Anonymous attacks (Catch All)

[SteveMetz]

I don't have a position on Manning's treatment since I don't know anything beyond what I read in the papers. But if this group does attack people as a result of their performance of official duties, it would seem that law enforcement would have a grounds to take a range of actions against them. History is full of individuals and organizations convinced they were smarter than "the system" who eventually found otherwise.

[anonamatic]

This type of activity clearly crosses the line from being protest to a direct attack. While the groups volunteers in the hive might want to characterize this sort of activity as being 'direct action' in a context of protest, it stands in contrast to other groups who engage in acts of civil disobedience. I don't think I've read about any instances where people have sought out to personally attack a press secretary. This is a person whose role is to be a messenger after all.

While on an emotional level the idea of Mr. Manning enjoying serious and prolonged discomfort is something I find quite satisfying, on a practical level my concerns are different. I firstly am concerned that even given Assange's expressed prior intent to use whoever came his way to attack the US, that his counsel is not examining those matters explicitly & offering advice that reflects the nature of how his client has been ill used. Secondly, I am concerned that the conditions of Mr. Manning's incarceration, while technically justifiable, are doing more harm than good with public relations. Thirdly, there is the question of protecting DoD & government personnel, given that Mr. Manning seems to be enjoying counsel that can only be described as bordering on being irresponsible press whores, I can't see how it will be all that easy to conduct normal legal business.

[Brett Patron]

At what point are kinetics on the table?

Seems to me that both Morrell or Barnes have a right to self defense, and that, by extension the US Gov't has a duty to vigorously find and defeat this threat. And i don't mean better anti-virus protection.

This is a direct threat to the sovereignty of the US. These hackers constitute a clear and present danger and need to be dealt with rather rapidly and rather aggressively. They are terrorists. No different then Al Qaeda.

But instead, we'll try to "understand" them and deal with them as if they are small time hoods.

:facepalm:

[Cannoneer No. 4]

At what point are kinetics on the table?

No sooner than Inaugaration Day, 2013, and probably not then. Do you want to give them martyrs?

. . . the US Gov't has a duty to vigorously find and defeat this threat.

But does .gov have the talents, resources and permission to successfully engage and defeat Anonymous? NSA probably does, but what should they quit doing to reprioritize Anonymous to the head of line?

This is a direct threat to the sovereignty of the US. These hackers constitute a clear and present danger and need to be dealt with rather rapidly and rather aggressively. They are terrorists. No different then Al Qaeda.

U. S. sovereignty isn't directly threatened. The PERSEC of a senior civil servant and of a serving Marine are directly threatened. Harrassment is not terrorism. Anonymous is very different from Al Qaeda. Anonymous is not a monolithic, organized organization. Some are bad, some are good, some bad Anons are good some days, mosts Anons are low skilled cannon fodder but some have real skills. Not prudent to ignore them, but not a good idea to make more out of them than they really are.

[Brett Patron]

No sooner than Inaugaration Day, 2013, and probably not then. Do you want to give them martyrs?

Yes. Number one qualification for martyrdom is death. That's a good start.

U. S. sovereignty isn't directly threatened. The PERSEC of a senior civil servant and of a serving Marine are directly threatened. Harrassment is not terrorism. Anonymous is very different from Al Qaeda. Anonymous is not a monolithic, organized organization. Some are bad, some are good, some bad Anons are good some days, mosts Anons are low skilled cannon fodder but some have real skills. Not prudent to ignore them, but not a good idea to make more out of them than they really are.

Cannot agree with you here at all. These people are threatened directly because of the work they do at the behest of the Government. The threats and actions against them are in direct response to the exercise of their job. This is classic terroristic action. Cow someone into not doing what they should be doing by direct or indirect threat. Terrorists, however they manifest their evil, should be dealt with harshly and without mercy.

"Anonymous" has to show they are a force for good. I put them in the same category as "moderate Islam". We've heard of it, and people claim they are, but they never seem to have much to say against the bad actors.

If Cyberspace is truly to be treated as a discreet warfighting function, we cannot pussy-foot around with these caveats and differences.

So, Smersh Spionem (Smersh hacker-em?) to folks like this.

[selil]

currently there is no ladder of force that can be applied to cyber space. as a war fighting and law enforcement function you need to identify the threat (specifically) and use only the force necessary to subdue the suspect or adversary (or risk perfidy and prosecutorial issues). as such jumping straight to kinetics (of any type) likely sounds good to pundits but fails the test for actual governance and law enforcement. since there is no ladder of force an incremental policy starting with the least and working up towards a substantial exercise of prejudicial and nation-state power is a more likely course of action. of course there are a lot assumptions as to the group anonymous and their goals and motivations. there is also an under-lying assumption that they are not a state sponsored group. i'm not sure why if you add cyber state-sponsored gets tossed under the bus so quickly.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41972190...ence-security/

“It’s a guerrilla cyberwar — that’s what I call it,” said Barrett Brown, 29, who calls himself a senior strategist and “propagandist” for Anonymous. He added: “It’s sort of an unconventional, asymmetrical act of warfare that we’ve involved in. And we didn’t necessarily start it. I mean, this fire has been burning.”

“Our people break laws, just like all people break laws,” he added. “When we break laws, we do it in the service of civil disobedience. We do so ethically. We do it against targets that have asked for it.”

Asked about the group’s capabilities, he said, “Well, they keep increasing, but I can tell you that our capabilities are such that, we can, for instance, go into the servers of a federal contracting company … take those servers down, delete backups, take all internal emails, take documents, shut down the websites of the owners of those companies, take everything from those websites, ruin the lives of people who have done it wrong … harass them, make sure they’ll never work again in this particular industry.

“We can expose people. We can go to the media with things, we can give them scoops. We can give them information about companies and their wrongdoing. We can organize protests —anywhere across the globe. We can get the attention of the national conversation if we need to.”

Brown is employing PSYOP and Morale Operations while claiming to be a propagandist and strategist of a group of Irregular Computer Network Attackers, seemingly confident that lawfare will protect him from any .gov attempts to prosecute him.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

But if this group does attack people as a result of their performance of official duties, it would seem that law enforcement would have a grounds to take a range of actions against them.

NCIS could sic McGee on 'em. The real NCIS will probably have some involvement. State of Virginia might take some interest. But most of this probably won't rise to the level of felonies so what actions might law enforcement bother to take?

[anonamatic]

State of Virginia might take some interest.

After they get done making plans for ice sculptures in hell, they might find the time to think about it. They compete with Texas over who can do more executions after all. Between the large amounts of hard core conservatives in the south west of the state, and the large amount of military and government workers in the east and north, I can't think of a less sympathetic constituency.

I think that they would probably openly snicker at anyone suggesting that they do as much, not to mention that they have no jurisdiction. Explaining that they have no jurisdiction would be the part where they caved in to expressions of glee I'd bet.