Hacker Group Anonymous Aims to Destroy Facebook on Nov. 5

[wuliheron]

Wuliheron, are you going to contribute to the thread or spout nonsense all day long?

If you don't like Orwellian double speak you should avoid political threads.

 

[FlexGunship]

By the way, everyone, their messages show a dissension among themselves about attacking Facebook. That might make things interesting in the months to come.

Yeah, there's a clear dividing line in Anon over this topic. The line is drawn at "15 years of age."

 

[pftest]

So why are they waiting so long? Any ideas?

Maybe they want people to get worried about their privacy so that they will delete their facebookdata. Or just give them a fair chance to do so.

 

[FlexGunship]

Maybe they want people to get worried about their privacy so that they will delete their facebookdata. Or just give them a fair chance to do so.

Well, actually, Anon (and LulzSec) are both self described security-exploit groups. If they were as noble as they pretended to be, they could be doing this to give Facebook time to revamp their security prior to the attack.

I don't believe that for a second... but, you know... maybe.

 

[wuliheron]

While a lot of people here may criticize their methods and motivations the simple fact is everyone knows their name, everyone now recognizes their Guy Fawkes masks, and their internet attacks have become at least as famous as Green Peace ramming whaling ships. So long as they maintain the spotlight and people continue to debate them on websites like this they have succeeded in promoting the idea of civil disobedience as a viable alternative. Even the controversy over attacking facebook merely contributes to their success and draws more members to their cause no matter how futile that might be.

As politics go its as classic as it gets. In some countries the legislature will even have mock brawls and wrestling matches on the floor to prove to their constituents they are literally fighting for their interests. Minority groups with little influence and power will likewise take this low brow approach. One province in Italy has repeatedly elected a porn star to the senate. Anything to get attention and if you think countries like the US are exempt think again. Recently Donald Trump, a huge professional wrestling fan, used endless trash talk to gain the spotlight and some 60% of Americans began to seriously question whether their own president was actually a US citizen.

 

[FlexGunship]

[...] Green Peace ramming whaling ships [...]

Stupid.

In some countries the legislature will even have mock brawls and wrestling matches on the floor to prove to their constituents they are literally fighting for their interests.

Also stupid.

Is it just me, or does this whole thing seem stupid (the Facebook attack, not your post Wuliheron)? As far as politics go, attacking Facebook would be the political equivalent of a legislator attacking wallpaper samples.

At best they'll look silly; at worst they'll make enemies.

 

[Jack21222]

I don't know why people are celebrating this. Cyber-crime is still crime. What they are doing is wrong and unethical. Attacking the assets and digital property of a privately-held company just because you don't like what they do is completely immoral.

They also attacked military e-mail servers and numerous other government servers. They leaked thousands of *.mil e-mail addresses and passwords to the public just to cause chaos. Those are used by our soldiers.

Why anyone would support them in any criminal effort is beyond me.

I support Anon because I think just a little bit of chaos is good. It's kinda like a vaccine. What Anon does is mostly harmless, and I suspect that what they do will help harden their targets against future attacks, attacks which might be more serious. The fact that they're around gives companies and governments a reason to secure their digital assets. Also, while they do it, they keep ideas such personal privacy and government transparency alive.

Plus, Anon also does some real good in the world. They set up proxy servers for Iranian protesters after their internet was severely restricted, as one example. That was a "criminal effort" in some countries, for what it's worth.

 

[Newai]

Okay, I've had two of my replies misconstrued. If it happens again, I'm buying everyone pizza and beer.

 

[FlexGunship]

Okay, I've had two of my replies misconstrued. If it happens again, I'm buying everyone pizza and beer.

I don't think Okay can hear you from here. You'll have to speak up; try a PM.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Okay, I've had two of my replies misconstrued. If it happens again, I'm buying everyone pizza and beer.

Great. I love caviar and champagne.

 

[Newai]

Whoah! I wrote "I'm buying myself a pizza and beer." Apparently someone changed it, so sorry everyone. Damned hackers.

Honestly.

 

[Containment]

Ok so what if this is all a conspiracy plot planned by the secret alien governments of the world to get people to hate them? I know it sounds crazy but why would hackers actually waste time with facebook especially when it will just make tons of unemployed hobos angry that they can't virtually grow cows on a virtual farm? Ya I'm sure of it now the grays are up to no good again.

 

[wuliheron]

I support Anon because I think just a little bit of chaos is good. It's kinda like a vaccine. What Anon does is mostly harmless, and I suspect that what they do will help harden their targets against future attacks, attacks which might be more serious. The fact that they're around gives companies and governments a reason to secure their digital assets. Also, while they do it, they keep ideas such personal privacy and government transparency alive.

Plus, Anon also does some real good in the world. They set up proxy servers for Iranian protesters after their internet was severely restricted, as one example. That was a "criminal effort" in some countries, for what it's worth.

With China hacking into governments everywhere, Russian hackers stealing billions, and 180,000 known viruses nobody needs Anonymous to be inspired to secure their digital assets. Supporting Iranians was just another attempt to spread civil disobedience on their part. Whether its good or bad in any given case just depends on your politics. My own parents were quite disappointed when Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown as the dictator of the Philippines and I know quite a few Americans proud to call themselves Fascists. Some are the nicest people you'll ever meet.

 

[Jack21222]

With China hacking into governments everywhere, Russian hackers stealing billions, and 180,000 known viruses nobody needs Anonymous to be inspired to secure their digital assets.

Then why aren't they secure?

 

[Drakkith]

If you don't like Orwellian double speak you should avoid political threads.

No, you should make some sense and stick to the topic.

Then why aren't they secure?

Because it isn't that simple. Good security costs money, time, and many times is an inconvenience to whoever uses the system. And security isn't a static issue. It is a constant back and forth between better security and hackers finding loopholes in the software or hardware. Modern programs and systems are very complex and it can be very easy to miss a flaw in the design.

Ok so what if this is all a conspiracy plot planned by the secret alien governments of the world to get people to hate them? I know it sounds crazy but why would hackers actually waste time with facebook especially when it will just make tons of unemployed hobos angry that they can't virtually grow cows on a virtual farm? Ya I'm sure of it now the grays are up to no good again.

Because it makes a huge statement and affects a large portion of the US. Perfect target for anyone who thrives on publicity.

 

[wuliheron]

Then why aren't they secure?

There is no such thing as perfect security and governments often don't want companies to have even the best available security. For awhile the US even made it illegal to use some of the best cryptography systems. As much as they don't want organizations like Anonymous running amok and causing trouble the idea of any organization being able to work in complete anonymity over the internet scares them more. The end result is that between the governments and the bean counters and sheer mismanagement companies often have less then stellar security.

 

[wuliheron]

No, you should make some sense and stick to the topic.

I have stuck with the topic, and all you've done is make vague insinuations.

 

[Containment]

Actually what this makes me think that the group must have someone in the company already because from what I know of hacking the vast majority of it is done from the inside because it's 10,000 times simpler that way. I think the best way facebook could combat this is with a massive layoff of it's employees. Yep I'm sure that is what they have planned but... not for this reason.

 

[Moonbear]

By announcing their intentions so early, they are giving Zuckerburg a long time to harden his security, so if they manage to kill FB, it will make them appear pretty potent.

I was also wondering why they were announcing their intentions for so far into the future when I saw the reports on it. You might have the answer. Maybe they are hoping for a challenge and are issuing "fair warning" to Zuckerburg.

Another possibility is that they really don't know how to hack into Facebook and are instead hoping to scare the users into fleeing and pulling all of their personal information off the site as a different way to cripple it.

 

[ForMyThunder]

Why? Even if you agree that facebook is mostly a waste of time, what gives anyone the right to destroy someone else's property? They claim their labours are to build a heaven; yet their heaven is populated with horrors.

 

[Moonbear]

Why? Even if you agree that facebook is mostly a waste of time, what gives anyone the right to destroy someone else's property? They claim their labours are to build a heaven; yet their heaven is populated with horrors.

Why are they doing it? Narcissism? Delusions of grandeur? Or perhaps the same reasons the crazed looters in England are running amok destroying property to protest violence? Maybe they didn't get enough attention as children, or were too spoiled and undisciplined as children? There are lots of crazy, destructive people in the world with illogical rationalizations of their bad behavior...that's why.

 

[Proton Soup]

it's a form of social protest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism

 

[Jack21222]

Why? Even if you agree that facebook is mostly a waste of time, what gives anyone the right to destroy someone else's property? They claim their labours are to build a heaven; yet their heaven is populated with horrors.

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think?

 

[Moonbear]

it's a form of social protest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism

So are the riots in London. It doesn't make it right or effective, it just makes them another group of law-breaking thugs.

 

[Thetom]

I don't know why people are celebrating this. Cyber-crime is still crime. What they are doing is wrong and unethical. Attacking the assets and digital property of a privately-held company just because you don't like what they do is completely immoral.

Well that's an interesting view point and I'm empathic to it. But I also feel strongly that some of these companies under attack are completely devoid of ethics.
Granted that in the 20th century fictional entities operating in the world of commerce were legally afforded the rights and attributes of flesh-and-blood human beings. Meaning that companies can do many things a person can within the legal framework (a bizarre situation IMO). Following that line of thought and considering a company to have other human attributes such as ethics and emotions leads to some startling conclusions. If you consider the psychological state of some companies you will see that they are despotic, sociopathic megalomaniacs. I feel if it were a flesh and blood person doing the things some of these companies do, some reasonable force to bring them in-line would be... acceptable.

Face book is pretty naughty i recon. They plant cross-domain cookies on everyones computer that record users data. These cookies then talk with other third party sites and offer up the users info so the third party site can tailor adverts for the market.

That is like going into a social networking public house (pub) and chatting with your friend about football. With the bar-tender then taking notes on your conversation and pinning a sign on your back saying 'potential football punter'.

See, facebook doesn't sell your data per se, but they do run a system whereby other companies can have access to these cross-domain cookies, and your data. That's why you see all these 'like' buttons everywhere. The only entities paying any attention to the things people like are facebook and other prying companies.

That is partly why facebook is worth $15billion.

Do they deserve to be hacked? Yeah, why not. In a way, they are hacking us all the time.

 

[Andy]

Well that's an interesting view point and I'm empathic to it. But I also feel strongly that some of these companies under attack are completely devoid of ethics.
Granted that in the 20th century fictional entities operating in the world of commerce were legally afforded the rights and attributes of flesh-and-blood human beings. Meaning that companies can do many things a person can within the legal framework (a bizarre situation IMO). Following that line of thought and considering a company to have other human attributes such as ethics and emotions leads to some startling conclusions. If you consider the psychological state of some companies you will see that they are despotic, sociopathic megalomaniacs. I feel if it were a flesh and blood person doing the things some of these companies do, some reasonable force to bring them in-line would be... acceptable.

Face book is pretty naughty i recon. They plant cross-domain cookies on everyones computer that record users data. These cookies then talk with other third party sites and offer up the users info so the third party site can tailor adverts for the market.

That is like going into a social networking public house (pub) and chatting with your friend about football. With the bar-tender then taking notes on your conversation and pinning a sign on your back saying 'potential football punter'.

See, facebook doesn't sell your data per se, but they do run a system whereby other companies can have access to these cross-domain cookies, and your data. That's why you see all these 'like' buttons everywhere. The only entities paying any attention to the things people like are facebook and other prying companies.

That is partly why facebook is worth $15billion.

Do they deserve to be hacked? Yeah, why not. In a way, they are hacking us all the time.

If you don't like it don't use it. Personally i don't have an issue with the targeted adverts, its down to me whether i click on the links or not.

 

[Proton Soup]

So are the riots in London. It doesn't make it right or effective, it just makes them another group of law-breaking thugs.

maybe. it's not destructive in the way rioters are, though. they're not beating up facebook employees or setting their cars on fire or smashing their servers. it's more of a nuisance. it may temporarily shut down business, but picketers on a sidewalk can restrict trade in that way, too.

sure, they're breaking the law, but these things tend to fall into a category that i think is closer civil disobedience.

 

[Mépris]

I don't know why people are celebrating this. Cyber-crime is still crime. What they are doing is wrong and unethical. Attacking the assets and digital property of a privately-held company just because you don't like what they do is completely immoral.

They also attacked military e-mail servers and numerous other government servers. They leaked thousands of *.mil e-mail addresses and passwords to the public just to cause chaos. Those are used by our soldiers.

Why anyone would support them in any criminal effort is beyond me.

Killing off all the Disney kids and their friends (Justin Bieber, Jonas Brothers, Hannah Montanah and what not) might very well be immoral or unethical. Or just plain mean.

The day this does happen though, be sure to find me firing up my arsenal of fire crackers.

(I jest...

...not? :p)

 

[Galteeth]

The majority of Anonymous doesn't support this action, it's runs contrary to their general MO of protecting internet freedom. Of course, by it's nature, anyway can "claim" to do anything in the name of anonymous. From what I've been hearing, there aren't a lot of people in the hacker community who are taking this threat seriously, and they doubt the sub-group even really knows what they are doing (a ddos attack isn't going to work on facebook."To answer Evo's question, "Remember remember the Fifth of November."

It's Guy Fawkes day, and the Guy fawkes mask (used in V for Vendetta) is a symbol of Anonymous.

 

[Evo]

To answer Evo's question, "Remember remember the Fifth of November."

It's Guy Fawkes day, and the Guy fawkes mask (used in V for Vendetta) is a symbol of Anonymous.

I don't think the majority of Americans know who Guy Fawkes is, so any meaning is lost on most people outside of the UK, IMO.

 

[Galteeth]

I don't think the majority of Americans know who Guy Fawkes is, so any meaning is lost on most people outside of the UK, IMO.

Right, I don't think it's meant to be symbolic. Understand this kid didn't post this on one of the websites that are known to be organizational Anon websites. It's more like he just picked a day that he thought would be cool, and that day is sort of associated with anonymous. One of the ironic aspects is that if the media hadn't blown up this story, this person probably would have been ignored. Now though, cause it's become a news story, he might draw some followers who want to get in on the action.

 

[Evo]

Right, I don't think it's meant to be symbolic. Understand this kid didn't post this on one of the websites that are known to be organizational Anon websites. It's more like he just picked a day that he thought would be cool, and that day is sort of associated with anonymous. One of the ironic aspects is that if the media hadn't blown up this story, this person probably would have been ignored. Now though, cause it's become a news story, he might draw some followers who want to get in on the action.

I had also heard that anonymous didn't approve of the threat.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, hacking the site might not be legal, but it would make an awesome lightning rod for unhappy FB users to band together and boycott FB en mass.

I've just signed up to Google+. Hopefully I'll be able to keep tabs on my friends without
destroying everyone's privacy.

 

[Galteeth]

I had also heard that anonymous didn't approve of the threat.

The "leaders" don't. It runs contrary to their generally vague mission of protecting internet freedom and opposing censorship. The thing to understand about Anonymous though is that it's not really an organized group per ce. While there are loose hacker affiliates and some semi-established precedents about how activities are organized, really, any mass action of people on the internet could be "Anonymous." The vast majority of people participating in a DDOS attack for example are just random people on the internet who follow Anonops tweets or heard about it on 4chan or something. It's really more the equivalent of a mob then the equivalent of AL-qaeda, so you can easily have splinter groups who do their own thing. A good example is Project Chanology, which is an anti-scientology group. While the initial actions were taken by Anonymous in response to Scientology trying to censor stuff on the internet that was unfavorable to them based on copyright clams, the people who show up and protest in Guy Fawkes masks are more traditional protestors who dislike Scientology for various reasons and may not even realize it has anything to do with the internet. For example, I met a guy in Austin who said he was part of Anonymous, and he wasn't even aware they were a hacker group. He was a Scientology protestor who didn't like the church for various reasons.

My point is it's a nebulous thing when you hear "Anonymous did that or Anonymous did that."

 

[Galteeth]

Well, hacking the site might not be legal, but it would make an awesome lightning rod for unhappy FB users to band together and boycott FB en mass.

I've just signed up to Google+. Hopefully I'll be able to keep tabs on my friends without
destroying everyone's privacy.

Haha, that would be pretty funny if it was secretly Google behind it to get people to switch.