back to article Anonymous takes down UK government websites in Assange attack

Anonymous is claiming to have begun shutting down UK government websites in protest of the treatment of Julian Assange. At around 8pm UT, the UK Justice Department website went down under a distributed denial of service attack. About 40 minutes later the Department of Work and Pensions website was also taken offline. Both …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Yawn.

    Oooh, that really achieved a lot! Not. As one of my colleagues pointed out, the typical Anon groupie is just looking for something to froth about, and they even look a lot like David Samberg:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ&feature=plcp

    Yeah, you're so not part of the system when not conforming becomes the trend du jour. Numpties!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Please please please

      Take down the HMRC site for a year.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Please please please

        your employer needs that to pay you correctly.

      2. AndrueC Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Please please please

        >Take down the HMRC site for a year.

        No, please don't. I have a tax return to file. I don't see why I should be fined several thousand pounds just because some jack ass knobs want to prove a point.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Please please please

          And if HMRC site was down you know full well the HMRC wouldn't accept it as an excuse for not entering your tax returns.

      3. Andus McCoatover

        Re: Please please please

        DONT!!!!

        They just sent me a tax rebate. In the form of a cheque. They're useless here in Finland. Now I gotta write to them, and give my BIC and accouunt number for...£30?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yawn.

      I remember when being anon was all about the lulz. Modern anon is not a true anon. I was never really anon (was lurker), I perused the places and chuckled at the contents a good many times.

      The thing about anon of old was its power was down to the fact that if you lived in the UK or USA you probably encountered an anon every single day, at work, school, living with you, etc. Which is where its amazing ability to analyse information came from. They didn't steal it, if you were a girl giving your dog a blow job and you turned up on an anon channel, then it's entirely possible someone else from your school was a member of anon and would provide your information to the hive. If you were in contact with more than a 100 people under 30 at least 1 would be anon or a lurker.

      There was no higher purpose (except to protect cats) beyond the lulz, they shut down habbo for the lulz, they shutdown storm front for the lulz and they spammed Hal Turners site for the lulz. They wanted shoe on head or tits or gtfo. They'd announce you'd died on your facebook or myspace page. They spent the whole time trying to freak each other out, and a "raid" was like an anon day out. Landing on a site and using all that material built up from trolling each other to ruin a site for a few hours before returning to the pit.

      I suppose anon went down hill during the whole "Hal Turner" episode, the first "live raid" and a fixation that they had a purpose. Before then anon believed itself an ocean of piss, and attempts to provoke anon was like pissing into an ocean of piss. They were not "your personal army" and had no interest in the greater issues of the world (except for cats) because, those were the everyday issues of normal life, and being anon was about being a troll. The only reasons to raid were a: they were bored, or b: they'd stolen some memes anon believed were theirs, c: another anon faction didn't want you too.

      Now they have all kinds of causes, and official channels, and leadership they're anybodies personal army. Non of which is really anon.

      le sigh.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yawn.

        One should not be confusing /b/tards with Anons.

      2. EvilMole
        FAIL

        Re: Yawn.

        They didn't shut down habbo. They closed the pool. Even then, their skillz were lacking.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yawn.

        Upvote for truth, downvote for 'le sigh'.

        What do you think this is? Reddit?

    3. BillG
      Facepalm

      Re: Yawn.

      Yawn.

      Seriously, what does Anon expect: "Oh No! Anon took down our websites! We better let Assange go to Ecuador!"

      or,

      "Those dicks took down our websites. Rush the Ecuadorian embassy".

      Yawn, I say to Anon. Yawn.

      1. Semaj
        Trollface

        Re: Yawn.

        Yeah, the best they could hope for would be that they'd (for some strange reason) decide to upload a zip file containing loads of emails from a larger country saying "bust his ass" by mistake. But no one would ever do anything that stupid from being DDoSed would they.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yawn.

        "Those dicks took down our websites. Rush the Ecuadorian embassy".

        Or possibly....

        "Someone's started a fire in the block of flats housing the Ecuadorian Embassy".

        Julian could then choose between choose arrest followed by a trip to Sweden or being toasted.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can't be right.

    "All this activity is unlikely to change the government's attitude..."

    That can't be right. Every other government subjected to these fierce attacks by Anonymous has changed their policies, right?

    Oh, wait...

  3. Blunderbuss
    Thumb Down

    I'd have more sympathy for Assange if he fronted up and answered the sexual assault charges that have been levelled against him.

    Claiming persecution and making a national cause celebre out of his attempts to evade the legal system still doesn't absolve him from having to address the allegations two women have made.

    He may have a point about freedom of speech but what about the rule of law?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What charges?

      There are no charges levelled against him.

      Two women shagged him, chatted about it and panicked that they'd copped a dose off him (condom split on one, the other had sex both with & without a condom). They went to the police to ask them to force Assange to take a HIV test. He is questioned & released.

      Public prosecutor throws out any charges, but looney lawyer got involved (e.g. all men share responsibility for violence against women, so should be taxed extra to provide shelters for abused women) and it all shot off from there. Sweden refuses to question him in London (embassy or Scotland Yard).

      Apparently (according to UK Supreme Court) Norwegian State Prosecutor is a 'judicial body', so why bother with defence & lawyers.

      BTW, from what I've seen/read about Assange he's a twat. Wanted to answer questions too, but still a twat.

      1. DanceMan

        Re: What charges?

        Agreed. Assange seems a twat, but the Swedish maneuvers smell mightily. He must be doing something right to get the US knickers so twisted. Anonymous? Childish.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Yawn - the deniers are out on force..

          I admire the effort, it's just a real shame the facts get in the way.

          There are laws, and there are facts. They make Assange a tw*t who is just a tad more creative at avoiding the consequences of his own actions, but still someone who has to answer for what he has done.

          What's more, he also damages any remaining credibility Wikileaks has, and the attacks of UK government websites just serve to prove what a lawless bunch of oafs "Anonymous" has become (incidentally, those attacks also means that the normal, average man in the street cannot access them, but hey, compliments for at least no longer pretending this is for a *good* cause).

          What we have, thanks to people like Assange, is anarchy. A bunch of unelected and uncontrollable fools who can be manipulated into supporting any kind of "cause" instead of working to correct the law through the usual democratic process so that it works. Heck no, because that would mean caring about others and actually doing something positive and inventive, instead of being an asocial t*sser sitting in a bedroom somewhere "sticking it" to the evil government, yet still oh so dependent on the welfare check (and abusing the computer resources of other people, let's not forget that part of the effort).

          If want to fix things, FIX them. Throwing in windows is doing sod all to change things. Study to be a journalist, but be aware that that is hard. It's not equal to being a blogger - investigation is an art. Throwing a brick through a window isn't, any onanist can do that - and an electronic brick is even easier, because you don't even need to walk.

          Let the downvotes begin, I don't care. I am sick to the teeth of people like Assange and his cronies. Dig me up the backdoor deals about the war on Saddam, and the real reasons for that war (AFAIK it's got something to do with his adoption of the Euro for energy and currency reserves), find out who pcoketed most in wars and economic downturns, DDoS the webistes from banks that do robo signing - that's at least somewhere contributing. But DDoS on a few gov websites for someone who doesn't even have the decency to get himself tested to set a few girls at ease (that refusals is the whole reason this escalated to a rape charge), that is so low from a personality point of view he's not even worth sitting on. And that's the guy that gets "defended",

          Barf. Three times barf.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Yawn - the deniers are out on force..

            @AC 21:48

            Clearly that post was written without reference to (a) the four corners program (b) and of the legal documents or (c) any of the interviews with various participants. The transcripts from the swedish police demonstrate with absolute clarity that there is no case. This is with a very high degree of probablity a set up.

            Your ignorant rant offers nothing new, and demonstrates quite a lot about you actually.

            As for Assange, well, I too think he is a bit of a twat as well, but being a twat is not illegal.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Yawn - the deniers are out on force..

              So, if there is nothing to worry about in Sweden, why hasn't he gone there? EU laws and extradition models prevent extradition to the US. The Four Corners video struck me as very biased. The statements of the defence lawyer have also been disproven in court - Assange damn well knew he was wanted when he left as that same lawyer had warned him (which he shouldn't have, but he thought he could get away with it until he faced detailed questioning himself and realised his phone records would give him away).

              I can tell you one thing, though, Assange better wears a condom from now on (assuming he doesn't end up in jail enjoying a wholly different experience) - the next girls could give *him* STDs.

              1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

                Re: Yawn - the deniers are out on force..

                "...Assange better wears a condom from now on..."

                Until the news today I didn't realise Assange was married and had kids. Why isn't Australia trying to extridite him so his wife can drag him through the divorce courts? Adultary is an automatic "irritrevable breakdown" clause in any divorce law.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Boffin

                  Re: Yawn - the deniers are out on force..

                  "......so his wife can drag him through the divorce courts?....." She's probably happy to be shot of him. Who'd want to put their kids through that type of media circus? She'll probably divorce him quietly in the background, the only fun will be if the press get their hands on the settlement terms and get a real view of how much A$$nut is rooking his Faithful for each year.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Four Corners

              If you are so keen to refer to the Four Corners interview I would suggest that your edited version is *seriously* biased because it focuses on one side.

              Here is an example of missing bits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDCe0Y0Tq4. Notice that this solicitor refuses to answer the many leading questions, and provides the facts as they stand. He strikes me as someone who is less playing to an agenda than practically everyone else in the program and gives very considered answers - which rather punctures the BS Assange (& co) has been spouted.

              This guy is fairly direct.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Yawn - the deniers are out on force..

              Clearly that post was written without reference to (a) the four corners program

              It was on TeeeVeee? If it was on TeeeVeee that's it, the TeeeVeee is never wrong, just like the papers.

              Asshole.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Yawn - the deniers are out on force..

                You may wish to review the court documents here

                http://justice4assange.com/Supreme-Court-Appeal,65.html

                Specifically, the agreed facts here http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

                4 corners is quite well respected in Australia, and in any case, the TV show referenced the necessary documents which formed part of the basis for their chronology. Go read them for yourself, assuming you can read.

                Moron

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Yawn - the deniers are out on force..

                  Justiceforassange.com

                  they'd never have a biased view would they?

                  \ sarc \

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What charges?

        "There are no charges levelled against him."

        There won't be formal charges yet. The Swedish system needs a statement from the suspect before charges are brought. As the Swedish authorities wish to do this in Sweden and Mr Assange is fighting extradition there hasn't been an opportunity to bring formal charges.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Hmmm ...

      looks like the charges were erm ... *cough* *cough* made up by TPTB ... *cough*

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_JnOv1oItY "Sex Lies and Julian" 4Corners abc.au

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmm ...

        *sorry mean't the non-charges...

        Makes you wonder, international red notice terrorist arrest warrant, and no charges ... what could possibly be going on here them? Sounds a little like another Strauss-Kahn setup ...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Strauss-Kahn setup

          What's a Strauss-Kahn setup? A hotel room with hot and cold running prostitutes?

        2. Annihilator
          Facepalm

          Re: Hmmm ...

          "Makes you wonder, international red notice terrorist arrest warrant, and no charges ... what could possibly be going on here them?"

          "red notice" makes it sounds dramatic, but it's what/how a wanted person is described. Thousands are issued each year.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_notice#Notice_types

          "no charges" is also misleading - an arrest warrant is out for Assange (though Assange apologists are quick to over look this and say it is merely some questions that could be done anywhere). Charges can only be laid by Sweden after he has been arrested, pretty much how it works in this country too. If you doubt this, may I suggest reading the High Court judgement?

          http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

          A very good summary of the myths perpetually spun by Assange can be found at the New Statesman ( http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition )

      2. Philip Lewis
        Thumb Up

        Re: Hmmm ...

        I watched the 4 corners show, linked. Pretty musch sums up the case. No need for tinfoil hats.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The thing that is funny about this fear he has of being extradited from Sweden to the US. If they wanted to extradite him at this time it would actually be easier for the US to do it from the UK. If he was to be extradited from Sweden the US would need the permission of both Swedish and UK authorities because we extradited him from the UK in the first place. So the best way for the US to get him is actually from the UK.

      Not only that the that, even if he ended up in Sweden and US requested extradition he's still covered by the EU and ECHR law as he is here so he could drag it on for years in the swedish courts like Gary McKinnon.

      Finally, he should have been put on f**king remand, the man is a classic case for flight risk, did no one not see this coming. The man has constantly moved from country to country has no ties anywhere, he should have been stuck on remand pending extradition.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: about this fear he has of being extradited from Sweden to the US

        extradition is not the only method the US has previously used to remove people from Swedish soil and dump them somewhere else in the world, and Italy has an arrest warrant out for a number of US government employees for Kidnap carried out on Italian soil. Which surprise, the US is refusing to send them to back to where the evidence is.

        The potential for Swedish politicians ending up in the ICC may also have something to do with how they are handling the allegations against Assange, and it is a safe assumption some of our former Home Sectaries have the same concerns.

        The whole thing has a distinct odor to it

  4. Beachrider

    Is Anonymous is beginning to behave like a church?!

    Hmmmm. Faith-based believers that project a set of values beyond set social order. It makes the French tee-shirt activity look like an activity that they sponsored to ensure that their trademark is legally held by an entity that they control. These are quite unusual fellows!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is Anonymous is beginning to behave like a church?!

      I have an acquaintance who proudly proclaims to be be part of Anonymous and takes part in the DDOSes; and if they are all like him It's like a church all right - a fundamentalist evangelical church, where they speak in tongues, handle snakes, do faith healing and exorcisms.

      1. Charlie's Butt
        WTF?

        Re: Is Anonymous is beginning to behave like a church?!

        Surely if your acquaintance proclaims membership of Anonymous then he is longer so?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is Anonymous is beginning to behave like a church?!

          Yeah, he wasn't amused when I said something along those lines. No sense of humour, that guy.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So fucking what...

    see title.

    1. Imsimil Berati-Lahn
      Happy

      Re: So fucking what...

      Praise be to the Anti-Nowhere League!

      ah 1 and ah 2 and ah 1, 2, 3, 4

      I've been to Brighton, I've been to Hastings, I've been to Eastbourne too...

      Beautiful hymn.

      Fair stirs the soul.

  6. ratfox Silver badge
    Facepalm

    How useful

    Why not go for the guys who DDoSed Wikileaks instead?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As ye sow, so shall ye reap

    More Anon members to do the perp walk soon. Is hacking or a DDoS worth going to prison for? The young and the dumb are being duped by Assange, who will also go to prison eventually.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: As ye sow, so shall ye reap

      "More Anon members to do the perp walk soon. Is hacking or a DDoS worth going to prison for? The young and the dumb are being duped by Assange, who will also go to prison eventually."

      "Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war for a lead role in a cage?" (Wish you were here, Pink Floyd)

  8. Forget It
    Coffee/keyboard

    Why don't Anonymous all dress up as fake Assange's and mill around the front door of the Ecuador Embassy.

    Like Iraqi's did for Sadam.

    Like Zemblans did for King Karl in Nabokov's Pale Fire

    1. Rukario
      Big Brother

      Allowing him to get away like Assange pi Britannia.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Dressing up as Assange might mean ALL get arrested. Sounds like a plan. Yes, please do.

  9. leeph
    FAIL

    Poor

    The only thing anonymous are proving is that they're not clever enough to carry out the sort of attack that might actually cause any real damage - like stealing sensitive data from those departments they're targeting.

    OK so they've hacked an online gaming service and a couple of backwater police departments, but is anyone actually feeling like the group is a threat to properly funded governments? No. They're nothing more than a bunch of spotty nerds with cock-rot, seeking attention from anyone who'll listen.

    It's unfathomably pathetic, to be honest. But then so is Julian Assange.

    1. nuked
      Facepalm

      Re: Poor

      Agreed. Assange is doing nothing but destroy any last influence that the world thought he had. As for Anonymous - it's quite difficult to see what taking down webpages is actually going to achieve. Idiots.

      1. Spoddyhalfwit

        Re: Poor

        Assange's influence stems not from what he says or does, but the documents he releases.

        He released video footage of US troops committing war crimes - gunning down civilians and journalists, and from the sounds of it they having a jolly good time doing it too. He has no influence as a person, the contents of the leaks speak for themselves.

        Rather than take action against those that committed war crimes, the US prefers instead to target someone who published evidence of the war crimes. Of course Fox news et al have also done the same - published the material having obtained it.

        1. Miek
          Big Brother

          Re: Poor

          @Spoddyhalfwit

          I'm glad someone remembers what is at the heart of this whole scandal. It really has nothing to do with the "Swedish Sex Trap" and more the loss of innocent lives, such as the Journalists gunned down by an Apache Helicopter.

          1. EvilMole
            FAIL

            Re: Poor

            Yeah, of course, because rape victims don't deserve justice.

            You rape apologists make me sick to the stomach. You think that Assange doing a good thing gives him the right to rape women?

            And that's leaving aside the fact that that Apache incident had been reporting in MSM *prior* to the cable release, and was already under investigation. But hey, that narrative doesn't fit with the deification of St Julian, does it?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Poor

              Eh??!! He didn't rape anyone, and nobody is saying that he did!

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Poor @evilmole

              Where do you get off talking about 'rights' and 'justice' when you assume that someone who hasn't even been charged 'must' be guilty? Presumably Assange knows whether he has raped anyone. You don't.

              Come to that - how do we know what you've been up to? Don't vulnerable sheep deserve justice? You sheep molestation apologists make me sick to the stomach.

              Do you see how it works, now?

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Poor

              deification of Julian... now there's an idea..

              If said "do do" is thrown from UK territory & lands on a person on an Ecuadorian territory balcony, has a UK law been broken & would the defecated need to come out to lodge a complaint?

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: Re: Poor

                "....If said "do do" is thrown from UK territory & lands on a person on an Ecuadorian territory balcony...." One of the reasons the coppers are outside the embassy so prominently is to stop vigilantes trying something stupid like setting fire to the building to smoke A$$nut out. So I would expect said coppers would arrest you for breach of the peace, though whether they would eventually charge you or not is debatable. It would have been very funny if, during St Jules' proclamations from the balcony, some guy in the crowd had lassoed him and pulled him into the street - would the coppers have stopped the act and let A$$nut scurry back up the steps to safety?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Poor

          @Shoddyhalfwit - The "Collateral Murder" video was edited and editorialised. The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher. This was removed from the video hosted by wikileaks, they also published their own comment about what was/had happened.

          Now, I in no way condone the "laddy" banter that was going on in the cockpit of the helicopter, I also have no idea what it must be like to have a job where you have to kill people and how you deal with that. However to suggest that they were just killing people unprovoked and for fun is way off the mark.

          Strangely, considering this behavior, Assange wanted to publish the names including informers, which were in the Manning emails. This shocked all the people from the proper press, who he was dealing with, he is even reported to have said "they're snitches, fuck them."

          Wikileaks serves no-one, if they don't put the whole leak up, and should only censor to protect innocents or human life.

          1. Anonymous Cowerd
            FAIL

            re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

            Except it wasn't.

            It was a camera with a telephoto lens.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

              AC@12:01: ‘It was a camera with a telephoto lens.’

              It’s so very, very easy to be judgemental of soldiers in the front line when you’re safe behind a computer. It’s not you that has a micro-second to determine if that long cylinder is a telephoto lens or a rocket-launcher—get it wrong and people die. Fail to identify an RPG and allow the terrorist to fire it—people die.

              But not you—you’re thousands of miles away.

              The journalists deliberately associated with armed terrorists (two RPGs were recovered in addition to the cameras) in a combat zone—they presumably knew the risks, and they paid the price. Journalists having been dying in combat zones for a long time, including the famous Robert Capa whose luck finally ran out in Indochina.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                "It’s so very, very easy to be judgemental of soldiers in the front line..."

                Not so much of them. More of the fact that they were placed in an impossible situation, where they could either kill pretty much anything that moved or risk being killed themselves. Just like so many other American service personnel going back to Vietnam and earlier. Mind you, no one (presumably) forced them to join the armed forces.

                Legally, neither they nor the people who gave them their orders had a leg to stand on. The invasion of Iraq was a pure, unprovoked, war of aggression - the ultimate war crime according to the Nuremberg Tribunal.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                  Wrong, Tom: the invasion of Iraq was justified by U.N. resolution 1441 (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/17/iraq2).

                  That stated, some question the legitimacy of the UN itself to pronounce on moral matters, given the number of dictatorships that are its members. So one is left with on one side a coalition of flawed democracies versus a murderous dictatorship. Having removed a murderous dictator, the U.S. did its best to leave something resembling a representative government, which has been opposed by terrorists fighting only to impose a totalitarian theocracy ever since (107 killed and 268 wounded in attacks on July 23 alone this year: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/23/us-iraq-bomb-idUSBRE86M06M20120723).

                  The U.S. certainly made grave mistakes, but that in no way justifies anyone cheering on terrorists.

                  And Tom, while no-one forces today’s Americans to join their all-volunteer army—no-one is forcing the terrorists to become terrorists, are they? But they force others to their will—such as forcing the mentally-handicapped to become suicide bombers (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22945797/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/handicapped-bombers-kill-dozens-iraq/).

                  1. Miek
                    Linux

                    Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                    Just to point out, the effective range of an RPG is roughly 200 metres. If the Apache was half a mile away (citation needed), with a fully trained/seasoned apache pilot: I would have thought that the "threat" would be next to zero.

                    Anyone care to comment?

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                      Miek: ‘Just to point out, the effective range of an RPG is roughly 200 metres. If the Apache was half a mile away (citation needed), with a fully trained/seasoned apache pilot: I would have thought that the "threat" would be next to zero.’

                      The Apache crew’s mission was not to stooge around all day keeping out of effective range but to provide support for the troops on the ground, which entailed them flying about an urban area (i.e. with ample cover from view) with individuals below armed with an RPG. Having identified armed insurgents, they seized the opportunity to engage them, not just to protect themselves from present and future harm but to protect the troops on the ground.

                      From article here (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_joe_aviation_071610w/): ‘… the RPG-7 fires grenades with a an effective range of 300 meters against moving targets and a maximum reach of about 1,000 meters. … Engaging from 800 meters away will allow for the 920 meters self-destruct to activate and kill the aircraft.’.

                      There have been a number of helicopters shot down by RPGs, perhaps the most famous being the downing of the Black Hawks in Somalia in 1993, and the most recent being August 2011 (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-12/us/us_afghanistan-helicopter-attack_1_deadliest-month-afghanistan-insurgents?_s=PM:US).

                      This is not a medieval joust or knightly combat where an honourable enemy is granted opportunity to fight on equal terms. Terrorists deliberately bombing schools and markets are devoid of all honour and civilised sensibility (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8399262.stm).

                      1. Miek
                        Linux

                        Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                        Thanks NFI, that made for an interesting read.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                          Miek: ‘Thanks NFI, that made for an interesting read.

                          Wow, Miek—if you’re not being sarcastic (courtesy so rare on internet forums), then you’re very welcome; I’m happy if I provided an informative link.

                          I apologise if the tone of my posts are aggressive—it is frustrating debating those who keep airing points already rebutted, descend into pure fantasy (like AC replied to above and Tom Welsh before him) and whose default viewpoint is that whatever Britain and/or America does or did is bad, but no matter how murderous the other side, they are ipso-facto good by virtue of not being Britain or America.

                          It would be helpful if all of us, irrespective of where on the political spectrum we find ourselves, acknowledge that those who disagree are not necessarily evil; that many or most genuinely desire the ‘greatest good for the greatest numbers’—we just disagree on the methods of achieving that. If we acknowledge that, we just might be able to agree some acceptable compromises and leave this world a little bit better for our having been here.

                          It is both reasonable and honourable to oppose a war, and/or to ask that our armed forces minimise ‘collateral damage’ and ‘friendly fire’ if at all possible. However, going beyond that—as some do—to entirely focussing on our mistakes whilst ignoring or condoning our opponent’s far more destructive and malicious acts is not respectable opposition to a war but partisan supporting the enemy.

                          Everyone makes mistakes—we email/IM the wrong party, bounce the wrong server, distribute the wrong package to the wrong machines, etc. But nobody dies. That our screw-ups don’t kill people doesn’t make us better than soldiers (or doctors or coppers), it just means we play for small stakes.

                          1. Miek
                            Linux

                            Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                            "Wow, Miek—if you’re not being sarcastic (courtesy so rare on internet forums), then you’re very welcome; I’m happy if I provided an informative link." -- No sarcasm at all. Although I do enjoy reading the resulting arguments.

                      2. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                        Transport helo's are not armoured, hence pretty easy to damage.

                        You would need an extraordinary amount of good luck and accuracy to hit an apache in a spot to damage it with an RPG.

                        It's a bit like saying a 50 cal can destroy a truck engine block, and then assume it can stop a MBT front on.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                          AC @13:52&59 ‘…the helo pilot was hovering waiting for orders from higher command as to what to do with the people trying to surrender to him.

                          Source? Where, outside of your diseased imagination, is there any evidence that the armed insurgents were trying to surrender to anyone? Don’t just make stuff up.

                          All they need to do is send a waggon to round them up.

                          Very easy to write when you’re thousands of miles away from any danger. If you had really viewed the footage then how did you miss the radio traffic from ground forces making best speed to the area?

                          Transport helo's are not armoured

                          Wrong. Most, if not all, western military helicopters designed or converted for battlefield use have some degree of armour protection (see, e.g. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uh-60a.htm / http://www.boeing.co.uk/ViewContent.do?id=52284&aContent=UK%20Chinook).

                          An Apache has greater armour protection, improving survivability further, but it’s nowhere near a flying MBT. It’s apparently designed to withstand hits from up to 12.7mm (0.5") calibre—which is far, so very, very far, short of being able to withstand a hit from an RPG (http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/boeing_ah_64a_apache.htm).

                          A number of Apaches have been lost to ground fire, and it appears that one Apache has been lost to specifically an RPG (http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011/09/attack-helicopters-losing-their-touch.html). Once again, you’re wrong.

                          Aircraft are more vulnerable to ground fire than is commonly realised by those whose sole experience of the military is Hollywood and video games—helicopters are particularly vulnerable (British ground troops during the Falklands War even succeeded in shooting down a Mirage jet fighter with small arms fire; altogether three jets were downed by British small arms. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_2-88_chpt4.htm).

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                            "AC @13:52&59 ‘…the helo pilot was hovering waiting for orders from higher command as to what to do with the people trying to surrender to him.’

                            Source? Where, outside of your diseased imagination, is there any evidence that the armed insurgents were trying to surrender to anyone? Don’t just make stuff up."

                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-apache-insurgents-surrender

                            Is merely one example of US Command being caught issuing dubiously legal orders to it front line troops.

                            Suggest using research rather than uniformed bias, it would have taken less than 2 minutes to find the reports of this incident, it was also aired at the time of the leak on the BBC.

                            1. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                              AC @16:53: You are referring to a separate attack from the July 12, 2007 Baghdad incident the wikileaks video is from, that being the event the various previous posts discuss; so my question stands: ‘Where, outside of your diseased imagination, is there any evidence that the armed insurgents were trying to surrender to anyone?’

                            2. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                              Further to the US forces’ February 22, 2007 combat (not the later July 12 one): while you, AC@17:53, describe the orders as ‘dubiously legal’—and as a free citizen of the West you are entitled to express your opinion—what are your qualifications to pronounce on the laws and customs of war to cause anybody to place any weight on your opinion?

                              The article that you linked to cited legal expert Sir Adam Roberts but his views are not unequivocal, Sir Adam noting that ‘surrender is not always a simple matter’.

                              While the British ‘Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict’ (referenced by the Guardian) accepts that surrender by ground troops to aircraft ‘has become a more practical proposition’, it also notes that ‘The rule on surrender is in paragraph 12.64’, which states (my emphasis):

                              ‘Although it is forbidden to “kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”, in air-to-air combat, surrender is usually impracticable and occurs very infrequently. 12.64.1 … the continuation of an attack after an indication by the opponent of a wish to surrender is not inconsistent with the rule in paragraph 12.64, as the enemy pilot who remains in his aircraft cannot be said to have “laid down his arms” or to have “no longer a means of defence”. However, if the surrender is offered in good faith and in circumstances that do not prevent enforcement … it must be respected and accepted.’

                              At 12:33 the Apache reports the enemy insurgents as ‘wanting to surrender’. At 12:35, the crew report that the enemy have ‘got back into the truck and are heading north’. They have withdrawn their surrender and, regardless of the practical difficulties admitted by the British manual, have made themselves legitimate targets again. The legal advice given at 12:36 might be incorrect (a test case is required to clarify and set precedent), but it is also redundant. The successful attack at 13:03 is entirely within the laws of war.

                              A problem with newspaper reports is that journalists are commonly biased and often have a specific narrative to promote. They ask ‘leading questions’ then report it as if a journalist’s words tentatively agreed to were an interviewee’s own and unprompted (e.g. discussion between Lords Gifford and Saville http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103103930/http:/report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/transcripts/Archive/Ts287.htm , p.65). They misrepresent, quote out of context, etc. (http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=1752). One very important question of which Sir Adam’s views would be apposite is: were the insurgents in full compliance with Article 4 (para. 2 conditions) of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949? If they were not, they had no entitlement to protection under international law to begin with.

                          2. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                            "A number of Apaches have been lost to ground fire, and it appears that one Apache has been lost to specifically an RPG (http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011/09/attack-helicopters-losing-their-touch.html). Once again, you’re wrong."

                            The original design specification of the apache required it to be able to take 23mm anti aircraft fire, as found on warsaw pact mobile AA systems (remember this is a deep cold war warrior aircraft), and surprisingly a helo pilot doesn't stay around when being shot at, regardless of what the DoD or MoD have told him about his armour protection.

                            The article you site is highly biased to pushing fixed wing CAS, by talking down the effectivenes of attack helo's.

                            If you are really lucky, you can down an apache (or anyother turbine based aircraft) with pigons by putting them through the turbine intakes, but nobody would suggest that is an effective or repeatable tactic, and the laws of probability apply to anything, if you lob enough rounds against anything you will eventualy get one that goes somewhere damaging, and as what we are discussing is 1st round kill probability, rather academic.

                            The average transport helo "armour" is litle more than spalling protection and confidence sop for the crews. They're primary protection is to not get hit in the first place, hence some of the really "creative" flying done by RAF Chinook crews trying to get troops out under fire, leading to DFC's etc.

                            Fast jets have no armour, and very little inside that reacts well to forgien objects (hence why airfields are hot on FOD), so yes, laws of probability say if you shoot at enough aircraft over enough years with enough small arms ammuntion you're eventually going to get something. If you want to look at an armoured aircraft, look at the specs on an A-10 (fixed wind) or Hind (helo)

                            I would observe that the military frequently overstated the effectiveness of SA ground fire against combat aircraft to infantry, primarily as the truth is bad for morale, most SA ground fire is little more effective than distracting to the inbound pilot, if the pilot has planned his mission properly. If anybody is interested in some colourful first hand accounts of this, I would recomend "RAF Harrier Ground Attack, Falklands" by Jerry Pook.

                            By the way, I have never played shooter video games, but I can explain how to calculate structural airspeed.

                            1. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                              AC @17:46: ‘and surprisingly a helo pilot doesn't stay around when being shot at, regardless of what the DoD or MoD have told him about his armour protection.

                              Well, no s**t, Sherlock. Have you any other pearls of the totally bleedin’ obvious to share?

                              The original design specification of the apache required it to be able to take 23mm anti aircraft fire

                              And various parts are supposed to be able to withstand that, with its entirety claimed to be proof against ballistic impact from up to .50" calibre rounds. All of which falls very short of withstanding an RPG hit.

                              The average transport helo "armour" is litle more than spalling protection …

                              You wrote ‘Transport helo's are not armoured’—not ‘poorly’, ‘lightly’ or ‘inadequately’ armoured, but ‘not’ armoured; and as already noted, you are wrong, utterly wrong.

                              Miek, should you read this and if my opinion is of any weight to you, a good insight into being a military helicopter pilot is gained from Robert Mason’s ‘Chickenhawk’, his memoir of his year in Vietnam: highly readable and not gung-ho. For you, AC, from the book: ‘I opened the left cockpit door. Everything inside looked the same except for the armored pilots’ seats. … The armor added 350 pounds to the aircraft … The ceramic and steel laminations, built up to about half an inch thick, fit around and under the seat … A sliding armored panel on the side of the seat next to the door pulled forward, protection for the torso but not for the head.’ (p.47)

                              Was it adequate? No. It was a messy compromise like so many other aspects of human existence.

                              The old saying goes, ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,’ but your posts, AC, are false in everything to begin with. Although it will not stop you smugly pontificating on what soldiers may or may not do while you remain safe thousands of miles away from any combat zone, will it?

                    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Boffin

                      Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                      ".... the effective range of an RPG is roughly 200 metres..." Wrong. The effective range at which a typical, partially-trained RPG-7 operative will be able to realistically hit a vital point on a moving armoured vehicle is generally taken as being 100m. A properly-trained and experienced operative can hit such targets at 500+m but the 200m figure is used to prevent too many RPG rounds being wasted on long-range shots. If they are using the Russian self-detonating warheads then the maximum range is about 900m, though some of the Chinese versions can be ballistically fired for area effect to ranges of several kilometers. In the 1993 US action in Mogadishu portrayed in "Blackhawk Down", the Somali miltants used RPGs against low-flying helicopters to good effect, and the Afghans had (rare) successes against the MiL-24 Hinds in the '80s with exactly the same weapon. At half-a-mile an RPG round still presents a significant threat to even an armoured chopper like an Apache.

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                    "Wrong, Tom: the invasion of Iraq was justified by U.N. resolution 1441 (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/17/iraq2)".

                    I think you are the one who is wrong. Looking no further than Wikipedia, I find the following. (In case you are still in doubt, "this" is a clear and positive statement by the USA and UK governments that Resolution 1441 in itself could NOT be a trigger for war).

                    ======================================================================================

                    While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

                    “ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2] ”

                    The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

                    “ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3]

                  3. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                    Moreover, no UN resolution (or anything else) can justify the launching of an unprovoked war of aggression. The great powers may be able to swing a Security Council resolution, but that doesn't alter the illegality of the war in the slightest.

                    Literally scores of UN resolutions have been ignored by Israel, and the USA and UK didn't turn a hair.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: re : "The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher"

                Completely missing the context that the helo pilot was hovering waiting for orders from higher command as to what to do with the people trying to surrender to him.

                Higher command said fire, claiming they had council that it is not possible to surrender to a aircraft (despite all the iraqi conscripts that have previoulsy surrendered to aircraft during the 1st gulf war)

                All they need to do is send a waggon to round them up. I would note my personal interpretation of the footage was that the pilot did not sound at all happy with his orders from higher command.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Poor

            " The helicopter was under direct threat of being shot down by people with an RPG launcher".

            More likely a sunshade or a camera or any of a host of things that might look slightly like an RPG from half a mile away in a rapidly moving helicopter.

            So the brave lads responded to the "threat" of this alleged "RPG" by killing a whole lot of helpless, harmless civilians - and then coming back for a second helping of helpless, harmless children. Kids...mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

            In any case, they had no right even to be in the country. Illegal armed invaders deserve whatever they get. And any harm they do, or cause, while there is entirely their fault.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Poor

              Tom: ‘More likely a sunshade or a camera or any of a host of things … So the brave lads responded to the "threat" of this alleged "RPG" … ’

              Fact, Tom: two RPGs were recovered as well as a Kalishnikov assault rifle. So members of that group were armed with actual not ‘alleged’ RPGs. Furthermore, this event did not occur in isolation but was part of a much larger operation and other elements were engaged by terrorists. This all in the midst of a wider insurgency: the same day in other parts of Iraq saw a suicide-bombing of a wedding, gunmen firing on a police checkpoint—also, U.S. helicopters killed five of six men burying a roadside bomb, thus saving uncountable lives (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1).

              Tom: ‘by killing a whole lot of helpless, harmless civilians - and then coming back for a second helping of helpless, harmless children. Kids...mmmmmmmmmmmmm.’

              Two children, Tom, and the soldiers were unaware of them—all they saw was a black van with military-age adults and assumed they were insurgents retrieving weapons and their comrades. When ground forces arrived and discovered the unfortunately wounded children, they arranged their evacuation to hospital, saving their lives.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Poor

                "Fact, Tom: two RPGs were recovered as well as a Kalishnikov assault rifle".

                Source?

                In any case, I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities.

                1. A knight who until recently said "Ni!"

                  Re: Poor

                  "In any case, I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities."

                  Source?

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Boffin

                    Re: Re: Poor

                    "In any case, I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities."

                    Source?

                    ***********************************

                    The "throw-down" stories go back to Vietnam, when the US administration decided to judge effectiveness of the US Forces in combat by counting dead and the number of weapons recovered. The idea was flawed seeing as the Viet Cong in particular made a practice of removing their dead (usually their relatives or fellow villagers) and their weapons from contacts. Indeed, seeing as the grunts were often patrols having to fight their way out of ambushes they often could not gain control of the combat area and return to do any counting until several hours after the combat if at all, giving the VC plenty of time to retrieve their dead and any weapons left on the ground. What made it worse was the added US policy of giving leave to units judged to be "more effective", which meant the grunts, mostly conscripts not sold on the idea of the whole Vietnam venture, now had a good reason to play the system. There are several alleged cases of US patrols buying weapons on the blackmarket and staging ambushes where they fired off lots of ammo and dumped the "throw-down" weapons to make it look like they had just had a successful contact. Administrators eager for good news would then report back to the political hierarchy that the unit involved was "effective". Anti-war types in the US seized on the stories to insist that US troops were shooting unarmed Vietnamese and then dumping "throw-down" weapons to make it look like they had made "righteous kills".

                    Of course, the only problem with applying that type of angle here is the unedited chopper vid footage that A$$nut had clearly shows weapons, so unless "Tom Welsh" wants to contend the US has developed a tech that automatically inserts "throw-down" weapons into live footage then he's just talking out of his rectum.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Poor

                  Tom, do appraise me when wikipedia earned a reputation as a reliable source. I cite a British Attorney General (Lord Goldsmith, QC since 1987, a Deputy High Court Judge since 1994, Chairman of the Bar of England & Wales in 1995, etc.) and you cite a source that can be and is edited by absolutely anyone (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763). Pathetic, Tom, just pathetic.

                  Regardless, as I already noted, some dispute the legitimacy of the U.N., given the number of dictatorships of which it is composed; and as I wrote, the matter is then reduced to a coalition of flawed but functioning democracies versus a murderous dictator. The removal of a murderous dictator is a good in and of itself.

                  As for U.N. resolutions regarding Israel: Tom, I appreciate that distraction is a favoured debating tactic of liberal shills for terrorists and totalitarian thugs, but we are discussing events in Iraq not Israel—do try and stick to the point.

                  The primary source for the recovery of the weapons is http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf. Even Assange has agreed that the group had RPGs: ‘Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG …’ (http://www.thenation.com/blog/167224/when-wikileaks-came-fame-two-years-ago-collateral-murder).

                  Tom: ‘In any case, I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities.

                  You are now writing arrant nonsense, Tom—however much you loathe the forces of democracy, please try arguing with facts instead of simply making crap up.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Poor

                    One further reply, Tom, to your preposterous, ‘I have no doubt that US forces were well equipped with "throw-down" weapons for exactly such eventualities.’.

                    You write drivel like this because you have never served in the military and you plainly have never even read a book on how the military functions. The military is nothing like it is depicted by Hollywood or video games. For a start, it is a disciplined environment subject to strict regulations, and breach of those regulations can warrant extremely serious punishment—and no running off to a tribunal squealing discrimination for soldiers. Privately owned weapons in the U.S. military are subject to military and federal law (see http://svc.mt.gov/gsd/onestop/upload/Appendix%20F_AR190-11%20Physical%20Security%20of%20AAE.pdf): they must be registered and safely stored, and ‘war trophies’ must be authorised. Certainly, a front-line environment can see regulations interpreted increasingly flexibly, depending on the scale of combat, and perhaps a U.S. soldier here and there is slipping away with a pistol. However, there is no way in Heaven or Earth that soldiers are walking around with spare RPGs—it is little short of retarded to suggest that, Tom.

                    1. This post has been deleted by its author

        3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Re: Poor

          "....He released video footage of US troops committing war crimes...." No, he released highly edited video with the hope of extracting money from news media companies with trumped up charges of "war crimes". In reality the events had already been thoroughly investigated and no criminal charges placed. Since the "Collateral Murder" vid was released the World's rights activists and other handwringer lawfare types have been able to examine both it and the unedited footage in detail, and no-one is pushing the war crimes angle because it is patently NOT a war crime. I would suggest you try looking at the footage, reading up on the background, and then try making your own opinion, rather than just being spoonfed one.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Poor

        "As for Anonymous - it's quite difficult to see what taking down webpages is actually going to achieve"

        Same as standing around in some corner waving placards and chanting slogans, only this is the 21st century.

        1. EvilMole
          FAIL

          Re: Poor

          Except when you stood around and chanted, you didn't inconvenience a whole load of entirely innocent people just wanting information from a website.

          DDoS is not free speech.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Poor

        'As for Anonymous - it's quite difficult to see what taking down webpages is actually going to achieve. Idiots. '

        What it achieves? It gives away their positions, gets them arrested.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Poor

      If they went for sensitive government information in that way, how soon until MI5 and MI6 get involved? MI5 would track down the people in the UK using the tool and arrest them under anti-terror laws, MI6 would work with foreign governments and also accuse them of terror related activities to get them over here.

      I have no interest in the tool but did they actually manage to change it now so it hides your IP address totally and utterly? If they don't then anyone in the UK that used that tool for DDOS purposes against .gov.uk may quite soon find their criminal record will alter slightly, then cue #AnonOps demanding more DDOS in defence of their innocent brothers who are being persecuted.....

      It's a never ending circle! I'm going Anon in this post too because almost everyone else is and I'm feeling left out.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Poor

        It's idiotic to think that a DDoS is going to change anything. If you want to get clarity in government than you push for transparency, and don't let go. You don't buy the terrorists excuse, and you go back to basics: you have rights, and any government ability to infringe on their is a privilege you as voter give for very precise purposes - a privilege, the use of which MUST be accounted for (possibly with some delay because the bad guys should not profit).

        But a DDoS is just a temporary nuisance. It's the electronic equivalent of a smelly fart, and roughly at the same intellectual level.

        Oh, and by the way, the moment someone calls me or someone else *Brother* I know I am about to hear serious BS. It's the moment I tune out. I believe in the Groucho Marx approach to clubs: I don't want to belong to any that want me..

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Poor

          "If you want to get clarity in government than you push for transparency, and don't let go"

          Thank you so much for the advice. Could you now please tell me from what specific actions that you have personally done does your knowledge stem from?

          Or are you just another spectator criticising the players? Lousy they might be (or not), but at least they're out there in the field.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Poor

            I actually have built networks, infrastructures and decision models that work. I am actively collaborating on efforts that promote people's privacy (that is, people that follow their obligations) by preventing abuse of anti-terror laws. I do so by forcing an audit trail, yet do not get in the way of properly executed law enforcement.

            I also work on various efforts to improve transparency with law enforcement, and rather than rant from the sidelines I actually talk to people that are in the frontline to see if I can make the job easier for those who do their job, and more difficult who are all too prone to corruption. It's jolly comfortable to rant at the police when you know they can't do anything back, but you should realise that the majority of those people you throw bricks at mainly want to do their job, which is basic law enforcement. You should try a couple of weeks in their shoes - unlike you, they are at the sharp end. They can't run away and call someone else. They are also human - treat them like a normal human being and you will receive a likewise treatment.

            This is part of what annoys me so much. The world is FAR from black and white, yet idiots like you either don't have the brains for the subtlety or are wilfully ignoring it. Either way causes unnecessary collateral damage, which you naturally ignore. I am on the side of the law, like anyone who chooses to live in a particular society, but I retain my independence. If there was even a shred of dignity in Assange's actions, even the tiniest indication what he was doing wasn't 100% focused on self aggrandisement, even the smallest concern he was set up instead of him breaking the law and refusing even the investigation to establish if there were mitigating facts I would have some reservations about the process. But I have none. Assange has made his bed (pardon the pun), now he is absolutely desperate to avoid having to lie in it, in the process making a mockery of the law and the reasons for the asylum process.

            Law breakers (whoever they are, whiney Ozzies running away from the consequences of their actions, MPs abusing expense systems, bent coppers or war mongers) should face the consequences, after due process.

            And you? Done anything but whine a bit on a website?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Poor

            "Thank you so much for the advice. Could you now please tell me from what specific actions that you have personally done does your knowledge stem from?

            "Or are you just another spectator criticising the players? Lousy they might be (or not), but at least they're out there in the field."

            What has he done? Probably nothing. Which means he hasn't screwed around thinking hacking websites, or thinking he's a hero because he goes on self-indulgent protests in a country where the police and courts will guarantee your rights. So he hasn't achieved anything, but he also hasn't become a nauseating poseur. So he's one up on you.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Poor

        "MI5 would track down the people in the UK using the tool and arrest them"

        Yes. The headline looms: "Playgroups and schools are stormed as the security services round up senior members of the Anon Collective."

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anonymous WTF

    Anonymous attacked a lot more than UK websites today. Our company was also put under a DOS attack.

    I can understand that Anonymous have some grudges to bear but they need to realise that behind some of their attacks there are normal people that can quickly come under the gun and pay the price for Anons antics.

    I can understand Anon and their idealogies but they need to "think" a little bit more about the how, who and why that they are attacking.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: *thinking* ???

      I can understand Anon and their idealogies but they need to "think" a little bit more about the how, who and why that they are attacking.

      Well, I no longer understand Anon, but that's because I think your assumption that they actually *think* appears to be overly generous. As far as I can tell, they are no more intelligent that the scripts they use. "Oooooh - a government, me think is bad" "Oooooh, facts about Assange, me think they are lies". They are forced to remain behind their computers because taking a walk would risk knuckle damage through dragging.

      This is thinking at amoeba level. Stimulus; response, stimulus; response. No interpretation or critical thinking in between. And facts? Hahaha. Get real - these get twisted in a way that make even government spin doctors hesitate. Heck, it makes Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists look rational and sympathetic. Well, OK, maybe not Jehovah's Witnesses, although it's a close call.

      I'm stopping now, it's *seriously* starting to annoy me that we have such a massive volume of deluded idiots. May they all encounter Darwin before long.

  11. taxman
    Mushroom

    Anonymous

    meet Prolexia. Prolexia, Anonymouse.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't expect the script kiddies and their masters to give any kind of fuck about how their defence of an alleged rapist, affects anyone else.

    Anon = defenders of (alleged) rapists.

    I knew they'd eventually show their true colours...

    Nice tag you got there guys and gals.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Interesting slippery slope (apologies for the unintended pun). What's next? DDoS justice websites because they have the gal to arrest a pedofile?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Or have a Paediatrician mob-lynched, perhaps?

    2. Miek
      Linux

      "Anon = defenders of (alleged) rapists." -- He isn't even alleged to have raped the women, Sweden has rather fucked up definitions of rape. In terms of UK law, he did not commit rape and if tried in this country; the case would be thrown out as no crime had been committed.

      1. Euchrid

        @Miek

        "Sweden has rather fucked up definitions of rape. In terms of UK law, he did not commit rape and if tried in this country; the case would be thrown out as no crime had been committed."

        Although Assange’s legal team has basically argued that twice in English courts, both times, the courts decided that the one of the allegations would also constitute rape under English law.

        See http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "In terms of UK law, he did not commit rape"

        Where do you people get this stuff from? It isn't like it is a secret, he went through an _extensive_ extradition process that covered every possible avenue which could have prevented his extradition to Sweden. This is all a matter of public record, and if you really care so much about it, it wouldn't have taken any time at all to check whether you were right, or just repeating lies put out by the Assange camp.

        The alleged offence would be rape under English law. Perhaps you disagree with the law, but if you have sex with a sleeping/unconscious woman and she makes a complaint against you, if she can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what happened then you will be convicted of rape.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC 12:39

          "Perhaps you disagree with the law, but if you have sex with a sleeping/unconscious woman and she makes a complaint against you, if she can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what happened then you will be convicted of rape".

          You see, that's the interesting bit. What if she doesn't (happen to) make a complaint against you? Are you still a rapist - or not? Think it through. Suppose she doesn't make a complaint until a day later? A week later? A year later? Ten years, anyone?

          Under this doctrine, any ordinary husband or boyfriend is a rapist if, having gone to bed the night before with his beloved and had sex, he wakes up before her and starts to do so again before she is fully awake. After all, a crime is a crime whether it is reported and prosecuted or not.

          And, by the way, how on earth can she possibly "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what happened", when it's her word against the man's? If they give different accounts, how is a court to decide who is telling the truth, who is lying, or simply whose memory is unreliable?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC 12:39

            @Tom Welsh

            Yeah, I've been thinking about this a bit since doing some reading up on it when this case first got publicity. While I've never had sex with a sleeping woman, assuming the rules on sexual assault follow the same rules I doubt there is a man alive who hasn't technically breached them.

            While I initially took the same line that I think you are - that this puts men in an impossible position - I'm less sure now. As you say, whether she makes a complaint is key. So what you and I as men have to ensure, is that we don't do it to any women who will complain about it - ie only with women who you know like it - with the onus on us to be sure. Which doesn't actually seem so bad to me: early on in a relationship when you don't know her that well? Be careful and don't assume that because other women you know enjoy waking up like that, that she will too. Wait until you are intimate enough to know that your actions will be appreciated.

            Put like that, it seems fairly reasonable. Simply a codifying of decent sexual behaviour, although I do appreciate that there are still grey areas.

            Regarding proof. Well that's the perennial problem with sexual crimes. There are almost never witnesses, so unless the accused screws up it is extremely hard to convict since her word against his isn't enough to cross the reasonable doubt threshold.

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Re: @AC 12:39 - Tom "Abdul" Welsh

            "....You see, that's the interesting bit. What if she doesn't (happen to) make a complaint against you?...." Depends on the laws of the relevant country. In the UK a crime is a crime whether it is reported or not, no-one needs to press charges. If you were to slap your wife in front of a copper the copper will arrest you and charge you with assault even if your niqahb-wearing wife protests to the copper that she deserved it (presumably for not covering her ankles in public). Of course, you would then have to slap her again for talking to a white man in public. Oh, sorry, I assumed from your posts that you were more Abdul from Birmingham rather than an actual "Tom".

            ".... any ordinary husband or boyfriend is a rapist...." Starting sex on a sleeping partner is not the norm. Try a little foreplay, you inconsiderate tw@, apparently it's not haram. If Mrs Abdul then dares to say no it would be rape for you to continue, you can't argue that rubbish line about "there is no rape in marriage, it is a wife's duty to satisfy her husband's demands" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-impossible-in-marriage-says-muslim-cleric-2106161.html).

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tax returns

    Why can't Anonymous do something interesting, like hacking Willard M. Romney's tax returns. THAT might get Obama off Assange's back!

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Assange comes across as a complete selfish twat - I bet he's loving the attention (for the moment at least).

    As for the yet-to-be-filed charges... I think the accusations are all timed a little too nicely. And even if he gets off in Sweden I bet the U.S. will then file for extradition anyway - thus if he ever goes to Sweden he loses one way or the other. Sweden really should rule out handing him over to the U.S. and then we can get on to see if the allegations against him prove true or false. Of course now that it's all blown up as big as it has I don't think anyone can back down much.

    As for Anonymous... well, attacking UK government websites does little in my opinion and if they make too much of a nuisance of themselves then they might find that they are not all that untraceable depending on the level of scrutiny they draw upon themselves.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      FAIL

      > Sweden really should rule out handing him over to the U.S.

      What bit of THEY CAN'T don't you understand?

      Say the Swedes promised never, ever to extradite Assange to the US. He would then be free to commit any crime against US law, even murder, knowing that's he's always got a safe bolthole in Sweden. No country could do that.

      Neither Sweden nor the UK will extradite someone if they face the death penalty., That's enshrined in law, they have alreday said so on multiple occasions. They can do no more.

  15. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    New Orderly World Players in CHAOS bring Certainty with AIDefinite Vision.

    Having regard for the information cocktail party supplied by the US embassy in Sex, Lies and Julian Assange here is a cheesy dip to go with the assorted crackers servered there ……. Synopsis: Added: Jun 22, 2010 1:42 pm 0001- Online Persona Management Service. 50 User Licenses, 10 Personas per user.Software will allow 10 personas per user, replete with background , history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographacilly consistent. Individual applications will enable an operator to exercise a number of different online persons from the same workstation and without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries. Personas must be able to appear to originate in nearly any part of the world and can interact through conventional online services and social media platforms. The service includes a user friendly application environment to maximize the user's situational awareness by displaying real-time local information.

    I wonder if the RAF* are into Ponzi People Programs …….. which is Post Modernism's, Manchurian Candidature XSSXXXX Caricature Project …… or do successful operations in that field lead to the reality of discovering that which is actually leading events and creating the future, and thus is it only suited for master piloting by a carefully chosen few, who would actually be SMARTR Enabled and self-actuating and autonomous anonymous agents of unbelievable change?

    When that is the case, and do not allow IF to enter the equation and dull your senses to render one stupefied and doubtful, can I think of no better reason than that to ensure that those high flyers are given whatever they need, for whenever you can just take it at will, who would be the prize fool to try and deny them their just desserts, and in so doing out oneself as an ignorant tool of a competition and opposition unfit for Future Greater Great Game Service.

    *Or does IT provide it Unlimited Powers in AI Command and Control Wings for Traffic Flow through Virtual Flight Operations Centres in Offices of Cyber Security and Information Assurance, and in so doing create itself a Special AI Service, or is that to remain a Private Business and Pirate Sector Program against which all traditional defence services and personnel compete to fail?

    And that question to …….. well, whoever is responsible for trying to ensure a Right Rollicking Royal Rolls Royce of a UKGBNI lead in Future Events Portfolios, El Reg. Can you identify a name hidden amongst all of those wannabe government puppets and muppets?

    1. LinkOfHyrule
      Happy

      Re: New Orderly World Players in CHAOS bring Certainty with AIDefinite Vision.

      Blimey, that's a big arse link you put in your comment mate!

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: .... Re: New Orderly World Players in CHAOS bring Certainty with AIDefinite Vision.

        Blimey, that's a big arse link you put in your comment mate! .... LinkOfHyrule Posted Tuesday 21st August 2012 05:08 GMT

        Howdy, bold commenting, right royal unruly dude, :-)

        The simple question asked in the paragraph following it, [that big arsed link] is the real decisive game changer, LinkOfHyrule, and its answer with any sort of a cogent parseable reply, or non answer as the case may be from supposedly intelligent and perceived of as being and conceived of to be from an intelligence community with spooky stealthy and sublime secret intelligence services, tells all that real lively and new qubit entangling intelligence communities would need to know about the chosen paths ahead to choose from for field engagements, both at home and away, in national and international and internetional fixtures ...... Intellectual Property Contests in Inter-Process Communications Fields ...... Live Operational Virtual Environment Team Terrain.

        Now let everyone here tuning in to El Reg Universal BroadBandCasting be aware and advised, that it is impossible in and for any evolving smart intelligence system, let alone any SMARTR IntelAIgent System, to have the present remain similar to the past in the future. Please then now fully expect and be thoroughly prepared to accept many new things, completely different from anything you may have known or learned of or experienced before.

        Thank You. Have a Nice Day, Y'all.

        Please put that in the Renegade Renaissance file, Nurse, and please note for absent doctors and wannabe consultants, those meds are magic.

        1. LinkOfHyrule
          Happy

          Re: .... New Orderly World Players in CHAOS bring Certainty with AIDefinite Vision.

          I'm printing out this reply, framing it, and putting it on the wall!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He should get religion

    FSM knows the religious nut-bags can get away with almost anything.

    Let my people go!

    etc...

  17. LinkOfHyrule
    Joke

    I think you are all missing the most important issue at play here............

    And that is, man, that was a really shit balcony Julian gave his speech from the other day wasn't it! It was merely a jumped-up groundfloor window! The Window above it had much better iron work railings and was considerably more impressive! I am assuming the room above is part of the Columbian embassy or something? Julian, you should have sought asylum there mate, their balcony has way more gravitas!

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What, I wonder, would have happened...

    if JA had sought asylum in the Swedish embassy?

    1. LinkOfHyrule
      Joke

      Re: What, I wonder, would have happened...

      Pretty much the same thing but all the furniture is from IKEA so the sofa bed he sleeps on would break after a weeks usage.

      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: What, I wonder, would have happened...

        That's only if you don't keep the allen keys that come with it..

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Revenge against Anon

    Starve them out - DDoS pizza delivery websites!

  20. toadwarrior
    Facepalm

    Anonymous are a bunch of moronic children and ddosing is retarded but come on. It's no more lame than spending everyday in your dead-end job, posting on the reg about how much apple sucks and how android phone can do everything (except get you a date obviously).

    What have you achieved by hating on anon? Are they going to quit? They won't even see your comments and if they do, they'll quite rightly assume it's some overweight forever alone helpdesk slave who is angry at the world.

    Those kids might be misguided and their attacks are mostly shit but at least they're trying to make a difference rather shit their bitch panties about rounded corners every day.

  21. Joe Montana
    WTF?

    Wont care

    The government simply won't care, having some of their websites down for a couple of hours will barely register...

    The only people this will affect, are those who actually need to use those sites for whatever reason.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Do the UK and US governments have something BIG to hide...?

    All the focus seems to be on Assange. The real focus should be on what demons the UK and US government are hiding behind that they are afraid will be exposed via further Wikileaks revelations.

    Funny how they suddenly accuse him of rape soon after the wikileaks revelations. It is a typical tactic of character assasination except that the Public is not buying into it this time.

    Anonymous is playing an important role is helping to expose Government tyranny as is Wikileaks. If you don't understand the role they are playing, then I would urge you to watch the film V for Victory.

    If you still believe the Govenrment is working in your best interest then take the Blue pill and go back to sleep.

    If you feel like they have been gradually turning the screws of of oppression and really taking the piss then take the red Pill.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The film is called "V for Vendetta"

      that is all.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The film is called "V for Vendetta"

        Sorry. My bad.

        It's actually called "V for Verdana" (in the graphic design world).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Do the UK and US governments have something BIG to hide...?

      @AC 07:36

      Dude(ette), you seriously need to stop watching so many movies.

      Remember, your quoted sources are not in fact documentaries or 'docu-dramas', but are works of complete fiction - much like your entire post.

      Thanks for the chuckles.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Do the UK and US governments have something BIG to hide...?

        Are you saying that all the material posted by WikiLeaks was fiction?

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Losing sight?

    In my YouTube videos, over my shoulder can be seen a mask which has done service in protests. But these latest things on-line have got me stumped and I haven't taken part in them.

    If Anonymous wants to stand for freedom; then why isn't it protesting the government to surpress religious influence in society? I read of young people, stuck in religions that they don't believe in, but have no way out. The only difference is that rather than being blackmailed by scientology, they're stuck in the family home, forced to obey the familial religion and there is no respect given to them for their own views. As accounted for in the press, disobediance of the parents can, on rare occasion, even result in death. A climate of fear, in the West, is what we seem to have come down to.

    If they attack the wrong sites, then they could be really hurting people who need them; job hunting, benefits, critical things that the every day person relies upon should be avoided at all costs and I believe that Anon knows enough to keep the more enthusiastic members away from these types of sites.

    It is encouraging to hear of the next generation facing up to their parents views on things like arranged marriage, but there is much to be done yet in order to ensure that freedom of religion is properly enforced in this country and that ... I believe ... would be a fight worth dusting off the mask for.

    Anon - for what it represented - not to actually remain anonymous. msknight

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More cash please!

    DoS attacks against government websites? Fantastic news - all the more money for us in the big tax avoiding corporations that maintain and support these websites which equals less money for the little people. Good work Anon - I'll raise a glass oe two of Moet to you later, and at your expense.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: More cash please!

      Fantastic news? No, actually. Yesterday I had to pay my car tax, I wouldn't have been able to do so were the web site not up. government web sites make society run more smoothly, Anonymous don't seem to realise that they are antagonising anyone who uses the web sits, far more than the government.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: More cash please!

        Are you american? You don't think there was a hint of irony in that post?

  25. Robinson
    Thumb Down

    What a cock.

    Assange, the vainglorious little ****ck, really needs to grow a pair. Yes, Ecuador and all of those other South American countries he's thanked are well known for their various stances on Human Rights, aren't they!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What a cock.

      Given a choice, I'd take my chances in the Chilean justice system rather than the US or Swedish ones any day. Check out the stats on things like corruption, civil rights and so forth - Chile is considered way less corrupt than the US, and its justice system is better at ensuring civil rights than Sweden (which doesn't even have jury trial FFS).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What a cock.

        "Given a choice, I'd take my chances in the Chilean justice system rather than the US or Swedish ones any day."

        What has Chile got to do with this? He's not even holed up in their embassy!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What a cock.

          He said "Ecuador and all of those other South American countries". Last time I checked, Chile was one of those South American countries.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What a cock.

        Jury trial isn't the be all and end all of justice, there are many different ways of conducting a trial. The adverserial and inquisitive systems are just two.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What a cock.

          Jury trial isn't the be all and end all of justice, there are many different ways of conducting a trial. The adverserial and inquisitive systems are just two.

          The Swedish judicial system has produced a number of politically biased judgements that have been the cause of scandals within Sweden and concern from organisations like Amnesty. In the specific case of Assange, the initial investigation was flawed (the investigating officer new one of the complainants personally), then the case was dropped only to be reopened under political interference that goes against Swedish law. The Swedish prosecutor has also refused to interview Assange in London - where he had travelled to with consent from the Swedish authorities - which is in violation of the procedures set out for the European Arrest Warrant. At the very least, why has the Swedish prosecutor not interviewed Assange in London when he has repeatedly stated that is something he is willing to do?

  26. fixit_f
    FAIL

    DDOS

    Well fuck me, how sophisticated of them. Twats.

  27. Mnot Paranoid
    Pint

    Here's a thought...

    We should just let Assange piss off to Ecuador with impunity so he can go and fiddle with his little Wiki and listen to pan-pipe moods.

    Sure, it might create a little diplomatic spat with Sweden, but what are they going to do? Close down all the IKEAs in protest. I can't imagine why any right-thinking person in this country wouldn't breathe a huge sigh of relief at seeing the back of those divorce-enablers.

    All those police in Knightsbridge and go back to more important work too.

    It's a Win-Win-Win.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I have a tiny, but annoying question..

    Given Assange's habit to cr*p from a great height on those who help him (for instance, the celebs he convinced to pay his bail), how long will it take Wikileaks to start leaking documents of the Ecuadorian government?

    Or was that the deal with Assange? Keep one of the more well documented regimes with a "creative" approach to Human Rights off the radar? Has the Equadorian ambassador been appraised of Assange's habit of turning on anyone if he thinks it helps him?

    Enquiring minds want to know. You know, in the interest of transparency and all that ..

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: I have a tiny, but annoying question..

      Which leads to another interesting question.

      Have the embassy let him on their network? I'm not sure I'd want to give Julian Assange access to any computer I use, and remember he sleeps there overnight, so could be getting up to all sorts of stuff while the place is empty. Bad enough if he's got access to your network, worse if he's downloading those photos of the wife off the ambassadorial laptop.

      Soon we really will get to learn where the ambassador keeps his Ferrero Rocher...

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh no! I can't get on the UK Justice Department website?! What shall I do?

  30. Mike Richards

    'Yesterday Assange addressed supporters from the embassy, looking not a little like Graham Chapman in Life of Brian.'

    More like late 1970s John Inman.

  31. A 3
    Stop

    Vigilantes

    Anonymous are simply vigilantes. I’m sure that they think what they are doing is justified, but I’m also sure that the KKK thought stringing up black men for looking at white women was justified. Your morals, whatever they say, are subjective and if you act as judge, jury and executioner in enforcing them on others, in contravention of democratically mandated law, you are basically evil.

    Anonymous might start with just taking down web sites but give them time and enough self-righteous bile, and they will be running about with ropes, masks and burning torches.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just pissin' up a rope

    Anon is hopeless and clueless. Do they actually believe they are gaining some legitimacy or imposing their wrath on the UK gov with such childish behavior? All they are doing is giving authorities an opportunity to place these social rejects in prison where they belong.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It seems that part of the reason

    For Assange being hounded mercilessly by the 'merkins is that he has the key to an archive of nearly 700GB of data detailing everything that went on in Area 51 aka Nellis AFB from 1945 onwards.

    Including:- Project Paperclip, all the reverse engineered tech recovered from the German research labs including "Die Glocke" and working but-flaky prototype of the Haunebu, to the original autopsy tapes from the Roswell crash, Tunguska, Wow! signal origin and a few other goodies to boot.

    Needless to say when this little gem hits the Net there will be serious questions asked as to why the public wasn't told about this, possibly leading to the Obama administration and others being dismantled.

    AC 11A2B3d

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Facepalm

      Re: It seems that part of the reason

      Seriously? Yeah, they're hounding him mercilessly... you can barely move in Britain anymore for all the CIA/FBI/NSA agents and all their black helicopters, not to mention the American Military armoured vehicles which are lining the streets of London.

      When will you conspiracy nuts get a clue? If America wanted Assange they'd already have him.

      If America wanted Assange they wouldn't want him being extradited to Sweden, because it's easier for them to get him from the UK.

      If America wanted Assange the Southern American continent isn't the place to try and hide from them.

      Are you getting this? Can you not see the idiocy of the conspiracy theories he has you all believing? Are you really going to continue being gullible enough to believe that the best way to avoid being got by America, is to flee to countries that have extradition treaties with America? Like both the UK and Ecuador.

      When are you all going to start applying your own reasoning to the things Mr Assange has actually done?

      When are you all start wondering why, if he is fleeing the nasty Americans, he didn't flee to a country where it would be hard for them to get him? Somewhere close to Sweden where he originally fled from, say like Russia, or the Ukraine.

      What we really want is for one or two of you to reassure us all that you're not just going around like an armed gang launching denial of service attacks against all and sundry without actually considering the reasoning and actions behind that which you're leaping to defend, and I'm afraid right now, you're not doing a very convincing job of that.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Assange and Anon to due prison together

    They can tell "war stories" in prison on how they fought the law and the law won - like most dumbarse prisoners in denial. All of the bleeding hearts who think Assange is some hero are about to have their fantasy world shattered. Reality can be a real bitch when you live your life in denial. Ask Assange and those Anon members who have already been convicted.

  35. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Alien Rules of Engagement ..... Never Ever Engage as an Enemy, Friendly AI Fields*

    Knock, knock, MOD/JIC/PRC/FSB/Ecuador. Is there anybody in there?…….. Do you wanna play and kick ass with these boys and their gals ……. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/plan-x/ ……. with those toys as floated and advised earlier as being available to real presidential material bodies** for any and all realms of universal and unilateral virtual defence, which are only ever effective whenever all lines of unstoppable attack, and systemic vulnerabilities for zeroday export and exploitation, are known indefensibles. Then are they also deliciously tempting and obscenely lucrative vectors for metadatabase mining/IntelAIgent Raw Asset Enrichment for Programming Projects in Future Events which might even be considered and classified as possibly problematic and therefore probably private and piratical pogrom information.

    Or is Virtual Ignorance of Stealthy Sublime and Supreme Cyber Command and Creative Control of Computers Communicating, the chosen default Status Quo Public Service Position, which would then extraordinarily render to Private and Pirate Sectors, HyperRadioProActive IT Lead in the Live Operational Virtual Environment Field?

    * All Alien Field Rules reduce and concentrate to that one Particular and Peculiar Specific Advisory APT Warning

    ** You do know who Renegade and Renaissance are, in the virtually real world of television and media manipulation of poorly executed and badly directly events reported as news in current affairs tales/presentations of politically perverted and subverted programs?

    Answers below please ..... to show that you may know how to Google and search for information and intelligence with engines?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019