The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

[Miss Jackalope]

A quick article here... "The Federal Bureau of Investigation today raided the homes of potential Anonymous hackers, as the U.S. government retaliates in the war against computer hacking. "

Now looks like the whole "hacker" vs "cracker" pot just got stirred up with perfect timing, right before Defcon. Read: *ugh, great.*

I just wanted to mention it since either I missed some threads on here cuz been awfully quiet about this topic.

[rbcp]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

I think this whole thing sucks, because you know the FBI probably arrested a few innocent people in their busts. And if they didn't, they will soon. Lulzsec should have known that this would be the eventual outcome when they took down huge corporations and then bragged about it on the internet. As far as the public is concerned, all they did was make the statement that hackers are bad people who need to be locked up.

On the other hand, this whole thing sure has been lulzy!

[priest]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

I think this whole thing sucks, because you know the FBI probably arrested a few innocent people in their busts. And if they didn't, they will soon.

Sorry but... Seriously?!? Arrested a few innocent people... Really?!? Getting a real warrant is not a phone call away like its shown on TV.

A criminal complaint must be filed along with an affidavit of probable cause with supporting evidence against the individual named in the complaint then there is a hearing in front of a judge. If the judge finds sufficient evidence has been presented then (s)he will sign off on the warrant. They don't just rubber stamp the things. And the FBI doesn't just go grabbing up warrants for shits and giggles like you see on TV. This is not an easy process especially since an AUSA or ADA usually has to sign off on it first and they, like any other good civil servant, are not going to be left holding the bag if there is not enough supporting information in the filing documents and the judge gets pissed off which is what usually happens when you waste a judge's time.

If the guy was arrested then odds are they (the FBI) has enough evidence to make the arrest stick through to trial if it goes to trial. Standard MO for FBI is to amass enough evidence that the case is plead out.

[Ellen]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

Weird.. I thought this happened almost a month ago. Must be thinking of something else.

[Miss Jackalope]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

ah, glad some people have some comments. i was beginning to worry about you people.

[TheCotMan]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

I think it is one of those things where smart people that have an opinion about the actions or results of Anonymous or LulzSec prefer to not comment.

Some reasons:
* Don't want to come out in public for or against these actions or the actions of law enforcement. This can easily cause people to out themselves or paint a target on themselves for law enforcement to investigate. It does not matter if you are not involved, comments you make in public could cause investigators to invade your life and force you to pay for a lawyer, and worse.
* Coming forward to claim responsibility or say you know anything about inside information is the opposite of the mode of operation claimed Anonymous and to some extent, LulzSec. (Nobody is the leader, anyone that is arrested or questioned is not part of their group(s), many remaining mostly anonymous, it is possible to have a serialized leadership or shared responsibility, to decrease the risk that taking down any single person can bring down the entire operation.) "It is possible to kill the messenger, but not kill the message."

There are risks, of course. If the anonymity is not between members, there is risk for the people that have been captured to do time,or "rat out their friends." If there is little or no anonymity between members, then arrests by law enforcement of peripheral people to such a cause could provide more information to law enforcement about the operation, and members of the organization. How effective having "rats" in the mix will depend on how well guarded the core members are about the own identities with respect to their peers and people peripheral to the organization.

Lastly, much of what has been done has been political in nature, and we (mods) have been consistent with the message on "no politics or religion" since the flaming of 2001-2003 when the Politics and religion forum existed, lead to dissension, and vomiting or bile and crap throughout the forums, and was finally halted with the rules we have today on politics and religion.

I've avoided comment for several reasons:
* My knowledge is based only on what I have read in announcements claiming to be from LulzSec and Anonymous, and stories in the press: meaning I don't know anything.
* What I think about it does not really matter; it will have no impact on the results or change how things will unfold.

[converge]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

It's not black and white, unless you really think it is that clear cut but I guarantee you're not everyone. Some activities might be enjoyed by some people some of the time while others noted as crossing the line. If so, what those are, and how they relate to the select folks that got arrested is a _lot_ bigger than '[lol,damn] they got pwned'.

Also, many folks on the forums work in or aspire to work in 'the field'. A cross section of people simply know your daytime identity/affiliation and posting strong opinions that could hit other organizations is usually a concern among topics that may/maynot relate to your actual work environment(s).

Be careful out there.

[snideology]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

Sorry but... Seriously?!? Arrested a few innocent people... Really?!? Getting a real warrant is not a phone call away like its shown on TV. ... and the judge gets pissed off which is what usually happens when you waste a judge's time.

I have to agree, broadly speaking. The warrant system in the US is actually a surprisingly successful system for keeping people secure in their persons, houses, papers & home-brewing kits. It does fail, but it was not designed not to. The only major let-down is that certain classes of persons have found themselves more likely to have judges issue warrants against them, and they are typically the folks who cannot afford effective representation.

But judges mostly take that job seriously, and I can tell you from personal knowledge that the MOMENT a local judge gets the impression that a police officer has fudged evidence, that officer will find his ability to obtain warrants substantially diminished.

That being said, evidence has been fudged before, and will be again - and sometimes it isn't even intentional, exactly. Evidence can also be misinterpreted (I would argue that this occurs more frequently), and my sympathies have to go with those who were adjudicated guilty because of how they looked or what they believed.

Yeah, this is what you meant by 'we shouldn't get political,' huh Cot? Sorry man...

[TheCotMan]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

Re-ordering your content to reply to this top item first:

Yeah, this is what you meant by 'we shouldn't get political,' huh Cot? Sorry man...

The stomping on all politics and religion was a an overreaction to a real problem on the forums . We still have a rule against discussions involving religion on the forums, and I don't think that won't change while I am here; if you want to talk religion, find another forum where religion is discussed. However, under politics, we have a subtopic of laws which emerge as one of many products from political systems. Without resorting to partisan rhetoric, right, wrong, good, evil, and attempts to change people's political views, it is possible to discuss how existing or proposed laws may influence computer security, hacking, or research. To this issue, we tried to describe how what kinds of political discussions cause problems and describe how we can discuss laws without devolving to blathering idiots with arguments based on, "emotion," and, "feeling," more than facts, statistics and citations. See this thread on what is, "too political."

Now for some comments on this and how things can become, "too political."

I have to agree, broadly speaking. The warrant system in the US is actually a surprisingly successful system for keeping people secure in their persons, houses, papers & home-brewing kits. It does fail, but it was not designed not to.

This kind of statement is political in several ways, and could easily lead to comment in counterclaim with examples on, "warrant-less wiretapping," for gathering voice-phone calls or data-communication between computers or various incarnations of, "The Patriot Act," with all of the partisan arguments in favor and against it.
You include claims of "success" and "fail" without qualifiers or examples, both of would would lead to questions on sources for these claims, and the sources would likely be partisan, and be composed and presented in a way to sway opinion.

Such attempts are spam.They are often unsolicited requests for people to buy something, when that "thing" is a political idea or opinion. Real-world example of political spill-over can be found at the Defcon Conference in Las Vegas. What happens when a speaker puts forward an idea to, "blow up the RNC?" We don't want the outcome of that real-life event to happen on the forums, and mods don't want to have to deal with siding with anyone.

The only major let-down is that certain classes of persons have found themselves more likely to have judges issue warrants against them, and they are typically the folks who cannot afford effective representation.

Again, this becomes a point of contention where argument would be posed on the quality of legal representation afforded to those with disadvantage, and could unravel the thread into discussions about how the judicial system is "class-ist" favoring those with money.

Do you see how quickly such discussions can cause people to fall-back to systems based on beliefs or opinion instead of facts and rational discussion? This often begins with opinions or feeling about a topic without tangible proof, statistics, citations or facts to demonstrate the claim. This draws idiots to the fire, and NOW they have something they can talk about because they *really* understand how <their political party> can solve <the problem or issue> and wouldn't you know it? They want to tell us more! :-P

But judges mostly take that job seriously, and I can tell you from personal knowledge that the MOMENT a local judge gets the impression that a police officer has fudged evidence, that officer will find his ability to obtain warrants substantially diminished.

It seems like a rational claim, as it looks plausible and people might consider this to be something they would consider if they were judges. However, this is oversimplified, and omits details on topics like this can bring the wrath of the mindless hordes of zombies repeating what little they think they know or believe.

That being said, evidence has been fudged before, and will be again - and sometimes it isn't even intentional, exactly. Evidence can also be misinterpreted (I would argue that this occurs more frequently), and my sympathies have to go with those who were adjudicated guilty because of how they looked or what they believed.

And this is where people on one side of the fence or the other would demand citations. Opinions or feeling without facts, statistics and citations for claims are candy for trollers.

Combine all of this with an understanding:
The two most common points in heated Internet arguments are disagreements based on two things:
* Disagreements on definitions
* Opinions.

In many common forms of debate, the most important steps include providing definitions for words which are central to argument or discussion. A slight difference in what is accepted as a definition for these key words can be the difference between winning and losing in debate.

A great example is providing by abuse of definitions of words with alternate meanings based on context:
1: "Can I have a cookie?" [Implied: "can," is request for permission. The word, "may," would make more sense here.]
2: "No. You must wait until after dinner."
1: ''(Now picks yo a cookie to show they, "can," (are able to) have a cookie.)
1: "What do you mean I can't? I just picked one up!"
2: "Ah. Well, obviously you CAN have a cookie, but..." (able-to, not permission, and after the, "but," would likely follow a ,"you MAY not have one right now." However, for this example, they were interrupted by:
1: "Great! I CAN have a cookie!" *chomp* (implied bad definition of "permission-to".)

[Kids. Hacking language. Where do they learn this stuff?]

It is easier to explain how disagreements based on opinion have no winners:
What is the best flavored ice cream in the world? (Only "solutions" I am able to imagine right now to unifying everyone to genuinely agree on the same flavor are mental re-programming, or execution of anyone that does not conform.) Opinions are like a belief-system, as people, "just know," their opinion is the right one. This is also covered in, "what is the best OS?," and is most well described when any belief-based system has conflicts with another belief-based system.

Though the forums have "emotional baggage" with respect to politics or religion, you can check out the "DC Stuff mailing list" where they do not impose such harsh rules on off-topic conversation. Freedom from the bonds of the collective moderator dictator notions of what is off topic is only a mailing list away. Some members of that list have an interest in Tamagotchi. Good luck!

[TheCotMan]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

URL1=Third Target of FBI Anonymous Probe Steps Forward to Announce Innocence (by Drew Wilson,)

This pretty much sets the tone of this post/article/blog-entry/[whatever you want to classify this as.]

In the major sweep of hackers, the score might now be Anonymous: 3, FBI: 0.

URL2=Dutch give details on 4 'Anonymous' hacker arrests (TOBY STERLING/Associated Press, Originally published July 20, 2011 at 6:19 a.m., updated July 23, 2011 at 10:35 a.m.)

AMSTERDAM (AP) - National prosecutors Wednesday released some details about four Dutch citizens arrested on suspicion of involvement in cyberattacks as part of an international sweep targeting hackers.
...
The prosecutors said they infiltrated a chat channel used by the suspects with the help of security firm Fox-IT and were then able to identify them.
...
On Wednesday LulzSec appeared to deny that any of its membership had been compromised, saying in a tweet that "there are six of us, and we're all still here."
...

[snideology]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

Do you see how quickly such discussions can cause people to fall-back to systems based on beliefs or opinion instead of facts and rational discussion? This often begins with opinions or feeling about a topic without tangible proof, statistics, citations or facts to demonstrate the claim. This draws idiots to the fire, and NOW they have something they can talk about because they *really* understand how <their political party> can solve <the problem or issue> and wouldn't you know it? They want to tell us more! :-P
.

Well, first off I have to ask something that I have wondered for over a year now: do you ever sleep? Wow Cot, I appreciate this thoughtful reply, and I daresay I am looking forward to meeting you.

Yes, unfortunately everything you wrote struck home, and some quite painfully, since I should have know better, and have chastised others for doing what I did. I had hoped to pick out something you said to disagree with; to mitigate my pain, but alas! so far I find nothing. Well, I'll keep trying.

Thanks for the educational & clear response. I like to think I am not one of the idiots drawn to the fire, but sometimes I have to wonder...

[TheCotMan]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

Yes, unfortunately everything you wrote struck home, and some quite painfully, since I should have know better, and have chastised others for doing what I did. I had hoped to pick out something you said to disagree with; to mitigate my pain, but alas! so far I find nothing. Well, I'll keep trying.

Thanks for the educational & clear response. I like to think I am not one of the idiots drawn to the fire, but sometimes I have to wonder...

Thanks for understanding my response and reason for it. I don't land-hard on these topics to be mean, or cause pain, or shut people up.

If politics were opened back up again, I am certain one or more mods would leave the forums. I'm not talking resigning as moderators, but actually leave the forums entirely. When you have volunteers working for free, you really must listen to what they say, and seriously consider their opinions when looking to change rules or policies.

The toleration by mods of discussion of laws as described in the fore-mentioned thread and here is limited. Some mods did not think is was possible to keep politics out of discussions of laws and constant work would be needed, but were willing to permit an experiment to alter the rule on, "no politics," to allow for discussion of laws, so long as it does not become too political. Their wisdom and insight to this this has been demonstrated several times to mock my hubris since the experimental exception was included. So far it is not, "too much work," for me to keep pulling threads away from what could cause this experiment to end.

Outside the forums, I have spoken about differences in religion, politics, and the weather. Hackers are often not scared of information, or learning new things -- especially "forbidden topics." Hackers often find joy in sparring with people through debate, or accepting opportunities to argue in favor of things they do not believe-in, to learn more about each side in a conflict. Hackers often dislike being told NOT to talk about something they like, and I feel restrictions on topics like these does hurt forum activity. Disagreements are opportunities to learn something new, but people with minds that fall-back to a belief-based system instead of one based on "reason"*** can become irrational when people criticize their beliefs. When this happens, it is often as a result of a perception that a criticism or disagreement is a PERSONAL attack on their identity, or them as an individual. This creates more work, which drives rules, and this leads to a disconnect between how we run the forums with this rule on "no politics or religion" and how many hackers that I know live their lives. This rule is not what I would like, but mods and I don't have enough time in our lives to spend on moderating the forums if these topics returned. Also, such polarizing topics can lead to irrational behavior, and lead to resentment between members that might otherwise get along. An already fractured community does not need more reasons (through polarizing topics) to limit their associations with each other and create more drama where it need not exist.

***reason: not saying belief-based systems are bad... I'm saying a belief-based system can be "reasonable" if the person that has one is open to criticism, testing, examination, and revision when new data arrives that contradicts a belief. An example? Apple Computers and their products; there are people that believe Apple Products are the best products ever made. They are, "reasonable," if they are able to quantify and qualify all of the features of a product, and then accept their claim may not be true when someone shows them another product that does "better" in every category and mentioned feature. (This fails if a quality is something like, "must be an Apple Product," for obvious logic-fail.)

[LosT]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

For those of you who don't know, Cot is an android I built some time ago.

[converge]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

I heard TheCotMan is actually this years mystery box; start brushing up on your crypto a year ago.

[g3k_]

Re: The LulzSec and Anonymous arrests...

I want to comment on this since it happened in my own backyard (UCF), but I do not have time on this. Good discussion so far.