Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security The Military IT Politics

Anonymous Releases Restricted NATO Document 187

Posted by timothy from the more-where-that-came-from dept.
angry tapir writes "Anonymous has released a document marked 'restricted' from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The 36-page document, which is dated Aug. 27, 2007, appears to be budget and equipment outlays for what was termed a new 'HQ ISAF JOINT CIS CONTROL CENTRE.' NATO's press office could not be immediately reached. Anonymous claimed on its 'AnonymousIRC' Twitter handle that it has 1GB of material from NATO but said that most would not be published because it would be 'irresponsible.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Releases Restricted NATO Document More

Anonymous Releases Restricted NATO Document

Comments Filter:

  • Irresponsible? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Beautyon ( 214567 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @06:20AM (#36844008) Homepage

    It's an interesting idea that it would be 'irresponsible' to release these documents in full.

    I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afganistan irresponsible. I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible. If you are going to use conventional, State / MSM thinking to restrict and control your actions, then apply this thinking evenly; the State is dropping bombs on people for the 'greater good' (to 'spread peace and democracy') and so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths is completely justified and not at all irresponsible. It is in fact, the only responsible thing to do, since more people will be spared a horrible death for no reason, than could possibly be harmed by the release of the information.

    That being said, the documents are under their control, they took the massive risk in getting hold of them and its entirely up to them what they do with them.

    • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jovius ( 974690 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @06:31AM (#36844042)

      It's interesting if Anonymous is actually taking that stance about the docs. I understood they were being sarcastic. The documents should be published in their entirety or Anonymous would appear to support the militarist and secretive paradigm they claim to oppose.

      • It could be fear and not support; they're willing to engage in some level of harassment, perhaps probing NATO to see what their response will be, before they really drop a bomb on them.

        • It could be fear and not support; they're willing to engage in some level of harassment, perhaps probing NATO to see what their response will be, before they really drop a bomb on them.

          Fun with ambiguous pronouns. Who is more likely to literally drop bombs on whom?

      • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by somersault ( 912633 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @06:50AM (#36844124) Homepage Journal

        You do know that Anonymous isn't one grandly unified body, and that it's made up of individuals who may have slightly differing opinions to the rest? Why do they all have to subscribe to the groupthink?

        Anyway, we're talking about Anonymous, not Wikileaks.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by poity ( 465672 )

          Well, it takes coherence and coordination to pull off any type of complex group action. Flashmobs too -- as anonymous, random, and simple as they are -- but there's no flashmob without someone making the facebook page and others spreading the link. There is structure and a hierarchy of influence. Additionally, perhaps you're right that referring to Anonymous as a whole is imprecise. Perhaps we can call last month's hacks the work of Anonymous.antiSONY();, and this month's silly antics performed by Anonymous

        • You do know that Anonymous isn't one grandly unified body, and that it's made up of individuals who may have slightly differing opinions to the rest?

          And so it comes down to which individuals have possession of the files.

          Anyway, we're talking about Anonymous, not Wikileaks.

          For which a significant portion embrace the Operation Payback Manifesto. [indybay.org] which says, in part:

          We support the free flow of information. Anonymous is actively campaigning for this goal everywhere in all forms. This necessitates the freedom of expression for: The Internet, for journalism and journalists, and citizens of the world. Though we recognize you may disagree, we believe that Anonymous is campaigning for you so that your voice may ne

    • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:5, Informative)

      by zach_the_lizard ( 1317619 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @06:46AM (#36844106)

      I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.

      I'm not sure that a million Iraqis have actually died in the conflict. Too damn many for sure, but I'm not so sure it's a million. In any case, you give the current and previous operators of this particular war far too much credit. Oil? Dollar supremacy? That would actually be some sort of goal. A terrible way to achieve that goal, but a goal nonetheless. Personally, I'm going for arrogance as the root cause of the war with a side order of finishing his father's business and the bullshit "stay the course" nonsense as to why it is still going on in another administration.

      • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:5, Informative)

        by aaaaaaargh! ( 1150173 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @07:05AM (#36844164)

        I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.

        I'm not sure that a million Iraqis have actually died in the conflict. Too damn many for sure, but I'm not so sure it's a million.

        You're probably right. Figures vary a lot but most of them are far below 1 million. Only the "Opinion Research Business Survey" reports more than 1 million deaths. The controversial Lancet survey reported 601,027 deaths while the extremely well-confirmed minimum figure of Iraq Body Count lists 101,906 civilian deaths. (Notice that Iraq Body Count only counts cases with multiple sources of evidence from the international press, though. So the actual number of deaths is very likely significantly higher and could be well in the range of the Lancet survey.)

        However, there doesn't seem to be any reliable source about violent deaths of Iraq military combatants. I've seen estimates ranging from ten thousands up to several hundred thousands, but nobody seems to know for sure.

        Anyway, considering all the evidence, it seems likely that less than one million people died in Iraq as a result of the US intervention. (not taking into account the first Gulf War)

      • I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible.

        I'm not sure that a million Iraqis have actually died in the conflict.

        It's not just the armed conflict; the sanctions count too. Madeline Albright famously didn't challenge the figure of half a million children killed by the sanctions alone, so although nobody is sure about the figures one million is probably on the low side.

        • Ah yes, the sanctions! I had forgotten about those; the actual armed conflict has (probably) not killed 1 million, but it would not surprise me if, with the first war and sanctions, more than a million have been killed.

      • Don't reply to the flamebait.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Artemis3 ( 85734 )

        Would you like your country to be bombed with a radioactive dirty bomb? That is what modern day warfare AP bullets do. They remain there, for hundreds of years poisoning anything and everyone. So, not only did you kill thousands in your war, you will still be killing thousands more after you finally give up and leave...

    • Just for clarification, anything I'm referring to below is strictly regarding Afghanistan

      I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afghanistan irresponsible

      Its irresponsible if they're being careless about where they're dropping bombs. It is not the agenda of the state to intentionally target innocents. Innocents are a casualty of war, most of the time.

      to 'spread peace and democracy'

      I'd say its more to maintain peace and democracy in the State. An extremist Muslim nation will never allow for peace and democracy in any of the nations that fall under "the State"

      so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths

      How do you know what the documents are? For

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by geekoid ( 135745 )

        Maybe if leaders were at risk when deciding to have a conflict they would work harder to find better solutions?

        • I see what you're saying, but two points..
          1) Realistically, the leader would just find a better bomb shelter rather than find a solution that doesn't involve violence
          2)What non-violent solution could you possibly propose to an extremist organization that wants to wipe you off the face of the Earth?

          • 1) Realistically, the leader would just find a better bomb shelter rather than find a solution that doesn't involve violence

            Not when their kids are drafted.

            2)What non-violent solution could you possibly propose to an extremist organization that wants to wipe you off the face of the Earth?

            A level-headed evaluation of the risk they pose would have been a good start. As it is now we have way too much incentive to over-react. Well, as it was a decade ago. Nowadays being war-weary and nearly broke in part because of that over-reaction seems to be partially filling for equanimity.

            • Not when their kids are drafted.

              I believe that the politicians would be proud, although fearful, of their children for going to war. Many of them are veterans. However, if its the contrary, we both know full well that those politicians can and will find ways around a draft if they wanted to.

              A level-headed evaluation of the risk they pose would have been a good start. As it is now we have way too much incentive to over-react. Well, as it was a decade ago. Nowadays being war-weary and nearly broke in part because of that over-reaction seems to be partially filling for equanimity.

              It stopped being a risk and became reality as soon as peoples lives were taken. Now that we're leaving Afghanistan, how long do you think it will take until another attack on Western soil happens again? Then what do you propose we do? Talk it out with

              • It stopped being a risk and became reality as soon as peoples lives were taken.

                That's exactly the kind of piss-poor risk evaluation I'm talking about. Risk isn't binary. You might as well be arguing for trillion dollar war on bees because they kill more people than terrorists do.

                • You might as well be arguing for trillion dollar war on bees because they kill more people than terrorists do.

                  That's exactly the kind of piss-poor sophistry that I would expect out of someone trolling. Bee's aren't trying to kill people. Extremists are. And they continue to launch attacks against us. So how many more attacks do you need to see before the risk is worth the effort for a war?

                  • Bee's aren't trying to kill people. Extremists are

                    Been down this road before your point always dead-ends because bees kill us just as dead as terrorists do and there is nothing we can do about it. "Nothing!" you want to exclaim, you can choose to avoid bees, you can't avoid terrorists because they are out to get you! Sure you can try, but bees still kill people, usually people who are allergic to them and are trying to avoid them. Shit still happens.

                    So how many more attacks do you need to see before the risk is worth the effort for a war?

                    How about starting at more innocent people than the war will kill?

                    • bees kill us just as dead as terrorists do and there is nothing we can do about it

                      EXACTLY. There is nothing we can do about bee's killing us but there is something we can do about terrorists killing us and that's kill them first.

                      How about starting at more innocent people than the war will kill?

                      Right, so if we end the war and the total number of innocent people being killed decreased but that caused an increase in innocents killed at home, you'd be ok with it?

                    • EXACTLY. There is nothing we can do about bee's killing us but there is something we can do about terrorists killing us and that's kill them first.

                      That would be all fine and dandy if killing innocents in the process didn't influence more people to become terrorists.

                      Right, so if we end the war and the total number of innocent people being killed decreased but that caused an increase in innocents killed at home, you'd be ok with it?

                      Yep.

                    • That would be all fine and dandy if killing innocents in the process didn't influence more people to become terrorists.

                      If that's your mentality, then we're completely justified in terrorizing Afghanistan because they attacked our innocents on 9/11 first.

                      Yep.

                      Lets see how you feel about that after your friends and family end up being the ones killed. No thanks. I'd rather their innocents die than mine.

                    • If that's your mentality, then we're completely justified in terrorizing Afghanistan because they attacked our innocents on 9/11 first.

                      It's not a desire it's an observation.

                      Lets see how you feel about that after your friends and family end up being the ones killed. No thanks. I'd rather their innocents die than mine.

                      Yep, you are a tribalist. That's usually how these arguuments play out. The thing is, tribalism is pretty much in opposition of basic american ideals like egalitarianism.

      • I'd say its more to maintain peace and democracy in the State.

        I fail to see how the ongoing presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan helps maintain peace and democracy in the State. The latter, in particular, given that there is precious little of it in practice. NATO is simply supporting one side (slightly less Islamist, though they do make up for it in other departments) in a civil war against another side.

        • because the extremists in Afghanistan are too busy fighting NATO forces instead of figuring out ways they can blow up people in the countries that NATO represents. Do you believe that if Bin Laden was never ousted out of Afghanistan, that we would have had the same number or less attacks on NATO countries?

          • Yes, I do believe just that. Going into Afghanistan (and, to a greater extent, Iraq) was stirring the hornet's nest - it became a staple of Islamist propaganda that "Western crusaders have come to fight Muslims in their lands", which, by Islamic law, requires that all able males should join the jihad until the invasion is repelled. God knows how many people who'd otherwise stay home they manage to recruit on those premises.

            In addition, Taliban itself, while extremist, was directed mainly inside the country,

            • I'll give you that Iraq did stir the hornet's nest. That war was unnecessary. But the Taliban attacked us first on 9/11. In fact, we only responded after 9/11. They've been attacking us for many years before that. They made themselves direct enemies of the west.

              • Taliban did not attack you in 9/11, bin Laden did. Bin Laden is not the same as Taliban, though he did find refuge on territory controlled by them.

                Officially, the "crime" of Taliban which triggered the invasion was that they refused to unconditionally hand bin Laden over to US when Bush demanded him from them, citing that evidence linking him to 9/11 was tenuous at best and not grounds for his extradition (remember, this was before he officially took responsibility).

    • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stms ( 1132653 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @06:55AM (#36844138)

      It's an interesting idea that it would be 'irresponsible' to release these documents in full.

      I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afganistan irresponsible. I call killing one million people in Iraq for oil and dollar supremacy irresponsible. If you are going to use conventional, State / MSM thinking to restrict and control your actions, then apply this thinking evenly; the State is dropping bombs on people for the 'greater good' (to 'spread peace and democracy') and so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths is completely justified and not at all irresponsible. It is in fact, the only responsible thing to do, since more people will be spared a horrible death for no reason, than could possibly be harmed by the release of the information.

      You're being very assumptive by saying releasing these documents would save lives they could just as easily get people killed. Don't get me wrong I support more freedom of information but neither of us have any idea whats in these documents.

    • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jp102235 ( 923963 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @07:10AM (#36844182)
      trying to find morality in war is quite futile: so to say that dropping bombs on "innocents" is bad, sorta seems like saying dropping bombs on non-"innocents" is ok. none of it is good. but that is why we call it war and avoid it at all costs (if we can). unfortunately, _some_ people won't listen, and they need the motivation of bombs to get them to the negotiating table.

    • We're assuming that they have documents showing conspiracy to falsify evidence in order to go to war and unsavory war actions. For all we know, anon could have gotten a hold of information of a a huge corruption and bribing scandal involving the Russian mafia. It could be anything. Perhaps anon doesn't look forward to being tracked down and assassinated.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rich0 ( 548339 )

      releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths is completely justified and not at all irresponsible

      How will releasing these documents prevent millions of deaths?

      If they find some document that proves that there is some great conspiracy to engineer wars to increase defense contractor profits or something, I'd say that would be something to release. On the other hand, how is publishing the operational budget for the construction of some base somewhere going to prevent million

      • The wars are started by politicians, so that should be the focus of reform.

        I used to think that too. I was really upset at Bush during the buildup to the Iraq war because I thought he was pushing us into a war that no one wanted.

        Then I looked around and realized the truth: most Americans actually wanted to invade Iraq. Some of it was because of Bush's convincing (or shall we say, deceptions?), but if you remember the poster from those days, "no blood for oil!", one American commentator said, "some people will answer that with, 'why not?"

        In other words, if you want to end war,

      • Ike was the commander of allied forces during WWII.

        he warned us about the military industrial complex influencing our policy.

        i think he knew what he was talking about.

    • The problem is, what is more irresponsible? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @07:46AM (#36844448) Homepage Journal

      The problem with your examples, all but is very vague, is that there are at least two sides to every story.

      In the case of your specific claim, I am quite sure that NATO does not purposefully target innocent people in any country. If anything it is because it is so uncommon for them to kill a large number of innocent civilians that it gets so much press. The greater good is not always about "spreading peace and democracy" ... the greater good can be also removing the ability of a specific aggressor to continue their ways.

      So it is not completely justified to releasing all documents. Some yes, but not all. We read the results of the Afghan dump which revealed sources of intel and such, was that responsible? I think not.

      Your openly declaring that there is no reason behind the deaths caused by NATO. I say there is justifiable reason, it all comes down to. Are we protecting a greater good. Yes there are going to be accidental deaths and those are to be regretted. But does the possibility of accidental deaths excuse of from acting to prevent hundreds if not thousands of deaths?

      Tell me, when does it become responsible to ignore genocide or mass murder? How many have to die before its not irresponsible for NATO or America to act? I am curious as to the limits. We ignored hundreds of thousands of Africans dieing in the 90s, we do it even to this day for the most part completely glossing over the violence in Sudan and Ethiopia. We seem quite content to ignore the hundreds dieing in Syria and no one bats an eye at what goes on in Lebanon.

      Flame on, I have karma to burn. Strawmen and hyperbole are all you are.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Artemis3 ( 85734 )

        NATO did target knowingly clear civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools in Tripoli. Of course nothing can be worse than operation cast lead against Gaza, but still (at least Libyans are not walled and sieged off...) .

        In fact Nato quickly ran out of military targets and don't know what else to blow to justify the war, so they increase civilian toll by going after whats left of the civilian infrastructure.

        • While I'm not a proponent of NATO intervention in Libya, this doesn't make any sense at all:

          In fact Nato quickly ran out of military targets and don't know what else to blow to justify the war, so they increase civilian toll by going after whats left of the civilian infrastructure.

          If NATO ran out of military targets, then how come the rebels aren't waving flags in Tripoli yet?

          If you want a better example, Kosovo war has plenty to offer. Though there the usual approach was classifying civilian targets as "dual-purpose" - as was the case with Belgrade TV station [wikipedia.org], and the railway bridge in Grdelica [wikipedia.org].

          But I don't think that NATO hit that hospital in Tripoli on purpose. More likely that it was a genu

  • Why no releases of secrets from potential enemies? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cavehobbit ( 652751 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @06:39AM (#36844060)
    Releasing secrets is often good, as many secrets just protect the asses of corrupt vested interests. But why do we see no releases of secrets from potential threats to free societies? Like China, various idiot countries like N. Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc? Just sayin'...

    • Re:Why no releases of secrets from potential enemi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @06:47AM (#36844110)

      Maybe they got better security in place?

      A lot of the Anon hacks seem to rely on simple SQL injection and other exploits. Could it be that these countries (aside of NKor, which probably is not connected to the internet at all) have better security standards in place?

      They might not consider a budget that big of an issue when dealing with petty things like security.

      • Could it be that these countries (aside of NKor, which probably is not connected to the internet at all) have better security standards in place?

        Or maybe the penalties for violating security are a little more severe?

        • Or maybe nobody would be really "suprised" hearing about human rights violations by North Korea, and all such a publication of documents would cause is answers of "well, water is wet, what did you expect"? No hacker worth his salt would volunteer losing time for such a let-down. Better try to embarass countries which are supposed to be democratic...

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by PhilHibbs ( 4537 )

          Why would a hacker in New Jersey or Finland care about the penalties for violating Chinese state security?

          • Western democracies are less likely (though it does happen) to use an extrajudicial method against troublemakers overseas so long as they don't constitute a material threat. However that sort of attitude is not so true of totalitarian autocracies with terrible human rights records. If somebody managed to upset China enough, an agent or mercenary might find a way for the hacker to have a 'tragic accident'.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Why would a hacker in England care about the penalties for violating US state security? Oh, wait...

            I wouldn't trust the UK not to extradite me to China.

        • Or maybe Anonymous isn't as good at SQL injection in Chinese?

      • Slashdot had an article [slashdot.org] not too long ago saying China's defensive security is actually quite bad. China has a huge bureaucracy that provides many opportunities for people to screw up security so inevitably they do.

        The researcher quoted in the article attributes the lack of attention to the language barrier. English-speaking script kiddies doing a mass search for SQL injection vulnerabilities won't even know what they've found if they manage to break into a Chinese government website.

        Still, the researcher hi

      • I'd bet it's more likely that most Anon hackers don't read Korean, Chinese, or Russian, which is kind of important if you want to make sure you are stealing important documents, and not a PDF format of "Gone With the Wind," or really even to know what computer you hacked into.

        • Ummm... how about "Hey guys, here's what we found, anyone able to translate it?"

          For centuries, people have put their faith in the heavens, why shouldn't we have faith in the cloud just because we're atheists? :)

          • It's not a matter of should they hack foreign government websites, but so far it seems lulzSec/anon hasn't hacked ANY foreign language website. There is no particular reason to be afraid of McDonald's Taiwan, so I assume mainly they choose their targets based on the language they understand, English; not because of a fear of a foreign government that poisons with Polonium.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by npsimons ( 32752 ) *

        (aside of NKor, which probably is not connected to the internet at all)

        That's actually a valid security approach; US DoD uses it all the time.

    • Because they're not "technologically advanced" enough to digitise their top secret files and make them available to any interested script kiddies?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cpghost ( 719344 )
      Maybe they're not storing everything on computers? Or maybe they didn't trust a US-based closed-source software vendor with their secrets and preferred to use a harder-to-hack OS instead?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rvw ( 755107 )

      Releasing secrets is often good, as many secrets just protect the asses of corrupt vested interests.
      But why do we see no releases of secrets from potential threats to free societies?
      Like China, various idiot countries like N. Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc?

      Because those secrets are not in English. So it's harder to find them. You need Chinese speaking people to enter those systems. Even if their servers are linux or windows based, still you need to know where to look. So you think you can just download a user directory, or download all word-documents. True, but you still need to be on the right server. And then, if you have those documents, you need to translate them to English, to gain the attention of the West.

      All those non-latin languages, forget about it

      • To further expand on the China scenario specifically, one of the few places where there are both persons with the requisite technical skill and the political passion to oppose the CCP directly is Taiwan. However, the Taiwanese, even independence extremists, know that if they publicly hacked and released secrets from the Chinese mainland it would quickly be used by the Chinese as a pretense for war. Many would die and Taiwanese autonomy would be crushed, and if the US actually went through with OPLAN 5077 it

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Xest ( 935314 )

      A few points:

      - If hacks rely on social engineering, or even being able to understand what a page, for example, an admin page, is saying to figure out whether there's something you an exploit there, then language may be a massive barrier. Then even if they did leak it their Western audience wouldn't be able to understand it. It's challenge enough trawling through a dump of Western documents when you know the language to spot something important, let alone in a foreign language. Let those who know that langua

    • Do you read Chinese? How about Korean? Spanish? Arabic? Farsi? If you don't, why do you assume the people in Anonymous do?

      But - here's a completely different motive. I'll let you guess where I plucked this from:

      "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

      Domestic enemies are not just armed criminals. I, for one, have a hard time looking at the banking scandal as a friendly action.

      Now, you may argue that it was accidental, but considering wh

    • "But why do we see no releases of secrets from potential threats to free societies? Like China, various idiot countries like N. Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc? Just sayin'..."

      Because they are serious about deterring leaks and will do Bad Things to leakers.

      Compared to their methods, Gitmo is a joke.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Artemis3 ( 85734 )

      There is no bigger idiot, and no bigger threat to world peace than the US, And Nato is one of their tools. For months, civilians dying in Libya are the result of Nato bombing "to protect civilians" (by killing them), bombing their schools, hospitals, homes, rebels, etc. The same can be said of many other places everywhere the US puts its nose.

      N. Korea is isolated and does no harm unless messed with, such as doing stupid and unnecessary war games in front of them...

      Venezuela is simply trading with those will

    • I see a few options:

      1. Because they aren't developed enough to store such information in computer networks. (N.K.?)

      2. Because they can actually secure their information properly (e.g. no links to Internet on networks with secure data).

      3. Because any would-be whistleblowers are deterred by the knowledge that their death will be long and nasty indeed should they get caught.

  • Funny, whenever some talks about the bytes obtained rather than the number of documents, it tends to indicate that the information obtained was useless. Perhaps they found a 700MB Access file with the commercial ship traffic in the Atlantic Ocean.

    Chances are it's not important what they found. NATO is a collection of countries with diverging view (e.g. Turkey&Greece, France&UK&US) and with a lot of attention-seeking military personnel who have been shunted to this multi-national effort. Anyth

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Tired of people saying its not irresponsible and they should post the rest of the documents. You don't know what the rest of the documents are. Maybe the documents are an assessment on whats the best way is to acquire and sneak a nuclear device into your country. Do us a favor and stop speaking out of ignorance.

  • Anonymous: Internet's worst enemy? (Score:3)

    by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @06:58AM (#36844152)

    I reckon Anonymous could turn out to be the modern Internet's worst enemy.

    Before you flame me, hear me out.

    Historically, first-world politicians have not really understood the Internet. What they have understood is that while it's a fantastically useful tool, it has aspects that (to society as a whole) are less desirable. Child porn is the obvious one that gets banded about fairly regularly, but by regularly hacking high-profile targets, Anonymous are practically guaranteeing that national security will also wind up on the political radar.

    Many on /. will say "Well then, the likes of NATO should hire someone better to secure their networks" - and while there may be some logic to that, I can see a lot of politicians suggesting a rather different solution - one involving censorship and tracking people online. We pretend that the Internet is immune to much of this, but China, Iran and Tunisia have proven that this is not true.

    What we have here is the technological equivalent of a bunch of kids causing a great deal of disturbance in their school lunch hall - and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it dealt with using the age-old technique of "If we can't figure out who the troublemakers are, we'll instigate a bunch of new rules which inconvenience everyone."

    • What you're saying is not that Anon are the Internet's worst enemy, but rather than they might, by their action, draw attention of those who can potentially become that worst enemy.

  • Now that we've established that private individuals can hack real secrets out of the government, how fun would it be to plant false information among the nuggets of truth? Nothing outlandish like aliens and mind-control, I mean stuff that's completely plausible and realistic but you would require proof of it being real. For example, I think it would be completely awesome if they leaked something about a special group taking care of "Renegade's Kenya question." The Birthers would splooge all over themselves

  • As soon as anyone starts choosing and picking what they release to the public, then they are doing the exact thing as those who hide the information. If your are going to break a law (no arguments as to whether it should be a law or not, but it is) then decide to only post the part that tells the story you want told, then it is clear you have an agenda, and it is no longer about letting the information be free. if people get hurt because of it, well then maybe none of it should have been published. as of no

  • "Irresponsible"? (Score:3)

    by theIsovist ( 1348209 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @08:08AM (#36844640)

    'AnonymousIRC' Twitter handle that it has 1GB of material from NATO but said that most would not be published because it would be 'irresponsible.'"

    I often wonder if the real reason they don't post these documents is that they are simply not interesting. Lulzsec and Anonymous are both quick to say that they've hacked into servers, and as they've shown, they've been very good at exploiting holes. However, they seem to be finding holes into low level information, and the "scandal" they find is generally nothing more than mundane information. Do you recall Chinga La Migra? They released tons of personal emails against the Arizona police department, and the only thing that these emails showed is that they were a pretty normal operation, including the fact that this department, too, hires idiots who like to send chain mail through email. So in the end, they found a few gigs of unprotected email, bragged about it, and never bothered to realize that this wonderful treasure trove of information was essentially trash. At best, they created harassment for the officers who, as far as the documents show, weren't involved in anything illegal. The most damaging release of information so far has been usernames and passwords of a porn site, which only exposed the dangers of having the same log in and password information for multiple sites.

    • Yes. I started to post, but then held back. Seeing your comment made me decide to go ahead and reply. There is nothing interesting about the ISAF HQ document. As a matter of fact, it's no longer implemented the same way. I've worked there, and since 2007 they've moved most of the tactical role from the HQ ISAF over to KAIA's IJC, where the 3-Star runs the day to day ops. HQ is now able to strategically look "outward" and concentrate on how to make COIN effective. So a command and control from HQ would
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close