bit obvious but aren't hactivists a lot more likely to boast about what they got and criminals keep quiet then they can keep using it...
quite likely, criminals got a lot more thats not been detected yet...
Hacktivism had a massive effect on the overall data breach scene last year. More than half (58 per cent) of data stolen last year can be attributed to hacktivism – hacking to advance political and social objectives – according to the latest edition of the Data Breach Investigations report from Verizon. The figures contrast …
Also the source of the report is "based on first-hand evidence collected during paid external forensic investigations conducted by Verizon from 2004 to 2011". Companies who think a phone company are best placed to help with a breach are also most likely to be the low hanging fruit a bunch of opportunists like Annonymous would go for.
You cannot correctly extrapolate from this data set to the conclusions without massive assumptions.
They are one and the same thing. They are both 'hacking' for personal gain.
I can understand the motivations of the Cyber-Criminal which would be financial. I personally can't understand the 'Hactivists' . Anonymous' only motivation seems to be for the laughs, but they also seem to want to be seen as a social force for good.
I was intrigued by the recent program on Internet Trolling showing the nice folks from anonymous (Dressed in the classic face mask anyway) posting videos of celebratory dances on tribute sites for the dead. How do they equate these two aspects of the legion?
CNN's headline was much more satisfyingly worded:
"Hactivists stole 58% of online data in 2011"
I'm thinking, man, I thought I'd have noticed if -that- much went missing...
Also, to the people bitching about Anonymous - it's not a group. I could say I'm "in" Anonymous and there I am. The more press it gets, the more likely idiots are to claim affiliation.
Some of the collective actions have been naïve to be sure, but the core of them generally seem genuine. I just wish they would stop giving ammunition to the bad guy.
Anonymous not being a group is the reason that I oppose their activities. Whilst there may indeed be a core of genuine nice people, they are likewise affiliated to a whole group of people who's activities range from unpleasant, vicious (see my note about the anonymous trolling videos) to positively dangerous.
The Register article 'ANONYMOUS: Behind the mask, inside the Hivemind' does indeed detail some of the 'Good' things that anonymous may have done. Personally following on from some of the responses I had to comments on that article I remain unconvinced on that score.
I don't think anybody would actually try and seriously argue that the 'Legion' of cannon fodder that also follow anonymous do anything good, at best they are a nuisance, and at worst dangerous.
I can accept that anonymous started out as a bunch of people with a penchant for Japanese porn, who may or may not at the time have had some sort of positive contribution to make. This may be why you delude yourself into thinking that there is a core of genuine people. Personally the actions of the majority far and away outweigh anything that may be positive in the 'legion'.
As of today my impression of anonymous is a cadre of semi intelligent provecteurs herding a bunch of cannon fodder sheep. Most, if not all, of anonymous' activities is counter productive and doesn't do anything 'good' for anybody (well apart from the laughs the 'shepherds' get when the sheep get arrested).
To 'stop giving ammunition to the bad guy' my advice to anybody in the core who is genuine would be to leave. If you must find a 'cause' that has clearly defined objectives.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019