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: (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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Civil Disobedience means that you break some law openly and are prepared to take the consequences. I understood that people behind this data leak have not even told their names.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil Disobedience means that you break some law openly and are prepared to take the consequences.
No it does not. Prominent counter examples are that of people sheltering jews in Nazi Germany and participating in the underground railroad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I guess the term is not clearly defined. I'm mostly familiar with Gandhi's definition where the whole idea is to not resist arrests.
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for the people who are willing and able to put their freedom on the line for the cause - they deserve lots of respect for taking that route. I'm just not willing to disqualify other, perhaps less dedicated, protestors as well.
Re:"Hacktivists" (Score:5, Funny)
You must not have been made to read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience in high school
...or he chose to disobey the teacher
Re: (Score:3)
Guess there are a damn lot of indecent people in eastern Europe, then...
Hint: Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.
Re:"Hacktivists" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn those sour grapes!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
(i) So says an anonymous coward.
I don't see how that's related unless he took part in the activities...
Even if he did, I don't see how it matters. I don't agree with what he said, though.
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: (Score:1)
And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.
Re: (Score:1)
What's your point? This just proves that they shouldn't keep a bunch of innocent people's data. It's a privacy nightmare.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Right.
And if there was a law stating I had to keep a copy of all my personal documents at said electronics shop.. your demonstration would be a good thing to point to as a reason why this is a bad idea..
Re: (Score:2)
And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.
I guess the TV shops should not store their cash and finacial records in the window display at night then. I think they know that already.
Re: (Score:2)
And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.
And if your government passes a law requiring local electronics shop to store masses of your personal data. You've also proven how lousy your security is. You've also proven that your government doesn't pass good laws.
Re: (Score:2)
If they store my TV, then it would probably prove the point that they should not be allowed to handle my TV...
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so basically the people's information being released are being punished twice. Once due to the government mandate which I assume they can't opt-out of, and two by those who apparently couldn't influence the government to change, took it out on them. I fail to see how anonymous is the one to root for here. Anonymous isn't the one that's going to suffer from either theirs or the government's actions. Collateral damage as it were I'm sure Anonymous will rally many to their cause.
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: (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: (Score:2)
If people speak up against the law and it gets discarded, the 'damage' may not be worse. Of course, the government is determined to violate people's privacy, and people don't seem to care (yet), so I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
"Real" hackers wouldn't let the victims know they are victims. Widespread publication essentially nulls out the value of this data to any two-bit crook.
Here's your revolution. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, yes. Interesting how the "People's Liberation Army" seems to kill more than it liberates. Next time Anonymous wants to represent the people, ask the people first if they want Anonymous as their representative.
Re: (Score:2)
Cries like that are my only problem with the actions of Anonymous. Yes, my data is being published. But instead of blaming Anonymous for publishing them, blaming the government for recording them would be more apt. No records, nothing to steal.
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago the German government already had the great idea to install a government backdoor to every ISP. I think it was the CCC who responded with an open letter that could be summed up with "Thanks, but it's already easy enough to hack everything around, but it's nice you thought we need help".
Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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:It not enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Korea had something similar [koreatimes.co.kr] - a requirement for government issued citizen-id numbers before one could post a message on any large website.
That didn't work out so well, not because of activists, but because of actual criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't say... A government regulation that only affects honest people but not criminals? That's so unheard of!
Re: (Score:3)
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
This is the hard part.
When nurses strike over pay/conditions, people (generally) get annoyed at the nurses for risking peoples safety, not the goverment (or governing body) for not resolving the problems
When teachers strike over pay/conditions, people get annoyed at the teachers for disrupting the childrens education, not the government for not resolving the problems
When people protest in the steeet, people get angry at the protestors for the inconvenience, not for the government for not resolving the probl
stupid people (Score:2)
if they did this to prove a point, they could have just posted a sample of the data, but no, they reveal everyones data and show they have as little respect for people as the companies that they target.
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)
steps to protect me from the terrorists? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government has taken steps to protect you from terrorists, but do you feel any safer for it?
Feelings are irrelevant. The objective answer is yes, you are safer. Governments in Western nations continue to arrest actual and would-be terrorists, usually before they can carry out the attack. As a result there have been few successful terrorist attacks in the Western world, the item below being one of the sad exceptions (of course we must remember that officially this was "workplace violence" by someone shouting Allah Akbar!):
Horror at Fort Hood: Gunman Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13, wounds 31 in rampa [nydailynews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...and if the powers that be decided to label maoris as the new terrorists and public enemy number one and treated them accordingly, eventually you'd have lots of maori terrorists... what's your point? It's exactly the same issue with african americans - people will live up to all of your stereotypes if you treat them that way. Just look at your average dictator... when they start thinking that EVERYONE is out to get them and treat the population accordingly, and all of a sudden everyone IS out to get t
Re: (Score:2)
I note they still haven't arrested BushCo for sending what, a billion dollars to the Taliban to "halt" opium production.
Re: (Score:2)
Always the "good" progressive leftist, eh drinkypoo? Remember: It has been proven many times over that you should be careful what you ask for, you might get it [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Always the "good" progressive leftist, eh drinkypoo?
Provably better than the hateful FUD you're spreading as an attempt at suppression of views with which you do not agree, you tiny-hearted little person.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Germany every single "terrorist" put on trial since the German Autumn has been revealed to have had contact to at least one state agency, from state and federal police to the Verfassungsschutz (part of the intelligence conglomerate) to our two secret services, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (foreign intelligence) and Militärischer Abschirmdienst (domestic intelligence), including being funded, trained, "led". At the same time this happened [wikipedia.org] right under the noses of all the aforementioned agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
That is really quite a fantastic claim given the following item, and just a small sample
Re: (Score:2)
Could I opt-out of the terrorism stuff? I mean, mutually. You don't protect me from terrorists and I promise I won't hold you liable if I get blown up? Any chance?
Somehow I bet a damn lot of people would jump on that opt-out instantly.
Re:stupid people (Score:5, Informative)
if they did this to prove a point, they could have just posted a sample of the data, but no, they reveal everyones data and show they have as little respect for people as the companies that they target.
An update in the Gizmodo article [gizmodo.com.au] states that they did not reveal everyone's data - it was a partial dump containing only business and government account records. So, I think they're taking your advice. Ready to support them now? 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
An update in the Gizmodo article [gizmodo.com.au] states that they did not reveal everyone's data - it was a partial dump containing only business and government account records. So, I think they're taking your advice. Ready to support them now? 8^)
So, if bank robbers only rob the banks with other people's money, do you support them? If vandals only trash someone else's school, do you support them? If arsonists only burn down other people's homes, do you support them? If hackers (like Anonymous [dailytech.com] ) only steal other people's credit cards, do you support them? What a silly notion.
Re: (Score:2)
If bank robbers rob only shady investment banks that caused the current recession and causes them to fold, then yes, I support them.
If vandals only trash places of people who have shown they don't give a shit about society, then yes, I support them.
If arsonists only burn down the homes of people who have shown they caused grief to others for no good reason then yes, I support them.
If hackers only publish the data of the people who made the data retention mandatory in the first place, then yes, I support the
40GB? (Score:1)
I have a 25GB monthly quota, you insensitive clods!
Re:40GB? (Score:4, Funny)
I have a 25GB monthly quota, you insensitive clods!
Don't worry. If it was a raw database extract totally 40GB I bet a lot of it is metadata and the content itself is probably highly compressible. I bet someone can put it in a more useful form and compress it and you'll be able to slide under your quota.
Failing that, I'm sure the slashdot editors could release a summary. They are excellent at making summaries of things - most of the time they don't even need the original data to do so!
Information doesn't want to be free (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the truth can be told so as to be understood it will be believed.
I just fear that the "understood" part is the hard one to accomplish.
Re: (Score:1)
What is the meaning of this fabulous sentence of a mystery language?
It's about architecting Locard's exchange (Score:1)