i911 - Are Hacker Attacks False Flag Attacks to Justify a Crackdown on the Internet?

No.. I don't believe so. There is no shortage of nerdy crackers who get a nice boost of self worth, by breaking into sites with poor security and then bragging about it. While it may end up creating further security, to be honest, it's needed. Security is pretty crappy on the Internet as a whole. They needed a wakeup call, both for their customers sakes, and for our national securities sake.

Hopefully the only thing that comes out of this is enhanced security, and hopefully NOT further curtailing of the Internet in general.

But think about it: There are tons of people who can do what these guys did. Access personal account into.. credit card info.. SSNs.. you name it. But.. they stay silent. How secure do you feel, knowing how easily these guys cracked multiple sites and access personal data? How many do you NEVER know about? Most of the time, the company being breached NEVER REALIZES IT. That's pretty bad. Your info could be stolen repeatedly, and you are none the wiser.

Answer to your thread question..
Yes

Already a Thread started on this subject.

Are Hacker Attacks False Flag Attacks to Justify a Crackdown on the Internet?

Cracking down on the internet would be like eating once and for all.

Don't cloud your minds with such fearful thoughts, there is nothing they can do to 'regulate' the internet.

Since the web is used for governmental, corporate and personal business, tptb would have a helluva time weeding out all the 'necessary' from the 'unnecessary.'

You gotta realize, there must be half the world's population on the internet, and I don't care how sophisticated your surveillance equipment is, you can't stop the flow and exchange of ideas.

I'm much more inclined to worry about things that might actually happen, like another false flag massacre.

Yes it is and Jay rockefeller is behind it.



.....and because of 'Net Neutrality they are succeeding at this....'




Here is a video by Jay Rockefeller suggesting that the FCC do away with all major news channels like Fox, MSNBC etc. and all transmissions that promote a "right wing/left wing" paradigm. This, of course, will include the internet and all free speaking points of view that is in opposition to the governments (or HIS). He says he is tired of all of the fighting and bickering and that the people are begging for channels that just give them the governments (or HIS) point of view.....................because that's what the people want. HA HA HA HA!

Check this guy out, speaking as if he's a champion for the people's rights lol. He really is acting like he is a blue collar worker who understands how "We the People" live way down here. This is a disgusting attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the common man to get him to agree to hand over yet more of his freedoms to these devils. YOU ARE NOT ONE OF US OLD MAN! You are a devil and you cannot have anymore of our freedoms. You stole most of them but we are watching now!

He is using words like "WE".....and ....."US" as if he is just like you and I, the people, he is screwing over on a dialy basis and raping us of our freedoms.
All Rockefellers are an enemy to this country and always have been. they were born wealthy and the very first one became wealthy by robbing banks and manipulating currencies, controlling the oil reserves and manipulating the markets in their favor, and let's not forget drugs...controlling the influx of the drug trade and marketting to the drug cartels what they need to murder their competition and to terrorize the populace, all the while getting the US Governemtn to create campaigns such as Nancy Reagans "Say No To Drugs" and then creating a wayward society that is innudated with their own products that are easier to get than M&M's sometimes.

No one's falling for it OLD MAN!

I agree with Rockefeller in his overall sentiment that Fox and to a lesser extent MSNBC just promote divisiveness. I'm not sure what the answer is but that has been going on for some time, divide, divide, distract while both parties take time screwing over most of the population. I definitely don't agree with Rockefeller's solution.

I will say that Fox shouldn't be allowed to promote their news as "Fair and Balanced", it can factually been proven that it a lie by the kinds of guests they have on (Republican vs. Democrat), the people that anchor most of their shows, the topics they cover, the slant they give, etc. If they called themselves Fox Entertainment, that is one thing, but they advertise their channel as news and that is a very deceiving slogan.

As for the computer hacking, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a false flag operation just based on the number of hackings that have occurred recently and that are being reported over and over in the media. I hope it isn't and kind of doubt that it is but again, I wouldn't be surprised at the same time.

It's impossible to say. The one thing you can say though is if something big happened online the witch hunt would not be contained in one race. Anyone could be taken, no proof ever necessary. If they wanted certain people gone how easy would it be to say that they were part of a group that doesn't entirely exist and there is no evidence of.

Maybe if they want to spice it up cops could say they found a V for Vendetta mask or the movie playing in your DVD player, but there would be no other evidence and people wouldn't really ask for any.

Luckily I think it would be hard to get people excited over an internet attack, unless the net was knocked offline but I think it would be more than a little obvious that no group is capable of that (at least hopefully people wouldnt buy that). There would likely be no deaths and no real imagery to incite people and people would be questioning and not as likely to just accept and hate someone being called a "net terrorist" or "cyber criminal" or whatever.

I always compared terrorist fear to the red scare, but this is more likely a similar scenario as it could be anyone accept the consequences would be a little more grand than being blacklisted.

reply to post by Mdv2


Probably not, as it just unifies the internet community. The same way Batman did for Gotham.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

See do you even know what its about?

Net neutrality was brought up because of internet throttling, say Comcast doesn't like pirate bay, they can chose to slow down all traffic through them to their. If they want more bandwidth they can charge individual websites like ATS to increase the flow of internet traffic.

OR lets say ATS post anti-Verizon information and Verizon doesn't like it, so they cut ATS off. On the surface this is what NN is about.

But like Boondocks said its just a door way into further regulation of our freedoms.

Supporters of net neutrality are against what you're saying here. With your Verizon/ATS example, that is exactly what the NN proponents want to stop. So instead of making sure we consumers aren't getting screwed over by the ISPs, you'd rather them censor and dictate exactly what you see on the internet?

Net neutrality is NOT getting censored or screwed over by the ISPs. I see no evidence of some secret government plot to steal your private information, because they have everything they need already. It's a totally unrelated issue.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade

Or maybe there was discussion of hacking techniques, methods or posts that could be used to aid in hacking/cracking. The terms and conditions are very explicit on this, and if any of that comes out in any discussion, it will likely be deleted.... It is what it is. As long as people stay away from that aspect, there should be no problem here. Boon, you know this... No grand ATS conspiracy here, we all have to live by the terms and conditions we agreed to here. That said, I believe it is possible for there to be an outcome where these hackers can help facilitate a "crackdown" on the internet. But do not miss the potential that there is a much broader and more ambiguous cyber-war going on here as well.

The terms and conditions are explict, but they are subjective by nature. I can link you a lot of things that can be used for hacking, they are tools and it is up to you what you use them for. Even google can be used for hacking, and links to hacking sites.. Is that banned from ats...
What is means is some things on ATs cannont be covered propely, this is an alternative news and conspiracy site which was spawned from the internet, yet you cannot cover the strories correctly. You can link all you want to the mainstream new channels on the internet battles, but you try linking to hacker news or the likes and its down..

Originally posted by arun84h

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

See do you even know what its about?

Net neutrality was brought up because of internet throttling, say Comcast doesn't like pirate bay, they can chose to slow down all traffic through them to their. If they want more bandwidth they can charge individual websites like ATS to increase the flow of internet traffic.

OR lets say ATS post anti-Verizon information and Verizon doesn't like it, so they cut ATS off. On the surface this is what NN is about.

But like Boondocks said its just a door way into further regulation of our freedoms.

Supporters of net neutrality are against what you're saying here. With your Verizon/ATS example, that is exactly what the NN proponents want to stop. So instead of making sure we consumers aren't getting screwed over by the ISPs, you'd rather them censor and dictate exactly what you see on the internet?

Net neutrality is NOT getting censored or screwed over by the ISPs. I see no evidence of some secret government plot to steal your private information, because they have everything they need already. It's a totally unrelated issue.

Finally...some one has has some actual understanding of what net neutrality actually means. NN supports unrestricted and uninhibited access to the net. These guys are attaching a negative meaning to an ideology which is often held by new age technologists and open source programmers. It's the NN laws (if there has even been anything written up yet) which people seem to be worried about, but they are mistakenly fusing it with NN. Just like some idiots probably believe the Patriot Act is Patriotic. It's word play to confuse people.

I agree with the OP - this is all being used to justify censoring the internet.

The tragedy is no-one will notice except those that are already against it, who will just be marginalized even more.

The average person will still be able to trade, watch TV, order groceries, see the news, watch the sport - all through the internet.

Its just that everything that goes against the status quo will be gone and ordinary people won't notice. Only those that use alternative news sites like ATS will notice that they can't access the site anymore.

We will be labelled as conspiracy theorists, terrorists or hackers.

Also, "Hacker" and "Terrorist" are slowly becoming synonymous - after a large i9/11 type event, the terms will be used interchangeably.

To my mind, the overall goal is to make citizens the enemy:

First they came for the foreign drug lords in the War on Drugs. But I did nothing because I wasn't a foreign drug lord.
Then they came for the drug addicts. But I did nothing because I wasn't a drug addict.
Then they came for the foreign terrorists in the War on Terror. But I did nothing because I wasn't a foreign terrorists.
Then they came for the domesic terrorists (Hackers). I did nothing because I wasn't a hacker.
Then they came for me, for questioning the Government on the internet. But there was no-one left to stop them.

reply to post by Cecilofs


The story unfolds as we speak.

IMO i think Anonymous is run by the government as another false flag to shut censor the internet.

It seems like the only way they can work is under deception and violence. Maybe thats because what they are doing is wrong... They must really be that stupid if they dont realize what they are doing.

And if they are really that stupid, why do we let them hold power?

reply to post by arun84h


Yes maybe I wasn't clear, NN is a response to what I said, its the opposition of the internet throttling.

My point is business need to be able to make bad choices like internet throttling with out government intervention.

If your provider throttles go to another provider, you don't need daddy government taking care of you all the time.

Saying that we need more government to protect us is counter intuitive, more government can only limit freedoms.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder




Yes he said nearly the same thing i did...

Yes NN is a response to throttling, thats why it exist in the first place.

MY point is the government need not get bigger, thats what this will do, it will bloat the federal government more than it already is, it will create new infrastructure to monitor the internet.

Let me give you an example, the FCC was started to insure the proper use of frequency, that was there mandate, now look at all the FCC has their hands in, now they are a Moral police men.

SOOOOO where do you think your NN laws will end up.

You argued from a point of ignorance to begin with, you admit that you knew nothing of these laws and proclaim others don't either, I've followed NN since the beginning.

How often does the government do things in the name of freedom that only take them away? Patriot act anyone?