Illegal organizations take action against ISIS (Anonymous release plans for supposed ISIS attacks)

[alhoon]

http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-say...sunday-2194926

The gist: Anonymous released a bunch of places they believe ISIS planned to attack tomorrow, after they notified the authorities.

The good: If the info Anonymous got is even partially true, Anonymous puts some real pressure on ISIS. And the obvious: Lives will be saved and authorities can easier move to arrest suspects based on the info.

The Bad: ISIS operatives in those places know they've been exposed. Unless the authorities arrest them soon enough, they will hide and hit elsewhere. Also, while I'm glad Anonymous helps secret services locate possible ISIS members and attacks, I don't feel very secure knowing that a NGO of hackers is dominating the internet. Those people are not under any compulsion to act in the interests of society. They just chose to did in this case.

The also bad: If parts of the info Anonymous got is correct... ISIS has cells in Paris, Milan, Rome, Indonesia, Lebanon.


EDIT: I don't like Anonymous attitude that borders on the "The eeeeeevil and uncaring authorities may decide to let this event happen, putting thousand of peoples at risk in order to catch the terrorists! ! !"
No, I don't think authorities are THAT irresponsible. They wouldn't just allow a concert to happen just to gather the pieces of the terrorists for clues.


EDIT2: http://news.yahoo.com/forget-anonymo...183319273.html
After Anonymous, the Mafia offers to "help" by hinting that unlike the law, they can break legs without proof to fish out ISIS infiltrators. :/
That's ANOTHER can of worms and why vigilante justice is perilous. You don't get batman, you get a bunch of angry people that take it out on others without enough evidence or proof.
That's not justice.

[Roma_Victrix]

I doubt Anonymous of all things (I refrain from calling them an organization, given their loose collective nature) is on the precipice of derailing the greatest coordinated worldwide terrorist attack in all of history. I could be wrong. And if so, damn, Godspeed and power to them. I just think it's a bunch of BS, though. There might, however, be an imminent attack in Brussels, yet that is most likely going to be foiled by Belgian security forces who are no doubt combing over Molenbeek with microscopes at the moment.

Food for thought if this truly is the case: Indonesia has had its history of Islamic terrorism, such as the 2002 Bali bombings (one of the bombers wasn't apprehended and killed until 2010).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

And with the bombing in Beirut just days before the Paris attacks, it's pretty clear ISIS has some of its guys embedded within Lebanon.

[snuggans]

*facepalm* for s sake

you notify the authorities. that's it.

leave it up to ego-inflating vigilante groups to go out and play counter-terrorism, and in the process mess everything up for authorities by pretty much declassifying everything, probably because "MUH SNOWDEN" "MUH WIKILEAKS" "MUH ASSANGE"

not sure if anonymous are just trolling everyone or if they are genuinely dumb: the chance of arresting those terrorists now (along with adding additional charges to their sentences by playing the waiting game) is now effectively ALL

literally if you want to play counterterrorism apply to the agencies as an intern or something, or begin at law enforcement, this hacktivism is hilariously awful and clumsy and ends up helping out the terrorists

im getting real sick and tired of this trendy unfettered search for the truth and need to want to disseminate it everywhere, because screw the need for national secrecy or confidentiality tiers, they're so authoritarian, but when the regular folk like anonymous have the information in their hands they completely up like this and they prove why NDA agreements are even a thing

[alhoon]

I could be wrong. And if so, damn, Godspeed and power to them.

I... am not so sure about that.
I don't want government to spy on me and my internet actions. But at least, I can vote for government (and I vote for the Pirate Party that takes such things seriously). I can't vote for Anonymous. I have to hope that their illegal activities keep being directed at the right targets and they don't become a shadow.

[athanaric]

The also bad: If parts of the info Anonymous got is correct... ISIS has cells in Paris, Milan, Rome, Indonesia, Lebanon.

Every self-respecting terrorist group has a cell in Lebanon. I wouldn't be surprised if the IRA or Eta had an embassy there.

*facepalm* for s sake

you notify the authorities. that's it.

leave it up to ego-inflating vigilante groups to go out and play counter-terrorism, and in the process mess everything up for authorities by pretty much declassifying everything, probably because "MUH SNOWDEN" "MUH WIKILEAKS" "MUH ASSANGE"

not sure if anonymous are just trolling everyone or if they are genuinely dumb: the chance of arresting those terrorists now (along with adding additional charges to their sentences by playing the waiting game) is now effectively ALL

literally if you want to play counterterrorism apply to the agencies as an intern or something, or begin at law enforcement, this hacktivism is hilariously awful and clumsy and ends up helping out the terrorists

I agree, it's probably better to just notify the cops and watch them smoke out the little motherers. Though you have to be sure that your warnings are actually heeded.

[alhoon]

you notify the authorities. that's it.

...

not sure if anonymous are just trolling everyone or if they are genuinely dumb: the chance of arresting those terrorists now (along with adding additional charges to their sentences by playing the waiting game) is now effectively ALL

Not so sure about nullifying the chances of arrest for the terrorists. It certainly would make it more difficult for the authorities, but since the authorities have been notified before hand, they would probably have zoomed in on the suspects.

So, I prefer a 100% chance to stop an attack even if makes 20% harder for the police to arrest the suspects.

However: I would prefer a 100% chance to stop the attack, making it 0% harder for the police to arrest the suspects...
Not sure if the police would accept to work with criminals, even well intentioned ones, though. I.e. the police couldn't just STOP these events from happening based on "possibly" from a group of enthusiasts, especially since the "possibly" was gathered illegally.

Also, assume they capture the terrorists. What now? The evidence is collected illegally. They can't use it on court. So unless the suspects are arrested and more evidence is brought to light by legal, approved means, they will have to let them go.

ALSO: I don't like Anonymous attitude that borders on the "The eeeeeevil and uncaring authorities may decide to let this event happen, putting thousand of peoples at risk in order to catch the terrorists! ! !"
No, I don't think authorities are THAT irresponsible. They wouldn't just allow a concert to happen just to gather the pieces of the terrorists for clues.

[Maiar93]

Well, at least it's interesting to watch. I like the facade of Anonymous and enjoy watching them puffing themselves up at the expense of progress against terrorism.

Their anti-government stance just gets in the way. If they really wanted to be effective in counter-terrorism, they'd reach out and work with governments all around the world. The quality of their organization may even be beneficial here. If they truly became a committed counter-terrorism movement, employing volunteers all around the world, it would be another asset for our governments to use. Or if not that, an ally.

But no, they're just interested in making obscure videos that proclaim the size of their donger all around the world while not actually doing anything groundbreaking to achieve anything truly benign.

The worst that could happen is that ISIS takes these threats seriously and actually improves their cyber security, because it's unlikely anything will actually come out of Anonymous' threats. Unless they can leak solid info about the hypocrisy of ISIS leaders, their recruiters, to disrupt their recruitment process etc. then they're just going to be disrupting the good guys.

Also this by OpParis:


#OpParis ‏@OpParisOfficial 8h8 hours ago
.#Anonymous #OpParis don't have said possible targets by #ISIS against #Paris & #World - These are made by a group not linked to our intel.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I seriously doubt Anonymous knows anything important the authorities don't already, given anonymous' complete lack of organization, resources, professionalism, or decent number of "members" that actually speak Arabic, or one of the other primary languages Daesh members use to communicate.

By attracting attention to Daesh's cyber communication, all they're doing is getting them to take more precautions, and making it harder for proper cyber espionage agencies to do their jobs. Intelligence gathering needs to be done quietly if its to be of any use, and Anonymous isn't exactly discrete. Or effective.

[Heathen Hammer]

It is scary how a bunch of basement-dwelling neckbeards do a better job at tracking down real terrorists then useless clowns from NSA, who are just a waste of taxpayer money.

[Roma_Victrix]

In contrast to Anonymous, these guys use the opposite tactic of spying:

'Spying' on Islamic State instead of hacking them

In the wake of the Paris attacks, the vigilante hacker group Anonymous has declared war on so-called Islamic State using the internet and claims to have shut thousands of Twitter accounts used by IS operatives. But a much smaller online group has also emerged, with quite a different strategy - and they claim they've already thwarted at least one terror attack.

This group say they were fed up with what they saw as unsophisticated Anonymous tactics. Things came to a head after the Charlie Hebdo attack in January, and after that, the founding members of Ghost Security Group decided to make a clean break from Anonymous.

"They [Anonymous] don't have any counterterrorism experience whatsoever," said Ghost Security Group's executive director, who spoke to BBC Trending via phone, asking for anonymity protect his safety. "We felt that not enough was being done and the Charlie Hebdo attack made it clear that ISIS was not confined to the Middle East."

[sleepyx732]

I find it hard to believe anyone serious about counter-terrorism would advertise 'We know what you are up to.' Just delaying it simply isn't enough. Don't attach the 'Anonymous' name-tag to it. They are hackers right? The least they could do is attach a more 'credible' source to it, or hell actually being anonymous would of even been better.

In any case, it's probably why this new group formed. I don't know if it's the stigma of it, but I laugh when I read "shut thousands of Twitter accounts used by IS operatives." Terrorist use twitter? Seriously?

[alhoon]

I find it hard to believe anyone serious about counter-terrorism would advertise 'We know what you are up to.' Just delaying it simply isn't enough.

They also informed the authorities days before they went to the public and sent them proof.

I don't know if it's the stigma of it, but I laugh when I read "shut thousands of Twitter accounts used by IS operatives." Terrorist use twitter? Seriously?

Yes and they're very successful in getting recruits because of it.

[sleepyx732]

Yes and they're very successful in getting recruits because of it.

Guess I underestimate government surveillance capabilities. I figured the last thing they'd want to use is something as widely used as twitter or really anything connected to the world wide web.

[alhoon]

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/23/9...vism-terrorism

And here's why using illegal means to do good doesn't lead to good: Anonymous are over-eager and at times block or crash accounts merely on suspicion.

[alhoon]

http://news.yahoo.com/forget-anonymo...183319273.html

After Anonymous, the Mafia offers to "help" by hinting that unlike the law, they can break legs without proof to fish out ISIS infiltrators.
That's ANOTHER can of worms and why vigilante justice is perilous. You don't get batman, you get a bunch of angry people that take it out on others without enough evidence or proof.
That's not justice.

[Phier]

http://news.yahoo.com/forget-anonymo...183319273.html

After Anonymous, the Mafia offers to "help" by hinting that unlike the law, they can break legs without proof to fish out ISIS infiltrators.
That's ANOTHER can of worms and why vigilante justice is perilous. You don't get batman, you get a bunch of angry people that take it out on others without enough evidence or proof.
That's not justice.

Justice, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Lets say you kill my wife. Lets say I find you and I kill you. That is justice, to me. It may not be legal, but its justice. It may not even be considered just by others. Perhaps your car slipped on ice and you hit my wife accidentally. Most people would think killing you wouldn't be justice. I might differ in my opinion (and this is hypothetical).

The danger isn't breaking Isis members legs to get info. Doing so is justice. The danger is simply breaking the wrong legs thinking it was some brainwashed Isis Islamist and turning out it was just the guy who waited tables at Applebees.

So its potentially dangerous to the innocent, but justice has nothing to do with it.

[alhoon]

Breaking the waiter's tables just because he seemed to fit some arbitrary criteria of some Mafioso has to do with justice. It's an unjust act.
Putting the Mafioso in jail for breaking legs of innocents is justice.

[Phier]

Breaking the waiter's tables just because he seemed to fit some arbitrary criteria of some Mafioso has to do with justice. It's an unjust act.
Putting the Mafioso in jail for breaking legs of innocents is justice.

Is breaking the legs of an Isis terrorist to find out where they hid explosives justice? I think so. I don't think you follow me. The problem isn't the means its the chance of false positives.

I've led a boring life but have had some instances which would be extra ordinary. My mother was good friends with a the daughter of a very well known Chicago mobster. Turns out I was at mob parties and had no idea as a adolescent. This was 30+ years ago, who knows what they are like these days, but at the time, they seemed the type who would do such a deed earnestly "for the greater good" even though they were basically evil men. Evil is funny though, the host of these parties, without a doubt, ordered men killed, but from my perspective he was a very nice old man who was always smiling and would buy everyone dinner. I am going to guess he considered the men killed "justice".

But I digress. What I'm saying is I could see the mob earnestly trying to help.

Lets imagine an unlikely situation. The mob finds an Isis cell in NYC what was planning on detonating a dirty bomb in Times Square. Its obviously something more for TV than reality but a possibility. Basically the mob stops the attack. Was that justice? I think so.

But this is not the first time the mafia has helped the US government. One could argue its effectiveness, I can't say. One could argue that doing so may have given the mob connections in the government which did more harm then good after the war, and that wouldn't surprise me. But in times of trouble, sometimes you hold your nose when you pick your allies.

So this idea does have precedent. Do I think its a good idea? Probably not. Do I think the US government of 2015 would make this kind of arrangement? Again probably not.

[Maiar93]

The means are unquestionably problematic. Breaking peoples' legs isn't good, obviously. It's just what may be necessary in order to prevent further mass murder. If those people knew anything about a future terrorism event, or locations of active terrorists etc. then that would probably save dozens of lives, all for what ultimately boils down to momentary discomfort for that one guy.

[Gäiten]

Classic conflict: Does the well-being of many goes beyond the well-being of a single person?