Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm

[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.

 

[The Long Road]

Here's a statement that everyone in the world would be well-advised to follow:

Do NOT tangle with the United States.

...

Immoral? Well, morality is a matter of comparison. Is it more "right" to sit by and watch your laws be broken and subverted by someone sitting in front of a screen or send him to be a very large man's prison wife? I think Big Al will be very pleased with the result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

Um... I think you either misunderstood the point I was trying to make, or you didn't read the Wikipedia page you so kindly linked me to very thoroughly. This is NOT what the point I was trying to make:

"Anonymous is wrong for doing this because the government thinks so and will try to arrest them"

Not at all. Whether the US gov't thinks something is right/wrong has no bearing on whether or not it actually is one or the other. THIS is the point I was trying to make:

"The government will try to arrest them because they are breaking US law, and they are foolish for provoking the best-equipped government in the world".

The use of force in any way is the end result, not an argument for anything. What I was saying in general was that the bloody-nose approach is proven to deter similar crimes and will likely be employed by the Justice Department if/when they catch the right guy. This rather unfortunate individual will likely be jailed for a very long period of time.

Please read more carefully in the future to avoid situations like this.

 

[The Urban Moose]

You know, Anon could really make a lot of money if... well, if they protected people from guys like themselves. It seems to me that they are way better at the interwebs than their formal, security company counterparts.

 

[Monsterfurby]

It looks like Mr. Assange's arrest and the subsequent rise in anti-anon-activity was to the Great Internet War of the 21st Century what the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was to WW1.

Yay for hyperbole!

 

[Oliver Pink]

You know, really - Anonymous reminds me of 'The Brotherhood' of 1984 - even if you're a part of it, you'll never know all the other members - or quite possibly, Any of the other members. They all operate towards a common goal, but taking down one or even a Hundred won't slow them because you can never know if you've gotten them all.

 

[(LK)]

Wow he didn't major in marketing did he.


we try to protect the US government from hackers


Because that's exactly what you want to be reminding the public of after they just read that your own computer systems had all been severely compromised by a painfully simple attack.

 

[Feylynn]

"Hey that group of people calling themselves by a word that implies they possess no identity is really quite mean to us and that doesn't happen very often it's obviously a handful of elite mean people that just don't want our day to go well let's publicly denounce them and ask them to take us to their leader without suspecting for a moment they aren't a coherent group and rather just a title 98% of the earth's population uses when they don't want to tell us something though, granted even if we did suspect that it's really probably only 10% of the planet that uses to to make us unhappy!"

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

"These people, Adam, they're like ghosts... always in the shadows."

Now if Anonymous could just move up from DDoS attacks to cybernetically augmented agents, that would be awesome.

They spend far too much time jerking off to do anything too effective

Aside from this, I have a lot of respect for Anonymous and their motives