Not so anonymous ...
... if they are stepping out & identifying themselves.
These kids really need an education about security.
Anonymous plans hacktivism against World Cup sponsors
Ragtag hacktivist collective Anonymous is threatening World Cup sponsors as its next hacking target. Hacker Che Commodore made the threat in solidarity with real-world protestors in Brazil who are enraged that funds are being funnelled into building white elephant stadiums for football's showpiece event rather than much needed …
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Monday 9th June 2014 08:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
I'll be grabbing the popcorn...
To be honest, I'm sick of all the garbage FIFA is pulling off (with this "content exclusivity" racket that they're pulling off in certain countries that ensure monopoly in that only one provider can air the matches, and allowing said provider to torture the competition with the fact. A move which may allow said provider to murder all competition in one swift blow). I'd be interested to see how this one plays out, preferably ending with FIFA weeping with their tails between their legs.
-
Monday 16th June 2014 15:49 GMT Daniel B.
Re: I'll be grabbing the popcorn...
Indeed. FIFA's "content exclusivity" killed DirecTV in Mexico, and left only SKY, which over here is doubly evil as local media mogul Azcárraga (think "Mexican Rupert Murdoch") owns both Televisa and SKY and already had a near-monopoly before DirecTV got axed.
-
-
Monday 9th June 2014 08:58 GMT Stuart 39
Couldn't agree more
I don' think I am the only one that is sick of this big money BS with "Official this of the world cup, official that of the world cup" I did wonder quite how many official provider badges they can milk out. "Official hooker" or "Official bog cleaner".
I am no football fan. I will however watch England play. That said. I can totally see the BS that is going on. It is true that money has ruined what was once a world wide enjoyable event.
Yes it may be me, but I just hate it when big business gets in the way. Same with the Olympics and especially the BS around using the word for God's sake. You shouldn't be allowed to restrict a word that has been round for so long and in such global usage.
-
Monday 9th June 2014 09:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Why are these children targeting the sponsors? they are not the people responsible for bidding for the world cup, winning that bid then spending more money than they had on building stadiums!
What are they even trying to achieve by doing this? Anonymous are the fathers for justice of the electronic world, always standing on bridges in batman outfits instead of actually doing something about the situation. Some people look on and laugh at them, the rest of us just get stuck in the traffic jam and can't get on with our day because of these twats trying and failing to make a point.
-
Monday 9th June 2014 10:49 GMT Jacksonville
Wrong Target, Wrong Method
You're right of course, but they're probably thinking they can persuade the sponsors to put pressure on FIFA to up it's game. Their mistake is that the corporates will do this anyway, or at least eliminate any threat to their investment/bottom line. I just wish Anonymous might put their collective pressure, skillz and energy in non-harmful activism rather than irritating hacktivism.
As an aside I don't think your F4J example is valid. When you get two desperate guys dressing up and hanging off Buck Palace they are doing something about the situation, they are raising awareness of issues which are otherwise ignored in society, law and govt policy. Fatherlessness is a serious business and should receive much much much more attention.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Monday 9th June 2014 21:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Wrong Target, Wrong Method
It pays for everything to do with the running of the event. In the case of the Olympics without the sponsors there would have needed to be a hell of a lot more direct costs that would not have left any physical benefits as the money spent by the government did!
The money for the stadiums in Brazil is nothing to do with the sponsors. They should be hacking FIFA and the Brazilian government if they want to have a go at the right people.
-
-
-
Tuesday 10th June 2014 03:50 GMT Wzrd1
"You're making the classic mistake in assuming that 'Anonymous' is some big sinister organisation..."
Which is why the vast majority of the "group" are simple script kiddies.
Of whom stealth hacking is an unknown art.
Frankly, being threatened by Osama bin Laden or being threatened by Anonymous, I'd be more worried about OBL.
And he's well and truly dead.
-
-
Monday 9th June 2014 13:58 GMT h4rm0ny
>>"Why are these children targeting the sponsors? they are not the people responsible for bidding for the world cup, winning that bid then spending more money than they had on building stadiums!"
They are the people paying for it. At least in a substantial part.
Qatar is a nasty, nasty regime. Repressive, brutal, sexist and homophobic and staggering wealth disparity and corruption. That "popular uprising" in Libya not so long ago contained large numbers of Qatar soldiers on the ground, too.
It's good to draw attention to this and I find it highly unlikely that anything Anonymous do to highlight conditions there will be worse that what the Qatar regime gets away with.
-
Monday 9th June 2014 14:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
"They are the people paying for it. At least in a substantial part.
Qatar is a nasty, nasty regime. Repressive, brutal, sexist and homophobic and staggering wealth disparity and corruption. That "popular uprising" in Libya not so long ago contained large numbers of Qatar soldiers on the ground, too."
This threat attempt (unless I miss read the article) is focusing on the current world cup in Brazil and the fact that the money isn't being sent to the local infrastructure and transport systems. The sponsors are sponsoring a football competition not a country and the money is none transferable between areas. The REAL protesters in Brazil are protesting about the massive amounts of cash the Brazilian government is spending of taxpayers money on the event (a source of funding where the cash IS transferable between football and local infrastructure), they are not going after the people that are propping up the rest of the cash in order to avoid the poor suffering even more at the hands of their government.
-
-
Tuesday 10th June 2014 08:32 GMT TheVoiceofReason
In England we have the Reebok Stadium, The Emirates and a few other sponsored stadiums. There is no Coca Cola Hospital for Sick Children as far as I am aware.
How great would it be if someone like Amazon, Starbucks, etc came out and declared its disgust at its tax avoidance behaviour and declared it would be sponsoring the rebuild of a hospital or even just a school.
I would rather see the picture of a child saved by corporate sponsor's intervention on a pepsi can than the picture of a million pound a week football player.
The Big Society has failed to see any positive response from the corporates other than lip service to corporate social responsibility.
-
Tuesday 10th June 2014 20:49 GMT Matt Bryant
Re: TheDevoidOfReason
".....There is no Coca Cola Hospital for Sick Children as far as I am aware......" You need too be a lot more aware. Coca-cola are quite proud of their charitable work:
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/corporate-giving
http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/faq/community/does-coca-cola-support-any-particular-charities-community-projects.html
".....How great would it be if someone like Amazon, Starbucks, etc came out and declared its disgust at its tax avoidance behaviour and declared it would be sponsoring the rebuild of a hospital or even just a school....." Both Amazon and Starbucks do charitable work in the UK:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/b/ref=footer_community/277-0256750-4937064?_encoding=UTF8&node=2492376031
http://www.starbucks.co.uk/customer-service/faqs/responsibility
You seem to be connected to the Internet, you just seem unaware of how to find information on it.
-
-
-
Monday 9th June 2014 11:16 GMT Richard Jones 1
Festival of Money Not Sport
Let us please be honest. This farce long ago ceased to have any relationship to sport or a game. FiFa have painted themselves as one of the most money grubbing outfits ever and of course where there is money, money talks. Usually where there is too much money it usually manages to shout the appearance of fraud along the way. The only way that this festival of money grubbing and people disadvantaging can continue is to strong arm sponsors to donate I wish the suckers would walk away.
Will I watch any of the festival of boredom? No, I can think of nothing more mind numbing, except perhaps watching a BBC drama production in which the sound is missing!
I have already accidentally heard enough about the mess to last me for the next 10,000 world cups, hopefully this will be the last one carried out under the present terrible arrangements.
-
Monday 9th June 2014 11:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Festival of Money Not Sport
As is Formula 1, Wimbledon and most major sporting events, I still wonder how much profit the London 2012 made and how much extra "on the quiet" funding it had.
And by profit, I mean for the UK taxpayer, not for Bigcorp.com who paid a bit of sponsor money to get back gazillions by being the exclusive £3.50 per can cola vendor on the Olympic site.
Still waiting for the Ken Livingstone £20 Londoncouncil tax addition to be removed
-
Monday 9th June 2014 21:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Festival of Money Not Sport
Try looking at the masses of infrastructure in the train network alone, let alone everything in and around Startford.
The 'Profit' was £30 million but the benefit to the economy was £9.9 billion.
Coke did NOT cost £3.50 a can on site, so stop spouting that bull. Didn't get tickets and feel a bit angered?
-
-
-
Monday 9th June 2014 14:07 GMT Busby
Shaming the sponsors may be the only effective way of cleaning up FIFA. Whether true or not it's currently seen as an incredibly corrupt organisation with completely ineffective leadership. Launching a DDOS attack against sponsors isn't the right way of doing it though.
These companies need to be publicly shamed for enabling FIFA's behaviour so while I salute the intentions I think the only outcome here is likely to be a few script kiddies being picked up.
As I understand it though both the IOC and FIFA are beginning to worry about future bids as countries don't seem quite so keen of flushing tens of billions and re-writing their legal code for the sake of a months sport.
-
Monday 9th June 2014 16:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
The argument that a country shouldn't host a World Cup or Olympics, or have a space programme, because that country also has poverty, is flawed.
Certainly FIFA is corrupt, but it's somewhat doubtful the schools and hospitals would be better in Brazil if the World Cup were not being hosted there.
-
Monday 9th June 2014 20:32 GMT Matt Bryant
Self-defeating?
So, the local Anonyputzs are claiming to be upset at money being wasted? So their great 'idea' is to alienate the corporations that might want to invest in Brazil; get the Brazilian authorities to waste more money trying to defend against their childish DDoS attacks and hacks; and make the companies that would possibly like to use the World Cup facilities after the event has finished (which would make return on the investment that could lead to greater spending locally) think twice about hosting events in Brazil. Wow, these guys are even thicker than the usual Anonyputz norm!
I suspect the reality is these are typical wallflower skiddies that were either too fragile to do sports at school or had no athletic skills. They resent the 'jocks' and their sports and therefore feel the need to throw a tantrum.
-
Monday 16th June 2014 16:15 GMT Daniel B.
Re: Self-defeating?
Why would the Brazilian authorities spend any kind of money defending network infrastructure that isn't even in their country? I doubt the sponsors have their stuff hosted in Brazil. What they do have in droves are script kiddies; most of my lastb entries for "root" or generic accounts like "mysql" come from Brazilian IP ranges. So it isn't even as if they're going to get more "hack" traffic than usual.
Most of the World Cup facilities are probably going to fall in disrepair again, that's what happened after the last Brazil World Cup and that's what's probably going to happen again. The media might not be harping on that, but at least one of those stadiums doesn't even have running water. They set up a big-ass tank to be used for the duration of the World Cup, I'm guessing that tank will rarely be used, if at all, after the Cup.
I suspect the reality is these are typical wallflower skiddies that were either too fragile to do sports at school or had no athletic skills. They resent the 'jocks' and their sports and therefore feel the need to throw a tantrum.
Brazil is basically the football country in South America, second closest would be Argentina. Brazilians are protesting the World Cup themselves, which shows it isn't just the "jock haters" who are mad at the event.
-
Wednesday 18th June 2014 21:49 GMT Matt Bryant
Re: Daniel B. Re: Self-defeating?
"Why would the Brazilian authorities spend any kind of money defending network infrastructure that isn't even in their country?...." I expect that not only will Brazil spend more on protecting foreign companies' network assets in Brazil, they will also spend more on trying to find and arrest the Anonyputzs involved, including - wait for it! - more NSA-like interception and eavesdropping. Oh, what, you thought no-one South of the Rio Grande did eavesdropping? How charmingly naive of you.
-
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
