Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm

[Spykr]

As good as the people working for the feds are, the best hackers out there will always be the ones living in subterranean caverns with a permanent CRT tans.

 

[Starke]

While technically correct, you've completely missed the above author's point, which is to say protesting is not a protected form of assembly. It is a political action with a long and fine tradition in this country, but it is not without serious limitations. When you stage a protest you are, trespassing. If you do it on private property without the owner's consent it is trespassing, you can be arrested and hauled off. When it is on public property and you do it without consent... holy fuck, it is still trespassing. Now you can get consent, but without it, you're still committing a crime and can still be arrested.

I am aware of his point. I am pointing out a technicality. "Meatspace" legislation on the right to assemble has only abstract connections to what we're discussing and would not provide suitable reason to prosecute in a court of law as you are not on the property. There are much more efficient ways to pursue criminal charges, which I will point out later.

Then here's a simple solution, don't bring it up. You're the one who seemed to think this was in the same territory as protesting a store, but then you go flying off into a weird semi-tangent crazy land. Let's try to keep this grounded. This has no relevance to anything? Check. You shouldn't have brought this up in the first place? Check. This has no bearing on this conversation? Check.

The ocean is terra nullius, the internet is not. So, yes it is entirely unlike the ocean.

Allow me to clarify: the Internet is like the ocean before things like international law. It is a realm that is possessed of a lot of gray and lawless areas that need to be clarified in our court system.

Except, there is international law at sea. There is no international law with regard to the internet because, wait for it... holy fuck, it's not international territory. The entire goddamn internet, all of it is the property of individuals, who are, without exception, in a country. There is no unclaimed stretches of cyberspace, it all belongs to someone. Now, just because Indonesia has shitty IP laws, and is loathe to respect American copyrights, or because Sweden doesn't think Pirate Bay has committed any crime doesn't mean these are under international law. In fact they're not. International law defines an erga omnes to hunt down pirates. Now, if only we could have that on the internet.

Right, the website was down, but the ability of the website which was down to function while it was disabled was not affected? How does this make sense? Either the DDoS did not work and no business was affected, or it did work and traffic to the site was blocked. Pick one.

The DDoS did not target the servers that are responsible for handling transactions. People with a MasterCard or a Visa account could still use their card. I bought a textbook on eBay using PayPal during the DDoS in question. Business was not affected. No information was stolen.

So the site that anon put up after the fact that was a list of card holders and card numbers, that was... what... the conjured it out of thin air? Oh... I get it, it was magic.

Now, as to your other question, yes, the businesses were affected. Their POS backend wasn't affected, but so what. You're telling me you've never been on your bank's website for any reason? You don't go there to conduct other business, like checking on a card balance, finding out why your card isn't working, reporting it stolen, contacting someone about changing your account setups? Combine that with the fact that a lot of the major credit cards have been moving away from phone to internet customer service systems in the last few years because of the expense of running call centers. Which means, yes, you are fucking with them.

By your analogy it is like blockading a storefront, while claiming that the business isn't affected because the service entrance was unmolested. Sorry, but that's bullshit. I know it. You know it. We all fucking know it. You just refuse to admit it. Why? Who cares.

Only news reports from reputable sources, unlike, you know, the vast empty expanse of terra nullius you're extracting your information from.

http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=mastercard+ddos+attack

Maybe you'll find something different, but between Reuters and BBC I don't remember anything other than complete denial from both MC and Visa that any information had been compromised in the attacks.

CNN, NYT and The Register all had stories on compromised card lists, I'm not going to go hunting now, and I'm definitely not going to use Bing to Google it up now.

I fail to see how the penalties under USC sec 18 have anything to do with anything unless you're admitting to failing in an attempt to assassinate a member of congress, in which case, fuck, I need to keep an eye on CNN more often.

Title 18, not section. Also, you're referring to Chapter 18 - and you are correct that has nothing to do with the topic. I'm referring to Chapter 47 which, in my opinion, would provide the easiest ways to prosecute someone who participated in a DDoS attack but if you read Chapter 47 I think you'll find it fairly shaky ground to form a case on. That being the case, you would most likely need the legislative branch to form a new law that specifically deals with this sort of "e-protest".

No, the easiest would be interference with interstate commerce, which is how the FBI got into this in the first place. Though, Chapter 73 should be scaring the shit out of them right now.

 

[BVBFanatic]

Then here's a simple solution, don't bring it up. You're the one who seemed to think this was in the same territory as protesting a store, but then you go flying off into a weird semi-tangent crazy land. Let's try to keep this grounded. This has no relevance to anything? Check. You shouldn't have brought this up in the first place? Check. This has no bearing on this conversation? Check.

We are not in disagreement, the Starbucks analogy was not mine and the comparisons to meatspace protests were spawned well before I showed up. My intention is to point out that they are untenable legal positions when dealing with a "cybercrime".

So the site that anon put up after the fact that was a list of card holders and card numbers, that was... what... the conjured it out of thin air? Oh... I get it, it was magic.

Yes, that was a rumor that was originally spread on 4chan intentionally by /b/tards to sensationalize what was going on and reported on later. I remember seeing it mentioned on CNN followed immediately by claims from MC representatives that the rumor was completely baseless.

Now, as to your other question, yes, the businesses were affected. Their POS backend wasn't affected, but so what. You're telling me you've never been on your bank's website for any reason? You don't go there to conduct other business, like checking on a card balance, finding out why your card isn't working, reporting it stolen, contacting someone about changing your account setups? Combine that with the fact that a lot of the major credit cards have been moving away from phone to internet customer service systems in the last few years because of the expense of running call centers. Which means, yes, you are fucking with them.

From Chapter 47 -
"the term ?loss? means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service;"

"a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;"

Ten years is significantly harsher than the sentences for obstruction charges.

 

[Therumancer]

[
People like you are the reason humanity will eventually destroy itself.

Sure, we could full well murder everyone who disagree's with us, but what is the point exactly? Do that for long enough and you are gonna end up in a room alone after killing everyone.

Different sections of humanity can peacefully co-exist given the right situation, but what stops the situation is cunts like you who think that the answer to everything is nuking it to kingdom come.

Give peace a chance, lest we end up with people like this wanker in control.

Try and keep it civil, and "OMG I disagree with you so much" is not really an excuse. I feel the same way when argueing with people who argue the extreme other end of the point, yet I don't engage in attacks on them.

That said, it's people like me who are liable to wind up saving humanity to be entirely honest, assumine we do survive that is. It goes well beyond the specific context of this arguement, but the bottom line is that humanity needs to unify under a single global culture and goverment. Lacking some kind of magical disaster that reduces the population for us and brings everyone together (like in a lot of science fiction), we pretty much have to do it ourselves. Truthfully I think a good portion of the work will be done through the simple spread of ideas, and we already see this happening, but there are always going to be closed cultures and those who are going to demand independance and local self goverment. To work there can be no exceptions, and that means there is going to be a global bloodbath. In the end either the large unity that comes together first and starts the war will win, or the hold outs will unite as the only way of stopping this, and then fundementally become a unity themselves.

The reason why this is nessicary is because we're depleting resources on earth. As long as there are multiple factions, there is always going to be concern over what the other guy has, and their comparitive standard of living compared to your own. What's more the only way to get more resources is from space exploration, we already know there are minerals in the astroid belt and on mars from soil samples and the like, expense aside, the bottom line is that we'll need the materials in an absolute sense, and it's going to happen. The need for a world unity here is also because with multiple factions all of them are going to be concerned about what the other guys are bringing back, or simply about what is being done in space. Right now there is already massive paranoia about what various satellites can do (is the other guy hanging a missle launch platform above our head?) with any kind of serious space activity it's just going to be worse. There are numerous other reasons, but the bottom line is that we either get to the point of a single united humanity, no matter the cost, or we all die out. This will happen due to resource depletion (and losing the abillity to gain more resources off planet) and our sun dying if nothing else should we fail.

The death of billions in warfare is worth it in the long term if far more people wind up living and the species as a whole survives.

Now, viewed from that perspective overall, understand that I'm both a cynic and a militant. The bottom line is we still have to survive and get by right now. We in the US can't sit back and just let everyone kick our can around constantly, and we do indeed need to be willing to represent our own interests. I *DO* suggest a lot of military aggression for a lot of things, but not everything. I think right now we're too scared to stand up for ourselves despite being a superpower and employ muscle when needed. We are far too receptive to the "QQing" of other nations. To put things into perspective if you look at how Russia behaves, you'll notice it doesn't even remotely worry about the whining of other nations, or some kind of unlikely "united response" when it acts in it's own interests. A good example of this was how it invaded georgia, threatened poland for hosting a missle base which was hedging them in (by making it harder to launch missles into or accross the EU), and also cut off the fuel pipelines into the EU pretty much to show it was the bigger bully and there was nothing
that the EU could do to stop it. Was there a nuclear response? Some kind of massive united "we must trash Russia!" offensive to stop them? No there most certainly was not... and guess what, we're a much more powerful nation than Russia is right now (being a shadow of it's former self). I really do think we're far too nice, and I think that's the reason for a lot of the problems the US is facing.

Now all of this aside, understand that I never said we actually SHOULD start going into other nations after Anonymous members. I don't think they are that big a deal (which I believe I pointed out), I simply said that we were fully capable of doing it, and that we simply choose not to. You might not LIKE that point, but it happens to be true. It doesn't mean that I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor. The USA could probably forcibly annex Mexicon and Canada too in an absolute sense, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea or that there would be any practical benefit to be gained by doing so, certainly none that would justify the effort. Mexico for example is a comparitively poor country and by absorbing it we bring that poverty and all those poor people that are left into our fold. What's more we use it as a buffer between us and Central/South America and countries even worse off than they are, as those people have to cross through Mexico to get here, and the Mexicans for all the problems are easier to deal with. If we made Mexico the 51st state we would not only lose out economically, but then those nations further south would be directly on what is now our border and would become a direct problem. Not a nice way of viewing it, but generally speaking Mexico benefits us more being what it is right now, so hypothetically pointing out we could conquer it is nothing but an academic point, there is no benefit for us in doing so. Perhaps I was misunderstood, but my point about Anonymous was intended in a similar sense. Wiping out Anonymous would in no way justify the costs involved for the benefits provided.

To summarize if you read this far, I do believe in leading with diplomacy first. I simply believe that while War is a final option, it's not one that should be viewed as off the table to the extent we do now. I am a fan of "speak softly, and carry a big stick", however for that to work people need to be afraid of that stick, and I generally suggest being more forceful and militant for that reason. If nobody believes your going to bust their kneecaps with that stick when they don't listen, they are just going to ignore you and your interests.

 

[AnonOperations]

Pretty much that the US shouldn't do anything even when attacked.

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your alternative view point.

Personally I believe it is an unnecessary war that was based on lies. In retaliation to 9/11, I would have fully supported the U.S. dispatching various military tasks force with the objective on taking out Saddam and his Regime. As well as gaining Intel and taking out al Queada covertly - without shoving your troops in their face every day, fully open to many forms of attack. What the U.S. have done with a full on invasion like this, is created so much more enemies and stirred hatred that will go on and on. Also, wasting billions upon billions, contributing to a ****ed economy and high unemployment.

 

[Harkwell]

I have no interest in this battle but I do find it hilarious. I demand more news!

This.

"Your can't take away people's right to be assholes." - John Spartan, The Demolition Man.

Anon are a bunch of jerks, but this is really awesome that they've managed to cause so much harm to the people trying to screw them over.

You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morale.
OT: Im waited to see who makes the next big move, my bet is on the security firm.

 

[Therumancer]

most sucessful protest would be viewed as illegal. ^^ go to egypt and tell them that they need a permit to protest. : D and also see if the president would step down after al of them signed a petition.

Because as we all know, Egypt is subject to both the American Constitution and it's laws... wait, what?

Well, he's got a point, you don't conduct revolutions, coups, or things that cause major change that a ruling body doesn't want by acting within their system or with permission.

As far as Egypt goes though, the longer this goes on, the longer I really think we need to keep that dictator in power and even let him pass the goverment on to his son. Simply put these protestors seem to have no plan whatsoever other than to get him out of power, and really the only group that seems like it has the manpower or support to fill the voice are Islamics who want to make it another Islamic nation, and would hardly impose the progressive democracy a lot of people think should come of this. The closest thing that these guys have to a leader as far as I can see is a 30 year old Google executive. I'm no fan of the dictator or bloodline based goverment, but honestly I pretty much expect this to turn into a series of endless civil wars, with nobody being able to agree with who should be in charge or what the nation should be.

Though if we don't somehow manage to step in and keep things stable that way, I am sort of hoping that we wind up with Google running the goverment. The first "goverment by internet" to exist. My thirst for absurdity almost demands it.

 

[Logic 0]

It seems the FBI hasn't learned yet ... don't mess with anon.

 

[Therumancer]

Now truthfully I'm of the opinion that the proper way to do this was to go in and pretty much wipe out the culture of the entire region, causing millions upon millions of deaths, but ending the problem more or less permanantly. I've said this before, I pretty much feel that's what a war is, we destroy the other side utterly. No prisoners, no need for torture, none of this. You just keep killing them until you end the problem. This is simply put called "Total War" which was practiced by the Roman, and I believe it's the one and only kind of war.

The death of millions who are not combatants is not total war. It is not war. It is typically referred to as genocide, or something else ending in "-cide". War, as defined by Clausewitz (a definition the US government practices in its own military policy) is imposing the political will of one country on another by use of force. Total war (the definition is much less clear) is generally accepted to be war + a full scale mobilization domestically so that all aspects of the nation support the prosecution of combat.

.

Your talking about modern morality and exactly what I see as the problem. You might want to do some reading on the Romans and Total War, it's pretty brutal and scary.

The only way to really end a conflict and win a war is to destroy the culture involved, and you do that by attacking the people once you get through the military. Also when it comes to a serious conflict between peoples the differance between combatants and non-combatants is also blurred. We can see this in the battles with the Volkssturm during the end of World War II, or simply by looking at what it would take to actually destroy the USA and it's way of thinking. It's important to understand that despite what people might think, I'm not a bigot, I pretty much assign the same standards to beating other groups as what it would take to actually beat us and prevent us from keep coming back when we were ready.

Your correct in the way how the definition of "Genocide" has been extended to include doing things like wiping out idealogies and cultures bu groups like the UN. As opposed to simply referring to wiping out an entire genotype/ethnicity entirely which is the actual meaning. This of course raising all kinds of questions about why you would want to preserve something that wants you dead. Sort of like the human version of how people keep perserving the xenomorphs in the "Aliens" franchise, and it's always proven to be a stupid idea of the umpteenth degree.

Overall I believe when it comes to war, there is no morality, and no good or evil, it's us or them. You try and avoid these things by trying diplomacy and dialogue first, and probably measured response as well, but when that fails, it's all about ending one another.

Throughout history people have tried to regulate war with morality, we're not new as far as this is concerned. Like we're facing now though, such attempts always fail when a military engages an enemy that doesn't subscribe to the same morality. A few good examples of this are Chivalry, which lasted right up until the point where France invaded England, and by rights should have successfully won by the rules, and instead the English massacred the flower of French Knighthood with longbows during things like the "Agincourt Massacre" a degree of bad blood exists over this even today. Another good example is a code of morality in combat called "Bushido" which was adhered to by the Samurai, the Samurai Aristocricy was wiped out by a peasant revolt which ignored those rules of engagement. Indeed a lot of early Japanese Martial Arts could be simply defined as "a formulized system of fighting dirty against a guy with a sword who adheres to certain rules". The point being that a group of people who insist on adhering to morality in combat wind up being annihilated when they meet an enemy that does not follow the same rules, exploits them, and the moral group is unable to put aside their morality and adapt to doing whatever is nessicary to destroy the other side.

Authors like Robert Heinlan has been able to make the point much better than I have (and are part of why I think the way I do). The movie "Starship Troopers" (which is nothing like the book) does have some shadows of this in the very beginning in the classroom scene where the teacher is talking about war, and asking where the moral warriors are now... the answer being "they are dead".

As I believe he put it in one of his books (not Starship Troopers, it was probably one of the Lazarus Long books), in the end you can either be a noble French Knight who died for his honor riddled with arrow shafts, or you can be a victorious one who retreated and came back fighting just as dirty and wound up ruling Europe. In the end the guys who died honorably wound up being forgotten, while everyone still talks about the killing power of those bloody Longbows.

 

[Starke]

most sucessful protest would be viewed as illegal. ^^ go to egypt and tell them that they need a permit to protest. : D and also see if the president would step down after al of them signed a petition.

Because as we all know, Egypt is subject to both the American Constitution and it's laws... wait, what?

Well, he's got a point, you don't conduct revolutions, coups, or things that cause major change that a ruling body doesn't want by acting within their system or with permission.

As far as Egypt goes though, the longer this goes on, the longer I really think we need to keep that dictator in power and even let him pass the goverment on to his son. Simply put these protestors seem to have no plan whatsoever other than to get him out of power, and really the only group that seems like it has the manpower or support to fill the voice are Islamics who want to make it another Islamic nation, and would hardly impose the progressive democracy a lot of people think should come of this. The closest thing that these guys have to a leader as far as I can see is a 30 year old Google executive. I'm no fan of the dictator or bloodline based goverment, but honestly I pretty much expect this to turn into a series of endless civil wars, with nobody being able to agree with who should be in charge or what the nation should be.

Though if we don't somehow manage to step in and keep things stable that way, I am sort of hoping that we wind up with Google running the goverment. The first "goverment by internet" to exist. My thirst for absurdity almost demands it.

While that's correct, technically, the previous poster was implying either that Egypt was subject to American laws or that Anonymous was a revolutionary force. Neither prospect makes a hell of a lot of sense.

 

[Starke]

Then here's a simple solution, don't bring it up. You're the one who seemed to think this was in the same territory as protesting a store, but then you go flying off into a weird semi-tangent crazy land. Let's try to keep this grounded. This has no relevance to anything? Check. You shouldn't have brought this up in the first place? Check. This has no bearing on this conversation? Check.

We are not in disagreement, the Starbucks analogy was not mine and the comparisons to meatspace protests were spawned well before I showed up. My intention is to point out that they are untenable legal positions when dealing with a "cybercrime".

Then there's a simple solution, stop using them.

So the site that anon put up after the fact that was a list of card holders and card numbers, that was... what... the conjured it out of thin air? Oh... I get it, it was magic.

Yes, that was a rumor that was originally spread on 4chan intentionally by /b/tards to sensationalize what was going on and reported on later. I remember seeing it mentioned on CNN followed immediately by claims from MC representatives that the rumor was completely baseless.

Because the first thing Mastercard should do is say "yes, a large number of our customers just got fucked with their pants on." There has been follow ups on this, so rumormongering aside, there have been resulting arrests reported, and someone got into Mastercard's database and posted a partial list of compromised cards. Now, sure it could be someone other than anonymous who chose the precise moment that Mastercard would be most distracted to attack, and knew this was the right moment through the fucking magic of the fucking Kebler Elves, a group that then pretended to be Anon after the fact, but seriously, if it looks like a duck smeared on a brick wall and it smells like shit, it's probably a duck smeared on a brick wall.

Now, as to your other question, yes, the businesses were affected. Their POS backend wasn't affected, but so what. You're telling me you've never been on your bank's website for any reason? You don't go there to conduct other business, like checking on a card balance, finding out why your card isn't working, reporting it stolen, contacting someone about changing your account setups? Combine that with the fact that a lot of the major credit cards have been moving away from phone to internet customer service systems in the last few years because of the expense of running call centers. Which means, yes, you are fucking with them.

Ten years is significantly harsher than the sentences for obstruction charges.

No reason you can't be charged with both. Remember, getting charged is like an all you can eat buffet, no matter what you're intentions, you're going to end up laden down with unsalvageable shit you'll never escape from. Let's not forget the interference in interstate commerce charges that can be leveled, or that RICO will allow members to be charged with... well, everything that anyone claiming to be Anon undertook, which includes multiple crimes of fairly substantial severity including making terroristic threats to a foreign nation under Chapter 113.

 

[BVBFanatic]

Your talking about modern morality and exactly what I see as the problem. You might want to do some reading on the Romans and Total War, it's pretty brutal and scary.

Please provide me with some examples of total war in the Roman era.

A few good examples of this are Chivalry, which lasted right up until the point where France invaded England,...

...do you mean the Norman conquest?

 

[Starke]

a few people in the US would love an endless civil war in Egypt I mean war means guns and guns mean the United States of America.(note I dont really count this a a blow aginst my country I mean the guns would be produced SOMWHERE if not here just stating a fact.)

Yeah, some people are just looking for free entertainment on TV these days. And of course there's always the xenophobic fucks out there...

DO NOT SNED ANYONE TO JAIL OVER THIS

what they should do is conficate their compuers and all electronics and offer them a deal that includes a stiff fine( read all the money they can pay), comunity service and an agreement not to use a computer for period of time X. I say this not out of mercy but out of the fact that we should not have to pay to incarerate these people whentheir could be thousand of them.( if they refuse the deal THEN throw the kitchen sink at them)

Way too fuckin' late. These people are wanted for crimes in countries we have extradition treaties with, who will fucking torture them to death if they get the opportunity. They broke the law, and no matter what TV teaches you, you break the law and get caught, you get fucked badly.

Authors like Robert Heinlan...

Please don't bring Robert Heinlein into a just war theory argument, the man was freakin' nuts.

 

[DarthFennec]

I'm slowly becoming a huge fan of this group ^.^
I don't go for trolling or hacking really, but this battle needs to be fought and I'm fucking glad someone's fighting it ^_^

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

The war on anonymous makes about as much sense as the war on drugs.

I think that's a very bad comparison when you consider what drugs do to people.

I should have been more clear.

A war on anonymous will be about as fruitful as the war on drugs. Or terrorism. You can't go declaring war on general nouns and common verbs - at least not if you want to win your wars.

 

[jojoemon]

Dont this people have anything better to do? If they used all that time and energy on legal things they could make lots of money.

wow anonymous really needs to be taken out there too dangerous and too good at what they do

Agreed. 'Anonymous' are really just criminals who use ID theft to fund their crimes. Calling themselves 'heroes' is insulting to anybody who works for a living.

What crimes, pray tell? Protesting against Scientology? Defending Wikileaks? Revealing a sham of a security company that is taking peoples private information and selling it to the FBI? What?

The last one you mentioned. That part is a crime.

 

[qeinar]

most sucessful protest would be viewed as illegal. ^^ go to egypt and tell them that they need a permit to protest. : D and also see if the president would step down after al of them signed a petition.

Because as we all know, Egypt is subject to both the American Constitution and it's laws... wait, what?

anon is not limited to america? ^^ the protests in discussion were not limited to america so my point still stands.

 

[qeinar]

Dont this people have anything better to do? If they used all that time and energy on legal things they could make lots of money.

wow anonymous really needs to be taken out there too dangerous and too good at what they do

Agreed. 'Anonymous' are really just criminals who use ID theft to fund their crimes. Calling themselves 'heroes' is insulting to anybody who works for a living.

What crimes, pray tell? Protesting against Scientology? Defending Wikileaks? Revealing a sham of a security company that is taking peoples private information and selling it to the FBI? What?

The last one you mentioned. That part is a crime.

wow acusing everyone in anonymous for beeing involved in id theft.. that's insane. xD it's about the same as saying everyone in america is fat, and that sentence probably had more truth in it than saying that everyone involved in anonymous have at some point in their life profited from identity theft. not even 1% of the people in anonymous are doing something illegal.