The State Monopoly on DDoS

One reason I harped on the way Ken Dilanian referred to the “official position” that hacking other governments was acceptable was because I suspected the government does what NBC just reported they do: engage in hacking against other targets, in this case, hackers like Anonymous.

[A] division of Government Communications Headquarters Communications (GCHQ), the British counterpart of the NSA, shut down communications among Anonymous hacktivists by launching a “denial of service” (DDOS) attack – the same technique hackers use to take down bank, retail and government websites – making the British government the first Western government known to have conducted such an attack.

As I noted on Twitter, the report that GCHQ targeted Anonymous should raise questions (that have already been raised) whether either GCHQ or NSA was behind the DDoS attack on noted publishing site WikiLeaks in 2010.

So the NSA (and GCHQ) believe some hacks are legitimate and some are not. But in addition, both are effectively asserting that the state should have a monopoly on hacking, just as it asserts a monopoly on violence. As some of the people involved have been commenting on Twitter, they got charged for DDoSing, even as the Brits were engaging in precisely the same behavior. Particularly troubling, there’s no indication NSA or GCHQ believe they need warrants to exercise their monopoly on hacks against their own citizens (FBI has in the past gotten a warrant to bring down a botnet, so there is precedent).

Of course, therein lies part of the problem: that intelligence is bleeding into law enforcement, and the tools of inter-state spying are being wielded against criminals (and dissidents).

None of this is surprising. It arises directly out of the way the government has gone after terrorists, and this treatment of an IRC channel is directly parallel to the same kind of guilt by association used against terrorists.

Twitter2Reddit0Facebook6Google+2Email

4 Responses to The State Monopoly on DDoS

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner ..hyperbole from Alexander et al); but even if so, hopefully can agree should be better alternative..
56sreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner We prob also disagree about scope of any potential deleterious effects (None established other than..
1mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner My grip is fine, not being duped in the least. Think it is unfortunate our country needed this reset.
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner Fair enough. Good discussion, though I disagree.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner There is no "confession", No witnesses "in open court" and no a shred of evidence he gave anything..
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner Hahaha, what a crock of shit.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner Ot are you using the term more casually and colloquially than treason? If so, pretty loose semantics.
21mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @laRosalind Yeah, it probably won't be an easy transition for him, but Riker will have to make it so. Noise from logging has dog upset, too.
22mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner Also shows you have no comprehension whatsoever of the legal definition of "traitor" but, whatever.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Excellent stuff RT @APribetic I posted a new paper on SSRN entitled: "Internet Defamation: A Canadian Perspective" http://t.co/AdWJFmH02j
25mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner So you self proclaim. Others disagree based on the same amount, or more, "facts".
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PrivateSnuffy @ggreenwald @dandrezner Another "possible interpretation" is Snowden made a joke on deep state apologists that demanded it
33mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2014
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728