6 ms·

You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? Are the people actually carrying out these attacks convinced that t

You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? Are the people actually carrying out these attacks convinced that their efforts are better spent on that than identifying and infiltrating terrorist networks? I get spying. I get compromising and penetrating the networks of rival countries. I even get economic espionage, in the same way that I understand why the US Marines overthrew sovereign governments in service of United Fruit. But DDOSing Anonymous? Were they loading up LOIC and firing their lazors at freenode? That just seems fucking pathetic. It looks like a bunch of children got written a big cheque and were told to go play. We're constantly inculcated with notions of spy agencies as supremely powerful, supremely competent cloak-and-dagger organizations that work in the shadows to guide world events. But this just makes them look like bratty kids with a rich uncle. It's pathetic.

detcader 13y ago
I know next to nothing about it, but Anonymous probably aids WikiLeaks in some way, and WikiLeaks is definitely threatening.
- teddyh 13y ago
  I know next to nothing about you, but you are probably an ignorant gossipmonger.
  - detcader 13y ago
    I don't understand the hate here. I meant threatening in a good way, to financial/state power.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - polymatter 13y ago
      What you did was wild speculation.
timthorn 13y ago
At the time, there appeared to be a concerted attack on the electronic infrastructure of the economy, which Anonymous was claiming responsibility for. It seems perfectly justified to me that GCHQ was attempting to disrupt those attacks and identify the perpetrators.
- zimbatm 13y ago
  Mediatised attack. Their actions are at much smaller scale than any other criminal organization that operates in the shadows (hacking is more profitable than the drug market). Anonymous is a threat not because of their actions but because they challenge the established powers.
oracuk 13y ago
Anonymous DDoS'd bits of the UK govt (http://www.out-law.com/page-11476 http://www.out-law.com/page-11476). Not critical bits but enough for them to take notice of the threat. Much of the (UK) law enforcement response to potential civil unrest is to try to prevent escalation, this would seem to be in line with that. Also the tactics and techniques used are frankly not something any of the other bits of UK govt outside the MOD would understand or be able to deploy.
- grugq 13y ago
  That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea. I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth was used? Where was the target server hosted? Is it legal for an intelligence agency to launch a denial of service attack against civilian infrastructure in another sovereign state to disable dissident political speech? And if it is legal for GCHQ to do it, then why is it not legal for MSS to do the same thing? If GCHQ can DDoS Anonymous, then MSS can DDoS Falun Gong. If GCHQ can hack Anonymous' laptops, then the PLA can hack Tibeten government in exile's laptops. Allowing GCHQ to be used like this undermines the ability of the UK to be a force for good in the world. Losing the moral high ground for something as pathetic and petty as this? It is embarrassing to see Western Democracies behaving like script kiddies.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - arethuza 13y ago
    If we are worried about "Losing the moral high ground" then we've got a lot more to be worried about than a few civil servants acting as script kiddies.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea. Using special branch to infiltrate political groups is commonplace. So much so that there are recent scandals from officers living false lives having children with the people they are surveiling, and trials collapsing. GCHQ have to obey the laws of England. They are usually mentioned in law to give specific exemptions. I have no idea how they handle the laws of other nations. I'm guessing that they obey those laws where they align with English law. It's not the first time they've done "script kiddie" antics. Hacking terrorist information websites to replace bomb making instructions with the recipe for cupcakes is another example.
higherpurpose 13y ago
That's because you're making the mistake of believing them that what they're doing is monitoring or attacking terrorists most of the time. But it's not. Most of the time, their spying capabilities are used against stuff like this or against innocent people, who the government doesn't like. That's really why they want to keep this power, and they don't have a good reason for keeping it, or at least not one they can say in public. That's why Clapper keeps saying "ok, we haven't foiled any terrorist attack - but trust us it's really important to keep it!". They know they can't just come out and say "hey, we need this to spy on allied politicians, judges, corporations, and other people you might think are innocent, but are really pissing us off, like many of the activists do".
- bediger4000 13y ago
  If what you write is true, GCHQ (and, by extension, the rest of the "Five Eyes") must have the most amazing Porno Stash on the planet!
DanBC 13y ago
GCHQ has a bunch of people. Some of these are experienced staff. Some of them are new to the post. It's possible that some things like targeting anonymous are used as training exercises. I'd hope the training was more subtle than DDOS that group. Don't forget that this is an event that became public and that we don't know what work GCHQ were doing behi d the scenes. The IRA and STEAKKNIFE operations show that British Intelligence isn't as hopeless as a lot of current stories make them seem.
- sentenza 13y ago
  Nobody is laughing. I've started re-listening some of the podcasts by people from the CCC and from that have gathered a reasonable situation-assessment mechanism: Assume "their" (NSA, GCHQ) managers are as competent as yourself. So what would you do if you had all this info, all this infrastructure access and your prime objective is your mission, which you believe to be to observe and stop anything that brings danger or instability to the state. That's what we are dealing with. A blunder here or there does not even make a dent in the position of power that these intelligence agencies now hold.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    "instability to the state" ^^ thats the crux of it. However: s/state/status quo/ and you have a more accurate assessment.
gaius 13y ago
You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? In terms of a threat to the United Kingdom, or in terms of a threat to GCHQ's budget?
- fit2rule 13y ago
  .. I think its more like in terms of 'having something productive to do that the Masters will enjoy hearing about at the end of the month', in the case of GCHQ. My assessment of the people I know who work at GCHQ (quite a few, actually) is that they are all authority-worshipping lackeys of the 'management class' they serve. Hacking Anonymous gives them a way of justifying their hacker lifestyles to the toffs that rule them. Its a cultural thing.
- a3n 13y ago
  > In terms of a threat to the United Kingdom, or in terms of a threat to GCHQ's budget? Groups like Anonymous are a gift to intelligence services. They're mildly subversive and therefore "other people" to most people, and most people don't understand what they do or how they do it; they're shadowy and mildly scary. Anonymous is a force multiplier for budget and mission creep.
wslh 13y ago
Anonymous is worth their time? Yes, in the sense that hacker groups can harm a country more than other country with non digital weapons. We are living exciting times moving to a new balance of forces.
junto 13y ago
I think it works like this: - A government agency or government contractor notes a new threat to the status quo - Question: Can we use technology to track, prevent, hinder or prosecute? - If answer is 'yes' then invest large sums of public money to effect the plan - If answer is 'maybe' then invest large sums of public money * 10 to evaluate and effect the plan - If answer is 'no' then invest large sums of public money * 100 to evaluate and attempt and evaluate multiple possible solutions. Therefore I believe that the underlying cause is money. Agencies and more often than not, third party companies who are trying to make a profit from government agencies are out there coming up with new ways to oppress the public. As a result the public fights back against the oppression. They can then be targetted as dissidents and the cycle ups a beat and continues round the merry-go-round. The sums of money getting higher and higher each time. Invent the problem, sell the solution, profit, repeat. It somewhat reminds me of the old idea that as a department (either of a private company or government) you should never ask for a new yearly budget lower than the year before. You always ask for more.
forgottenpass 13y ago
do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time Anonymous are political agitators, of course they think that. We're constantly inculcated with notions of spy agencies as supremely powerful, supremely competent cloak-and-dagger organizations that work in the shadows to guide world events. But this just makes them look like bratty kids with a rich uncle. Self-important assholes that feel justified in being the biggest hardass possible towards anybody that rocks the boat? Sadly this is nothing new.
- justincormack 13y ago
  Yeah, well the Metropolitan Police thought it was worth infiltrating the Stephen Lawrence campaign http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/24/stephen-lawrence-father-police-spy-inquiry http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/24/stephen-lawrence-f...
7952 13y ago
Don't Anonymous want to be treated as an existential threat? The whole "we are legion" rhetoric leaves little doubt on that.
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  Hardly. Do you know what "existential threat" means?
  - 7952 13y ago
    I know what I think it means, maybe we should argue about semantics? Perhaps a better comparison would be witches or ghouls (legion means demon or devil in the Christian tradition).
    - drjesusphd 13y ago
      Funny. When I hear the word "Legion", I think of lots of Roman soldiers with big shields and spears. "My name is Legion, for we are many." - A demon, in Mark 5:9 It's clear he (the demon) borrowed the word from the romans. And anonymous is using it the same way. "There are many of us" is not an existential threat. "We are demons" is silly and would make me think they're imaginary. Your entire point is one of semantics, so don't be so dismissive. You made a claim based off what Anonymous says, picking apart the semantic meaing of "Legion". I'm well within my rights to call bullshit on "existential threat" as nothing more than a rhetorical flourish.

detcader 13y ago

I know next to nothing about it, but Anonymous probably aids WikiLeaks in some way, and WikiLeaks is definitely threatening.

teddyh 13y ago
I know next to nothing about you, but you are probably an ignorant gossipmonger.
- detcader 13y ago
  I don't understand the hate here. I meant threatening in a good way, to financial/state power.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - polymatter 13y ago
    What you did was wild speculation.

timthorn 13y ago

At the time, there appeared to be a concerted attack on the electronic infrastructure of the economy, which Anonymous was claiming responsibility for. It seems perfectly justified to me that GCHQ was attempting to disrupt those attacks and identify the perpetrators.

zimbatm 13y ago
Mediatised attack. Their actions are at much smaller scale than any other criminal organization that operates in the shadows (hacking is more profitable than the drug market). Anonymous is a threat not because of their actions but because they challenge the established powers.

oracuk 13y ago

Anonymous DDoS'd bits of the UK govt (http://www.out-law.com/page-11476 http://www.out-law.com/page-11476). Not critical bits but enough for them to take notice of the threat. Much of the (UK) law enforcement response to potential civil unrest is to try to prevent escalation, this would seem to be in line with that. Also the tactics and techniques used are frankly not something any of the other bits of UK govt outside the MOD would understand or be able to deploy.

grugq 13y ago
That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea. I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth was used? Where was the target server hosted? Is it legal for an intelligence agency to launch a denial of service attack against civilian infrastructure in another sovereign state to disable dissident political speech? And if it is legal for GCHQ to do it, then why is it not legal for MSS to do the same thing? If GCHQ can DDoS Anonymous, then MSS can DDoS Falun Gong. If GCHQ can hack Anonymous' laptops, then the PLA can hack Tibeten government in exile's laptops. Allowing GCHQ to be used like this undermines the ability of the UK to be a force for good in the world. Losing the moral high ground for something as pathetic and petty as this? It is embarrassing to see Western Democracies behaving like script kiddies.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- arethuza 13y ago
  If we are worried about "Losing the moral high ground" then we've got a lot more to be worried about than a few civil servants acting as script kiddies.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea. Using special branch to infiltrate political groups is commonplace. So much so that there are recent scandals from officers living false lives having children with the people they are surveiling, and trials collapsing. GCHQ have to obey the laws of England. They are usually mentioned in law to give specific exemptions. I have no idea how they handle the laws of other nations. I'm guessing that they obey those laws where they align with English law. It's not the first time they've done "script kiddie" antics. Hacking terrorist information websites to replace bomb making instructions with the recipe for cupcakes is another example.

higherpurpose 13y ago

That's because you're making the mistake of believing them that what they're doing is monitoring or attacking terrorists most of the time. But it's not. Most of the time, their spying capabilities are used against stuff like this or against innocent people, who the government doesn't like. That's really why they want to keep this power, and they don't have a good reason for keeping it, or at least not one they can say in public. That's why Clapper keeps saying "ok, we haven't foiled any terrorist attack - but trust us it's really important to keep it!". They know they can't just come out and say "hey, we need this to spy on allied politicians, judges, corporations, and other people you might think are innocent, but are really pissing us off, like many of the activists do".

bediger4000 13y ago
If what you write is true, GCHQ (and, by extension, the rest of the "Five Eyes") must have the most amazing Porno Stash on the planet!

DanBC 13y ago

GCHQ has a bunch of people. Some of these are experienced staff. Some of them are new to the post. It's possible that some things like targeting anonymous are used as training exercises. I'd hope the training was more subtle than DDOS that group. Don't forget that this is an event that became public and that we don't know what work GCHQ were doing behi d the scenes. The IRA and STEAKKNIFE operations show that British Intelligence isn't as hopeless as a lot of current stories make them seem.

sentenza 13y ago
Nobody is laughing. I've started re-listening some of the podcasts by people from the CCC and from that have gathered a reasonable situation-assessment mechanism: Assume "their" (NSA, GCHQ) managers are as competent as yourself. So what would you do if you had all this info, all this infrastructure access and your prime objective is your mission, which you believe to be to observe and stop anything that brings danger or instability to the state. That's what we are dealing with. A blunder here or there does not even make a dent in the position of power that these intelligence agencies now hold.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  "instability to the state" ^^ thats the crux of it. However: s/state/status quo/ and you have a more accurate assessment.

gaius 13y ago

You have to wonder, do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time? In terms of a threat to the United Kingdom, or in terms of a threat to GCHQ's budget?

fit2rule 13y ago
.. I think its more like in terms of 'having something productive to do that the Masters will enjoy hearing about at the end of the month', in the case of GCHQ. My assessment of the people I know who work at GCHQ (quite a few, actually) is that they are all authority-worshipping lackeys of the 'management class' they serve. Hacking Anonymous gives them a way of justifying their hacker lifestyles to the toffs that rule them. Its a cultural thing.
a3n 13y ago
> In terms of a threat to the United Kingdom, or in terms of a threat to GCHQ's budget? Groups like Anonymous are a gift to intelligence services. They're mildly subversive and therefore "other people" to most people, and most people don't understand what they do or how they do it; they're shadowy and mildly scary. Anonymous is a force multiplier for budget and mission creep.

wslh 13y ago

Anonymous is worth their time? Yes, in the sense that hacker groups can harm a country more than other country with non digital weapons. We are living exciting times moving to a new balance of forces.

junto 13y ago

I think it works like this: - A government agency or government contractor notes a new threat to the status quo - Question: Can we use technology to track, prevent, hinder or prosecute? - If answer is 'yes' then invest large sums of public money to effect the plan - If answer is 'maybe' then invest large sums of public money * 10 to evaluate and effect the plan - If answer is 'no' then invest large sums of public money * 100 to evaluate and attempt and evaluate multiple possible solutions. Therefore I believe that the underlying cause is money. Agencies and more often than not, third party companies who are trying to make a profit from government agencies are out there coming up with new ways to oppress the public. As a result the public fights back against the oppression. They can then be targetted as dissidents and the cycle ups a beat and continues round the merry-go-round. The sums of money getting higher and higher each time. Invent the problem, sell the solution, profit, repeat. It somewhat reminds me of the old idea that as a department (either of a private company or government) you should never ask for a new yearly budget lower than the year before. You always ask for more.

forgottenpass 13y ago

do the GCHQ agents involved really think Anonymous is worth their time Anonymous are political agitators, of course they think that. We're constantly inculcated with notions of spy agencies as supremely powerful, supremely competent cloak-and-dagger organizations that work in the shadows to guide world events. But this just makes them look like bratty kids with a rich uncle. Self-important assholes that feel justified in being the biggest hardass possible towards anybody that rocks the boat? Sadly this is nothing new.

justincormack 13y ago
Yeah, well the Metropolitan Police thought it was worth infiltrating the Stephen Lawrence campaign http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/24/stephen-lawrence-father-police-spy-inquiry http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/24/stephen-lawrence-f...

7952 13y ago

Don't Anonymous want to be treated as an existential threat? The whole "we are legion" rhetoric leaves little doubt on that.

drjesusphd 13y ago
Hardly. Do you know what "existential threat" means?
- 7952 13y ago
  I know what I think it means, maybe we should argue about semantics? Perhaps a better comparison would be witches or ghouls (legion means demon or devil in the Christian tradition).
  - drjesusphd 13y ago
    Funny. When I hear the word "Legion", I think of lots of Roman soldiers with big shields and spears. "My name is Legion, for we are many." - A demon, in Mark 5:9 It's clear he (the demon) borrowed the word from the romans. And anonymous is using it the same way. "There are many of us" is not an existential threat. "We are demons" is silly and would make me think they're imaginary. Your entire point is one of semantics, so don't be so dismissive. You made a claim based off what Anonymous says, picking apart the semantic meaing of "Legion". I'm well within my rights to call bullshit on "existential threat" as nothing more than a rhetorical flourish.