5 ms·
I feel like episodes like this give Anonymous a bad name...[ sic ;) ]....not that their name/reputation is so stellar in the first place. But this isn't Hackti
by nlh 15y ago
I feel like episodes like this give Anonymous a bad name...[ sic ;) ]....not that their name/reputation is so stellar in the first place.
But this isn't Hacktivism or whatnot. This is pure outright theft and extortion. It's not "fight the man" or "prevent censorship" or even WikiLeaks-style "information wants to be free".
It's profit-motivated organized crime syndicates trying to extract some $$ from a company. They hacked Symantec because the virus-writers of the world want to be able to write more viruses so they can infect more machines and create more botnets and send more spam and/or do more phishing...and make more money. That's it.
It's frustrating because part of the problem with a group like Anonymous is that you don't get to declare who is and who isn't a part (by definition).
I suppose human nature is human nature - in the real world or online, the same scenarios play out time and time again....
- tlrobinson 15y agoIndeed, anarchy is a double edged sword. Anyone can do anything they like under the "Anonymous" name and no one can say "hey, they don't speak for us".
- etherael 15y agoActually they could, assuming that "they" exist as a single coherent entity that sets policy etc. Even without exposing their identities. All they would need to do is set up a pgp key which all official anonymous press releases would need to be signed with, end of story. That they don't do this is evidence to me that they're perfectly happy to have random acts of digital crime attributed to them.
- orenmazor 15y agowhen is it Anonymous and when is it just anonymous?
- slowpoke 15y agoYou're Anonymous if you say you're Anonymous, and anybody can do that. It's as simple as that.
- stfu 15y agoI am actually surprised that there hasn't been more intelligence service activity in order to paint Anonymous in a bad light.. It would be pretty easy to just sabotage some infra structure element that people depend on, attribute it to Anonymous and create a massive public outcry for tougher legislation in the virtual environment.
- slowpoke 15y agoI think it's due to two factors: First, I still think the FBI (and other such deeply hierarchical organizations) are fundamentally unable to comprehend something like Anonymous on its full scale. They can't fathom the concept of a working collective that defines itself merely by willful association. Second, this could backfire so fucking hard, even the FBI knows better. Seeing how often they've been embarrassed by Anonymous in the past, I don't think they are willing to take the risk of such an operation, only to have them exposed by the very people they tried to sabotage.
- itsameta4 15y agoThirdly, they're doing a good enough job at it themselves.
- stfu 15y agoIt seems that the service agencies are indeed stuck in that hierarchical system, but they seem to be trying to break out of this occasionally. Didn't even one of them offer some rewards for intelligence related gadget hacking projects etc? Plus the backslash. I don't know. First it would force Anonymous into some form of "yeah we are Anonymous but this wasn't us" defense - something that is very difficult to argue when the premise of the collective is that everybody can be a member. And second most targets so far seemed to be somewhat low-key with relatively lax security in place.
- VMG 15y agoWatch out, there will be people who will point out that this isn't theft, because Symantec still has it's copy - and they are technically correct. And the following discussion if this is morally equivalent to theft will never end.
- mahcuz 15y agoI don't think it's theft. It definitely is extortion.
- esonderegger 15y agoIf so, isn't it also extortion when people say "If Hollywood doesn't release their content the way I want them to (cheaper and without DRM), I'm going to continue to pirate it"?
- 0ne 15y agoYup, it's straight up theft. This shows the corrupt side of hacktivists, i guess.
- d0mine 15y agoI agree that it is an extortion and other crimes. But the motivation as you describe it implies that Symantec provides some useful services (protection from viruses, phishing) and it is not clear that it is the case. Symantec might be the target for PR (its products are supposed to protect others but it can't protect itself) and 50000 other reasons. It is not self-evident that an antivirus provides enough benefit to outweigh its disadvantages (resource-hog, false-positives (intentional?), can't detect all attacks). In short security theater is not security. Of cause it doesn't make the crime any less.
- JS_startup 15y agoI've always found a lot of correlations between Anonymous and Al Qaeda. Not because of terrorism or exploding vans but because both are relatively unorganized collectives who appear much scarier than they are because independent operators/cells will claim they are flying under the group's banner, leading to headlines like "Anonymous Hacks Symantec". The media eats up the concept of an organized global conspiracy group so it works out for everyone; the media makes money, the independent operators have a convenient, catch-all banner to fly under and the collective gets publicity for their cause.
- nyar 15y agoFunny you should say that, I always saw anons as CIA.