Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

[Starke]

The declaration of war is laughable to most, but can lead to serious penalties faced under the law. Why? It's barely covered by the news, and no one I know who is not active online even knows you exist.

The goal isn't to get news coverage. You seem to have misinterpreted that press release. There is no declaration of war from anonymous. The main future actions to be taken would be protests or possibly legal action. I'll admit that the press release could have been worded better.

Okay, I'm not your lawyer, and I'm not a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice. What you need to do, right now, at this moment as you read this is turn off the computer, go down stairs, and talk to your parents. You need to tell them you need to talk with your family's lawyer, and if your family doesn't have a lawyer, then find one out of the yellow pages.

You have, in pieces on this site admitted to being an accessory to violating Title 18, Chapter 41, Section 878 of Federal Law. Needless to say, you need to speak to a lawyer, a real one, right now.

Anonymous has not given you the full story, nor would they. You were the meatshield rank and file they intended to sacrifice. You need to speak to a lawyer and get a full disclosure of what you can and can't be charged with.

Second, and this is what your lawyer will tell you. Stop talking about it. You cannot make the situation better, you can only make your situation worse. Don't talk about Anonymous at all, except to your lawyer. Your posts here can, and probably will, be used against you in court if you end up being on the list of indictments coming out of San Jose. If you're not on that list, (which seems likely) and Anonymous continues operations in their absence, then you will be at risk for subsequent sweeps.

Needless to say, if that happens your chance at a life, you know, or something resembling a life will be over. The odds of you getting an acquittal with what amounts to a written confession is next to nil.

I know you want to tell your side of the story, but really for your own good the best thing you can do is walk away now, before you provide anyone with more fuel to track you down.

As for Anonymous not being blamed (which they should be, they childishly released the personal information which led to this).

Aaron Barr childishly released personal information of supposed anonymous leaders who are now being harassed by the FBI and others. All of this to gain attention and bring in more money for his company. I don't condone these phone calls to Aaron Barr but I don't sympathize with him.

Except he hadn't released anything yet. Even if he had, there is no affirmative defense of "he did it first."

 

[rapidoud]

Assuming that all anonymous members are American was your first mistake. Your second was assuming that all countries have extradition treaties with American countries (hint: If they live in Ukraine, then whoops America can't touch them without serious implications.) But I wouldn't put it above America, after all they hold other country's citizens hostage because they claim they did something they didn't do. Where's our part of the extradition treaty?

No I am not affiliated with anonymous but your legal advice sucks.

 

[Starke]

Assuming that all anonymous members are American was your first mistake. Your second was assuming that all countries have extradition treaties with American countries (hint: If they live in Ukraine, then whoops America can't touch them without serious implications.) But I wouldn't put it above America, after all they hold other country's citizens hostage because they claim they did something they didn't do. Where's our part of the extradition treaty?

No I am not affiliated with anonymous but your legal advice sucks.

If they're in the Ukraine and piss of the Ukrainian government, a trial under American law would be a dream vacation. Even the ones in the UK are in a pretty shitty situation relatively.

 

[AnonOperations]

Okay, I'm not your lawyer, and I'm not a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice. What you need to do, right now, at this moment as you read this is turn off the computer, go down stairs, and talk to your parents.

What the **** man. I'm not some kid living with my parents. I'm an I.T. professional with over 5 years work experience. I did not participate in anything illegal, helping with a press release is not illegal, chatting in an IRC room is not illegal. I support most of what these guys are doing and will continue to try clarify the actions taken.

Except he hadn't released anything yet. Even if he had, there is no affirmative defense of "he did it first."

I have been contacted by law enforecment and I have shared with them some of the information I have.

"The research I have done on the Anonymous groups is getting a lot of notice. I have meetings with FBI, OSD, USG, and DNI next week starting monday. "

I just tweeted a few posts on research and talk. This is the angle I want to stick with. If anyone asks about using this information for law enforcement I think we should say, well of course if law enforcement wants to discuss with me my research I will, its all open source, thats the thing, its all there. But my intent is not to do this work to put people in jail, my intent is to clearly demonstrate how this can be effectively used to gather significant intelligence and potentially exploit targets of interest (the other customers will read between the lines).
Aaron Barr
CEO
HBGary Federal, LLC
719.510.8478

 

[Starke]

What the **** man. I'm not some kid living with my parents. I'm an I.T. professional with over 5 years work experience.

Then stop writing like you're 14 and live with your parents. Think for yourself.

I did not participate in anything illegal, helping with a press release is not illegal, chatting in an IRC room is not illegal.

Because in order to work in the IT field you first had to pass the state bar? No, there are two participants in this conversation, one has a marginal grasp on what you can and cannot be charged with, the other doesn't understand that normally legal acts in support of a crime is a crime.

I support most of what these guys are doing and will continue to try clarify the actions taken.

As an IT professional I can tell you you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the law.

Fuck with the law if you want, but go talk to a lawyer right now. This isn't me telling you to "shut up and go away," this is me throwing you a life line. Spit in my face if you want, but it's not going to help you out.

 

[AnonOperations]

As an IT professional I can tell you you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the law.

You can't refute the points I brought up and have now resorted to ad hominem attacks and bringing up U.S. law. Nice.

 

[Starke]

As an IT professional I can tell you you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the law.

You can't refute the points I brought up and have now resorted to ad hominem attacks and bringing up U.S. law. Nice.

What points? That you're an IT professional? I can tell you from actual practical work experience that that doesn't say a damn thing about your knowledge of the law.

That talking in an IRC room isn't illegal? Because it can be. It depends on what you're talking to people about. Conspiracy is a crime that only involves two people talking and deciding to do something illegal, it doesn't matter if it's in person or on IRC.

You want to defend them, and that's fine, except it doesn't work, all it does is make the job of prosecuting you a hell of a lot easier.

So again, talk to a lawyer. It's about the only thing you can do to protect yourself.

 

[AnonOperations]

That talking in an IRC room isn't illegal? Because it can be.

I have spoken to a lawyer and this is not the topic of discussion here. Lets leave forum members personal lives, ad hominem attacks and threats of prosecution out of this. The points I am talking about have already been posted on this page. If you want to discuss someones personal life or give them advice, PM them.

 

[Starke]

That talking in an IRC room isn't illegal? Because it can be.

I have spoken to a lawyer and this is not the topic of discussion here. Lets leave forum members personal lives, ad hominem attacks and threats of prosecution out of this. The points I am talking about have already been posted on this page.

If their advice didn't include "don't talk about this" then clearly you didn't get your money's worth.

 

[nightwolf667]

That talking in an IRC room isn't illegal? Because it can be.

I have spoken to a lawyer

My innocent question is: was that before or after Anonymous decided to DDoS Iran?

You may not see that as a big deal but if you are a U.S citizen (you may not be) Iran one of the Islamic nations in the middle east who is hostile to the United States (rightly so) and very suspicious of the kind of rhetoric Anonymous tosses around with abandon. (Meaning you only strengthen the regime.) If they continue to meddle in the middle east or spread themselves towards China and North Korea, they could end up as a national security risk.

On the subject of "FBI harrassments", as I've pointed out before, Anonymous knowingly committed criminal actions that crossed state lines. This brings them under the FBI's jurisdiction. If they want to protest, then they must accept that sometimes protests come with harsh penalties and that sometimes that's also the point. To say now "Oh no! The FBI is taking our stuff and breaking into our houses at 7 AM!" seems fairly naive, since that's the cost of doing business. If they did not want to be arrested then they should not have committed the crime in the first place (nor should they have been hanging around with those intending to commit a crime). I don't know what's going on in that Grand Jury investigation, I find the need for a Grand Jury unusual, but I'm sure we'll know what's handed out in the next couple of days.

My issue with Anonymous is that when it comes time to pay the piper and face the consequences, they always hide behind childish claims of "we didn't do anything wrong!" and "they did it first!" I don't care if Aaron Barr invaded your privacy or intended to reveal details of his discovery to the FBI, what he did was part of his job and he behaved as most companies do. So he sought to take advantage of the situation, so what? Again, Anons were participating in illegal activities. This is what called attention to them in the first place. The response against HBGary was still a childish action, the actions against the individual specifically were also childish.

 

[ckam]

I think I might be on Anonymous's side in this...

 

[FluxCapacitor]

scarewords

I think it's kinda cute that you think an account created 6 days ago and posted to by an Anon who rather knows what he's talking about is traceable to him personally. It's a clean forum account, being posted to from behind a safe proxy or some other effective means of masking the IP - you're an IT professional, you ought to know that. Despite your claims, this guy ain't stupid, he's a world away from the /b/tard stereotype.

Also, you say that he didn't have to take a state bar - but what state? What country, even? This is almost like the republicans who have accused Assange of treason, despite him not being American. It's called jurisdiction, and I bet your state bar has none wherever this guy is.

 

[OrokuSaki]

I still find this funny. To begin with Anonymous really doesn't have anything to gain from faking the documents because nobody would believe them anyways. But it seems that in poking the bear with a stick they've unwittingly unearthed the bear's porno stash to the public mockery of all.

.....But sometimes Anonymous really does make me think they're being run by chimps. First they declared war on the worlds internet security and I thought that was a decent goal and they were someone to be respected. Then they declared war on snow.

.......yeah, so forget the whole respect thing. And now they've exposed an evil conspiracy in the heart of a private corporation that's clearly failing to track them down.

Anonymous is the Bugs bunny of the internet.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

On the subject of "FBI harrassments", as I've pointed out before, Anonymous knowingly committed criminal actions that crossed state lines. This brings them under the FBI's jurisdiction. If they want to protest, then they must accept that sometimes protests come with harsh penalties and that sometimes that's also the point. To say now "Oh no! The FBI is taking our stuff and breaking into our houses at 7 AM!" seems fairly naive, since that's the cost of doing business. If they did not want to be arrested then they should not have committed the crime in the first place (nor should they have been hanging around with those intending to commit a crime). I don't know what's going on in that Grand Jury investigation, I find the need for a Grand Jury unusual, but I'm sure we'll know what's handed out in the next couple of days.

My issue with Anonymous is that when it comes time to pay the piper and face the consequences, they always hide behind childish claims of "we didn't do anything wrong!" and "they did it first!" I don't care if Aaron Barr invaded your privacy or intended to reveal details of his discovery to the FBI, what he did was part of his job and he behaved as most companies do. So he sought to take advantage of the situation, so what? Again, Anons were participating in illegal activities. This is what called attention to them in the first place. The response against HBGary was still a childish action, the actions against the individual specifically were also childish.

This sounds awfully like "When the government (or corporations working for them) does it, it can't be illegal". Wasn't that Nixon's defence? And didn't the public at large despise him for it?

Your founding fathers wanted checks and balances on power for exactly this reason - because they knew that governments couldn't be taken at their word, that they had to prove themselves worthy of the power we invest in them. Why can the FBI tap phones, or examine data traces, or for that matter burst into someone's home in the middle of the night, if 'you the people' can't trust them to be acting legally at all times?

 

[RvLeshrac]

If there had been no war in the first place then millions of Arabs would still be living in a state of constant terror of their own government. I gladly fought the Iraq war and continue to do so, and none of the reasons I went to war have turned out to be lies.

And there's no "theoretically" in danger--my old Iraqi platoon has about half of them living inside the wire on their FOB since their names were made public, and a couple have had to move their families out of the city in the middle of the night. You simply don't know the truth on the ground in Iraq, which is understandable but also means you have zero standing to analyze the situation there.

I'd be substantially more concerned about how many people *other than the relatively benign* WikiLeaks had access to this data.

The terrible lack of reliable tech in Iraq and Afghanistan leaves operators sneakernetting sensitive data all over bases, you don't think some of them have had media go missing?

----

WRT Iraq: I was unaware that you were provided a choice. When did the Pentagon start asking your permission?

 

[nightwolf667]

On the subject of "FBI harrassments", as I've pointed out before, Anonymous knowingly committed criminal actions that crossed state lines. This brings them under the FBI's jurisdiction. If they want to protest, then they must accept that sometimes protests come with harsh penalties and that sometimes that's also the point. To say now "Oh no! The FBI is taking our stuff and breaking into our houses at 7 AM!" seems fairly naive, since that's the cost of doing business. If they did not want to be arrested then they should not have committed the crime in the first place (nor should they have been hanging around with those intending to commit a crime). I don't know what's going on in that Grand Jury investigation, I find the need for a Grand Jury unusual, but I'm sure we'll know what's handed out in the next couple of days.

My issue with Anonymous is that when it comes time to pay the piper and face the consequences, they always hide behind childish claims of "we didn't do anything wrong!" and "they did it first!" I don't care if Aaron Barr invaded your privacy or intended to reveal details of his discovery to the FBI, what he did was part of his job and he behaved as most companies do. So he sought to take advantage of the situation, so what? Again, Anons were participating in illegal activities. This is what called attention to them in the first place. The response against HBGary was still a childish action, the actions against the individual specifically were also childish.

This sounds awfully like "When the government (or corporations working for them) does it, it can't be illegal". Wasn't that Nixon's defence? And didn't the public at large despise him for it?

Your founding fathers wanted checks and balances on power for exactly this reason - because they knew that governments couldn't be taken at their word, that they had to prove themselves worthy of the power we invest in them. Why can the FBI tap phones, or examine data traces, or for that matter burst into someone's home in the middle of the night, if 'you the people' can't trust them to be acting legally at all times?

You know, there was a story that was posted on this website about a month back. It talked about how the FBI had gone to a judge with evidence supporting that 40 people had engaged in illegal activities and they wanted to search them. Those 40 warrants were acted on. They were obtained through legal channels in view of the public and if more people actually cared about the Anonymous case then there would be more reports about it. It's a little late for Anons to complain about "being harassed" by the FBI in the U.S when they chose to engage in an activity that was illegal. The FBI has done nothing outside their legal authority here. They got their warrants and they executed them.

A DDoS is not legal and as I've pointed out before a sit-in, cyber or otherwise, constitutes as trespassing. There have been many protesters in the past who chose to get arrested as a statement for their cause and to bring the attention of those who might be able to help. But that statement cannot be applied to Anon. They went into this believing that they had nothing to lose. They believed they were untraceable. Even if their goals were noble, it does not change that the manner in which they executed them was illegal. (At least in Britain and the U.S.A) That they expect some kind of special dispensation due to good acts is erroneous, especially as they have continued to perpetrate their criminal behavior. (Especially in the longstanding world wide tradition of people getting fucked over for doing good deeds.)

There really is no comparison to Nixon here. Partly because of what happened with him and partly because of what happened with McCarthy, the FBI is a very different animal today. They've gone from being thugs to one of the most well respected law enforcement agencies in the world. A fact that was demonstrated quite cleanly during the Bush Administration.

 

[Starke]

scarewords

I think it's kinda cute that you think an account created 6 days ago and posted to by an Anon who rather knows what he's talking about is traceable to him personally. It's a clean forum account, being posted to from behind a safe proxy or some other effective means of masking the IP - you're an IT professional, you ought to know that.

I also know that if no one ever did anything stupid, the criminal court system would be alot emptier than it is.

Despite your claims, this guy ain't stupid, he's a world away from the /b/tard stereotype.

I'm not so sure. The FBI has issued warrants against anon members. There's at least one grand jury impaneled at this moment getting ready to pass down indictments. And we have our friend here claiming that the truth will set him free. Now, I'm not going to call people stupid (and neither should you), but he comes on a forum board to inarticulately defend Anonymous, and seems to genuinely believe his movement isn't about to be hit with a hammer from on high? That speaks to a certain degree of... situational obliviousness, that could use with a piece of advice like, "hey, be careful what you say in public, there's no expectation of privacy here."

Now, you're right, there are ways to mess around and try to remain invisible, like proxies, but, as you've got to be aware, proxies aren't really anonymous, they just throw up a roadblock.

Now, do I think the wrath of Fed is going to come down on him from what he says here? No. But I also think that he should stop talking about anon, for his own good. Why? Because all it can do is hang a rope around his neck. He's not going to convince people that Anon are the good guys, especially when he isn't even aware of the press releases.

Let's stop for a moment and consider... on the list of indictments is there an individual with five years of professional IT experience who was employed at the time of his arrest? If yes, then the issue isn't getting through the proxy, it's just a matter of getting a warrant and identifying the system he sent the posts from. Now, this isn't a certainty and he could certainly slip the loop on this.

But I ask you, you have a choice between taking a risk of being identified and charged with some very serious crimes or you don't, which appeals most?

I gotta say, for me, if I've got the choice, taking additional risks for no benefit sounds like a bad deal to me.

Also, you say that he didn't have to take a state bar - but what state? What country, even? This is almost like the republicans who have accused Assange of treason, despite him not being American. It's called jurisdiction, and I bet your state bar has none wherever this guy is.

When you typed "scare words" you missed the part where I said I am not a lawyer. I have, most likely, had more in depth classes on the subject than you have had, however.

With that said, there is no reason to assume he isn't an American or Brit. English does appear to be his first language due to his posting, so that pins him most likely in either the US, the UK, Canada, or Australia. Now, the two of those with massive IP industries are in countries that are already sniffing for Anon blood. He could be from someplace else, but he might not be.

As for people being idiots about jurisdiction? That's not news. Sarah Palin has said she'd like to have Assange executed for treason. She's also infamous for such brilliant insights as "I can see Russia from my house."[footnote]Never mind that it was actually Tina Fey who uttered the phrase, Palin's been stuck with it, like it or not.[/footnote] And Dick Cheney who still peruses an agenda of neo-conservatism with the conviction of a true believer. In the case of Cheney it's not a lack of understanding but political ideology that disregards pesky things like jurisdiction.

Now, if he's in the United States (or, I believe Puerto Rico, though I'd have to check on that), which is likely, a federal court can and does have jurisdiction. If he's in the UK (which is the second most likely candidate), then it's the British legal system which has jurisdiction and is also gearing up.

If he's not in the US or the UK, it is still entirely possible he's in a country that is either looking for anon on it's own soil. So again, the question, why take this kind of a risk?

 

[AnonOperations]

No one is complaining about being harassed by the FBI. Instead anons are taking practical steps to deal with this.

Some of you keep building straw-man arguments and attacking them. Its weak.

We have seen the naked self interest of Washingtonian power that has previously been expressed so subtly that it has been hard to see. We see a more classical form of censorship that we are all familiar with from the days of the Soviet Uninon but thought did not exist in the West. It now being expressed in a unsubtle manner. The pentagon stating publicly in a televeised 40 min press conference ordering wikileaks to destroy all previous publications and all upcoming material related to the pentagon and cease dealing with US military whistle blowers.

 

[Starke]

This sounds awfully like "When the government (or corporations working for them) does it, it can't be illegal". Wasn't that Nixon's defence? And didn't the public at large despise him for it?

Nah, the public hated Nixon for other reasons. Nixon came in in the last 35 minutes of the Vietnam War. It was unpopular as fuck and he campaigned (partially) on pulling out. But, he entered office in 1968, and by January of 1972 the war was still ongoing.

He also did fun things like saying that the FBI didn't need warrants to wiretap people, an opinion he shared with J. Edgar Hoover. But, it was an opinion the Supreme Court felt a little less strongly about.

Your founding fathers wanted checks and balances on power for exactly this reason - because they knew that governments couldn't be taken at their word, that they had to prove themselves worthy of the power we invest in them. Why can the FBI tap phones, or examine data traces, or for that matter burst into someone's home in the middle of the night, if 'you the people' can't trust them to be acting legally at all times?

There has always been a delicate balance in this country. The interests of the individual versus the interests of protecting the individual from each other.

The founding fathers never imaged a scenario in which there was no possibility for government intrusion in one's personal life, what they envisioned was a system that limited governmental intrusion using various systems. One of these is the search warrant, which allows FBI agents to do exactly this, kick down your door whenever they damn well please and execute a search. The warrant application is required to demonstrate (in theoretical[footnote]I mean in constitutional terms. A warrant must demonstrate this through concrete information.[/footnote] terms) that the government has a compelling interest in investigating this location which trumps the individual's expectation of privacy, and that this is the least restrictive method to see the government's interest executed.

This is a far cry from the fears of Nixon logging private phone conversations with the hope that it would somehow protect the United States from the menace of the Soviet Union... or Democrats. What Nixon did was a violation of trust, but it was also one that was unintended. The office of the president was viewed through most of American history as a "Constitutional Clerk" who executed the office in support of the legislature. It was only in the 20th century that the Presidency (at the behest of congress) took on the power associated with the role today.

Edit: Fucked up the quote tags.