By Graeme McMillan
Translation by Autumnson Blog
北約已戳中互聯網的熊（它回應以宣佈它實際上是一條九頭蛇）。
Anthropomorphic confusion aside, a NATO security report about "Anonymous"—the mysterious "hacktivist" group responsible for attacks on MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, Amazon and, most recently, Sony—has led the underground group to respond by cautioning NATO, "This is no longer your world. It is our world - the people's world."
賦予人形的混亂之外，一份北約關於“匿名”- 神秘的“黑客活躍份子”要為萬事達、維薩、貝寶、亞馬遜及最近的索尼攻擊負責 - 的安全報告已導致該地下組織以警告回應北約，“這不再是你的世界，是我們的世界 - 人們的世界。“
NATO's report, issued last month, warned about the rising tide of politically-motivated cyberattacks, singling out Anonymous as the most sophisticated and high-profile of the known hacktivist groups:
上月發出的北約報告警告，出於政治動機的網絡攻擊漲潮，挑出匿名作為最先進和高調的已知黑客活躍份子組織：
"Today, the ad hoc international group of hackers and activists is said to have thousands of operatives and has no set rules or membership. It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths. The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted," the report read, also asking, "Can one invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty after a cyber attack? And what response mechanisms should the Alliance employ against the attacker? Should the retaliation be limited to cyber means only, or should conventional military strikes also be considered?"In response, Anonymous issued a lengthy statement(Google-cached version; the site is having server issues currently) that says, in part:
“今天，該特別的國際黑客和活躍份子組織，據說有數以千計的操作人員及沒有已定的規則或會員資格，還有待觀察匿名有多少時間追求這樣的路徑。這些攻擊持續 的時間越長，就越有可能對策將會制定、實施，組織將會被滲透和犯事者被迫害“報告所閱讀的，亦問，”在網絡攻擊後有沒有人能行使華盛頓條約第5條？甚麼樣 的回應機制聯盟應該使用以對抗攻擊者？報復應否衹被限制在網絡手段，或常規的軍事襲擊也將應被考慮？“
作為回應，匿名發表一份長篇聲明（谷歌的緩存版本；該網站目前有服務器問題）指出，衹部分：
"We do not wish to threaten anybody's way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.
“我們不想威脅任何人的生活方式，我們不希望支配任何事任何人；我們不想恐嚇任何國家。
We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people - who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.
我們純是想從既得利益者移除權力，及將它交回人民 - 在一個民主體，它在首位本來就不應該被取走。
The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing 'embarassing' [sic] about Wikileaks revelations, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous' or Wikileaks' revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.
政府制訂法律，這並沒有給他們權利去破壞它。如果政府沒做什麼不光彩或非法的事，就不會對維基解密的啟示有什麼'尷尬'[原文]，也不會...
A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to 'how we can avoid a similar leak in the future'. Such advice ranges from better security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.
Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won't have to worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you won't have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules and you won't have to worry about getting in trouble for it."
我們的訊息很簡單：不要對人民說謊和你將不用為你的謊言被暴露而擔心；不要作腐敗交易及你將不用擔心你的貪污被顯白；不要破壞規則及你將不必擔心會遇到麻煩。“
It goes on to warn, "do not make the mistake of challenging Anonymous. Do not make the mistake of believing you can behead a headless snake. If you slice off one head of Hydra, ten more heads will grow in its place. If you cut down one Anon, ten more will join us purely out of anger at your trampling of dissent."
它接著警告，“不要犯挑戰匿名的錯誤，不要犯相信你可以砍一條無頭蛇的頭的錯誤。如果你切去九頭蛇的一個頭，再多十個頭會從那地方生出。如果你打倒一個匿名，再多十人會加入我們，純是對你們對異見的踐踏出於憤怒。“
Quite when Anonymous started modeling itself after fictional terrorist organizations is unclear, but the message is just the opposite: NATO is on warning. How they'll respond to this—if they'll respond—remains to be seen, but I doubt that I'm the only person hoping that any response will be far more measured than bringing up conventional military strikes again.
No comments:
Post a Comment