[cpursley]

"We are protecting you from the hacker-terrorists"

Is this not obvious to everyone else as it is to me? People, think about what is happening here and the timing of it all.

This is a false flag operation to turn the public opinion against "hackers" so these crazy internet regulations bills can start passing and so that they can get away with spying scandal.

If these "hackers" taking down social media sites and NYT times were actually the Syrian government, they'd be going after US government targets in an effort to undermine the bombing that's about to begin.

Their regime is about to get bombed. Taking down twitter is low on their priority list. But it's quite good timing for a propaganda campaign against "hackers" and now allows the US government to label hackers as terrorists. Scary stuff.

[anigbrowl]

Is this not obvious to everyone else as it is to me?

Another possibility is that your opinion is wrong.

If these "hackers" taking down social media sites and NYT times were actually the Syrian government

The thing is, nobody thinks the SEA is part of the Syrian government, any more than the Irish Republican Army was part of the Irish government. It's just a name the group have adopted to show their affiliation and make themselves feel badass.

[ryalfalpha]

I don't get your comment?... prominent members from various versions of the IRA are and have been members of Irish governments, see Gerry Adams/Martin McGuinness (Or even Michael Collins if you're talking way back).

[mackal]

Just because an organization has members/affiliates in a government does not make that organization part of the government.

Its like saying what ever the presidents frat was, is part of the government.

[ryalfalpha]

Whenever said members/affiliates are former leaders we're really just splitting hairs. I get your point though, I mistook what he had said as there is no link at all between them. Instead he is saying 'The Irish government never commanded the IRA' which I'd largely agree with.

[shard972]

> Another possibility is that your opinion is wrong.

Another possibility is that your opinion is wrong.

[ilyanep]

> Another possibility is that your opinion is wrong.

And yet another possibility is that your opinion is wrong!

I like this "adding nothing to the discussion" game!

[eshvk]

> Their regime is about to get bombed. Taking down twitter is low on their priority list. But it's quite good timing for a propaganda campaign against "hackers" and now allows the US government to label hackers as terrorists. Scary stuff.

Yes, because the bombing of the regime means that every single person supporting the Syrians is automatically going to focus all their efforts on one single task. It is not like there can be people with different perspectives on how to solve a "problem" with the same common goal. /s

[mcintyre1994]

This is especially true when you look at how fractured and ill-defined "person supporting the Syrians" is.

[rtpg]

Have we heard any government officials calling for any drastic attack on your civil liberties yet?

If you think people can't make the difference between the SEA and people who browse reddit and privacy activists, then you're setting the bar pretty low for the intelligence of the population. Especially considering people are getting more and more informed

Your need for a conspiracy seems pretty great

[lettergram]

I disagree with the conspiracy idea, but from what I've seen the bar should be pretty low for the intelligence of the population (at least in this area). Most of the people I know ignore pretty much everything that has been going on with snowden and as for the SEA, they would probably thing it was part of the Syrian government.

[jacquesm]

> This is a false flag operation to turn the public opinion against "hackers" so these crazy internet regulations bills can start passing and so that they can get away with spying scandal.

You can't know for sure it is a false flag operation, but you can't easily rule it out either.

[mpyne]

It sounds like a religion to me, then.

[jlgreco]

Except unlike gods, we are quite sure that false flag incidents can happen. Nobody doubts that. The very concept isn't what is questioned, only particular incidents.

[mpyne]

I wasn't questioning the concept though, especially as the Nazis used it to kick off WWII in Europe.

But on the other hand, we at least had proof of the false flag attack by Germany. In this case we have, to this point, faith and educated guesses, but it's faith nonetheless.

[jlgreco]

Putting it on the same level as religion is questioning/ridiculing the entire premise, though I understand that you did not intend it that way.

[krelian]

If you think they are so sophisticated to create this false flag operation why are the targets and magnitude of this so lame?

[jnbiche]

NYTimes and Twitter are lame targets? In the US, at least, you don't get a much higher profile non-government target than the NY Times. I mean, if this were a false flag operation -- and I'm not convinced it is -- then the three-letter guys wouldn't very likely chose to target themselves, or other government, would they? They would portray them as being inept at defending themselves.

[krelian]

The target was one registrar and the disruption wasn't anything that's going to be talked bout tomorrow morning. Fairly lame for a sophisticated false flag operation.

[jnbiche]

No, the attack target was almost certainly sites like the NY Times and Twitter. The attack vector was the domain registrar you refer to. It seems very unlikely that the target was Melbourne IT per se. You see how many of us hadn't even heard of them -- hardly a high-impact target.

[Helianthus]

Another way of looking at it: target one decently sized registrar and you'll get a handful of important sites. This isn't big news.

[mjolk]

>NYTimes and Twitter are lame targets?

Yes. A declining media/entertainment company and an advertising firm?

>In the US, at least, you don't get a much higher profile non-government target than the NY Times.

Google, Academi/Blackwater, any number of our oil companies?

[anigbrowl]

Attacking the NYT tells me you just want attention. There are many much higher-value non-government targets who hacking would seriously worry me.

[eli]

See this is why it's a great conspiracy theory. Parts of the attack that are well executed are used as proof that the powerful US Gov't is behind it. Parts that are poorly executed are obviously put there on purpose and thus also proof that the powerful US Gov't is behind it.

[Mongoose]

Is the redirect loop affecting your personal website the government's fault too?

[chrischen]

It just means we need our own hackers.