The hacking group Anonymous recently released the names and addresses of hundreds of police officers associated with the Texas Police Officers Association. The intent? To intimidate or otherwise expose for attack those persons who are pledged to protect and defend their fellow citizens. The reason? Per a Dallas-Ft. Worth television newscast, an officer under investigation for child pornography was placed on disciplinary leave while the allegation was investigated. This is a common procedure, because the officer is innocent until proven guilty, as other citizens are. There always exists the possibility the allegations are false.
Clearly this is Anonymous’ weak attempt to justify the release of sensitive information they had been eager to release since compromising the organization’s website months ago. One would assume, if the members of Anonymous find themselves being falsely accused of a crime, they would want to have the allegations against them investigated before losing their livelihood. More importantly, why do Anonymous members wish to compromise so many members of law enforcement? If Anonymous members find themselves mugged or carjacked, who do they think they will turn to? Who will be there to protect them? The very persons they seem to be trying to harm.
On Feb. 3, the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Anonymous successfully gained access to an international law enforcement conference call focused on the group and posted audio from the call on the Internet. In this case, the group was able to obtain an email with conference call details and join undetected. Also mentioned is the data obtained from a law firm involved in a 2005 Haditha, Iraq case.
Anonymous has been described as a loose confederation of hacktivists. So what is Anonymous trying to prove? Any of a number of things.
The common Anonymous thread is the thrill of hacking and “getting the goods” on someone or some group, or taking over a website. Thus far, it does not appear there is a central core of operation, as Julian Assange was to WikiLeaks.
Members of Anonymous also have an activist bent, but not all members can be expected to follow the same issues. Some threatened to lash out at the Mexican cartels. Others have attacked the San Francisco transportation authority.
What is interesting is the evolution of cyberattacks, from denial of service (which makes a computer or network resource unavailable to its intended users), to the release of classified documents, to the focus on persons within government responsible for securing the nation’s interests. What also is interesting to note is that the attacks are largely focused upon the United States. The question is, who are the persons really behind Anonymous and what is their true motivation?
We have not seen the release of names and addresses of the top 100 members of Hezbollah, the classified documents of Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, or the bank accounts of nuclear proliferators. Could some Anonymous members be affiliated with outlawed extremist organizations or rogue states? Notice the similarities between the Anonymous/TeaMp0isoNn videos to those of the Al Muhijaroun-associated organization Shariah4America. Doesn’t the strategy of targeting organizations associated with government persons, as much as targeting government entities, follow the Iranian logic of targeting the United States through channels in Mexico?
Joan Neuhaus Schaan is the fellow in homeland security and terrorism at the Baker Institute, coordinator of the Texas Security Forum, and serves on the advisory board of the Transborder International Police Association. She has served as the executive director of the Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council and on the board of Crime Stoppers of Houston, Inc.
.