Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government Security United Kingdom Your Rights Online

Britain's GCHQ Attacked Anonymous Supporters With DDoS 133

An anonymous reader writes "NBC News reports that, during a 2012 NSA conference called SIGDEV, GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group bragged about using Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks against members of Anonymous during an operation called Rolling Thunder in 2011 (there is evidence that says it was a SYN flood, so technically it was a simple DoS attack). Regular citizens would face 10 years in prison and enormous fines for committing a DoS / DDoS attack. The same applies if they encouraged or assisted in one. But if you work in the government, it seems like you're an exception to the rule."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Britain's GCHQ Attacked Anonymous Supporters With DDoS

Comments Filter:
  • reality check (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:05AM (#46161753)

    if you're a private citizen, and you get denies service... isn't that more of an inconvenience? it's not really costing individuals millions of dollars or setting them back. if my connection had been attacked, it would be hard to tell if I was being attacked or if my internet connection was on the fritz. really, it's kind of a waste of tax payer money they're bragging about. stupid.

  • by emagery ( 914122 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @01:06PM (#46163485)
    While I understand I am replying to a point of sarcasm, nethertheless we really should invest some time in using words correctly. Terrorists user terror to achieve a goal. Period. Activists use activism to achieve a goal. Vigilanteism may or may not use terror, but it is using directed force (of one form or another) to achieve a goal (in this case, hacking deleterious services in the name of 'justice' as understood by those engaging in it.) Whether justified or not or misdirected or not, it's not terrorism unless the force being applied is terror, and that does not accurately describe anonymous. Tangentially, I wish we'd do the same with words like LIBERAL (to behave permissively) vs. AUTHORITARIAN (to behave restrictively) or CONSERVATIVE (to resist change) vs. PROGRESSIVE (to seek change.) In all cases, the context is what's most important. Are you permissive toward personal in-home nondangerous lifestyles? Well, then you're socially liberal and probably democratic (party) leaning. Are you permissive towards gigantocorporations buying legislation and dumping toxins into water supplies on the cheap? Then you're corporately (neo) liberal. Hell, you have to be both liberal (towards individuals) and authoritarian (toward those arguing to take personal liberties away) to achieve and end... so I guess using D(D)oS against D(D)oSers almost makes sense. MEH! I just wish people would be simple and clear about the labels we through around and understand them in contexts.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!" "Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury