If this isn't a hoax (and it smells like one), then I expect some folks to learn an interesting lesson.
I'm not sure if these folks understand the definition of the word 'sedition' or not but they should at least look up the legal consequences of being convicted of treason. It is one thing to joke about wishing harm to a government, but once you step outside the established process for instituting change legally in the government to one where you seek to force change you will find that the 'rules of engagement' with respect to the Government's response have changed in favor of the Government.
Many of those new rules have specific exemptions carved out so that the folks in charge no longer are bound by protecting your 'rights' as specified by the Constitution.
From the form [1] the Justice department fills out with respect to people it is trying for treason, reasons to ask for the death penalty include:
Grave risk to national security -- In the commission of the offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of substantial danger to national security.
And we have the Pentagon recently saying that by policy a 'cyber attack' will be considered an act of war.
Grave risk of death -- In the commission of the offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
And since the military depends on its network systems to prosecute warfare they will argue an attack on these systems puts warfighters (their word for soldiers) into grave risk of death.
There are even this 'bonus' modifiers for treason like:
Obstruction of justice. The victim was killed in an effort by the defendant to obstruct justice, tamper with a witness or juror, or in retaliation for cooperating with authorities.
Where they will argue that if some punks DDoS DoD contractor's computers in retaliation, it might result in disrupting the computers that fly the predators over a battlefield for example.
However, I suspect it's a hoax. Nobody would be so stupid as to set them selves up for the kind of response this would get if it was for 'real.'
I'm not sure about this, but is it possible for something attributed to Anonymous to be a "hoax"?
Since I thought Anonymous supposed to represent whoever calls themselves Anonymous, I didn't think there was a way for someone to "fake" that: by publishing this as Anonymous, they now are Anonymous?
One of these days I'm gonna start sending out Anonymous declarations of war on entirely random people, objects and concepts, and see how much media time I can get and/or how many followers I can acquire.
Nope, nowadays everything Anonymous has to originate from AnonOps and the rest of the whiteknights who've been huddling around them since Chanology. If you're not in with the <100 LOIC crew, you're not true kvlt^H^H^H^H^HAnonymous.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I have always found those words inspiring. They guy who wrote them, Thomas Jefferson, made sure that the government institutions that he and the other founders created to replace the English law would not require the folks who felt oppressed to resort to violence.
If you look at the US Constitution as an act of social programming you may, like me, discover a deep respect for the programmers.
A huge part of the Govt's tactics around this (for now at least) seem to be based around opinion control and PsyOps type stuff. There's obviously a burgeoning worldwide movement of people hoping to remove tribalistic boundaries (nation, religion, etc) and at the same time flatten the castelike hierarchy that Power has stratified itself into.
To openly attack Anonymous is to claim openly that Anonymous is a worthy adversary, which is maybe the first step in making it so, because people who are adversarial to the entrenched structures the politically leaning Anonymi (can i do that?) go after will flock to it as a worldwide rallying point for organizing a resistance if it is acknowledged as such. My feeling is direct government pressure will make it gain momentum.
I definitely think eventually the fist will come down one way or another though. It isn't just a government that's coming under scrutiny but the whole networked power structure that shadily controls our world. The most stupid, dictatorial luddite leaders were the ones to be subsumed by this force first and we see how each dictator learned from the last and upped the violence against the people. I can't even imagine if the governments of China and the US see this as becoming a real threat and act decisively against it.
I'm pretty sure we're entering the very beginning of a(nother) period of great upheaval, but for now I don't think it's in the Govt's best interest to actively pursue Anonymous, or at least it's not in their best interest to make a big deal of it if they do.
I'm not sure I understand what it would mean for this to be "a hoax". Someone made and released it, right? I thought the point of Anonymous is that it is not a specific organization or group. Whoever made this video could claim to speak for Anonymous as much as the guys that hacked HB Gary, right?
Is it widely known/suspected that the various hacks and messages that have been attributed to Anonymous are from the same group of people?
EDIT: Ha. Great minds think alike. I see Xuzz was posting precisely the same idea as I was typing this.
There are less than 20 people active in the hacking escapades that get attributed to Anonymous. There are less than 100 people who actively engage in DDoS and the few fools who join in straight from home have mostly been arrested.
The fairy-dream of an anonymous active online collective with no discernible membership is simply a joke. The lengths AnonOps goes to keep up the image is pretty hilarious. Crafting figures like Kayla, a cyberpunk teen hacker chic (actually Xyrix, who's been forced to remake himself after getting owned by zf0 in 2008[1]. they're lucky zf0 were merciful and did not dox them). Creating new group names with new narratives like Lulzsec with theme songs and such.
Let me save the typing for those who will argue "but n0ez, Anonymous is Legion and every1!!11!". Anonymous was everyone. Now the name has been hijacked by a small group that uses tools online from places like Reddit to cheer them on but not actually do anything. Hijacked similar to the way the Tea Party was hijacked by the current crop that show up Tea Party rallies.
"And we have the Pentagon recently saying that by policy a 'cyber attack' will be considered an act of war."
I've been wondering about the insanity of this declaration. Surely the Pentagon hasn't the slightest intention of picking a meat war with China over industrial espionage.
Maybe they had Wikileaks and Anonymous in mind. That would make Go To Jail, Do Not Pass Go much more straightforward, and scary.
Google 'CND Response Action' or 'CND-RA'.
'cyber attack' also has a specific meaning, and the Law of War dictates a like for like retaliation.
The Pentagon can't nuke somebody for a cyber attack that causes some emails to be leaked, or some secrets to be stolen.
They can use physical response force in the event that a cyber attack can/will cause actual physical harm, such as disabling a power grid, etc. There is actually a very heated debate about what specifics actions will evoke a physical retaliation to a 'cyber' attack.
If the US or Israel is responsible for Stuxnet, would that be considered an act of war towards Iran? I'm sadly not well-read in either stuxnet or the requirements for it to be considered a cyber-attack.
Not technically - international law today "allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN" [1].
Iranians may construe stuxnet as an attack that they are hoping to prevent from reoccuring, and thus use the self-defense justification, but 'casus belli' must be the absolute last resort of a nation. Assuming they follow international law that is.
Another important aspect to remember is that retaliation and the use of force does not mean 'war' in and of itself.
I don't think anyone involved (on the Gov't side) would plan things that poorly. Once the actions of any individual or group of individuals become a threat to the national security of the US they become 'enemy combatants' by the current definition and can (and have) been simply picked up and sent 'elsewhere.'
So if you noticed that some guy you used to chat with on IRC isn't around any more what's it to you? How do you know they are dead? You don't. The tribunals for folks in Guantanamo have been classified. Its not about publicity for them, its about eliminating threats to this nation both foreign and domestic.
Want to create a constitional amendment ala the first which says "Congress shall make no law to abridge the freedom of the people to use the Internet." ? You can be as noisy and active as you want, there is actually a path there for making it happen.
But clandestinely attempt to 'punish' the Government for what you consider to be abuse of its power over what we know of as the Internet, to the extent that you disrupt its operation, and you might as well just walk into the Congressional Rotunda with a couple of M16's and open fire.
In both cases the government has reserved the right to simply shoot you and move on, and frankly there probably won't be a lot of outcry one way or the other, teenager or not.
It is pretty clear that nothing in the Constitution matters to these people. Even when laws are stretched to an absurd degree to accommodate them, they still ignore and break these laws with impunity.
You can't beat corrupt governments inside their own institutions. In our system, the legislative branch is not actually a tool of democratic participation, it is a tool of placation. It has no effective control over the security apparatus. It's Democracy Theater.
It's a sad fact that we won't get our freedom unless we fight for it. No government gives up its power willingly. We see the terror and bloodshed of the Arab Spring and recoil, but that's what it takes to bring real change. Should Syrian protesters stay home because they may be shot or tortured? It depends on your perspective, but telling them to stay home because the government has machine guns and tanks is completely missing the point. Ignoring the law and going to the street is the only way they can win, even if it comes at a tremendous cost.
We used to sanction treating people as property. We don't now.
We used to sanction discrimination. We don't now.
We used to draft people into the military. We don't now.
It did come to violence once in our history, and I like to believe we learned from that, we've not had another civil war since.
We voted a bunch of folks who were trouncing on the Constitution out of office. The process takes time, the time is built into the system to prevent wild oscillations.
At least in the US, the government's "power" springs very directly from the people, its not up to the Government to 'give it up' or not.
People who cannot convince the electorate that their cause is just will seek to take power by deception, do not be fooled.
"We used to sanction treating people as property. We don't now.
We used to sanction discrimination. We don't now."
You aren't much of a 'student of history' if you think either of these was achieved by people following the rules. Countless people broke laws and were killed and jailed for those rights.
"We used to draft people into the military. We don't now."
The draft is still legal, so not sure what your point is here. Should we be celebrating that our benevolent leaders haven't deemed it necessary to use us as cannon fodder in the last few decades, though they reserve the right to?
"At least in the US, the government's "power" springs very directly from the people, its not up to the Government to 'give it up' or not."
If power 'sprang up from the people' in America, we would not have the patriot act or wars in several countries or foreign aid to despotic regimes or Wall Street bailouts or the war on drugs or TSA gate rape at airports or any number of extremely unpopular policies. America is an oligarchy, not a democracy. Power only springs up from the people to the extent that the people are willing to fight and die and go to jail for their rights, just like the subjects of any other corrupt regime.
We used to sanction treating people as property.
We don't now.
It took a hell of a lot of violence to make that happen.
We used to sanction discrimination. We don't now.
The water cannon, FBI raids, Klan intimidation, police dogs, and assassinations of civil rights leaders don't count as violence?
We used to draft people into the military. We don't now.
We stopped after thousands of disaffected youths much like the ones you're deriding right now stood up, burned their draft cards, and took a stand.
We voted a bunch of folks who were trouncing on the
Constitution out of office. The process takes time, the
time is built into the system to prevent wild
oscillations.
We voted a bunch of folks who were trouncing the Constitution out of office and replaced them with people who've continued treating the founding document of the United States of America as toilet paper. Name one way that Obama's policies have differed from Bush in the field of civil liberties or due process. In every case, from the closing of Guantanamo to the continuation of warrantless wiretaps and national security letters, the incoming Obama administration dovetailed perfectly with the outgoing Bush administration. Obama has talked a good game, but has done absolutely nothing, even when opportunities to stand up for citizens' rights were presented to him on a silver platter.
At least in the US, the government's "power" springs very
directly from the people, its not up to the Government to
'give it up' or not.
When the government can manipulate its power base as easily as our government is doing right now, the check of the people's will just another loophole to be exploited.
All of those "We used to sanction…" bullet points are not the government giving up its power. If anything, the government is now asserting more power to block things that used to be permitted. Similarly, if a collector stops sanctioning late payments and takes a baseball bat to delinquent debtors, nobody would say, "Wow, just look at how much he's given up his power over these people." (I'm not saying the laws in question are bad, but they aren't examples of the government giving up power.)
Abolishing the draft actually is an example of the government giving up power — or would be, if it had actually happened. Which it hasn't. All American men are required by law to sign up for Selective Service (i.e. the draft). The reason people aren't being actively drafted is because those in charge believe a draft at this time would be more trouble than it is worth, not because the government has relinquished the power.
What on earth are you talking about? Every one of those cases was changed through violence. Stop treating people as property? The civil war. No more discrimination? You think that was all done by speeches? What was MLK Jr. talking about when he mentioned "the blast heard 'round the world"?
Powerful people never give up power without violence or obvious threat of violence. You're seeing things how you wish they were.
Actually, I'm not sure how they could be convicted of treason in the US if they didn't cooperate.
As I recall, the formula went no one can be convicted of treason save "on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
True. If a 'member' of Anonymous was convicted and sentenced to death for vandalizing a website, I can see a lot of public outcry. Especially if it is a teenager.
He wouldn't be sentenced to anything in an open court. He'd be shipped off to Guantanamo (or wherever the current CIA prisons are), waterboarded until he confessed to collaborating with Al Qaeda, tried in a secret military tribunal, then sentenced to either death or life imprisonment in closed court. At the end of the process the Executive Branch would be lauded for successfully capturing and prosecuting a dangerous terrorist, rather than being excoriated for defacating all over our civil liberties.
I'm not sure if these folks understand the definition of the word 'sedition' or not but they should at least look up the legal consequences of being convicted of treason. It is one thing to joke about wishing harm to a government, but once you step outside the established process for instituting change legally in the government to one where you seek to force change you will find that the 'rules of engagement' with respect to the Government's response have changed in favor of the Government.
Many of those new rules have specific exemptions carved out so that the folks in charge no longer are bound by protecting your 'rights' as specified by the Constitution.
From the form [1] the Justice department fills out with respect to people it is trying for treason, reasons to ask for the death penalty include:
Grave risk to national security -- In the commission of the offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of substantial danger to national security.
And we have the Pentagon recently saying that by policy a 'cyber attack' will be considered an act of war.
Grave risk of death -- In the commission of the offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
And since the military depends on its network systems to prosecute warfare they will argue an attack on these systems puts warfighters (their word for soldiers) into grave risk of death.
There are even this 'bonus' modifiers for treason like:
Obstruction of justice. The victim was killed in an effort by the defendant to obstruct justice, tamper with a witness or juror, or in retaliation for cooperating with authorities.
Where they will argue that if some punks DDoS DoD contractor's computers in retaliation, it might result in disrupting the computers that fly the predators over a battlefield for example.
However, I suspect it's a hoax. Nobody would be so stupid as to set them selves up for the kind of response this would get if it was for 'real.'
[1] http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...