Attacking The Hacker Hydra: Why FBI's LulzSec Takedown May Backfire

from the top-down-approach-to-a-bottom-up-threat dept

Interesting timing. Just about the same time that we had our story concerning how LulzSec kept its own site from getting hacked, the news was breaking that the key leaders of LulzSec were being arrested, in large part because the "leader" of the group had become an FBI informant after they tracked him down last year. Of the various hacking efforts out there, LulzSec has definitely been the most brazen, so it's not a huge surprise that it would be targeted by the FBI. Also, unlike "Anonymous," LulzSec was pretty clearly an effort by a few key individuals, rather than a loose collective of folks joining and leaving at will.

As I've been saying since these various groups started their various hacking and vandalism campaigns, I think these efforts are a really bad idea, and don't do much to further the supposed causes that they're trying to support. They're only going to lead to backlash, as we're already seeing in government officials using these groups as an excuse to try to make a power grab over the wider internet.

Given that, as I've said in the past, I haven't been surprised to see the various arrests of folks supposedly associated with Anonymous or LulzSec. I expect that we'll continue to hear such stories -- in part because these kinds of stories are likely to provoke more of the same type of activity. Law enforcement keeps claiming that these arrests will frighten off others, but that shows a typical lack of understanding of what's going on. As counterproductive as these activities are, it's pretty clear that this isn't about criminal activity for the sake of criminal activity, but about dissatisfaction with what's going on in the world -- and, as such, the arrests are actually only likely to create more such activity, which is the exact opposite of what law enforcement should be seeking to do.

Not understanding who they're dealing with, and taking a top down approach to a bottom up threat, seems to be a specialty of US law enforcement.

Again, I think that the actual efforts by these folks are incredibly counterproductive and set up this "battle-siege" mentality, when the folks involved in all of this could be much more strategic in using their skills for good, rather than destruction. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the reality of why it's happening, or how it's likely to continue to evolve. More groups will pop up, more hacks will happen and (I'm sure) more disaffected skilled computer hackers will be arrested. But none of that (either the hacking or the arrests) is likely to bring us any closer to actually dealing with the problems that created this mentality in the first place.

Filed Under: anonymous, bottom up, fbi, hacking, lulzsec, top down


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    bratwurzt (profile), 8 Mar 2012 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Welcome to earth yourself. Perhaps you might want to open your eyes and start paying attention, rather than just buying the lines you are fed."

    This from an anonymous coward that bought a lot of lines in an article and omitted one very important word I used for describing Anonymous - organized. I never denied that anonymous is a group. I just pointed out that they are not an organized group - Anonymous is not "run by a very small group of people" and you will not change my mind without some evidence. And no - one FBI honeypot scheme that caught Sabu and a few of his friends is not evidence. He was a part of a hacking group that has a similar agenda to Anonymous and that's about it; correlation does not imply causation.

    If anything - all these hacker groups are probably viewing Anonymous as noobs with LOIC cannons and are not eager to be associated with "noob hacks" and "script kiddies".

    Also - we are not suggesting that Anonymous is "flat and random" (what does that mean anyway? A total polar opposite to a pyramid power structure? We're doing black&white now?) - it's more similar to a torrent swarm with a tracker: there are directives but are handed on in a crowdsourced way in a contrast to the power structure you suggest).

    You see - I don't buy lines;
    I do this:
    1. read them,
    2. doubt them,
    3. check them,
    4. un-FUD them,
    5. check them again,
    6. compare them.

    I admit, it's easier if you don't have to weed out the lies... (A law against lying on the news)

    Now if some media site (e.g. this blog) gains my trust with repeated checks of news sources and quoting them for me to check (which I still do), I'll read that site more often. But if they try to manipulate me (e.g. Michael Moore documentaries - I like his agenda but not the way it's conveyed to the audience) they'll lose a bit of my trust.

    And who are you to be seated high up there and look down on me, telling me what the REAL truth is? I'm from Europe, my 50 liter fuel tank makes my wallet up to 70 lighter (1,343 /liter) and you are telling me to open my eyes? Condescending is the word I was searching for...

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.