NATO fears Anonymous, Wikileaks as "threat to member-states' security"

750px-Anonymous_Flag.jpg

James Nixon at thinq.com: "NATO leaders have been warned that Wikileaks-loving 'hacktivist' collective Anonymous could pose a threat to member states' security, following recent attacks on the US Chamber of Commerce and defence contractor HBGary - and promise to 'persecute' its members." Here's a draft report by General Rapporteur Lord Jopling which claims Anonymous "is becoming more and more sophisticated", and "could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files".

47

    1. Not just shooting the messenger, but through some fucked up logic blaming the messenger.

      THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS ANON!

    2. Seriously. What about the fact that the US Chamber of Commerce and defence contractor HBGary were both developing programs to attack civilians.

      1. As you clearly misunderstand, I consider the hackers to be the messenger, and the message is “your secrets are greater than your ability to keep them”. Hope that clarifies things.

        1. As you clearly misunderstand, I (who didn’t bother to log in) was also referring to anonymous as the messengers. I was asserting that not only are they being attacked for their leaks but are also being presented as more of a danger than the hidden corruption they are exposing. Though really it is my fault, because I attempted to employ sarcasm over the internet, so my apologies.

    1. Heh, you may as well persecute the world for all the good it will do. As long as there is the internet there will be activists who will use that tool to punish and embarrass the abusers of power.
      Yeah you could generate a few high profile cases if you can find actual members, but it won’t stop them.

  1. Mark your calendars. “This year’s exercise, Cyber Endeavor will take place on 5-22 September in Grafenwöhr, Germany.”

  2. Dear rulers of the world, your need for secrecy has outstripped your ability to keep it. That’s nobodies fault but your own. Also, do we still think this is about military or civilian infrastructure targets?

    I think this is still about privately-held transnational banks. I’m still waiting on those leaks.

    1. Dear rulers of the world, your need for secrecy has outstripped your ability to keep it.

      If you embroidered that on throw pillows, you could make a killing on Etsy.

  3. For those that haven’t read it, it’s mostly a non-policy document. It just recounts the sides that say diplomats should adapt to transparency vs. the incompatibility of that in regard to security operations. It also analyzes the type of attacks and considers that “someone” will likely infiltrate Anonymous and prosecute members if this continues.

  4. Maybe if the gov stopped outsourcing it’s responsibilities to private firms like blackwater and did their fucking job this wouldn’t be an issue. fire some over paid generals hire a few hundred IT guys.

  5. Paragraph 14 of the draft report falsely states that WikiLeaks published 250K cables last November, and states unproven accusations about Bradley manning as fact (emphasis added):

    In November 2010, WikiLeaks published about 250,000 confidential US diplomatic cables, which provided US diplomats’ candid assessments of terrorist threats and the behaviour of world leaders.[10] Currently, the US authorities suspect that the material was leaked by Private Bradley Manning stationed in the Persian Gulf, who had downloaded the information from a computer in Kuwait. He then passed these files on to the “whistleblower” organization, which made them public.
    […]
    [10] Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy. By Scott Shane and Andrew W.Lehren. The New York Times. 28 November 2010.

    Paragraph 21 states that General Rapporteur Lord Jopling (UK), believes that states and corporations have the same right to privacy that individuals do:

    That said, the Rapporteur believes that even if one is in favour of transparency, military and intelligence operations simply cannot be planned and consulted with the public. Transparency cannot exist without control. The government, and especially its security agencies, must have the right to limit access to information in order to govern and to protect. This is based on the premise that states and corporations have the right to privacy as much as individuals do and that secrecy is required for efficient management of the state institutions and organizations. In addition, transparency can be misused on several levels – by providing unprofessional or poor-quality interpretation of information or documents, by conducting superficial or biased analysis, by lack of experience on the topic or by pursuing a political agenda. Thus, not everything carried out under the “transparency label” is necessarily good for the government and its people. Moreover, the very ideal of transparency can also force public figures to become more secretive.

    1. You completely misread the quote you posted (emphasis mine).

      the US authorities suspect that the material was leaked by Private Bradley Manning stationed in the Persian Gulf, who had downloaded the information from a computer in Kuwait

      Far as my knowledge of the english language goes “suspect” clearly denotes to the reader that “unproven accusations” are indeed what have been leveled aginst PFC Manning. I don’t see any indication in what you posted where Jopling is claiming they are “fact.”

      You are the one who is attempting to factually mis-inform us here; and, thats not the worst of it, you obviously read the paragraph and somehow managed to ignore the word “suspect.”

      1. Goblin:

        Please re-read that paragraph. They wrote that Manning is suspected of leaking, that he did download information, and that he did pass the files on.

        1. Where has he said he passed them along. Far as i know that’s an allegation as well. Citation? happy to be wrong.

          1. hatter: pmocek’s point is that it is an allegation, yet the report’s wording implies that it is fact.

            (You both agree)

        2. Check your grammer.

          You are incorrectly reading the subordinate clause of the sentence, “who had downloaded the information from a computer in Kuwait“. This clause modifies both material and PVT Manning it is not the main idea. If you read the main part of the sentence you will discover that PVT Manning is simply suspected, and we can infer that this subordinate clause is part of that accusation entailed by the word suspect.

          1. It says, “Currently, the US authorities suspect that the material was leaked by Private Bradley Manning stationed in the Persian Gulf, who had downloaded the information from a computer in Kuwait. He then passed these files on to the `whistleblower’ organization, which made them public.”

            I read that as, “Authorities suspect that Manning, stationed in the Gulf, leaked the material. Manning had downloaded the information. Manning passed the files on.” but not as “Authorities suspect that Manning, stationed in the Gulf, leaked the material. Authorities suspect that Manning downloaded the information. Authorities suspect that Manning passed the files on.”

          2. Your understanding of the paragraph logically ignores the word “suspect”. If that words was not used at all you would have a point. However, we cannot logically conclude that the author was stating that PVT Manning actually “did it” without ignoring the word suspect. Its only logical to conclude that the words you take issue with are a simple re-statement of the charges against Manning.

            You may not realize it but you are attempting a classic politician’s hairsplit. You are selectively ignoring the main idea of the paragraph (That he is simply a suspect) while you push your own counter-narrative, which you have found support for by ignoring that word “suspect” and used the rest of the words behind it. And this selective ignorance is designed so you will emotionally engage people to your side. This is what you want NATO to say, even if that’s not what was said.

            I still think you could use a few grammar lessons. If only so you could learn how imperfect a system it is.

  6. transparency can be misused on several levels – by providing unprofessional or poor-quality interpretation of information or documents, by conducting superficial or biased analysis, by lack of experience on the topic or by pursuing a political agenda. Thus, not everything carried out under the “transparency label” is necessarily good for the government and its people. Moreover, the very ideal of transparency can also force public figures to become more secretive

    Wether you agree or diagree with this quote is immaterial.

    What’s important is that we have a healthly debate over this ideal of pragmatic and functional transparancy. I would encourage all to actually take the time and read this. No TLDR excuses followed by uninformed yea or nay just based on the headline and blurb.

  7. You know, if the leaders of the world weren’t nearly all greedy, sadistic fuckwads hell-bent on destroying the Earth’s capacity to support human life, they probably wouldn’t have to worry about this sort of thing.

    Some ancient Chinese and ancient Greek guys figured out the basic principle at work here, more than two thousand years ago. If you are a dick, people won’t like you.

  8. I find it odd they put the Chamber of Commerce release ahead of the HBGary hack, as the CoC release was a re-packaged web scrape and by no definition of the word a hack.

  9. Hmm, well they’re right about anonymous being a threat to their security. Look at how Sony’s PSN was completely hacked under the guise of a DDoS attack by anonymous. Not saying anonymous did the PSN hack, but even if they didn’t, they can be used by other groups as a front for their own ends.

    On the other hand, how can the security of a democratic society be threatened by the free flow of information? To have proper representation, the people must be able to make informed decisions about their votes. The fact that the US government is now more about restricting information to its own citizens than disseminating information is a sea-change.

  10. Wow. I can’t imagine a better recruiting campaign for Wikileaks. “NATO claims WIkileaks is badass.”

  11. Whoa! Only 22 comments and already 6 of them are from Anonymous members.

    This danger must be bigger than NATO thinks!

    1. They’re probably going to take that and assume that 24% of the population is Anonymous.

  12. You’ve got to be kidding. You’re going to infiltrate a group that doesn’t exist? A collective that really can’t even decide on anything? They’ll nab over 9000 small groups of people pursuing their own ends under the guise of “anonymous”. It’s not like you can shut down a fluid group that hops from board to board and doesn’t exactly have a membership list.

    The cake is a lie. Anonymous is a lie.

  13. You know what? I’m gonna tell you right now!

    This is from her North Atlantic Treaty Organization, you bunch of lying no-good punks! And we know where it’s coming from, because we backtraced it! And we know who’s emailing and who’s doing it. And you’ve been reported to the Cyberpolice and the State Police! You better write one more thing or screw with our Chamber of Commerce website again, you’ll be arrested! End of conversation… from her North Atlantic Treaty Organization!

  14. Anon is not a good thing. Its essentially putting potent cyberweapons at the hands of a few. Nothing good about distributed power at the hands of a few. A recent example of anon power abuse was their ddos on a relatively benign drug enthusiast community the DMT Nexus. Their reasoning behind the attack was that members of the site obfuscated their online identity for quite obvious legal reasons. Apparently that’s either a threat to anon or whatever they stand for, but to me it just looks like someone who makes decisions at anon had personal issues with admins/mods at the site. They even posted extensive personal details about mods/admins on the web publicly. Personal info and family info, not good at all.

    But the powers at be are right to fear it for the wrong reasons. They fear any substantial element of power not in their control, and if used properly or inproperly anon could do some serious damage.

    1. Funny how people think ‘Anon’ is a definable entity. Isn’t it just the entirety of the part of humanity that is pissed off?

      It is all of us and everybody… but only sometimes…

  15. that is awesome..”US Chamber of Commerce and defence contractor HBGary … promise to ‘persecute’ its members.”.

    your honor, the persecution has no further questions or thumbscrews at this time, but we reserve the right to re-flay the witness at a later date.

  16. This just in, US governmental body sock puppet says leaking of government is bad. In other news, a full 97% of anonymous internet commenters continue to not RTFA.

    More after this commercial break about the wonders of Hypnoxiprin.

    1. Yeah, NATO is peaking, with a bath full of grapefruits, a hunting knife and The White Rabbit.

  17. The only way to stop anonymous is by being open. Nobody can hack what is public.

    Anonymous isn’t a group it’s an idea.

  18. What a joke, the security issue isn’t the despicable illegal shit going on, it’s people knowing about it.

  19. So while NATO are murdering innocent women and children in their rash of immoral wars (aka collateral damage), it is not the gruesome spectacle of their own bloodlust that keeps them awake at night, no, it is that Wikileaks might shine at light on them.

    1. it is not the gruesome spectacle of their own bloodlust that keeps them awake at night, no, it is that Wikileaks might shine at light on them.

      Shine a light on roaches and they scurry.

  20. Anonymous isn’t a group it’s an idea.

    We have been at war with an idea for the last ten years. Pretty soon all ideas will be considered enemies of the state.

    1. Pretty soon all ideas will be considered enemies of the state.

      I kind of think they already are now. Ideas are only legal for the 1% of the richest Americans.. all others harboring ideas shall have them confiscated.

  21. It’s not hard at all to read between the lines as far as the political motivations involved here when two of references are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and HBGary. The former is a proven and documented mouthpiece for the neoconservative agenda and the latter is a very, very dubious IT security contractor that failed miserably in multiple aspects of its own internal IT security.

  22. Heh, well I’m glad they are a threat to security. If a government ever becomes to corrupt for it’s own good and stops focusing on what the PEOPLE, the CITIZENS need then I hope someone or a group will stop them. Anonymous for the most part,as of now, has no interest in greed.

    The PSN hack they hacked into the credit card database, not for money, but to distrust Sony. And they succeeded. Any Credit Card theft has been proven false. They have no interest in material things. it’s a shame that it hurt the consumer though and the developer though, that I disagree with them. What most people don’t know is that the reason was not just because they removed the ‘Other OS’ feature, there were many reasons.

    I hope the group continues as long as their motivation stays selfless. Stay strong Anonymous.

    Stand your ground Anonymous.
    And don’t back down.

Comments are closed.