Anonymous Dumps Australian Telco Data Online 87
lukehopewell1 writes "After the threats, admissions and delays, hacktivists protesting a data retention scheme proposed by the Australian Government's National Security Inquiry have begun dumping data gleaned from an Australian telco — presumably AAPT. Anonymous is in the process of dumping government and business customer data onto Pastebin for the world to see under the guise of Operation Australia. This episode is far from over, however. We're likely to see more data trickle out over the coming days, considering that the group has promised 40GB worth of leaks."
Re:"Hacktivists" (Score:5, Insightful)
Person A gets shot at, gets tasered, gets arrested, etc.
Person B is "dumb".
Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm normally not a fan of this stuff, but in this case it actually makes a good point.
They've shown that they can steal data from the ISP.
If a bunch of your personal data starts being stored at the ISP, they or other criminals could steal that data as well. Basically having the data there is putting customers at great risk, and they have just demonstrated that the ISP is incapable of protecting the data.
Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (Score:5, Insightful)
It not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time things like these new data retention, privacy sacrificing laws are proposed, two things always happen. People exclaim doom and gloom about the theoretical problems associated with the behavior and the government assuring the public that no such abuses will occur. (Think: Social Security #s in the US and how they were never supposed to be for anything other than social security... now it's a requirement for just about any financial transaction, people have been serialized and we're all stuck with the results which were accurately predicted.) The same thing has happened again -- people saying "this is a bad idea" and government saying "nothing bad will happen, you have nothing to worry about." But now we have someone exposing the weakness and vulnerability and the potential harm that can befall the public as a result of such data collection requirements.
But I think it's not enough to demonstrate it. People have to get angry. They have to understand they shouldn't be angry at the "hacktivists" but at the laws which require data collection and retention which are otherwise needless... the government has only one goal in mind, which is to use the data against the people.
Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes but they're not forcing you to store all your private data in their poor security shop right next to the big picture window. Your analogy is like a car: nonsensical.
Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is a good point, if the government is passing legislation forcing you keep your TV at the local electronics store.
Poor analogy is poor.
Here's your explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
... I fail to see how anonymous is the one to root for here.
Well then, let me explain it.
Government is doing bad things. Specifically, it is always doing things which are against the interests of the people, or society as a whole.
All attempts at changing this behaviour have failed.
Anonymous is trying new tactics. By making the data public, it's making the population aware of the dangers of this legislation. In effect, they are illustrating the danger by hurting the privacy of a large number of individuals. With enough popular support, maybe possibly the law will get changed.
Now, as I said, this is a new tactic. The damage to the public is minimal, and would be otherwise dwarfed by any real data breach by real hackers. In that case, the information would be used for criminal purposes so the damage would be much greater, and the company would naturally deny that a breach had happened.
Now, you might not see this as an effective strategy, and indeed it may not be.
But this brings us back to the first point, which is that government is doing bad things and is unresponsive to the needs of the people. Since all other avenues of influence have failed, what remains would appear to be armed revolt.
When the system gets bad enough to piss off a large portion of the population, that's what will happen.
So you can pooh-pooh the attempts by Anonymous to try alternate means, but with no alternative you're effectively saying that revolt is the only option.
I, for one, applaud their efforts. I hope they come up with many more creative ways to make the people's voice heard in the halls of government, before we have to use armed rebellion.
Re:Here's your explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
> The damage to the public is minimal, and would be otherwise dwarfed by any real data breach by real hackers.
It seems to me the damage is actually worse. Real hackers wouldn't make the information as widely available for any two-bit crook to use.
Re:Correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymous harms the people who's data they publish, and they are not the good guys. They are criminals doing criminal harm.
However, they are *also* revealing just how vulnerable the system is to crime. If the data were not logged at all, then anonymous would not be able to publish it.
So, the government should protect me from anonymous by making this level of logging illegal, rather than mandatory.
That's not how it works (it's how it _should_ work though!) The government has taken steps to protect you from terrorists, but do you feel any safer for it? You say "the government should protect me from anonymous", but their idea of protecting you from anonymous will be to capture _more_ data to watch you more closely, and increase the punishments for this "terrorist" activity (including looking at the released captured data, and discussing the inadequacies of security).
(disclaimer: i've very recently given up caffeine so i'm extra cynical and extra grumpy)
Re:"Hacktivists" (Score:2, Insightful)
Person B is just a pussy.
For what? Not taking on their opponents head-on? I mostly only care about the method that actually works, but if you're born with a brain, you're not a "pussy" for using it. It's like people think that you're a coward because you don't have fist fights all the time or let someone beat you up or something...
Not saying anonymous is right here, but indirectly fighting someone and using your brain doesn't mean you're a "pussy."
Re:"Hacktivists" (Score:4, Insightful)
You must not have been made to read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience in high school
Your loss.
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html [eserver.org]