News & Analysis
Anonymous Attacks Intel
Hackers: We intercepted FBI, Scotland Yard call ... A sensitive conference call between the FBI and Scotland Yard was recorded by the very people they were trying to catch, the hacking group known as Anonymous claimed Friday. The group released a roughly 15-minute-long recording of what appears to be a Jan. 17 conference call devoted to tracking and prosecuting members of the loose-knit hacking group. The recording's authenticity could not immediately be verified, and it's not clear how the hackers got their hands on it. It appears to have been edited to bleep out the names of some of the suspects being discussed. Anonymous also published an email purportedly sent by an FBI agent which gave details and a password for accessing the call. − AP
Dominant Social Theme: Western Intel is not only invulnerable, it's doing God's work.
Free-Market Analysis: Anonymous has struck out at American intel, as the above AP story excerpt seems to confirm. Is this a trend or merely some sort of false flag – and what's the import?
We think it reinforces our perception that the Internet is a process, not an episode. And that's a fairly important perspective. It means that the current Western trend toward what we consider authoritarianism may be contradicted by the very technology that law enforcement is using to track the people that higher-ups consider to be bad guys.
Given that there are tens of millions of non-law enforcement affiliated young men (mostly) that are good at hacking and many fewer law enforcement agents and military ops, the numbers are not on the side of law enforcement. It seems to us that inevitably over time more government information will be compromised and publicized.
Most of the time, the perspective of the alternative media is that the Anglosphere power elite is an implacable entity that will use new technologies to impose a total Orwellian state on the world. But this has never entirely made sense to us, simply in terms of demographics.
There are billions of people who are not "elite" and only a handful who are. When an emergent technology such as is encompassed by the Internet becomes available, the human instinct is to exploit it to the full. Here's some more from the article:
"The FBI might be curious how we're able to continuously read their internal comms for some time now," the group gloated in a message posted to Twitter. Calls to law enforcement officials on both sides of the Atlantic were not immediately returned.
Amid the material published by Anonymous was a message purportedly sent by an FBI agent to international law enforcement agencies. It invites his foreign counterparts to join the call to "discuss the on-going investigations related to Anonymous ... and other associated splinter groups." The email contained a phone number and password for accessing the call.
The email is addressed to officials in the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and France, but only American and British officials can be heard on the recording. Emails to the FBI agent and others coded in on the call were not immediately returned, but the discussion itself appears sensitive.
Those on the call talk about what legal strategy to pursue in the cases of Ryan Cleary and Jake Davis — two British suspects linked to Anonymous — and discuss details of the evidence gathered against other suspects.
It is fairly well known (or should be) that Google, for instance, keeps a kind of parallel facility available for US intelligence agents that allows them apparently to utilize company search tools to build a profile for a person. There have been plenty of comments about Facebook being used for similar purposes, and other entities as well.
It is probably safe to say that most or all of the major technological infrastructure has been penetrated and reconfigured to benefit Western Intel. But there is, nonetheless, a corollary to this tremendous authoritarian reconfiguration. It is possible that law enforcement methods now being used in secrecy will become exposed sooner or later as technology expands and adapts to current levels of security.
Over time, as law enforcement privacy abuses become more evident and the number of unfair or illogical laws continue to rise, it is perfectly possible that many on the Internet will find it increasingly fashionable to "strike back."
Why should this be the case? Because as the Internet itself – what we call the Internet Reformation – democratizes knowledge, the Anglosphere power elite that wants to create a New World Order begins to push back forcefully.
It is a kind of circular syndrome. The elites foment war, create unfair laws and generate recessions and depressions in order to keep people off balance and incapable of serious resistance. This sort of strategy works well in most eras. But this is not like most eras. The proximate problem of the Anglosphere is the Internet and its dissemination of information about the Way the World Works to those who choose to look.
The authoritarian tools of the elites are helpless to stem the tide when it comes to the Internet because the 'Net itself acts as a giant magnifying glass, publicizing the very repressive measures taken against it. This won't always be the case, we believe, but it is right now as this young technology continues to unfold. The elites are far better at controlling mature technologies than youthful ones.
Of course, another tool that the power elite uses to ensure its dominance even in the face of a challenge such as the Internet is to create numerous false-flag events that tend to make it more difficult for people to sort out the valid information that resides on the 'Net.
We're certainly not sure that Anonymous, or at least the well-publicized part of it, is exactly what it seems to be. There are aspects of Anonymous that are a good deal too "pat" for us to be entirely comfortable with. But the larger point we're making remains credible, in our view.
The elites can push back in any one of a number of ways but ultimately the weight of this technology may prove too great to withstand. Even were the elites to use the Internet to create military and economic chaos, we think the "order" that the elites are counting on creating as a result may be a good deal more difficult to come by than in past eras.
From the standpoint of the literally millions of individuals who work for Western Intel agencies, the problematic paradigm of the Internet is likely not going to go away. For every abusive sociopath working for an intelligence agency, there is likely a dedicated public servant who believes that what he or she is doing is for the betterment of society and humanity.
But in fact, these Intel agencies at the very top work for the great central banking families that want to run the world. This paradigm, from what we can tell, was developed privately and then migrated gradually to the "state" itself. Thus we have bifurcated Intel ops.
Most personnel are trying to carry out what they consider to be legitimate law enforcement work but at the top, the senior people are enforcing the globalist policies of the elites. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be a problem, but in the Internet era, the steady drip-drip-drip of expanding authoritarianism will gradually raise the level of cognitive dissonance within these agencies.
As the elites take ever-more drastic steps to try to contain the impact of the Internet, they will not only radicalize an increasing segment of the world's population, they will begin to radicalize elements of their own organization.
Intelligence agencies often retain their integrity even when the larger culture is falling apart. But at some point, the same stresses and strains that are affecting the larger culture will become evident within the law enforcement community.
When the larger culture begins to see clearly that laws and wars are being manipulated to serve a larger agenda over which the average person has no say and actually disapproves of, then even those who are sworn to "serve and protect" will become doubtful about some of their assumptions.
Around the world now there are riots and revolutions. Europe, China ... even the US are wracked with social tension and cultural ambiguity. Much of this, in our view, is imposed by the power elite that is intent on creating chaos and installing world government before the Internet undermines the project entirely.
But as the impact of the Internet Reformation continues and expands – regardless of any attempts at "censorship," in our view – the momentum may shift. During the heyday of the Gutenberg Press's impact on society, Europe itself convulsed and the royal family was removed from power in England.
Some of this was no doubt due to power elite infighting but the larger level of chaos, in our view, exceeded anything the elites could entirely control. Various forms of social, economic and cultural enlightenment rose up and were disseminated.
We've dealt a great deal with private justice on this modest website, pointing out that the current "public justice" will be one of the last dominant social themes to become widely questioned.
There is no reason why people cannot resolve their differences without the virtual penal Gulag that the Anglosphere elite has helped develop around the world. Private justice has been the de facto standard for thousands of years, in fact. The more Draconian and unjustifiable the elite's use of public justice becomes, the more it is disseminated on the Internet and the more it builds opposition.
Without the megaphone of the Internet, the elites would apply tried and true repressive techniques with continued impunity and success. But that's not the case when one is in the throes of the world's second great information revolution.
Conclusion: The Internet is a process, not an episode. It is a moving target and while it is roiling the civilian population at the moment, eventually it will have an impact on the elite's intelligence operations as well. Even the elite's vast, intercontinental, neo-Praetorian Guard will not prove immune.
Posted by Gregor on 02/04/12 09:37 PM
You seem a bit confused. I give my perception. You need to gather clues more closely.
Firstly the PTB constantly wind up astroturf pied pipers to herd resisters into honey pots. You are right about demographics, but the PTB have ways to manage it.
The most harmless control groups simply waste time (famously JBS, now Occupy) while evil ones entrap resisters in prosecutable crimes. Now Click to view link has exposed paid actors involved in Occupy. Anonymous is more tricky for the Guy Fawkes mask.
Secondly we know the FBI hires "black hats" by plea to create "white hats" serving the PTB.
And we know the PTB will dress a cop like a hippie and let him live with them for years, as in the UK case.
Thirdly, the giveaway on Anonymous is the mass media coverage. Real intelligence compromises are not "advertised" on nightly news UNLESS they serve the Agenda. Media execs get one call from spooks, and the story goes to memory hole. Many execs are NOC anyway.
Also think this idea. If Anonymous were so expert as to break intelligence agency comms, why not hack the much easier nightly news signals, and give a message to the world?
Conclusion. Anonymous fits the usual "fail upward" power grabbing method of intelligence agencies. The Agenda is Internet tracking and censorship. What national security really means, as you know, is public exposure of state crimes.
So notice: You never see Anonymous doing any such thing. What state crime has it exposed? You see Anonymous "showing off" the "ease" of defeating "homeland security" channels. This well promoted group compels the dumb masses to give the PTB more power to spy and censor. It also honeypots true hackers into serving Agenda while supplying inadvertent self-tracking for later roundups -- quiet ones are planned, no media attention.
Let us not forget, you are soon to be called a "terrorist" by using the Internet to expose state crimes, and your "terrorism" earn a free ticket to Gitmo torture dungeons. Welcome back to the Middle Ages! Criticise the King, get the rack!
Posted by Tazio2013 on 02/04/12 09:01 AM
Several pieces of news about government secrecy emerged this week that show just how far away the United States has gotten from the principle of open government. The secrecy system is beyond control of the president.
First, we got a reminder that there are still 50,000 pages of government record relating to the JFK assassination that are being kept secret, nearly a half-century after that event. That's despite the 1992 passage of the JFK Act, which specifically called for the 'expeditious' release of these records.
Second, the New York Times reported on an almost comically long delay in the government response to a Freedom of Information of Act request the newspaper filed in 1997. A response to the Times request was finally sent out earlier this week.
Any journalist who has attempted to use FOIA - which was designed to open up the workings of a democratic government - knows that the legal requirement of a response to a request within 20 days is entirely perfunctory. I've waited 18 months to get responses to certain requests. And the Times notes that instances of decade-long response times - which can often amount to a rejection because of pressing need for information in, say, policy debates - can be found at many federal agencies:
The National Security Archive, a nonprofit group based in Washington that is a heavy user of the Freedom of Information Act, reported last July 4, on the 45th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the law, on some older cases that were still open. Those included a 1995 request for information on Pakistani surface-to-air missiles and a 1998 request to the George Bush Presidential Library for documents relating to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The bombing happened in 1988.
Click to view link
Posted by pm on 02/04/12 03:01 AM
How about "controllable chaos"? It seems to be the most fashionable social control tool deployed by the elite...
Posted by NAPpy on 02/03/12 03:26 PM
Great article. You should do a series on the "Dark Internet" and maybe interview some people involved in those privacy-making tools. Encryption and anonymity are the things, if anything can, that will keep this information revolution going.
Posted by rossbcan on 02/03/12 02:27 PM
"But larger, undermining trends do ... "
Wasn't disputing you, just elaborating one of your points. It is a fact that "crime does not pay", independent of whether the "law" agrees and since the whole point of slavers is to enslave the productive (only worthy prey) with the inevitable consequence of demotivating productivity, the productive disengage, refuse to associate (no point), and in your phraseology "melt into the jungle", as happened to old South American "civilizations".
This is the feedback control mechanism determining rise (division of labor for MUTUAL self-interest possible) and fall (division of labor for MUTUAL self-interest NOT possible) civilizations:
Click to view link
Lack of civilization (the rules by which we cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest) is what collapsed the former USSR, caused China's ineffectual cosmetic reforms and, IS killing the west. Just another civilization approaching the dustbin of history, for the very same reasons that all others perished: Corrupt "rule of man", ignoring proven reality, constructing fantasy reality, as opposed to "rule of law", acknowleging reality:
Click to view link
Posted by rossbcan on 02/03/12 01:31 PM
DB: "probably safe to say that most or all of the major technological infrastructure has been penetrated and reconfigured to benefit Western Intel."
In a past life (late '80's) as system archetect at a major telecommunications company, myself and peers were appalled at demands originating in spookland that we do just that: implement backdoors for surveilance purposes, not requiring warrants. The threat was, do it, or, "we will shut you down".
I believe a net search will reveal that ATT, etc was under similar coercion, and, in actual fact, all communications is routed through central points, for that very purpose.
By now, every hiarchical "chooser / influencer" of any significance has been profiled for blackmail / control purposes. Does anybody really believe, now that economic opportunities favor taking on the system (a problem begging to be solved) that there is not some very dangerous force inhibiting any insiders who may care to try?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes. Thanks for the insights. But as we tried to point out, the system's difficulty may result from social and cultural trends that have nothing to do with any specific intimidation. Whistleblowers do not cause the collapse of empires. But larger, undermining trends do ...
Posted by rossbcan on 02/03/12 01:18 PM
DB: "and what's the import?"
... duh, a Message: That the IT tools that are being used to impose the "nowhere to run, nowhere to hide" surveilance state are, in actual fact, a dual edged sword, well able to cut both ways.
And, toolmakers always have the edge over tool-users:
Since man has the ability to discover knowledge (relationship between action and consequence allowing prediction) and manual dexterity allowing the working of materials, man is able to use these skills in the creation of tools. A tool is knowledge instantiated in physical matter.
Using knowledge that a bent piece of wood stores energy and sharp objects pierce; man is able to create the bow and arrow. The action of placing the arrow and making the bow taut results in the consequence that the arrow flies when released. Seeking further knowledge of why the arrow does not fly straight results in refinements.
An unfortunate consequence of tools is that, since they encapsulate knowledge which the user does not need (or usually want) to know and knowledge is power, tools give power to those who may not be competent to exercise them wisely. In particular, our declining freedom is a direct consequence of the balance of power between individuals and organizations being altered in favor of those who control technology. Personally, I am beginning to regret some of my past contributions to information technology, just as the scientists who created nuclear weapons were no longer able to live guilt-free lives after these weopons were unwisely used on populations as opposed to a warning demonstration which would have achieved the same results.
Given the power of tools, scientific progress (assuming we don't make ourselves extinct) is a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle. The answer is not to ban tools but to acknowledge that, as inanimate objects, tools are morally neutral and can be used for good or evil. It is the actions of those who choose to use tools, such as guns for harm that should be addressed as opposed to banning the thing.
From "The attributes of Mankind":
Click to view link