Hacktivism is on the rise
13/7/11 13:39![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luvdovz.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsInteresting post about internet censorship, yesterday. So let's talk about hackers now. When you ask the hackers why they're doing what they're doing, most often they say "Because we can!" There's hardly a week without a major hacker attack these days. The new hacker groups keep popping up (and disappearing, like LulzSec recently). Some of the most prominent attacks are targeting government institutions and organizations of authority, like recently the Brazilian government and presidency, CIA, the British agency dealing with organized crime, the US senate, InfraGard (a partner of FBI), Sony, Nintendo, etc etc. Some of these attacks are about stealing corporate and personal information, others are for blackmailing politicians, others for advocating some political view. Although many are not politically motivated, those who are, are becoming more serious and better coordinated and they're taking large proportions and causing an artificially created problem.
When the now defunct LulzSecurity started their cyber attacks they began with a break-in into the X-Factor TV show in Britain, where they stole the personal data of all participants and published it online. Then they said they had done this just "for the lulz" and their actions were categorized as vandalism from some kids with too much spare time on their hands. But with time it became clear that the key word in their name is not Lulz, it's Security. And their purpose is not just having fun at someone else's expense, but spreading the idea that the term "internet security" is a utopian idea created by the IT corporations in order to make money on the naive users by selling them anti-virus software which goes kaput in a few months, then selling them new one for still more money.
Too little is known of LulzSec, except that it consist(ed) of the so called "hacktivists", the online activists who use the Internet as a medium to spread their protest messages. And their targets are organizations and companies which are perceived as "evil" in the general public space, i.e. such that are working against the interests of the general public. Last month LulzSec created an open line where their sympathizers could suggest new targets. Their main goal became the publishing of classified government information and documents. Their main prey were the banks and other top organizations. The reason they focused on the world's governemtns was that they were initially more like a group of highly qualified pranksters rather than a uniform group with a concrete ideology. But recently they seem to have come to agreement with their rivals from another hacker group, "Anonymous", who are clearly politically motivated. The two groups announced they would join forces (which could be one of the reasons for the official closing of LulzSec, as it probably merged with Anonymous). The biggest planned cyber attack they called Anti-Security and it was aimed at the world's governments. The purpose was to steal as much classified information (of any sort) as possible.
Hacktivists are becoming more actively involved in various social, political and even military conflicts. Anonymous are the typical hacktivists. Last year they attacked Visa and MasterCard, showing their support for WikiLeaks and Assange. The websites of both companies were blocked after they refused to accept donations for WikiLeaks.
Since 2003 Anonymous have built a reputation of real e-Samaritans. They've attacked a number of countries who they believe are "having a deficit of democracy and support for the freedom of speech". Among the targets were Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen and others. The attacks often hit on government websites of countries who've somehow tried to censor free speech or are stomping on human rights, whether in or outside the internet. They've also provided help and training for the activists in North Africa and taught them how to publish information overcoming the government restrictions. That was a huge factor for popularizing the Arab revolutions.
Although these groups are very organized and effective, actually they don't have any known leaders or a conventional structure and hierarchy. Although they're now pretty much coordinated in their goals, they're not following a particular political ideology. Practically anyone who wants to pursue some agenda and defend a cause, could announce it on their IRC channels and forums and then, if they get enough supporters, they could organize an attack on a given website. For example at the moment there's a massive series of hits on Syrian government servers. And since last winter Anonymous has performed Operation Iran, Operation Bahrain, Operation Yemen, Operation Libya, etc. The main thing they do is to support all censored bloggers from those countries who've dared to write against the dicatorial regimes there. Then they mobilize all hackers to attack the government servers of said country. They've often told the dissidents in the respective country: "You're not alone, we're behind you". It's a new form of activism, and it has played a major role in all those revolutions.
Oddly, although NATO is (at least nominally) on the side of the democratic revolutions in the region, in the meantime it has declared the hacker actions illegitimate and is promising to take drastic measures against it. In recent years the hacker attacks have been equated to organized crime in the real world, EU and US also announced they're planning stricter laws against them, including mandating that companies who operate with personal data should pay more attention to data protection. The European governments have also promised they'll cooperate in making a unified strategy against cyber-crime.
NATO's new doctrine against cyber warfare puts cyber attacks in the list of the biggest threats for national security, and considers them an "act of war" now. Last month in Brussels, the ministers of defense of the NATO members accepted a new plan for internet protection, which says that NATO can now actively participate in all 3 phases of the cyber warfare: 1) prevention, 2) damage control and 3) recovery after attacks. And the US government has announced it's planning a new law which would even allow the use of physical force in response to hacker attacks.
A memo from NATO's chairman Rasmussen about the NATO Concept of Cyber Security shows exactly how concerned NATO is about cyber dangers and how it's going to counter them. It also warns the member states to upgrade their security systems and take more aggressive measures against hacker attacks. The goal is that NATO should have a fully operational capability to respond to cyber attacks by the end of 2012.
The profile of the usual suspect hacktivist is not a surprise for anyone. Very often they're young people, even below 20. A joint operation by Scotland Yard and FBI resulted in the arrest of a 19 y.o Ryan Cleary in Essex, on charges of hacking various websites. The British authorities described his arrest as "very significant". Last month in Spain the police arrested 3 people, and in Turkey a whole jail was filled with 32 teenagers.
All of that caused even more aggressive response from the hacker community and in return the Spanish police was left without a working website, and in Turkey a number of institutions are having systematic failure and lack of access to their e-mails and websites.
Obviously this war is only just beginning, and the hackers seem unperturbed by these measures, and they won't give up countering any such attempts for adopting a legislation which they feel would destroy the freedom of information. And while some are claiming that hacktivism is a modern Robin-Hood way of fighting with global injustice, others are concerned that the "revolution of the hackers" could only backfire and lead to even more curbing of civil rights and a full government control on the whole information highway. In other words, under the pretext of "see, we're defending you from hackers", governments around the world could find ways to tighten their grip on the freedom of information, as they've done since 9-11 with civil rights (particularly privacy) under the motive of "we're defending you from terrorists".
When the now defunct LulzSecurity started their cyber attacks they began with a break-in into the X-Factor TV show in Britain, where they stole the personal data of all participants and published it online. Then they said they had done this just "for the lulz" and their actions were categorized as vandalism from some kids with too much spare time on their hands. But with time it became clear that the key word in their name is not Lulz, it's Security. And their purpose is not just having fun at someone else's expense, but spreading the idea that the term "internet security" is a utopian idea created by the IT corporations in order to make money on the naive users by selling them anti-virus software which goes kaput in a few months, then selling them new one for still more money.
Too little is known of LulzSec, except that it consist(ed) of the so called "hacktivists", the online activists who use the Internet as a medium to spread their protest messages. And their targets are organizations and companies which are perceived as "evil" in the general public space, i.e. such that are working against the interests of the general public. Last month LulzSec created an open line where their sympathizers could suggest new targets. Their main goal became the publishing of classified government information and documents. Their main prey were the banks and other top organizations. The reason they focused on the world's governemtns was that they were initially more like a group of highly qualified pranksters rather than a uniform group with a concrete ideology. But recently they seem to have come to agreement with their rivals from another hacker group, "Anonymous", who are clearly politically motivated. The two groups announced they would join forces (which could be one of the reasons for the official closing of LulzSec, as it probably merged with Anonymous). The biggest planned cyber attack they called Anti-Security and it was aimed at the world's governments. The purpose was to steal as much classified information (of any sort) as possible.
Hacktivists are becoming more actively involved in various social, political and even military conflicts. Anonymous are the typical hacktivists. Last year they attacked Visa and MasterCard, showing their support for WikiLeaks and Assange. The websites of both companies were blocked after they refused to accept donations for WikiLeaks.
Since 2003 Anonymous have built a reputation of real e-Samaritans. They've attacked a number of countries who they believe are "having a deficit of democracy and support for the freedom of speech". Among the targets were Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen and others. The attacks often hit on government websites of countries who've somehow tried to censor free speech or are stomping on human rights, whether in or outside the internet. They've also provided help and training for the activists in North Africa and taught them how to publish information overcoming the government restrictions. That was a huge factor for popularizing the Arab revolutions.
Although these groups are very organized and effective, actually they don't have any known leaders or a conventional structure and hierarchy. Although they're now pretty much coordinated in their goals, they're not following a particular political ideology. Practically anyone who wants to pursue some agenda and defend a cause, could announce it on their IRC channels and forums and then, if they get enough supporters, they could organize an attack on a given website. For example at the moment there's a massive series of hits on Syrian government servers. And since last winter Anonymous has performed Operation Iran, Operation Bahrain, Operation Yemen, Operation Libya, etc. The main thing they do is to support all censored bloggers from those countries who've dared to write against the dicatorial regimes there. Then they mobilize all hackers to attack the government servers of said country. They've often told the dissidents in the respective country: "You're not alone, we're behind you". It's a new form of activism, and it has played a major role in all those revolutions.
Oddly, although NATO is (at least nominally) on the side of the democratic revolutions in the region, in the meantime it has declared the hacker actions illegitimate and is promising to take drastic measures against it. In recent years the hacker attacks have been equated to organized crime in the real world, EU and US also announced they're planning stricter laws against them, including mandating that companies who operate with personal data should pay more attention to data protection. The European governments have also promised they'll cooperate in making a unified strategy against cyber-crime.
NATO's new doctrine against cyber warfare puts cyber attacks in the list of the biggest threats for national security, and considers them an "act of war" now. Last month in Brussels, the ministers of defense of the NATO members accepted a new plan for internet protection, which says that NATO can now actively participate in all 3 phases of the cyber warfare: 1) prevention, 2) damage control and 3) recovery after attacks. And the US government has announced it's planning a new law which would even allow the use of physical force in response to hacker attacks.
A memo from NATO's chairman Rasmussen about the NATO Concept of Cyber Security shows exactly how concerned NATO is about cyber dangers and how it's going to counter them. It also warns the member states to upgrade their security systems and take more aggressive measures against hacker attacks. The goal is that NATO should have a fully operational capability to respond to cyber attacks by the end of 2012.
The profile of the usual suspect hacktivist is not a surprise for anyone. Very often they're young people, even below 20. A joint operation by Scotland Yard and FBI resulted in the arrest of a 19 y.o Ryan Cleary in Essex, on charges of hacking various websites. The British authorities described his arrest as "very significant". Last month in Spain the police arrested 3 people, and in Turkey a whole jail was filled with 32 teenagers.
All of that caused even more aggressive response from the hacker community and in return the Spanish police was left without a working website, and in Turkey a number of institutions are having systematic failure and lack of access to their e-mails and websites.
Obviously this war is only just beginning, and the hackers seem unperturbed by these measures, and they won't give up countering any such attempts for adopting a legislation which they feel would destroy the freedom of information. And while some are claiming that hacktivism is a modern Robin-Hood way of fighting with global injustice, others are concerned that the "revolution of the hackers" could only backfire and lead to even more curbing of civil rights and a full government control on the whole information highway. In other words, under the pretext of "see, we're defending you from hackers", governments around the world could find ways to tighten their grip on the freedom of information, as they've done since 9-11 with civil rights (particularly privacy) under the motive of "we're defending you from terrorists".
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 14:24 (UTC)4chan isn't exactly community of hackers. But the near suicide of their victims... like Kerligirl13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VKYYbwyWtQ)... all for the crime of being a emotional teenager with less then brilliant parents (the consequences will NEVER be the same!)... well it is horrible.
Hackers do target whole countries or big companies (M/C, Visa) with anarchy, but they do not do well in policing themselves. Shame, because the experiment in anarchy will almost certainly result in (attempted) ways to tighten their grip on the freedom of information, as they've done since 9-11 with civil rights. Where if the hackers were to be left alone, I believe Darwinism would take over.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 14:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 16:01 (UTC)I think your point about Darwinism is... interesting, but I think perhaps off-point. There was a sociologist, whose name I now regrettably cannot remember, who wrote about the development of early radical parties in Europe from anarchist/communist reactions to establishment action, to organized, hierarchical establishment-style parties with establishment-tied goals and interests. Basically as they became more powerful, they elect leaders from what was once an orderless, consensus-driven mass, because they recognize the increased ease of having a smaller group making tactical decisions. This in turn leads to forms of elitism, separating the leaders from the interests of the individuals who make up the group and who once had equal say in running it, until the party is a political force in its own right What we're actually seeing, IMO, is closer to that, and the fragmentation that comes along with it. What we've seen in recent months is similar: a fragmenting of the Anon community (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars), with "moralfags" spinning off from the more chaotic, destructive parts of Anon, and then elements of one rogue group killing IRC planning chats and fucking with the servers. That "invasion" (by an admin) of the Anon servers is pretty much what you get when (self-)appointed leadership doesn't actually control any more power than the average firebomb-lobbing radical in the back row. We're just seeing the movements dissolve into bickering in-fighting rather than become stultified by access to power and hierarchical organization. So it's more of a case of the People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front than "Darwinism."
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 06:37 (UTC)Rules, laws, order, enforcement, censorship, policing, etc. are attempts to thwart evolution with proper breeding. This is using eugenics on undesirable computer users, and breeding best-in-show bloggers, twits and gamers instead. How boring.
Anarchy is ruthless, bloody and dangerous and very cruel. It's just like nature. But nature is also very beautiful. Left alone a balance/harmony is found.
No matter if capitalist or communist, attempts to establish order through authority result in competative competition where no satisfaction is ever found until enemy is crushed. It's not natural. It's confined, restricted, bred, cultured, determined, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 14:26 (UTC)The reality does end up looking like Anonymous.....
Thanks for the pointer.
Date: 13/7/11 16:59 (UTC)Re: Thanks for the pointer.
Date: 14/7/11 02:34 (UTC)Re: Thanks for the pointer.
Date: 14/7/11 15:57 (UTC)Re: Thanks for the pointer.
Date: 14/7/11 06:01 (UTC)Re: Thanks for the pointer.
Date: 14/7/11 15:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/7/11 14:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 14:49 (UTC)I'd be willing to bet that even though these agencies had their public servers attacked, their internal servers went on without a hiccup. If not, then they haven't shown due diligence and need to correct that.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 14:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 15:03 (UTC)Not always...
Date: 13/7/11 17:11 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 13/7/11 17:31 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 13/7/11 18:26 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 13/7/11 19:12 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 13/7/11 19:33 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 13/7/11 20:01 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 14/7/11 00:26 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 14/7/11 03:29 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 13/7/11 20:19 (UTC)Social engineering requires causing an authorized user to break protocol. Which is why I specifically stated it was not subject to attack from the internet any more that it is subject to attack by voice telephone.
Re: Not always...
Date: 14/7/11 02:17 (UTC)Re: Not always...
Date: 14/7/11 03:28 (UTC)Look at the recent state department breach to wikileaks. The vulnerability was human not technical. No amount of hacking would have yielded anything significant. Shadow infrastructure also prevents nuisances like DDOS.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 16:35 (UTC)A Serbian hacker (http://english.albeu.com/albania-news/the-insults-of-basescu,-the-deed-of-a-serbian-hacker!/41085/) accessed the website of the Romanian presidency and posted some insulting remarks about Albania. In response, Albania called the Romanian ambassador and demanded explanations. Eventually the truth transpired that it was the deed of a Serbian prankster. All of this happened today.
Wow.
Hackers for human rights???
Date: 13/7/11 17:05 (UTC)Hackers serve an essential function in society by helping to improve the infrastructure of the Internet. I work very closely with hackers who are more interested in real human right than in the pseudo rights of pilfering and fraud.