NATO Threatens Anonymous; Kicks Off Weekend-Long Hackathon

from the hornets'-nests-all-the-way-down dept

Mon, Jun 6th 2011 3:58pm — Tim Cushing

Following in the footsteps of Obama's promise to fight hackers with guns, General Rapporteur Lord Jopling has issued a long and sternly-worded statement to NATO, warning them of the threat hackers pose to the security of the allied nations. The draft details Anonymous' involvement with both Wikileaks and HBGary along with with a rundown of recent hacktivist activity in the Middle East and Africa.

Jopling's paper is thorough and fairly well-balanced, although it includes some troubling statements about governmental transparency:

[T]he 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.

While he makes a good point that full transparency can often lead to faulty conclusions, the fact is that this sort of thing (poor-quality interpretations of information, biased analysis, pursuit of political agendas) is happening already, and increased compartmentalization and secrecy will only exacerbate the problem. The information will still get out somehow, but at this point, nearly every government in the world is showing an unhealthy distrust of its citizens. Rather than working towards more transparency and openness, they seem to be looking to lock up as much information as possible.

Not only that, but the claim that "states and corporations have the right to privacy as much as individuals do" is flat-out laughable. If this were true, these states and corporations would be an open-book, especially here in the U.S. where warrantless wiretaps and searches have become just another ho-hum tool of the FBI and local law enforcement. On one hand, the government is pressuring Google and Apple to protect the privacy of their users, while on the other hand, it's demanding that said private information be harvested and retained indefinitely.

But this is merely retreading arguments long-familiar with Techdirt readers. It's the point where NATO explicitly calls out Anonymous that it gets interesting. While acknowledging Anonymous' positive "hacktivism" efforts in aid of foreign rebellions, the draft also explicitly warns the group that NATO is willing to take them on and prosecute if necessary:

Today, the ad hoc international group of hackers and activists is said to have thousands of operatives and has no set rules or membership.[36] It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths. The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted.

It didn't take long for Anonymous to respond. Or rather, Anonymous would have responded if they weren't already tied up disrupting services in Iran, harvesting thousands of government emails and publishing Iran embassy email account information. LulzSec (whose week has already been busy, what with hacking PBS and Sony Pictures), took it upon themselves to go head-to-head with both the FBI and NATO:

It has come to our unfortunate attention that NATO and our good friend Barrack Osama-Llama 24th-century Obama have recently upped the stakes with regard to hacking. They now treat hacking as an act of war. So, we just hacked an FBI affiliated website (Infragard, specifically the Atlanta chapter) and leaked its user base.

In addition to taking Infragard offline (it was still down as of 7PM Sunday), LulzSec acquired the gmail address of Karim Hijazi, who runs Unveillance, a "white hat" company specializing in data breaches and botnets. Hijazi released a statement on Friday confirming their attacks. His post also included an IRC chat transcript of a conversation with members of LulzSec, in which they claim they are after his money:

(KARIM) So did we wrong you in some way, let’s get to the point?
(LULZ) <@Ninetales> If you wronged us, all of your affiliates would be crushed. Don’t worry, you’re in the good books. The point is a very crude word: extortion.
(LULZ) <@Ninetales> And what we’re both willing to agree upon that you sacrifice in return for our silence.
(LULZ) <@Ninetales> While I do get great enjoyment from obliterating whitehats from cyberspace, I can save this pleasure for other targets. Let’s just simplify: you have lots of money, we want more money.

Hijazi claims to have protected any sensitive client data from LulzSec and states that he "refuses to comply with their requests." However, LulzSec's statement claims that they're not interested in Hijazi's money, but simply wish to expose his company's involvement with U.S. attacks on Libya's communication systems:

We call upon journalists and other writers to delve through the emails carefully, as we have uncovered an operation orchestrated by Unveillance and others to control and assess Libyan cyberspace through malicious means: the U.S. government is funding the CSFI to attack Libya's cyber infrastructure.

Further twists developed Saturday when a post appeared on Pastebin from someone claiming to have infiltrated LulzSec. According to the anonymous (but not Anonymous) poster, an IRC chat had led to a postive ID of four LulzSec members, naming Adrian Lamo of 2600.com as the registrar of lulzsecurity.com. A rebuttal of sorts followed shortly thereafter, claiming these supposed "unmaskings" to be nothing more than names thrown into the IRC-mix for trolling purposes:

sabu, avunti, topiary, kayla, tflow, entropy, marduk and joepie91
these are some of the lulzsec guys, distanced from anonops, keeping the heat low
sailing the lulzyboat

if you are lucky enough to be invited to their private channel
be aware it is one of many for trolling the trolls :)

yo dawg we herd j00 leik lulzsecs so we put an adrian lamos and kevin mitnicks in your lulzsecs
so you can lulz while you lulz

So, where does that leave everything? Who knows? LulzSec apparently took a joyride through Nintendo's servers, prying free a server configuration file but leaving everything else untouched, out of love for Nintendo according to their tweet:

Re: Nintendo, we just got a config file and made it clear that we didn't mean any harm. Nintendo had already fixed it anyway. <3 them!

With both the U.S. and NATO pledging to fight back against cyberattacks, it remains to be seen how much collateral damage will be needed to justify the use of something stronger than sternly worded statements. LulzSec has made it clear that others are willing to step in for Anonymous proper, if it/they are otherwise detained. While it's certainly conceivable that anti-Anonymous actions are going on behind the scenes, the events of this weekend wouldn't seem to bode well for governmental agencies worldwide.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anonymous, hacking, lulzsec, nato

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:09pm

"states and corporations have the right to privacy as much as individuals do"

This is not true. Individuals fund states and so we have a right to know what the states are doing much more than the states have a right to invade our personal privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re:
  Also, corporations shouldn't have the same rights to privacy that individuals do.
  
  For one thing, publicly funded corporations must make public their financial statements.
  
  For another thing, corporations benefit from limited liability. Individuals do not. When corporations get caught committing a tort, corporate individuals aren't often personally punished. This limits their liability. If an individual commits a tort and gets caught, that person is personally liable and that person doesn't benefit from the same limited liability that corporations benefit from, so the potential damages against individuals aren't as limited.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not to mention that corporations are effectively immortal, which gives them quite a leg up over the long run.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:23pm
  
  Re:
  You're allowed to vote, but you're not allowed to be informed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:14pm

The fact that NATO had to resort to such threats speaks volumes about their state of readiness to take on the ANON crowd. They're unsure, they're fearful.....its exactly what Anon loves in their targets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  Re:
  "The fact that NATO had to resort to such threats speaks volumes about their state of readiness to take on the ANON crowd. "
  
  NATO, the US government, the EU will never be able to take on ANONONYMOUS, LULZSEC, etc. The reasons being, you are dealing with something far worse than radical fundamentalists. You are dealing with chronic do gooders, with a love of fighting for the underdog, and a never ending supply on new hacktivists wishing to join the ranks.
  
  In the end its about people who know right verses wrong, fighting against people who do wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:28pm

If I were a few years younger and not needing to maintain a security clearance (low-level as it may be) I would love to lend a hand to hacktivists. I'm not sure anon and their brethren always have the public's best interest at heart, but I still trust them more than any corporation or even my own government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steven (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re:
  If I wasn't responsible for a family I would certainly 'throw my hat in the ring' as it were. The current level of government tyranny has not quite reached the 'put my family in danger' stage, but it is certainly in the 'throughly disturbing and worth supporting opposition' stage.
  
  As it is, it seems worthwhile to broaden and sharpen my skills. Just in case...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
6, 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:40pm

Next thing you know you'll see NATO kicking a bee hive. I just don't know how successful that will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:41pm

Somehow I read it as "LulzSec acquired the gmail address of Karim Hijazi, who runs Unveillance, a hat company specializing in breeches and bonnets."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:24pm
  
  Re:
  An internet hat company? Now I've heard everything!
  
  [Shakes head in confounded bemusement.]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    An internet hat company? Now I've heard everything!
    
    i think he's talking about mann co. i get all my internet hats from mann co.
    
    http://www.teamfortress.com/mannconomy/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:51pm

hackers with guns !
Now that IS a scary thought !!!!

what laws do people break, that does not mean the police use 'arms' in their duties.

you might as well have stated that the Obama Gov is willing to fight speeding in your car 'with arms'.

That is a surprise to anyone ? (except Mike?) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 8:27pm
  
  Re: hackers with guns !
  Aww Darryl, you were so close to being coherent. Keep trying, you'll reach the writing level of an elementary school student eventually. I know you can do it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
danR, 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:01pm

Attacking weakly-defended affiliates...
...is what sophisticated opponents are good at. If Lulz can morph and splinter into unconnectable cells, then NATO, the Pentagon and the FBI, et al, will have a really big fight on their hands.

They can easily defend their servers and air-gaps. But their affiliates, not to mention the whole global raft of Fortune 500 companies may be in for an expensive security upgrade, and one they will have to put in place in a matter of months, not years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:10pm

Odd as Karim Hijazi was making his claims that LulzSec was just trying to extort him, LulzSec was posting a chat log showing that Karim was trying to get LulzSec to take out the competition for him.

While one should take LulzSec's version with a grain of salt, they have more believability than a "security" professional who used the same password for everything.

"In addition, transparency can be misused on several levels"
And thanks to Wikileaks and allegedly Manning, we can see that it is not a one sided issue. That it is not merely the public who will misuse the data to advance a political agenda. Do as we say, not as we do is becoming harder for the people to willingly turn a blind eye to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:28pm
  
  Re:
  Yet those who claim to shine the light in the dark corner, like Wikileaks, have as many dark corners in their own operations and own personal lives.
  
  Who watches the watchers?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    We create a federation of watchers, none of whom are ultimately in charge.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 6:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Who each in turn protect each others secrets, at least until one of them posts his weiner on tweeter. They are called government.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 11:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I do. And who watches me? I do that, too. All the time.
    
    Oh, don't misunderstand, I'm not here to keep the darkness out. I'm here to keep it in. Imagine how strong I must be. You can call me...the Guarding Dark. Now get oput of town.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 7:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Rorschach?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 6 Jun 2011 @ 6:23pm

Forgot who said it, but....
...that government that cannot trust the people cannot itself be trusted. It is ridiculous, especially in the US, for the government not to trust the people considering that the government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 6:54pm

"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"

The great cry of every "Authoritarian Regime" in history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ac, 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:01am
  
  Re:
  it has some truth.
  example.
  
  what if pakistan WAS hiding bin laden.
  We had to sneak in there and kill him secretly.
  so he couldnt be alerted and moved.
  
  In this scenario secrecy is important to carry out a military operation.
  
  but dont blame hackers if the information is leaked. because if they can get to it to begin with. who else is looking?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 10:38pm

Power is only given, never had. Some people in the world are beginning to realize that in ever more clarity and rising up against those who would abuse it. I can only dream the westernized world will do the same before it is too late. Then again, perhaps it already is - time will tell, let's accelerate the process I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:24am

Others are catching up to the power of information.

Organic Spies Find Lies

Quote:
Why The Organic Trade Association and Corporate Organic Food Brands do NOT want Labeling of Genetically Engineered and Genetically Modified Foods

This Video provides financial evidence that the President of the Board of Directors at the Organic Trade Association, Julia Sabin, individually profits off of Genetically engineered foods as a VP and General Manager at Smuckers.

It will get increasingly difficult to dupe the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grumpy (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:03am

"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."

Yeah, that's called "journalism". Nasty stuff, that. Can take your peace-of-mind clean off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:32am

States and Individuals Have the Same Rights?
This is based on the premise that states and corporations have the right to privacy as much as individuals do...

Based on the premise that states and individuals have the same rights, then individuals also have the right to make laws, enforce them, conduct trials, and punish, even execute, those they deem individually deem deserving of such punishment.

What a crock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:24am

No one finds the use of "extortion" to be a sign of something going wrong with Lulzsec?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Re:
  "No one finds the use of "extortion" to be a sign of something going wrong with Lulzsec"
  
  this poster here is why the government thinks it can get away with anything it wants. because some people read a single (badly written) article and without doing any further research into the matter immediately side with one group or another.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:38am

protip to us govt
stop pissing off anon. it's like feeding the trolls, only worse. the rest of us learned this long ago. I know this net thing is shiny and new, but the lesson is pretty simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 7:47am

If You Want to Retain Credibility, Explain, Don't Threaten
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.

The counter to superficial, erroneous, or just plain bad speech is not censorship; it's more speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dwg, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:48am

I especially love...
"Transparency requires control." I wonder if ANYONE involved in government messaging has read 1984. This is some of the best double-speak I've ever seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: I especially love...
  Well, of course they have. 1984 is their instruction manual.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:12am
    
    Re: Re: I especially love...
    I guess the only thing funny is that it was taught to me as fiction in high school.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:15pm

fuck the Illuminati
[ link to this | view in chronology ]