I-330:
> Nel primo caso analizzeremo i dati d'uso di TOR e cercheremo di metterli
> in correlazione con gli avventimenti coevi in Turchia e in Asia
> Centrale. Nel secondo vorremmo presentare la linea d'azione di RedHack
> confrontandola con le campagne di Anonymous.
Intanto ti mando il link a questa mailing list hackademia che sta
discudendo dell'ultima
campagna di Anoymus vs l'Islamic State in inglese purtroppo.
Qui sotto la mail d'inizio del thread.
Cerco di ritrovare un altro paio di link inerenti.
Un abbraccio a voi
Love isi
-------- Forwarded Message --------
To: hackademia@???
From: biella <biella@???>
Message-ID: <5649F6D2.6000207@???>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:31:30 -0500
https://help.riseup.net/en/lists/list-user/subscribing#how-do-i-subscribe-to-a-list
hackademia-subscribe@??? <
mailto:-subscribe@lists.riseup.net>*
Anonymous vs. the Islamic State
This was posted by Richard Forno on this list to another so I thought I
would share. There are a couple of interesting comments that point to a
few trends I have noticed generally about Anonymous.
The first concerns the legitimacy of Anonymous as a political actor (re:
In time, however, Anonymous operations became less about laughs and more
about causes, fighting the establishment and guaranteeing a free and
open Internet). I am seeing this more and more which is interesting
because back in 2011 when Anonymous imho was uber political, many
reporters could not see it. Now they do. Why the change now, really in
the last 1. 5 years, is an interesting question.
This, however, is overblown "Today, in the fight against the Islamic
State, the hacking collective finds itself split by a potentially
existential crisis.." So many ops are divisive because people don't
agree on tactics although it is the case that a smaller class like this
one do create a bit more controversy less so for the free speech issues
but due to the alignment with US interests.
Whatever the case, worth a read.
Paul McLeary | 1 day ago
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/13/anonymous-hackers-islamic-state-isis-chan-online-war/
For John Chase, the breaking point came on Jan. 7, when al Qaeda-linked
militants gunned down 12 people at the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo.
Subsequent attacks by a gunman affiliated with the Islamic State would
take five more lives. Watching triumphant jihadi messages bounce across
Twitter, the 25-year-old Boston native was incensed. They needed to be
stopped.
Although Chase’s formal education ended with high school, computers were
second nature to him. He had begun fiddling with code at the age of 7
and freelanced as a web designer and social media strategist. He now
turned these skills to fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
Centralizing other hacktivists’ efforts, he compiled a database of
26,000 Islamic State-linked Twitter accounts. He helped build a website
to host the list in public view and took steps to immunize it against
hacking counterattacks by Islamic State sympathizers. He even assumed an
appropriately hacker-sounding nom de guerre, “XRSone,” and engaged any
reporter who would listen. In doing so, Chase briefly became an
unofficial spokesman for #OpISIS — and part of one of the strangest
conflicts of the 21st century.
For more than a year, a ragtag collection of casual volunteers, seasoned
coders, and professional trolls has waged an online war against the
Islamic State and its virtual supporters. Many in this anti-Islamic
State army identify with the infamous hacking collective Anonymous. They
are based around the world and hail from every walk of life. They have
virtually nothing in common except a passion for computers and a feeling
that, with its torrent of viral-engineered propaganda and concerted
online recruiting, the Islamic State has trespassed in their domain. The
hacktivists have vowed to fight back.
The effort has ebbed and flowed, but the past nine months have seen a
significant increase in both the frequency and visibility of online
attacks against the Islamic State. To date, hacktivists claim to have
dismantled some 149 Islamic State-linked websites and flagged roughly
101,000 Twitter accounts and 5,900 propaganda videos. At the same time,
this casual association of volunteers has morphed into a new sort of
organization, postured to combat the Islamic State in both the Twitter
“town square” and the bowels of the deep web.
Chase, who has since shifted his focus to other pursuits, boasts a story
typical of those volunteers who work to track and counteract the Islamic
State’s online propaganda apparatus. Few of these hacktivists are
hood-wearing, network-cracking, Internet savants. Instead, they are
part-time hobbyists, possessed of a strong sense of justice and a
disdain for fundamentalists of all stripes. Many, but not all, are young
people — some are more seasoned, former military or security specialists
pursuing a second calling. The oldest is 50. These hacktivists speak of
a desire to “do something” in the fight against the Islamic State, even
if that “something” may sometimes just amount to running suspicious
Twitter accounts through Google Translate.
This is something new. Anonymous arose from the primordial, and often
profane, underground web forums to cause mischief, not to take sides in
real wars. The group gained notoriety for its random, militantly
apolitical, increasingly organized hacking attacks during the mid-2000s.
Its first “political” operation was an Internet crusade against the
Church of Scientology following its suppression of a really embarrassing
Tom Cruise video.
In time, however, Anonymous operations became less about laughs and more
about causes, fighting the establishment and guaranteeing a free and
open Internet. In 2010, the group launched #OpPayback, retaliating
against PayPal for, among other things, suspending payments to WikiLeaks
following the publication of a trove of classified U.S. documents. This
was followed by a cascade of increasingly political operations: in
support of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Arab Spring protests;
against the CIA and Interpol; against Muslim discrimination in Myanmar;
and on behalf of democratic activists in Hong Kong. Most recently,
Anonymous launched a muddled campaign against purported members of the
Ku Klux Klan. As Paul Williams, a hacktivist writer and occasional
documentarian, writes in a colorful history of the group, “Anonymous had
come to the conclusion that they were no longer abstractly playing with
scatology and paedo bears.”
Today, in the fight against the Islamic State, the hacking collective
finds itself split by a potentially existential crisis. If Anonymous
defends the unrestricted use of the Internet, should this guarantee not
apply to everyone, including Islamic State militants? What exactly does
it mean when members of a group formed to flout authority find
themselves sharing many of the same goals as the U.S. government? In
public and private debates that range across cyberspace,
self-identifying Anonymous members struggle to reconcile the group’s
past with its uncertain present. Although some anti-Islamic State
operatives now disavow their connection to Anonymous (intending to avoid
precisely this issue), the distinction is hardly so clear to outside
observers. #OpISIS and Anonymous share many of the same members, the
same motifs, and the same tactics.
< - >
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/13/anonymous-hackers-islamic-state-isis-chan-online-war/
--
It's better to burn out than fade away.
--
"socializzare saperi senza fondare poteri"
Primo Moroni
Ox 44CC 163A
keys available on key-server at
https://pgp.mit.edu/
Fingerprint=946A 499A E30B 78B6 BAE1 F5B8 A03A 5077 44CC 163A
