Post by samiul22522 on Oct 26, 2024 10:14:29 GMT
The Ukrainian government, through its Minister of Digital Transformation, has launched an army of cyber volunteers that would include some 300,000 people.
Of all of them, it is not known how many are really active hackers and how many are simply curious. Through the Telegram network , the targets to be taken down are marked and the strategy is generally based on carrying out DDoS or denial of service attacks . That is, thousands of access requests are made simultaneously until the capacities of the server hosting a particular web page are exceeded .
But just a few days before Ukrainian Minister Fedorov launched his digital war , the international collective Anonymous had already begun boycotting Russian websites and television channels.
And while being against Vladimir mobile app development service Putin may seem like an excellent idea today, the fact that this digital war strategy involves organizations that are essentially based on complete anonymity could also end up being a rather dangerous maneuver.
Who is Anonymous?
Before we focus on the present, let's take a step back from this whole story. Who is really behind this group that calls itself Anonymous ?
According to Wikipedia , Anonymous is “a pseudonym used worldwide by different individuals and groups to carry out, in their own name — in agreement with others — individual or concerted actions or publications, mainly cyber attacks against governments, corporations, institutions and government agencies.”
Anonymous is a group without a fixed structure; there are no official spokespersons or management. From this anonymity, which they use to protect themselves and even to name themselves, the group opens up a cyberspace free of laws in which they can also resort to illegal means without having to fear direct criminal prosecution, even if investigations are opened, such as the one launched by the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Office for Information Security after the attack on the German subsidiary of the Russian oil company Rosnef.
Do you like this article?
Enfusion can help you with your Content Marketing strategy.
CONTACT US!
Anonymous is an opaque entity
And that is precisely the great problem with Anonymous , its total and complete opacity. We do not know which specific individuals or groups are pulling the strings. What is more, no one even knows what their real motives are. This makes this group also unpredictable and, therefore, it could torpedo at any time and in an unexpected way the fragile periods of ceasefire, peace negotiations or decisions in times of war or crisis.
Anonymous may have been on the right side of history so far, but that is no guarantee for the future. They themselves have acknowledged on their networks that at some point they could be used as pawns by any government, even the Russian or the US.
The network is moving faster than legislation
We all know that the digital world is moving faster than the legislation that should regulate it, and this was made clear to Mark Zuckerberg when, after almost fifteen years operating in Europe, he threatened to shut down his social networks in view of the new Digital Services Act (DSA) that the EU intends to implement soon.
Similarly, in a new way of dealing with armed conflicts, on February 24, the Anonymous collective officially declared cyber war on Russia . Although it did not use any of Meta 's social networks , which are progressively blocked in the country, but instead did so through Twitter .
Anonymous ' entry into the fray has been widely acclaimed and, as we have seen, replicated within a few days by the Ukrainian government itself. Thousands of people share their tweets, give them "likes", thank them for their incursion or even propose new targets through the networks.
What Vladimir Putin is doing to the Ukrainian people makes the expressions of joy and encouragement of thousands of Internet users to Anonymous more than understandable . But perhaps we should consider how dangerous Anonymous ' actions can be and whether they could, in the end, go against everything that our democratic system stands for.
Should the law of the strongest win?
There is a reason why democratic states clearly define what the executive, legislative and judicial branches can and cannot do. This principle prevents only the law of the strongest from being applied. But this is exactly how Anonymous operates : regardless of the applicable law, whatever is deemed right is enforced with all available means. You could say that they exist within a constant state of all-out war.
And there are no guarantees that the people behind these armies of cyber volunteers won't change their goals one day and be on the other side. That good intentions alone cannot be relied upon is something we can currently see in Vladimir Putin , who has casually ignored several agreements at the same time. Good words can often be nothing more than lies.
The war of disinformation
Before reaching a real war situation, with armed clashes between armies (and against civilians) such as the one currently taking place in Ukrainian territory, the ground has also been prepared with disinformation and fake news . This has not only happened in the Ukrainian conflict. Information manipulation is now the order of the day all over the world, even in electoral campaigns in which attempts have been made to “direct” the result. Russia itself is said to be behind many of these strategies, seeking to create disinformation and chaos.
But, at this moment, we must keep in mind one important fact: war is not a video game, nor are we fighting it in the Metaverse .
On the Internet , as in life, there should be basic ethical principles that should not be violated. The first casualty of war is always the truth. Lies, censorship and opacity, wherever they come from, are very dangerous weapons.
Of all of them, it is not known how many are really active hackers and how many are simply curious. Through the Telegram network , the targets to be taken down are marked and the strategy is generally based on carrying out DDoS or denial of service attacks . That is, thousands of access requests are made simultaneously until the capacities of the server hosting a particular web page are exceeded .
But just a few days before Ukrainian Minister Fedorov launched his digital war , the international collective Anonymous had already begun boycotting Russian websites and television channels.
And while being against Vladimir mobile app development service Putin may seem like an excellent idea today, the fact that this digital war strategy involves organizations that are essentially based on complete anonymity could also end up being a rather dangerous maneuver.
Who is Anonymous?
Before we focus on the present, let's take a step back from this whole story. Who is really behind this group that calls itself Anonymous ?
According to Wikipedia , Anonymous is “a pseudonym used worldwide by different individuals and groups to carry out, in their own name — in agreement with others — individual or concerted actions or publications, mainly cyber attacks against governments, corporations, institutions and government agencies.”
Anonymous is a group without a fixed structure; there are no official spokespersons or management. From this anonymity, which they use to protect themselves and even to name themselves, the group opens up a cyberspace free of laws in which they can also resort to illegal means without having to fear direct criminal prosecution, even if investigations are opened, such as the one launched by the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Office for Information Security after the attack on the German subsidiary of the Russian oil company Rosnef.
Do you like this article?
Enfusion can help you with your Content Marketing strategy.
CONTACT US!
Anonymous is an opaque entity
And that is precisely the great problem with Anonymous , its total and complete opacity. We do not know which specific individuals or groups are pulling the strings. What is more, no one even knows what their real motives are. This makes this group also unpredictable and, therefore, it could torpedo at any time and in an unexpected way the fragile periods of ceasefire, peace negotiations or decisions in times of war or crisis.
Anonymous may have been on the right side of history so far, but that is no guarantee for the future. They themselves have acknowledged on their networks that at some point they could be used as pawns by any government, even the Russian or the US.
The network is moving faster than legislation
We all know that the digital world is moving faster than the legislation that should regulate it, and this was made clear to Mark Zuckerberg when, after almost fifteen years operating in Europe, he threatened to shut down his social networks in view of the new Digital Services Act (DSA) that the EU intends to implement soon.
Similarly, in a new way of dealing with armed conflicts, on February 24, the Anonymous collective officially declared cyber war on Russia . Although it did not use any of Meta 's social networks , which are progressively blocked in the country, but instead did so through Twitter .
Anonymous ' entry into the fray has been widely acclaimed and, as we have seen, replicated within a few days by the Ukrainian government itself. Thousands of people share their tweets, give them "likes", thank them for their incursion or even propose new targets through the networks.
What Vladimir Putin is doing to the Ukrainian people makes the expressions of joy and encouragement of thousands of Internet users to Anonymous more than understandable . But perhaps we should consider how dangerous Anonymous ' actions can be and whether they could, in the end, go against everything that our democratic system stands for.
Should the law of the strongest win?
There is a reason why democratic states clearly define what the executive, legislative and judicial branches can and cannot do. This principle prevents only the law of the strongest from being applied. But this is exactly how Anonymous operates : regardless of the applicable law, whatever is deemed right is enforced with all available means. You could say that they exist within a constant state of all-out war.
And there are no guarantees that the people behind these armies of cyber volunteers won't change their goals one day and be on the other side. That good intentions alone cannot be relied upon is something we can currently see in Vladimir Putin , who has casually ignored several agreements at the same time. Good words can often be nothing more than lies.
The war of disinformation
Before reaching a real war situation, with armed clashes between armies (and against civilians) such as the one currently taking place in Ukrainian territory, the ground has also been prepared with disinformation and fake news . This has not only happened in the Ukrainian conflict. Information manipulation is now the order of the day all over the world, even in electoral campaigns in which attempts have been made to “direct” the result. Russia itself is said to be behind many of these strategies, seeking to create disinformation and chaos.
But, at this moment, we must keep in mind one important fact: war is not a video game, nor are we fighting it in the Metaverse .
On the Internet , as in life, there should be basic ethical principles that should not be violated. The first casualty of war is always the truth. Lies, censorship and opacity, wherever they come from, are very dangerous weapons.