Most of the time the people who Anonymous give the stick to deserve it, but this type of petty schoolyard graffiti attack is questionable. Given the DPRK's sensitive ego, especially at this point in their international circus show when everyone's doing their best to diffuse the situation, injecting 'porn and kitten images' into their network is not helping the effort. At the very least, inject some propaganda or meaningful statement rather than self-glorifying "I wuz here" junk.
The DPRK is a horribly repressed, poverty ridden hell-hole where the only way out is death. I have nothing but pity for their every day suffering. A small part of me wants things like this to tip the balance of a short-lived war that ends in an open and free Korea. Why wait another 10 years where nothing's changed except their childish tantrums and nuclear capability?
Agreed. This would be really bad if the DPRK decided the Anon hack was an act of aggression. Didn't I just read about this somewhere recently? Oh yeah...
"A secret legal review on the use of America’s growing arsenal of cyberweapons has concluded that President Obama has the broad power to order a pre-emptive strike if the United States detects credible evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad..."
I disagree with what Anon is doing here, but what I can't figure out is whether there's ever been a more legitimate target for Anon's attention.
What makes a state that is as repressed as you describe less deserving than e.g. a business faction (even a corrupt one)? Is it just because the business can't start an international incident in response?
I guess what I'm saying is that I wish Anon would put the stick away completely, and that the lack of ability for a target to fight back is not acceptable reason to hit them with said stick.
"Most of the time the people who Anonymous give the stick to"
I really think it's important to our online discourse to unpack the proper noun 'Anonymous'. "Anonymous" isn't akin to The Junta of NK, the Department of State's actions on behalf of the Secretary of State, the UK Foreign Office or whatever. It's ostensibly actions by actors outside the beauracratic system performing anarchic acts. That's a pretty huge umbrella to use to simplistically label the actors as 'Anonymous'.
Whenever Anonymous attacks, one of the top posts is a reasonable argument such as yours here that it is not helping matters, and I pretty much always find myself in agreement (e.g. wrt SOPA/PIPA last year).
So I'm curious about:
"Most of the time the people who Anonymous give the stick to deserve it"
Of the top of my head - westboro baptist church, church of scientology, Ohio football rape crew and a string of internet pedophiles.
I don't advocate vigilante justice in these instances, I just don't feel any pity for the victims. Though "justice" is too strong a word - perhaps "nuisance" is better.
I'm really tired of the people shouting "THIS TIME Anonymous took it too far!". It reminds me of an interview with Jon Stewart where he talked about people telling him (paraphrasing): "I really like your comedy, but then you talked about global warming and that's a really serious issue, so now I don't like you anymore".
Look. "Anonymous" is a like force of nature. It is simply the current collection of idiots with an axe to grind attacking whatever seems cool and sensationalist. Some of them have skills, some of them don't. Most of the time, what they do is childish. What they don't have is an agenda that you could argue with.
Yelling at them whenever they're on the part of your lawn that you care about makes about as much sense as yelling at the rain for making the part of your lawn wet that might rot from it. (Wow, that sure makes a contender for todays price for most quickly tortured metaphor.)
The reason why "Anonymous does X"? "Because X is possible". Nothing more and nothing less.
You can state that something has been taken too far without the expectation that that sentiment will change anything. Those are two separate issues.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the risk/reward ratio here is quite a bit different than many of Anon's previous targets. As much as we deride North Korea's military ability, they still have the potential to inflict a great deal of harm to a large number of people. That risk hasn't really been present to this level in many of the things Anon has been involved in before as far as I know.
I mean, sure, it's undeniably petty, and if it accomplishes anything then it'll be to inflame the DPRK's temper. Maybe that's the point; maybe highlighting the empty nature of their posturing with insults rather than listening to their threats with prudent concern is a way to bring them into line.
I don't really think that's the case, and I doubt the people who did this thought that either.
But this made me smile. It's irreverent, questionably legal and of dubious value. That's what Anonymous stands for, and I have to admit that I'm glad that they're there to pull pranks like this.
You realize that lower level people within NK will likely be punished, perhaps brutally because of the embarrassment? The people punished may not even have been responsible for the security lapse.
I'm really getting tired of 'Anonymous'. They are simply internet thugs under the guise of doing something important. But they don't do anything important, they actually create that fear the causes governments to enact stupid laws to prevent 'hackers'. So the result is an erosion of your freedoms.
Anonymous raises the public's awareness for the weeknesses of internet security. Whether they intend to do so or not: I think it is a good way to educate people...
Anon has no commercial reasons for their actions. Your head cannot be protected by setting strong passwords - most exploits Anon provides are caused by things that are easy to prevent (e.g. bad passwords, sql injection weaknesses...)...
It doesn't matter whether or not Anon has a commercial interest or they're just being assholes. Their behavior is still unethical.
Additionally, it doesn't matter if self-protection is easy as in setting strong passwords or easy as in putting a helmet on my head or locking my door at night.
The ethical lapse is in the person breaking into the server, hitting me on the head with the hammer, or opening the door to my unlocked home.
It's not a comparison of severity, it's a question of ethics. It's unethical to trespass, regardless of whether or not significant harm was done - although I'd also argue that anon did significantly more than just leave a harmless note. Accounts will need to be wiped. People who were unlikely directly culpable will be punished - perhaps physically and severely by the NK powers who were embarrassed.
It's just too bad the country's intranet is (supposedly) airgapped from the internet. So they can't actually deliver any propaganda to North Korean subjects without assistance from someone on the inside.
Hmm, so perhaps the best, most damaging attack on them would be to attack their NOC, and open up their routing to the rest of the world. At some point they have a filter in place - if you we're to quietly remove hat filter, how long would t take them to figure it out?
Academics in North Korea apparently are trusted with some access to the Internet at large, so there is a route.
It seems that internet access from within the country is extremely limited, and the only people who have it are people already in positions of political power, who would stand to lose, not gain, from a revolt. Hackers could conceivably penetrate NK's NOC and seize control of it, but it wouldn't do much good since such a tiny number of people even connected to it at all, and those are the people who are already trusted and allowed to see the internet.
Meanwhile, most people in the country don't have any kind of access to computers, and most of those that do, can only access the country's (allegedly air-gapped) intranet, which cannot be attacked unless someone inside the country physically connects it to the internet.
Flickr’s terms refer one to you Yahoo ID terms[1] which, in section 8 say:
"You agree to comply with all applicable export and import laws and regulations[…] and sanctions control programs"
The US / North Korea sanctions[2] don’t specifically talk about services, but under the export of goods has this to say:
Treasury prohibitions on exporting goods to North Korea specifically relate to sales involving parties whose property and interests in property are blocked under E.O. 13551. Otherwise, there are no Treasury prohibitions on exporting goods to North Korea. Depending on the goods involved (e.g., luxury goods), the export may be subject to other U.S. export controls, such as those administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
So I think they’re be OK as long as it’s the press and not the government that’s running it.
This is very immature and very irresponsible IMHO. Poking fun of NK on the internet is only going to aggravate the situation, because I'm very sure NK will end up interpreting it as "US doing", rather than some random individuals.
The hackers would be indirectly responsible for it too.
Edit: I'm not saying they're guilty and should be put in jail for it or something. Not that kind of responsibility. However, they do bear some indirect responsibility that would cause most normal people to feel somewhat guilty.
An analogous type of guilt would be if, for example, I mistakenly dropped something while on top of a tall building and it cracked someone's windshield in the street below, caused an accident, and 3 people died. I didn't kill those people directly, and I definitely did not intend for anything bad to happen, and probably it was also the fault of the driver who let himself be distracted enough by something cracking his windshield to then proceed to have a major accident. It's hard to blame myself for those deaths, but I most certainly will, because I was involved in a critical part of the chain of cause and effect that made these three people die.
Now imagine if you dropped that penny from a tall building, and it caused 100'000 people to die. Some guilt trip that would be...
Yes, and also the victim's employer because they they hired him. Also Twitter because they certainly could have make it harder to hack someone's account even if the account holder makes mistakes. Thounsands of people would be indirectly responsible.
If someone incites me to road rage on the way home and when I get home I kill one of my children, it's not their fault, it's mine.
Furthermore, the way to deal with a bully isn't to try to not upset him. It is to punch him in the mouth (more if necessary) and let him know that his bullying will not be tolerated and that you are not scared of him.
My first thought was "these are US or SK actions". On further thought it doesn't seem likely, but still, everyone can hide behind the Anonymous flag for plausible denyability.
One reason I can think of would be because it's "not done" in international diplomacy to publicly admit of hacking. I don't think any country ever openly admitted to building Stuxnet and other "cyberwar" botnets either. Or maybe they did eventually (not sure), but only after very long suspicions. They could still tell NK of it privately, threaten them in an indirect way.
Note that I'm not saying they did this, or have good reason to. It's just that I'm a bit suspicious of anything Anonymous related after the Sabu/Lulzsec story, especially when it relates to propaganda like this.
That's besides the point, it's about political spin. NK has a history singling out USA and SK for actions that sometimes aren't even related to that country at all.
It is, because the alternative is worse. There are more that 100,000 prisoners in NK living in horrible conditions. And of those who are not in prison, most have miserable standard of living.
They might launch some missiles at South Korea, killing a few hundred people, then triggering a brief but deadly war that results in a few more thousand people dead on the "good" side and hundreds of thousands of dead on the NK side.
I'd hate to be the script kiddie who has to live with the knowledge that they did something that caused hundreds of thousands of people to die "for the lolz".
The DPRK is a horribly repressed, poverty ridden hell-hole where the only way out is death. I have nothing but pity for their every day suffering. A small part of me wants things like this to tip the balance of a short-lived war that ends in an open and free Korea. Why wait another 10 years where nothing's changed except their childish tantrums and nuclear capability?