Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Anonymous Destroys HBGary
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

I don’t think the action Anonymous took is terrorism by the typical definition. In this instance HBGary would be considered a combatant. I do think the way Anon broadcast their kill is somewhat reminiscent of terrorism. It’s clear that they want to do more than just nullify the treat. They wanted to make HBGary a example to other companies –“ do not fuck with us.” That sort of psychological warfare is a big part of terrorism.

If they were to do this to a “non-combatant” – like Visa maybe, I think you could make the argument that it was a terrorist action. That’s the point I was trying to make.

I don’t think I’m using the word terrorism lightly, and I’m not condemning what Anon did, but I think their sort of no holds barred attitude with this stuff is scary, and it reminds me somewhat reminiscent of terrorist tactics.

Really though, I’m just thinking out loud. I don’t know much about cyber warfare and I didn’t read anything on this other than what Redball posted, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

I think you guys are confusing "vandalism" with "terrorism". This is the equivalent of e-tagging an office building.

It just so happens that the company that worked in this particular e-office was a company dealing with making e-offices e-vandal-proof.

And lulz ensued.
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

jakethesnake wrote:
You have the burden of proof dude. You literally think these guys are an "Agent" on a hunch. Seriously guy stop watching spy movies.

These are the kind of guys that literally live with their mothers and hang out at sites like: www.digitalgangster.com

They just happened to find a SQL security flaw in this HBGary website and took advantage of it.


Hmmm, did you even read my post? I even repeated myself in case it wasn't clear. I didn't think or assume anything. I'm theorizing. You're the one who claims to know 100% who did it, therefore you better provide proof if you want to claim you know the truth.

How can you be sure that it's nerds from 4chan??? You are making assumptions (which is fine, but you are claiming to know this for a fact). Which is pretty hilarious considering you're trying to make fun of me for "being crazy". You're makig assumptions and associations. This is a dangerous way to think.

Do you believe everything the corporate news tells you? I watch/read the news with a critical mind and I like to share alternative ideas/theories. Never once did I claim to know the facts regarding who did this.
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:
There is something to be happy about here, though.

First, this won't fuck anything up. That you think it will shows that you know little to nothing about this area of law and society. Even if you were to start monitoring it and in a few months threw some proposed legislation up about it, I could show you how that legislation was planned in advance of this anyway. Even if this was used as some kind of rallying cry for such a legislation, it would be nothing more than a figurehead that ignores the thousands of similar cases. In short, this changes nothing from a legal perspective.


I'll bring this up at my weekly law/society think tank and get back to you. I know that recently in Canada the CRTC (like your FCC) tried to put a meter on our internet usage (which according to my lawyer friend they didn't even have the right to do so). I'm not an expert on the interwebs but wouldn't something similar or getting rid of net neutrality might be seen as a way to monitor the internet? Couldn't they use these attacks and wikileaks examples as momentum to enact such legislation?


Quote:

Secondly, this is a case where an "enforcer" got the shit knocked out of him. Some pious white hat fucker that sells information to big institutions got floored. Perhaps the most important aspect of this is that before Anon did it HBGary was planning to participate in an online FUD campaign against and sell information about Wikileaks. They aren't doing that now and the world knows about it so such an attack is likely to fail. Suffice to say that HBGary was not one of the good guys, isn't it good when one of the bad guys disappears?


My first reaction was positive of course. It's not often the good guys win. I'm just trying to share an alternative theory about this issue (something that I know will have people throwing insults at my left and right). It's what I do.
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  

C'mon, man. Everyone who is anyone knows what Anonymous is, and where they come from. If there are some 007's amongst their ranks, while it is not surprising (I guess), I'm sure they are nerds.
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Finn



Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 53
Location: Boston, MA
 Reply with quote  

crash wrote:
I do think the way Anon broadcast their kill is somewhat reminiscent of terrorism. It’s clear that they want to do more than just nullify the treat. They wanted to make HBGary a example to other companies –“ do not fuck with us.” That sort of psychological warfare is a big part of terrorism.


The way they broadcast their victory is also reminiscent of, say, boxing. They basically said "look, you took us on, you got your ass kicked. That's what happens. You take us on, you get your ass kicked." I understand that the nature of "taking someone on" is very subjective, but it appears to me as though these HBGary guys were very much attempting to take the law into their own hands. I can see how that would piss people off. They didn't just say "businesses of the world, we are coming for you."
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
jakethesnake wrote:
You have the burden of proof dude. You literally think these guys are an "Agent" on a hunch. Seriously guy stop watching spy movies.

These are the kind of guys that literally live with their mothers and hang out at sites like: www.digitalgangster.com

They just happened to find a SQL security flaw in this HBGary website and took advantage of it.


Hmmm, did you even read my post? I even repeated myself in case it wasn't clear. I didn't think or assume anything. I'm theorizing. You're the one who claims to know 100% who did it, therefore you better provide proof if you want to claim you know the truth.

How can you be sure that it's nerds from 4chan??? You are making assumptions (which is fine, but you are claiming to know this for a fact). Which is pretty hilarious considering you're trying to make fun of me for "being crazy". You're makig assumptions and associations. This is a dangerous way to think.

Do you believe everything the corporate news tells you? I watch/read the news with a critical mind and I like to share alternative ideas/theories. Never once did I claim to know the facts regarding who did this.


I don't believe much the corporate news tells me.

I do believe that if this group claims they are who they say they are, there is no reason to believe otherwise. You have nothing to back it up at all, it's straight off the dome.
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

jakethesnake wrote:
I don't believe much the corporate news tells me.


I didn't think so.


Quote:

I do believe that if this group claims they are who they say they are, there is no reason to believe otherwise. You have nothing to back it up at all, it's straight off the dome.


There name is anonymous! Everthing about this is shadowy.

I know that the 4chan nerds exist, I know there are real anon activists (I see them protesting the church of Scientology nextdoor). Beyound that neither of us can say for sure who was behind this.
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:11 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040
 Reply with quote  

The nature of anonymous is that it is not an "organization" - this is the post issue activist strategy of the 21st century. It is the anti-theory to the authoritarian hierarchy of late capitalist regimes. That is why it works. That is the part about "if you swing a sword of malice into our innards, we will simply engulf it."

The chances of this being the work of an agent provocateur are very very slim to none. For one, agents tend to operate by causing dissent and exploiting differences in an organization. The fact that anonymous is, well, anonymous, and not so much an organization as an autonomous collective of spontaneous havok makes it hard to infiltrate them. They are anonymous! Get it?

Second, agents are simply not that creative and visonary. Look at the wording of the communique and the humor in it. If this was the work of an agent, it would have read something like, "Death to US imperialism," or some other cliche that would be designed to isolate anonymous from the general public. I don't think the agents would throw one of their own so throughly under the bus just to have Anonymous be celebrated so unanimously. Strategically, the agents don't need to do that to repress the poeple - they do that anyway, as has been pointed out in other parts of this thread.

As far as long term objectives of this action - who cares! Its fun to see a internet security company - a private enterprise of the war machine - get thoroughly destroyed and made to look like completely ridiculous. That's it! Of course there will eventually be some peer-review anthropological analysis of this action and its implications for radical action, but for now its just a cool pwnage.

When we start narrating the tactics as terrorist, we accept the legitimacy of the US government's framing of 21st century activism. When we suggest that activist are responsible for the government response to activism, we discursively relieve government form its role in perpetuating violence against its people.

Edit: Broke up the text block for your reading pleasure.


Last edited by Confidential on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Szechwan



Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 587
Location: Vancouver Island
 Reply with quote  

Holy text block.

I can't even read that.
Post Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1831
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

Post Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:00 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

Doesn't terrorism usually involve killing innocent people?
Post Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Confidential wrote:
The fact that anonymous is, well, anonymous, and not so much an organization as an autonomous collective of spontaneous havok makes it hard to infiltrate them. They are anonymous! Get it?


That makes it all the more likely that it could have been a frame up. There's no way to prove it was by them if there is no "them".


Quote:

Second, agents are simply not that creative and visonary. Look at the wording of the communique and the humor in it. If this was the work of an agent, it would have read something like, "Death to US imperialism," or some other cliche that would be designed to isolate anonymous from the general public.


That's a good point. Like I said before I'm only theorizing that it could have been an agent. There's no reason to assume that it isn't legit, I'm just trying to "think outside the box".


Quote:

As far as long term objectives of this action - who cares! Its fun to see a internet security company - a private enterprise of the war machine - get thoroughly destroyed and made to look like completely ridiculous. That's it! Of course there will eventually be some peer-review anthropological analysis of this action and its implications for radical action, but for now its just a cool pwnage.


Who cares about the long term goals? I do I guess. I'm not interested in pissing matches or Pwnage. All that ever accomplishes is more division and hatred for one another. That shit doesn't excite me.
Post Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
Doesn't terrorism usually involve killing innocent people?


I don't consider this "terrorism". I'm worried that the media is going to label it as such.
Post Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:55 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2022
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

Extralegal countersurveillance.
Post Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:50 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:13 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon