(my comments will be in bold and links will be italicized)
Is Anonymous in search for some respect?
(..Wait, Wut? ..We have the respect of the 99% ..we don’t need your puny 1%..)
Gen. Keith Alexander, who has the dual-hatted jobs as National Security Agency director and military cybercommander, reportedly (source?) says the hacking collective known as Anonymous might target the United States electric grid in the next year or two to earn the respect it feels it hasn’t received from the government and business establishment.
(It sure looks as if you have been beefing up the military industrial complex’s power grid… Meanwhile, Trying to blame hackers for something you plan to do? I think you’ve watched “Hackers” one too many times…)
The thinking isn’t that [Anonymous] would do it because they’re trying to create a national security emergency, but more because they think that would be a prank or a way to show that they have more potency than they’ve been given credit for.
(Actually, We’re already all up in your bases and we’re killin’ your dudes ..with truth!)
In private meetings at the White House and elsewhere (seems legit, and private), Alexander said he’s worried that Anonymous could develop the capability in the next year or two to disrupt the United States power grid, according to a Feb. 21 story in the Wall Street Journal.
"The thinking isn’t that [Anonymous] would do it because they’re trying to create a national security emergency, but more because they think that would be a prank or a way to show that they have more potency than they’ve been given credit for," the story’s reporter, Siobhan Gorman, says in an interview.
(Oh, so now you can all of a sudden speak for the masses? Wrong! You think the masses wish only to pull pranks? Wrong! We use the power of lulz as the driving force behind the change which you promised but failed to produce. — If you’re in the cross-hairs; It’s because you’ve put yourself there by way of a life ran by committing murder and/or creating fear.)
Anonymous is famous - or infamous, depending on your viewpoint - for distributed denial of service attacks that have shuttered temporarily scores of government and business websites as well as infiltrating government and business servers, exposing passwords and personally identifiable information. But, Anonymous isn’t known to cause the significant harm inflicted by digital spies who pilfer government, military and trade secrets, something hackers from China are accused of doing.
(Yes, We drop and hax many a box. The rest: Well, we’ll just leave that to Wikileaks!)
The revelation of Alexander’s jitters comes at a time when Congress is divided over how the government should protect the nation’s critical IT infrastructure that’s mostly owned and operated by business.
(Now we’re talkin’! ….Y U JITTERY?)
At a Senate hearing last week on the just-introduced Cybersecurity Act of 2012, Sen. John McCain said he and the ranking Republican members of committees with IT security oversight will shortly introduced their own legislation that would be less burdensome on the businesses that operate the vital networks that control the flow of energy, transportation, money and other stuff society depends on to function [see Partisan Showdown over Cybersecurity].
The Cybersecurity Act would have critical infrastructure business owners define the security standards they should implement and the government would be poised to enforce them. Opponents, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, fear the processes the bill delineates could evolve into onerous regulations. Besides, opponents ask, who but these network operators know how best to protect them? Not government bureaucrats, they answer.
(The truth of the matter is that Government and military computers still run exploitable software, and yet you still wish to tell others how to run their networks? Can you _please_ stop being so damn cliche and hypocritical now?)
Still, some highly regarded IT security policy experts contend the legislation isn’t tough enough, arguing the private sector in assessing the risk of cyberattacks may consider the impact on their own enterprises but not necessarily the harm they could impose on the greater society.
(This is the real issue… You want to pass cyber security legislation to gain greater control of the information you require for your Global Information Grid. It has NOTHING to do with Anonymous. Way to out yourselves! You make my job easy, as usual.)
With the debate over cyber regulation heating up, was the leaking of Alexander’s views intentional, perhaps to build support for tough regulations, far more stringent than the legislation proposes? After all, the White House and top military leaders back the Senate bill. Creating public anxiety over the security of vital networks could build support for a stronger role of government in determining how best to protect the critical infrastructure.
(Exactly! It’s called "Problem-Reaction-Solution"… Anonymous is the ‘fall-guy’ for their problem… the reaction is all this fucking Propaganda… and the solution.. well, I hope you are starting to see it by now and that it makes you as pissed off as I am right about now..)
Till now, developing cybersecurity legislation had been mostly a bipartisan pursuit, a different tone than that of other lawmaking. Let’s hope the respect all sides have shown one another in this debate so far doesn’t get lost to partisan bickering, and a workable compromise can be found on how to assure business secures the nation’s critical infrastructure.
(All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
….My work here is done!
Peace and Namaste to all Info-Warriors, Hacktivists, Activists, and Free Minds Alike!