June 10, 2011 at 20:22Anonymous appeal to NATO bloc
- Transfer
In response to a NATO report on the threat of “hacktivism,” Anonymous has published an open letter (the site is now under a DDoS attack, so see the Google cache ). We are publishing a translation of this document.
Greetings, NATO members. We are Anonymous.
In your recent publication, you presented Anonymous as a threat to “the state and the people.” You also stated that secrecy is supposedly “an inevitable evil” and that transparency is not always the right way to develop.
Anonymous would like to remind that the state and the people, unlike the so-called “democratic” organizations, differ from each other and often have opposite goals and desires. Anonymous's position is that when a conflict arises between the interests of the state and the interests of the people, the will of the people should take precedence.
The only threat that transparency poses to the state is the threat to reduce the ability to do what people disagree with, without democratic consequences and responsibility for their behavior. Your report provides an excellent example - Anonymous attack on HBGary. HBGary’s actions could be aimed at gaining security or military gain, it doesn’t matter (HBGary employees tried using social engineering and fraudulent methods to identify Anonymous participants, then to sell this information and increase their reputation in the security market; in addition, HBGary commissioned by Bank of America to prepare falsified documents for Wikileaks to discredit genuine leaks before being published in the public domain; for all this, HBGary wasseverely punished by hackers - approx. per.) - the main thing is that their actions were illegal and reprehensible. Anonymous does not accept that the government and / or the military put themselves above the law and use the fake cliché of “national security” to justify illegal and fraudulent acts. If a government must break the rules, it must also be prepared for the democratic consequences of its actions in the next election. We do not accept the current state of affairs when the state has two versions of events: one secret and the other for the public. Lies and secrecy completely undermine the concept of self-government. How can people decide who to cast their votes for if they do not receive complete information, what course does this or that politician really pursue?
After the election, the government is considered the "representative" of the nation. In fact, this means that the actions of the state are not the actions of individuals in the government, but actions on behalf of each citizen of the country. An unacceptable situation is when people often have no idea what is being done on their behalf - behind closed doors.
Anonymous and Wikileaks are different organizations. Wikileaks in no way contributes to or even asks for any Anonymous actions. However, Anonymous and Wikileaks share one common quality: they do not pose any threat to any organization as long as the organization does not do anything wrong, trying to hide it.
We do not want to threaten anyone's way of life. We do not want to impose our will on anyone. We do not want to terrorize any people.
We just want to take power from interested persons vested with authority, and give it to the people - to whom, in a democracy, it should belong.
The state makes laws. This does not give him the right to violate them. If the state is not doing anything secret or illegal, then it has nothing to fear from Wikileaks and nothing to be ashamed of, as was the case with scandalous documents leaked from the HBGary local network. These scandals are the result of not being exposed by Anonymous or Wikileaks, they are the result of the CONTENT of these same leaks. And the responsibility for this content may lie solely with those who made these decisions. They, like any corrupt person, naively believed that they could stand above the law and that they would not be caught.
Many government officials and commercial companies worry about how they can protect themselves from such leaks in the future. They are given various advice, from improving security to lowering levels of access to documents, from tougher punishment of informants to censorship of the press.
Our message is simple. Do not lie to people - and you do not have to worry that the lie will come up. Do not give bribes - and do not have to worry that your corruption will be made public. Do not break the rules - and you will have no problems.
Do not try to correct your duplicity by hiding one of the faces. Instead, try living with one person - honest, open, and democratic.
You know that you are not intimidating us because we are threatening society. You bully us because we are threatening the established hierarchy. Over the past few years, Anonymous has proven that leadership is not a prerequisite for achieving your goals - you may be really scared in our work by proving your own uselessness in an era when society has grown and ceased to need your support. Your real nightmare is not in the group of activists, but in the fact that you yourself and all your principles, in the new era and thanks to the perfection of technology, are redundant conditions.
Lastly, make no mistake by challenging Anonymous. Make no mistake trying to chop off the head of a headless snake. If you cut off one head of a hydra, then ten new ones will grow in its place. If you catch one of us, then ten new activists will join us solely out of anger at your attempt to suppress dissent.
Your only chance to defeat the movement that binds us all is to accept it. This is no longer your world. This is our world - the people’s world.
We are anonymous.
Our name is the legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Wait for us…
Greetings, NATO members. We are Anonymous.
In your recent publication, you presented Anonymous as a threat to “the state and the people.” You also stated that secrecy is supposedly “an inevitable evil” and that transparency is not always the right way to develop.
Anonymous would like to remind that the state and the people, unlike the so-called “democratic” organizations, differ from each other and often have opposite goals and desires. Anonymous's position is that when a conflict arises between the interests of the state and the interests of the people, the will of the people should take precedence.
The only threat that transparency poses to the state is the threat to reduce the ability to do what people disagree with, without democratic consequences and responsibility for their behavior. Your report provides an excellent example - Anonymous attack on HBGary. HBGary’s actions could be aimed at gaining security or military gain, it doesn’t matter (HBGary employees tried using social engineering and fraudulent methods to identify Anonymous participants, then to sell this information and increase their reputation in the security market; in addition, HBGary commissioned by Bank of America to prepare falsified documents for Wikileaks to discredit genuine leaks before being published in the public domain; for all this, HBGary wasseverely punished by hackers - approx. per.) - the main thing is that their actions were illegal and reprehensible. Anonymous does not accept that the government and / or the military put themselves above the law and use the fake cliché of “national security” to justify illegal and fraudulent acts. If a government must break the rules, it must also be prepared for the democratic consequences of its actions in the next election. We do not accept the current state of affairs when the state has two versions of events: one secret and the other for the public. Lies and secrecy completely undermine the concept of self-government. How can people decide who to cast their votes for if they do not receive complete information, what course does this or that politician really pursue?
After the election, the government is considered the "representative" of the nation. In fact, this means that the actions of the state are not the actions of individuals in the government, but actions on behalf of each citizen of the country. An unacceptable situation is when people often have no idea what is being done on their behalf - behind closed doors.
Anonymous and Wikileaks are different organizations. Wikileaks in no way contributes to or even asks for any Anonymous actions. However, Anonymous and Wikileaks share one common quality: they do not pose any threat to any organization as long as the organization does not do anything wrong, trying to hide it.
We do not want to threaten anyone's way of life. We do not want to impose our will on anyone. We do not want to terrorize any people.
We just want to take power from interested persons vested with authority, and give it to the people - to whom, in a democracy, it should belong.
The state makes laws. This does not give him the right to violate them. If the state is not doing anything secret or illegal, then it has nothing to fear from Wikileaks and nothing to be ashamed of, as was the case with scandalous documents leaked from the HBGary local network. These scandals are the result of not being exposed by Anonymous or Wikileaks, they are the result of the CONTENT of these same leaks. And the responsibility for this content may lie solely with those who made these decisions. They, like any corrupt person, naively believed that they could stand above the law and that they would not be caught.
Many government officials and commercial companies worry about how they can protect themselves from such leaks in the future. They are given various advice, from improving security to lowering levels of access to documents, from tougher punishment of informants to censorship of the press.
Our message is simple. Do not lie to people - and you do not have to worry that the lie will come up. Do not give bribes - and do not have to worry that your corruption will be made public. Do not break the rules - and you will have no problems.
Do not try to correct your duplicity by hiding one of the faces. Instead, try living with one person - honest, open, and democratic.
You know that you are not intimidating us because we are threatening society. You bully us because we are threatening the established hierarchy. Over the past few years, Anonymous has proven that leadership is not a prerequisite for achieving your goals - you may be really scared in our work by proving your own uselessness in an era when society has grown and ceased to need your support. Your real nightmare is not in the group of activists, but in the fact that you yourself and all your principles, in the new era and thanks to the perfection of technology, are redundant conditions.
Lastly, make no mistake by challenging Anonymous. Make no mistake trying to chop off the head of a headless snake. If you cut off one head of a hydra, then ten new ones will grow in its place. If you catch one of us, then ten new activists will join us solely out of anger at your attempt to suppress dissent.
Your only chance to defeat the movement that binds us all is to accept it. This is no longer your world. This is our world - the people’s world.
We are anonymous.
Our name is the legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Wait for us…