior), in particular when performed by groups not (officially) affiliated with a specific government.
- lostlogin 15y agoThat's a point of view that law enforcement seem to hold. Illogical and yet never questioned in print media, except by the likes of Robert Fisk.
- fleitz 15y agoNah, it's classic asymmetrical warfare, an unintelligent large adversary creates a situation where by fighting their smaller nimbler opponent they lose their advantage. SEAL teams use OODA asymmetries to great effect to cause confusion which leads to the overwhelming force and structure of the opponent to become a disadvantage. Terrorism is really independent of guerrilla / asymmetrical warfare as it can be used by large bureaucratic orgs (Manhattan Project) or smaller nimbler ones (IRA/Al Qaeda)
- politician 15y agoAlso, the term doesn't apply exclusively to battlefields: the MPAA has been effectively waging asymmetrical warfare against the far larger technology industry in Congress for decades.