FBI Warns Congress of Terrorist Hacking 243
An anonymous reader writes "Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), yesterday warned Congress of terrorist hacking. He believes that while terrorists haven't hacked their way into the U.S. government yet, it's an imminent threat. Mueller said, 'To date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent. Terrorists have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they may seek to train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward pursuing cyber attacks.'"
Fear= More Funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is already a funding black hole. This reeks of inter agency rivalry.
The only logical response (Score:5, Insightful)
Congressman: How do you suggest we proceed in fighting this threat?
Mueller: We need to shut down all torrent sites and arrest anyone posting copyrighted clips on YouTube.
Congressman: Would my very generous constituents at Sony like to comment?
Sony: We think this is an excellent approach to fighting the muslim horde, Congressman. We'll wire the usual campaign contribution to your super PAC.
Congressman: Well, that settles it then. Would anyone like to offer an opposing view?
EFF: Uh, Senator, we would like to point ou...
Congressman: Well, since there is no opposition, looks like you have your funding Director. Happy hunting.
The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another reason to give up all of our civil rights, privacy, and freedoms in the name of catching these "terrorists"!!!
Plus, over the past ten years, $500B/year on "black" programs to catch "terrorists".
And all because ten years ago 3000 people died (that's an average of 300/year) and two buildings were taken down: tragic, but a very small one compared to the 30,000 people who die every year in automobile crashes in the US - and we don't see $500B/year being spent on that!
Terrorism is just an excuse to usurp our freedoms and enable the government to take control of us. The threat is just not as big as they make it out to be - certainly not big enough to justify the massive reaction to 9/11 and the loss of all of our freedoms and privacy.
Depends on definition of terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I actually have been on counter-terrorism ops back in my Army days.
The problem is the FBI has a tendency to label people who hack music as terrorists, in addition to the Dangerous Killing People terrorists who ARE the real threat.
Giving up your Rights and Freedoms won't make you safer, only less.
Re:Read: (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Congress critters are trying to ruin the internet. Anonymous or not, anyone with a clue could see this coming from a mile away, it was only a matter of time.
Also, Anonymous has been around a while and my internet was never any different until corporations and congress people started fucking with it.
A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
How many dozens of 9/11's happen each year as a result of smoking and alcohol?
Where is the public outrage, political focus and trillions of dollars in ad campaigns and treatment to avert a 9/11 that more or less occurs on schedule every month of every year over the past century?
Stop wasting our money chasing boogymen and use a small fraction of it to help real people...
Hey man looks over there those Afghan poppy fields a plenty....sort of makes one wonder where all that funding for the taliban comes from now doesn't it...if only...oh nevermind...
Re:The only logical response (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like you understand the "War on Terrorism" is just a scam, after the cold war they needed a new "plot device" to keep people in line and feed the Military-Industrial complex (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY [youtube.com] ) and now they have it, the "Never Ending War on Terror (NEWT)", it can never be won because terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " and that will never ever go away.
Re:Read: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. They've been talking this up for years now, though the implied "enemy" is usually China. I'm not sure it's news though.
We've had this since 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention the various NSA resources (etc) that have been dealing with this stuff since forever.
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Either someone failed reading comprehension or that is the WORST troll I've seen in a while.
War on Terror.
War on Poverty.
War on Drugs.
I'm glad we won the war on Poverty ("started" in 1960's)... and the war on Drugs? Well, glad we obliterated drugs... how long do you think it'll take to win the war on Terror?
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
The ones who died in 9/11 are dead. How can you help a dead person exactly? By devaluing the word "terrorism" until it has no real meaning at all? Or until it just means anyone the government doesn't like?
Re:Read: (Score:5, Insightful)
And here i thought that was mostly Russian mob types.
I don't doubt that what you say is true to a point, I still fail to understand why that make them terrorists. And how far does it go, are we going to just keep going down the list of crimes until will get to something like writing your name on the sidewalks wet cement gets you labeled a terrorist.
How about this, we just say everybody's a terrorist and the constitution applies to nobody except those that you personally think it should apply to. how about that.
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
How are they heroes for getting murdered? I'm pretty sure not a single one of them was thinking, "Good, now I get to lay down my life for, um, something*...!"
* = coming to work that day? being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
You don't put someone on the 'hero' pedestal for those kind of reasons. A hero is someone you look up to and want to emulate, in common parlance anyway. What is there about those people that falls into those kind of categories?
Excepting the ones who had moments of selflessness trying to help others get out or were on the planes and could fight back, the bulk of those who died are simply victims. Using the term hero for anyone we feel connected to that has something bad happen to them is belittling to those who have genuinely earned it by standing on principle, willingly sacrificing themselves, etc.
And by the by, exactly how is fighting anyone going to help the dead in any fashion?
I'll take whining over senseless patriotic drivel any day.
Re:Read: (Score:3, Insightful)
they're terrorists because they make the FBI look like a bunch of assholes when their internal comms get hacked and leaked.
Re:Read: (Score:5, Insightful)
They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.
Wait a minute... You're talking about the USA military and police, right?
Anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.
Like or not, they fit the very definition of terrorist.
While the broader definition of terrrorize is debated, Anon is center, far away from the gray edges.
ineluctably political in aims and motives violent – or, equally important, threatens violence designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.
Unfortunately for your opinion, you haven't a bloody clue what you are talking about. Have you seen someone claiming to be a member of Anonymous? Have you ever talked to someone claiming to be a member?
OK, here's the primary piece of information that you either don't know or you don't want others to know: Anonymous is leaderless, unorganized, random and constantly shifting groups. No one is an official member of Anonymous. No one is a leader.
Anyone who wants to pretend that Anonymous is "dangerous" or "terrorist" simply logs into any site that accepts comments and makes the appropriately incendiary anonymous comment and signs it "Anonymous".
That "agent provocateur" is no more (and no less) Anonymous than you or I am. There is no membership. There is no leadership. There is no "agenda". There is no political agreement. If you don't understand those basics, then you do not understand "Anonymous".
At the most basic level, "Anonymous" is any temporary group of people who agree that "something must be done" about some problem, outrage, crime or whatever. They agree to take action and perhaps they carry it out. It may be peaceful, it may be destructive, it may be silly, it may be anything . They are probably not related to other "Anonymous" groups with other concerns.
Your whole screed is based on completely not understanding what "Anonymous" is. So learn. And, until you learn, don't make such stupid remarks.