Greetings, members of NATO. We are Anonymous.
In a recent publication, you have singled out Anonymous as a threat to “government and the people”. You have also alleged that secrecy is a ‘necessary evil’ and that transparency is not always the right way forward.
Anonymous would like to remind you that the government and the people are, contrary to the supposed foundations of “democracy”, distinct entities with often conflicting goals and desires. It is Anonymous’ position that when there is a conflict of interest between the government and the people, it is the people’s will which must take priority. The only threat transparency poses to government is to threaten government’s ability to act in a manner which the people would disagree with, without having to face democratic consequences and accountability for such behavior. Your own report cites a perfect example of this, the Anonymous attack on HBGary. Whether HBGary were acting in the cause of security or military gain is irrelevant - their actions were illegal and morally reprehensible. Anonymous does not accept that the government and/or the military has the right to be above the law and to use the phony cliche of “national security” to justify illegal and deceptive activities. If the government must break the rules, they must also be willing to accept the democratic consequences of this at the ballot box.We do not accept the current status quo whereby a government can tell one story to the people and another in private. Dishonesty and secrecy totally undermine the concept of self rule. How can the people judge for whom to vote unless they are fully aware of what policies said politicians are actually pursuing?
When a government is elected, it is said to “represent” the nation it governs. This essentially means that the actions of a government are not the actions of the people in government, but are actions taken on behalf of every citizen in that country. It is unacceptable to have a situation in which the people are, in many cases, totally and utterly unaware of what is being said and done on their behalf - behind closed doors.
Anonymous and WikiLeaks are distinct entities. The actions of Anonymous were not aided or even requested by WikiLeaks. However, Anonymous and WikiLeaks do share one common attribute: They are no threat to any organization - unless that organization is doing something wrong and attempting to get away with it.
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 “embarrassing” 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.
Do not attempt to repair your two faces by concealing one of them. Instead, try having only one face - an honest, open and democratic one.
You know you do not fear us because we are a threat to society. You fear us because we are a threat to the established hierarchy. Anonymous has proven over the last several years that a hierarchy is not necessary in order to achieve great progress - perhaps what you truly fear in us, is the realization of your own irrelevance in an age which has outgrown its reliance on you. Your true terror is not in a collective of activists, but in the fact that you and everything you stand for have, by the changing tides and the advancement of technology, are now surplus to requirements.
Finally, 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.
Your only chance of defeating the movement which binds all of us is to accept it. This is no longer your world. It is our world - the people’s world.
We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us…
[ From Your Anon News ]
An Anonymous Message to NATO
Good evening, NATO.
We are Anonymous.
It has come to our attention that a NATO draft report has classified Anonymous a potential „threat to member states' security", and that you seek retaliation against us.
It is true that Anonymous has committed what you would call 'cyber-attacks' in protest against several military contractors, companies, lawmakers, and governments, and has continuously sought to fight against threats to our freedoms on the Internet. And since you consider state control of the Internet to be in the best interest of the various nations of your military alliance, you therefore consider us a potential threat to international security.
So we would like to make it clear that we, in reality, pose no threat to the people of your nations. Anonymous is not a reckless swarm attacking the websites of governments and companies out of hatred or spite. We fight for freedom. For ourselves, and the people of the world, we seek to preserve the liberty granted to the millions of people who have found it on the Internet.
In your draft, you mention the „data intelligence company" HBGary Federal, and how they were hacked by Anonymous. You use this as justification that we are a threat. What you conveniently fail to mention is that HBGary itself was engaged in illegal activity, including but not limited to: being contracted by the United States Chamber of Commerce to spy on & discredit unions and progressive groups, being contracted by the Bank of America to launch a campaign of misinformation against Wikileaks and it's supporters (going so far as to blackmail journalists), developing a new type of Windows rootkit to spy upon individuals, and developing astroturfing software that could make an army of fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues.
That this company which „tries to protect the US Government from hackers" was partaking in such illegal activity against ordinary, uninvolved citizens, whether it be for „the aid of security" or not, is completely disgraceful and utterly unacceptable.
We care not whether the actions we have taken in this struggle have complied with laws of the United States or any other country. What your lot fail to understand is that we live in cyberspace. The only laws that apply are the laws set forth by our individual consciences. We break your nations' laws when we recognize those laws to stand between the people and their freedom.
Anonymous is not simply „a group of super hackers". Anonymous is the embodiment of freedom on the web. We exist as a result of the Internet, and humanity itself. This frightens you. It only seems natural that it would. Governments, corporations, and militaries know how to control individuals. It frustrates you that you do not control us. We have moved to a world where our freedom is in our own hands. We owe you nothing for it. We stand for freedom for every person around the world. You stand in our way.
We hope you come to see that your attempts to censor and control our existence are futile. But if this is not the case, if you continue to object to our freedoms -- we shall not relent.
We do not fear your tyranny. You cannot win a battle against an entity you do not understand. You can take down our networks, arrest every single one of us that you can backtrace, read every bit of data ever shared from computer to computer for the rest of this age, and you will still lose.
So come at me bro. You can retaliate against us in any manner you choose. Lock down the web. Throw us in prison. Take it all away from us. Anonymous will live on.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
[ Via cyberguerilla ]
{NATO} You Mad Bro?
Hello This Is Anonymous... This Message Is For You North Atlantic Treaty Organization... In Recent News On Your Report...
Information and National Security" from General Rapporteur Lord Jopling of the UK discusses the potential good of social networks for fostering democracy, the WikiLeaks scandal, and how hacktivists need to be burned at the stake.
"Virtual communities operating online provide new opportunities for civil society, but they have also increased the potential for asymmetrical attacks," the report says. "Apart from causing harm, destruction or conducting espionage, most recent cyber attacks have also been used as a means to reach, a rather different goal, 'Hactivism' is a relatively recent form of social protest or expression of ideology by using hacking techniques."
The report then singles out Anonymous as an example of this new trend by relating the group's support of Julian Assange's WikiLeaks.But that "info-war" is only the beginning, according to NATO. "Observers note that Anonymous is becoming more and more sophisticated and could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files." The report then explains how Anonymous hacked government contractor HBGary's servers and the CEO's Twitter account. after the group revealed the government's plans to take down WikiLeaks.
You Claim To Represent The Following.
1.Peace And Security That's Our Mission.
2.We Want To Be Sure That We Can Walk Around Freely In A Safe And Secure Environment. Security In All Areas Of Everyday Life Is Key To Our Well-Being, But It Cannot Be Taken For Granted.
3.NATO Promotes Democratic Values And Encourages Consultation And Cooperation On Defence And Security Issues To Build Trust And, In The Long Run, Prevent Conflict.
The Manner Of Which You Try To Push The Pursuit Of Anonymous. Seems To Be More Of An Issue Of Opportunity To Censor Anonymous. Rather Than An Honest And General Concern. All Of Anonymous' Previous Attacks And Protest Have Not Ignited Any Action Against Us From NATO. Though With The Most Recent Attack Of The United States Chamber Of Commerce Website. You Wish To Become Involved. If Your Goal Was To Start War With Anonymous. Then Why Would You Allow Visa, Pay Pal , Master Card And Countless Other Actions To Go Without Prosecution. Then A Simple Website Is Made Unavailable You Sound Your Drums Of War. Be Warned We Do Not Wish This. Nor Do We Want This. But Make No Mistake... We Will Defend Ourselves. We Are Anonymous. We Are Legion. We Do Not Forgive. We Do Not Forget. Expect Us.
9 comments:
Best quote from Juan Cole at Informed Comment:
Americans live in a late capitalist society where the rich have gotten many times richer and the middle class has gotten poorer, where Wall Street bankers have stolen us blind and blamed us for living above our means, where persistent unemployment is worse than in the Great Depression, where most politicians and some judges have been bought by corporations or special interests, where authorities actively conspire to keep people from voting, where the government spies on citizens assiduously without warrant or probable cause, and where the minds of the sheep are kept off their fleecing by substituting celebrity gossip, sex scandals, and half-disguised bigotry for genuine news.
"a campaign of misinformation against Wikileaks and it’s supporters"
No apostrophe in possessive "its".
We are English teachers.
We are reading what you write.
Expect us.
Proofread.
I find it concerning that people are declaring our democracy a failure and taking matters into their own hands to enforce what they think is right. Our government is designed to provide many ways for individual citizens to influence policy and legislation and bring out injustice. I do not disagree with what this group has to say, only the way that they are saying it. Do they desire to be some sort of cyber-Justice League? If they truly wish to facilitate change, they should work within our form of democracy. If they find the system inadequate, then they should work to change it legally.
Anonymous is a Hydra.
In some ways you can compare Anonymous with Al Qaeda. Both are fuzzy organizations without clear leadership but with a message that mobilize people. Both are hard for the establishment to combat. Both are not in control of their individual members.
That's were the similarity ends. Al Qaeda message is tyranny, oppression, violence and terror. The Anonymous message is protecting freedom everywhere and for all.
I'll take Anonymous over Al Qaeda any day...
"[Anonymous and WikiLeaks] are no threat to any organization -(sic) unless that organization is doing something wrong,"
"We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody."
These quotes show just one of several contradictions in the article. Come on, Anon. You've got better writers hiding in that hydra somewhere. The values you espouse are interesting and in many ways based on what makes large parts of the modern world great. But your lack of credibility stems not only from your methods but also from your complete lack of ability to communicate your ideas clearly and concisely.
If you want to follow the ideals of openness as the goal for a modern government, fucking own up to it. The western systems are designed so that the majority influence dictates policy, not "the people." And, it's been that way since their beginnings. The American Revolution was not purely populist activity: it was cultivated by a small, vocal minority acting in their own interests and benefiting many that agreed with them. A similar minority now pines for their own ends, benefiting as many as they see fit.
Nothing has changed.
It would also help to avoid both retaliatory strikes and plea bargains if your goal is to not look hypocritical. Your solemn vow to punish governments and people for using illegal means to achieve some end is in many ways noble and just. But if you do so without doing it "openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty," then you're just another dictator hiding behind a faceless man with a hat (King, 1963).
"If they find the system inadequate, then they should work to change it legally."
How do you change a system bought and controlled by corporations and billionaires?? You tell me how they can change it "legally"? And what about releasing documents of foulplay and corruption is "illegal?"
Like their message says, their responses are more for the information that is being released, than the actual act of releasing information.
These companies & governments are upset that their dirty laundry is being aired out, and they have nobody to target for it.
It scares them. The world is all about control, and when an organization can't be controlled, it's immediately labeled a threat.
Anonymous wants truth and freedom for all. If you like being controlled and wish to continue to be part of the sheeple, carry on and don't educate yourself.
~Reef Ledgar
http://reefledgar.blogspot.com/
While I agree that many of the points posted in the comments here about Anonymous, I wish people would instead comment on why Anon even exists: because there is deception to be revealed.
The core of this problem is laid out in the message. It is groups or people thinking "how can we prevent leaks?" as opposed to simply operating in such a way that leaks will not mean anything. I don't believe that businesses need to lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise trample any ethical standards in order to be successful, but it will take a concerted effort from everyone to make any sort of real change in that system.
As far as English goes -- "Your true terror is not in a collective of activists, but in the fact that you and everything you stand for have... are now surplus to requirements."
Joseph, you can do better than that. They're not actively "punishing" governments, unless exposing information which should never have been secret qualifies as a "punishment." That's not punishing, that's restoring the natural balance. "The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous’ or Wikileaks’ revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations." Get it straight.
Post a Comment