Thousands of Whistle Blowers Vulnerable After Anonymous Hacks SAPS 132
First time accepted submitter fezzzz writes "Anonymous performed a data dump of hundreds of whistle blowers' private details in an attempt to show their unhappiness with the SAPS (South African Police Service) for the Marikana shooting. In so doing, the identities of nearly 16,000 South Africans who lodged a complaint with police on their website, provided tip-offs, or reported crimes are now publicly available."
Reader krunster also submitted a slightly more in depth article on the breach.
Out of character... (Score:5, Interesting)
are you kidding (Score:2, Insightful)
they're in it for the lulz you dumbass
Re: (Score:3)
That must be it because they aren't in it for justice. Neither is wikileaks. This is why I hate both of them. They take it upon themselves to be guardians of justice but have no concern for their own wrongdoings. For example, wikileaks original claim to fame was the collateral murder video, which they put off as US soldiers simply committing murder. When it was investigated though, there was no wrongdoing - you can clearly see those guys carrying weapons (a Kalashnikov of some variation and an RPG are easil
Re: (Score:3)
You can't really compare wikileaks and anonymous though.
I have my issues with the way wikileaks behaves, and I think Julian Assange is a egotistical coward with psychopathic tendencies, but at least the goal of wikileaks, freedom of information, is something that is noble. Anonymous is just the mob.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that Anonymous isn't exactly organized so it might just be a small part of it or maybe even someone else trying to discredit them.
Re:Out of character... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, they aren't even an organization. Who is the head? Who decides what will and won't be done?
It seems to me that 'Anonymous' will eventually become synonymous with the term 'hacker' as the popular press uses it.
Re:Out of character... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because we don't know their organizational structure, doesn't mean they're not an organization.
There are, at least, likely leaders and followers and understood expectations/rules.
Re: (Score:1)
You just answered your own question in the very next breath. You don't believe that it runs counter to the stated "common motivation" you attribute to Anonymous members? If they decided to hack into a bunch of peoples' bank accounts and write checks emptying all the funds out and sending them as "donations" to the Republican National Committee - would you say
Re: (Score:1)
Or put another way...
Disregard this [slashdot.org], I suck cocks.
Re:Out of character... (Score:5, Insightful)
fit with Anonymous' general philosophy
A bunch of teenagers wanking off to a Natalie Portman movie have time to form a "general philosophy"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Out of character... (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously you don't have enough hot grits.
Re: (Score:3)
In my view, the problem is that since the police are the only official authority to take such crime-related complaints to in the first place, this leak punishes those that are simply trying to get justice served, who have no other authority to take their complaints or other information to.
On another note, isn't the point of "Anonymous", written into the nam
Re: (Score:2)
On another note, isn't the point of "Anonymous", written into the name and everything, that there is no real structure, that there are no real decision makers beyond everyone individually choosing what they're going to work on,
No. You're confusing the words "anonymous" and "anarchist".
Re:Out of character... (Score:4, Interesting)
Whoever said anything about helping the little guy? Anonymous is against the established legal system and for anybody who is against it, including terrorists (some of Anonymous's most high-profile actions recently have been lead by Hamas members, and core Anonymous members are not complaining). Dumping the names of people who cooperate with police to encourage criminal retaliation against them would be completely within Anonymous's character.
Mostly they're about exercising power to harm someone else because it makes them feel good, and making up a justification later.
Re: (Score:3)
I generally agree, but since they aren't exactly an organized group, philosophical differences will come about from time to time.
That said, it's kind of hard to imagine doing something against their site without harming innocents while at the same time doing anything which draws attention to problems there. The SA police response was initially denial followed by "no comment." So they still aren't doing anything as far as anyone can tell. And according to the two articles, they are also quite negligent in
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand why a group interested in justice and equality would expose the sensitive details of people in the databases.
I understand that as meaning "this group doesn't know how to pick their targets".
And it's not like there's not already a whole lot of danger and unfairness in South Africa -- the "net condition" will not really change.
So let's put people trying to make things better at risk?
(...)Pubic awareness and especially global public awareness will have been raised
The awareness I get from this is that hackers can give a huge blow against whistle blowers with no real "net gain" to any cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there went an hour. Damn you!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It sounds like they are trying to hurt the particular police force an its abuses of other 'little guys', but also to highlight that people should not be using SAPS's 'whistleblower' system in the first place because it tracks personal data. They really should have anonomized it before posting, but the people in the database were already probably at risk from internal misuse an corruption.
Am I the only one that is speculating that an Anonymous member got snitched out to SAPS and the larger release was just to hide the real target? Regardless, an organization based on anonymity should be careful about breaching that of others.
Re: (Score:1)
My tinfoil hat says that this isn't Anonymous.
This is SAPS getting back at people who rat them out. Covering it up with a tweet blaming Anonymous.
As long as you have a frightening scapegoat like Anonymous, you can do all sorts of things and get away with it. In the past, it was yellow peril, commies, etc.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
First thought I had was this as well.
Then I recalled the SAPS officer that struggled to write down a statement in printed letters and the officers without driving licenses. Those with the skills to do this are not the thugs on the street patrols that the complaints would have been about.
There was a joke in the old days about why there were 3 SAP officers in a van, one to do the reading, one to do the writing and the third to keep an eye on the two intellectuals. I suspect it is still much the same.
Re: (Score:2)
And replying to myself.....
Reading the associated Twitter account, the voice seems young and very un-South African to my mind. Seems more like US or British youf.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the associated Twitter account, the voice seems young and very un-South African to my mind. Seems more like US or British youf.
My initial reaction was one of incredulous fury...
And then I realised, based on last visit to my local cop-shop, that this probably had less to do with breaking in and more to do with some incompetent leaving the door unlocked...
I'm feeling sorry for the (probably last two) remaining decent cops in the SAPS. Stuff like this must be damned demoralising.
But I think you are right that this is a foreigner; but from the Twitter bio I get the feeling this is an Aussie.
Re:Out of character... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous is as much a organisation as people waiting at a bus stop are. And guess what, criminals also take the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, *this* is why buses are so slow to arrive!
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous is as much a organisation as people waiting at a bus stop are. And guess what, criminals also take the bus.
And I'm sure the rest of Anonymous will speak out against this action annnnnny day now. Right? After all, an "organization" that is strong enough to stand up to governments should be strong enough to self police their own ranks, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymous' general philosophy isn't "help the little guy" it's "fuck the consequences".
Once they get in their head that someone has done something wrong, for instance in this case the South African Police, they'll attack them and who cares if anyone else is harmed.
I get that you can't really expect much more from a group of what are essentially script kiddies with no one telling them what not to do, but can we stop pretending that they're some bastion of justice and freedom and whatnot, they're the nerd rag
Idiots (Score:1)
Proof that Anonymous are idiots.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Funny)
"Proof that Anonymous are idiots."
- Anonymous Coward
Re: (Score:3)
That's a real life example of the Epimenides paradox at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems counter-intuitive (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you always have Anonymous to blame...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This was a bad idea with 'target of opportunity' written all over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems counter-intuitive (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't know how right you are. This is REMARKABLY stupid and dangerous. The countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are developing and with development comes all the growing pains, not least of which is very very corrupt police. Police in South Africa and elsewhere on this continent can be very vindictive and outright murderous when upset about people disrespecting their authority. A few months ago a teenager from Mozambique was dragged to death behind a South African police car because the police who "randomly" stopped him felt disrespected. If the people on these lists know about this hack and their names being made public there is a very real and justified fear they now permanently live in. If they don't know about this hack (a bit more likely in a developing country with a not-so-exposed-to-the-internet underclass) they may be blissfully unaware of the danger they are in but that does not change the its depth.
Whoever released this info has very real blood on their hands. I don't give a damn about the title "Anonymous", the script kiddies who released this info are accessories to the horrible vindictive violence that will assuredly come, and the potential of the loss of life for many of the names released.
The stupidity of this move cannot be overstated. Be ashamed of yourselves "Anonymous". Be ashamed for your lack of disciplining your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait what?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hackers ... This, they said was “for the 34 miners killed during clashes with police in Marikana on August 16 2012”.
So to protest the miners being killed by police, the hackers hack in, steal the information of other folks who had problems with police and then release it thus exposing those same people to reprisals?
What a bunch of fuck tards!
My comment about SAPS is no better. In short, they come across as brutish, stupid thugs. They are not police, just a gang with fancy uniforms.
Re: (Score:2)
No, these are folks who were helping the police.
Clearly the plan if we can even call it that is to punish those who assist the police.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It does appear that way.
I am not sure we should be referring to them as some sort of group though. my understanding is that right now I could do anything and claim I was acting as part of anonymous. So they really have policies in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, these are folks who were helping the police.
So, if I call the police because my property was stolen and I want a police report filed so insurance will cover it, I'm somehow "helping police"? If I "file a complaint" about the police, I'm somehow helping them? If I call in to report, in confidence, a criminal who is vandalizing the neighborhood, I'm somehow "helping the police" shoot a bunch of miners?
What a fascinating universe you live in, with all the definitions of things upside down and the moon made of green cheese and all.
There is no excuse f
Re: (Score:1)
You'd prefer "Anonymous is an idiot" ?
Re: (Score:2)
"The Red Cross is comprised of good samaritans."
"The United States is comprised of citizens."
-----
Also, stop signing your posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that deliberately wrong? Hard to tell on /. any more. In case you're actually confused, you meant "composed". "Comprise" means "include", or nearly so.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that was me making a mistake. Good catch.
Re: (Score:1)
So you think all Brits are idiots?
Re: (Score:2)
The count of comments and the comment data themselves are cached at different times. It's quite possible immediately following an article being published, to see a difference between the count and the actual.
You know what they say (Score:3)
Live by mob vigilante justice, die by mob vigilante justice.
One of the reasons that you generally dont want vigilantes running around is that its really hard to hold them accountable... especially when their very name is "anonymity". Of course, the "real" (?) anonymous could just deny involvement, and everyone can go back to cheering them on the next time they hack the current Big Bad.
Re: (Score:1)
It is interesting how mob vigilante justice doesn't seem to occur in places where there is a real functioning justice system in place.
Vigilantes is a symptom, not the problem.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:worst, summary, ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA the complaints of ANONYMOUS are about that. The whistle-blowers are trying to put a STOP to various instances of police brutality. So anonymous is protesting police brutality by posting the personal information of the VERY PEOPLE BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON IT.
something is worst, ever alright. (Score:4, Informative)
According to the second article above provided by krunster, the hackers posted this message with the data dump:
"South African Police Service Web site hacked saps.gov.za database and e-mails leaked. The reason for this action is to serve as a reminder to the government regarding the murders of 34 protesting miners outside the Marikana platinum mine by police. To date no officers have been brought to justice... This situation will NOT be tolerated. #OpMarikanaMiners @domaineranon.”
So in response to the alleged 34 murders, the hackers expose 16000 names of innocent people to "punish" the cops? This would be like punishing Hitler by gassing American Jews.
If even one of those 16K people is killed as a result of this, the hackers become accessories to murder, in my book.
Anonymous didn't make it vulnerable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not this moronic justification again (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because someone leaves something vulnerable does NOT give anyone the right to exploit that vulnerability under some phoney guise of showing them how vulnerable it was in the first place. Thats the logic of the self justifying fool.
Re: (Score:2)
That old man was always vulnerable, it's not my fault for mugging him. If I didn't, someone would.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree Viol8 AND not only that spread that information EVERYWHERE on top of that does not give them the right morally or ethnically release that information.
Not this moronic lack of understanding again (Score:2)
Just because someone leaves something vulnerable does NOT give anyone the right to exploit that vulnerability.
You don't understand. The poor security of the police meant those whistleblowers were already exposed to anyone with a little computer skill. This put them at risk without the whistleblowers even knowing about it. So Anonymous took this public step that, whatever reason they said they did it for, at the very least let the whistleblowers KNOW they were vulnerable.
You're trying to say "Just because a door is open doesn't mean you can walk in". But what I'm saying is there are innnocent people who counte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the risk? (Score:2)
This article completely ignores the big elephant in the room. Why was this information on a server hosted on the Internet? Shouldn't information like this be separated on a separate subnet? It talks about Intrusion detection systems and all sorts of technology to mitigate the risk, but the answer is simple. If your business data is isolated completely from your public facing presence, you need an insider or a physical break-in to be at risk.
Whistle Blowers? (Score:4, Informative)
Look, police informants are not whistle blowers. You may think they deserve to be protected, but the term whistle blower has a specific meaning that does not equate to police informant.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly! that distinction *totally* justifies putting their [human] life at risk!
Re: (Score:2)
exactly! that distinction *totally* justifies putting their [human] life at risk!
Congratulations on completely failing to read the post you were responding to.
Re: (Score:2)
thanks!
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
mod up
Re: (Score:2)
Look, police informants are not whistle blowers. You may think they deserve to be protected,
Look, I know RTFA is not common here on /., but by doing so you make yourself look like an idiot. These people were not "police informants". Here's what the fine article has to say about the people now in danger:
Oh, my God! These people DARED to report their car stolen to THE POLICE! They deserve no prote
Congratulations (Score:1)
how this happened (Score:2)
Was it really Anon? (Score:3)
"The hackers (@DomainerAnon) â" believed to be associated with hacktivist group Anonymous..."
Has a confirmed Anon source stated that it was an Anon op? A splinter group like LulzSec? An agent provocateur?
This reeks of a frame. It's out of character.
Anonymous is a bunch of idiots (Score:2)
They're trying to paint juvenile attacks and posting private data with a veneer of social justice. I've actually wasted my time digging through a couple of their dumps. They're completely arbitrary. I'm sure their membership trawls the interwebz looking for vulnerable systems, and when they're digging around one associated with a "bad guy," they post what they've found and pat themselves on the back. Real social justice is based on a philosophy more distinct than "ooh lookie what WE found!".
obligatory xkcd (Score:1)
http://xkcd.com/834/ [xkcd.com]
i genarally aprove of the actions of anonamouse bu (Score:1)