"Anonymous" Warns NATO: "This Is No Longer Your World"

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/10/...s-is-not-your-
world/


NATO has poked the bear of the internet (which responded by announcing
that it's actually a hydra).

Anthropomorphic confusion aside, a NATO security report about
"Anonymous"—the mysterious "hacktivist" group responsible for attacks on
MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, Amazon and, most recently, Sony—has led the
underground group to respond by cautioning NATO, "This is no longer your
world. It is our world - the people's world."

NATO's report, issued last month, warned about the rising tide of
politically-motivated cyberattacks, singling out Anonymous as the most
sophisticated and high-profile of the known hacktivist groups:

"Today, the ad hoc international group of hackers and activists is said to
have thousands of operatives and has no set rules or membership. It
remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths.

The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be
developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators
persecuted," the report read, also asking, "Can one invoke Article 5 of
the Washington Treaty after a cyber attack? And what response mechanisms
should the Alliance employ against the attacker? Should the retaliation be
limited to cyber means only, or should conventional military strikes also
be considered?"

In response, Anonymous issued a lengthy statement (Google-cached version;
the site is having server issues currently) that says, in part:

"We do not wish to threaten anybody's way of life. We do not wish to
dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the
people - who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the
first place.

The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break
it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would
be nothing 'embarassing' [sic] about Wikileaks revelations, nor would
there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals
were not a result of Anonymous' or Wikileaks' revelations, they were the
result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that
content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any
corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that
they would not be caught.

A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to 'how we
can avoid a similar leak in the future'. Such advice ranges from better
security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for
whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won't have to
worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you
won't have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break
the rules and you won't have to worry about getting in trouble for it."

It goes on to warn, "do not make the mistake of challenging Anonymous. Do
not make the mistake of believing you can behead a headless snake. If you
slice off one head of Hydra, ten more heads will grow in its place. If you
cut down one Anon, ten more will join us purely out of anger at your
trampling of dissent."

Quite when Anonymous started modeling itself after fictional terrorist
organizations is unclear, but the message is just the opposite: NATO is on
warning. How they'll respond to this—if they'll respond—remains to be
seen, but I doubt that I'm the only person hoping that any response will
be far more measured than bringing up conventional military strikes again.



--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.

Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"

Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion. On December 3, 2010, Congress voted to
censure Rangel for 11 ethics violations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
fought removal of Charles B. Rangel from the House Ways and Means
Committee.

Felony President. 18 USC, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other
benefit for political activity

Obama violated the law by trying to buy Joe Sestak off with a political
appointment in exchange for not pursuing an election bid to replace Arlen
Specter. Obama violated the law by trying to buy former Colorado House
Speaker Andrew Romanoff off last fall to see if he'd be interested in an
administration job -- instead of running against Sen. Michael Bennet.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

On 6/21/2011 8:16 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> http://techland.time.com/2011/06/10/...s-is-not-your-
> world/
>
>
> NATO has poked the bear of the internet (which responded by announcing
> that it's actually a hydra).
>
> Anthropomorphic confusion aside, a NATO security report about
> "Anonymous"—the mysterious "hacktivist" group responsible for attacks on
> MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, Amazon and, most recently, Sony—has led the
> underground group to respond by cautioning NATO, "This is no longer your
> world. It is our world - the people's world."
>
> NATO's report, issued last month, warned about the rising tide of
> politically-motivated cyberattacks, singling out Anonymous as the most
> sophisticated and high-profile of the known hacktivist groups:
>
> "Today, the ad hoc international group of hackers and activists is said to
> have thousands of operatives and has no set rules or membership. It
> remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths.
>
> The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be
> developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators
> persecuted," the report read, also asking, "Can one invoke Article 5 of
> the Washington Treaty after a cyber attack? And what response mechanisms
> should the Alliance employ against the attacker? Should the retaliation be
> limited to cyber means only, or should conventional military strikes also
> be considered?"
>
> In response, Anonymous issued a lengthy statement (Google-cached version;
> the site is having server issues currently) that says, in part:
>
> "We do not wish to threaten anybody's way of life. We do not wish to
> dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.
>
> We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the
> people - who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the
> first place.
>
> The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break
> it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would
> be nothing 'embarassing' [sic] about Wikileaks revelations, nor would
> there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals
> were not a result of Anonymous' or Wikileaks' revelations, they were the
> result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that
> content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any
> corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that
> they would not be caught.
>
> A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to 'how we
> can avoid a similar leak in the future'. Such advice ranges from better
> security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for
> whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.
>
> Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won't have to
> worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you
> won't have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break
> the rules and you won't have to worry about getting in trouble for it."
>
> It goes on to warn, "do not make the mistake of challenging Anonymous. Do
> not make the mistake of believing you can behead a headless snake. If you
> slice off one head of Hydra, ten more heads will grow in its place. If you
> cut down one Anon, ten more will join us purely out of anger at your
> trampling of dissent."
>
> Quite when Anonymous started modeling itself after fictional terrorist
> organizations is unclear, but the message is just the opposite: NATO is on
> warning. How they'll respond to this—if they'll respond—remains to be
> seen, but I doubt that I'm the only person hoping that any response will
> be far more measured than bringing up conventional military strikes again.


Anything anyone does bad to NATO has my applause. NATO has regressed
from an Honorable cold war mutual defense tool to a Criminal terrorist
group that attacks and bullies small nations that have done nothing but
mind their own business. The same anger is also directed at the American
Democratic Administration that is supporting and financing this horror
with mine and your tax money. All this from an America that is bankrupt.
The Democratic Administration under Marxist Obama aim to destroy America
and our Freedoms. Anyone that nukes Homeland Secueity and TSA also have
my American Patriotic Blessing. Even the Muslims could never damage us
this badly. I will never travel Commercial air in America again. My air
travel will be Private and business air. I do want every ****ing
legislature shook down like the Criminals they are By TSA.
>
>
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster