Fair point, I've amended my post above to reflect the fact that Wikileaks are the owners of the servers that were to be attacked. However, this only strengthens Wikileaks' position, as it seems that powerful corporations like BoA are willing to disregard lawfulness to get back at them. Since the legal grounds for any charges against Assange and Wikileaks is shaky at best, and non-existent at worst, it seems like the only ones who are provably guilty of anything suspect are Anonymous (if I grant your premise) on one side, and HBGary, the BoA and possibly the FBI on the other side. But we were kinda expecting Anonymous to break the law, or exploit loopholes in it - that's what they do, and are known for. The FBI and BoA are supposed to be pillars of American society. If this is what the pillars are like, what does that say for the building?Starke said:
Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
They got on average an article or maybe two from NYT, CNN and WSJ on the actual attacks themselves. Even there, and I'd need to check to be sure my recollection is accurate, but only CNN actually played up the organization at all, NYT hasn't paid much attention to Anon at all since 2008, I'm unsure on the WSJ. That's maybe 2 articles, which puts it up there with the DDoS of Myanmar last year. So again, outside of news junkies and techies no one knows or cares anymore.AnonOperations said:
You could argue that you don't need media attention to produce a result through protests, but that's kinda pointless. If you can't get attention then you can be ignored, quite effectively. And if you want to change things you first have to fight (political) inertia to get things moving. Without that, any hope for changing... well anything, is just about nil, and status quo will win out every time.
It looks like the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction in Oz, or wherever the hell Wikileaks is actually served from. I mean, that's the other side of this, BoA and pals are a lot like Anon's claim in this case, they sit outside the national jurisdiction where they're going to actually commit the crime, and rest on Personal Jurisdiction to keep them safe. As for the Pentagon (not the FBI), dirty tricks are half their job, and in the case of Wikileaks all of it. It's unfortunate, but not surprising.FluxCapacitor said:
For the moment I'm inclined to suspect that BoA and the FBI are actually separate clients in this mess with no direct knowledge of what the other was doing, unless there's something actually connecting both operations (other than Anonymous' love of Wikileaks) that I'm unaware of.
EDIT: Assange did commit crimes under Chapter 115 that he can be charged with, just not treason. The question is getting their hands on him. All the jurisdiction in the world won't do you any good if you don't have personal jurisdiction. The Swedish Prosecutor is way the fuck out of line, to be sure, but if that's at the behest of the American Intelligence Community as Assange's lawyer has suggested or just a prosecutor out on a big game hunt isn't completely clear, yet.
I don't disagree about the FBI and BoA being different clients, but they certainly hired the same skeezy IT firm so they have the same standards of legality.Starke said:
And are we back saying that if the Pentagon does it, that's okay? That particular pill might be easy for Americans to swallow since they're supposedly doing it in your name, but it's pretty bitter for us in the rest of the world. I can't imagine how bitter it is for someone from a country that America has crapped on in the last 40 years.
Anonymous have the power to damage reputations of its targets (and maybe incur IT repair costs). The Pentagon has the power to lead the U.S. into wars condemned by the U.N., killing thousands of people, not to mention low level black ops in countries around the world. Whom should we hold to a higher standard? Who REALLY needs to clean up their act?
And as a reply to your edit, Starke:
As far as I am aware, there has been no concrete path to charging Assange laid down. The Chapter 115 approach - treason or sedition - relies upon proving Bradley Manning had direct contact with Assange prior to allegedly stealing the cables (I say allegedly, since Manning hasn't been charged publicly with anything either), which they haven't been able to do. They then have to prove that Assange incited Manning to act against his country, which they certainly can't do as far as I've seen. Finally, they'd have to show that he was not acting as a journalist at the time, since journalistic efforts like this are legalised under whistleblower laws.
I know that Australia's AFP has formally stated that Assange has broken no Australian law. As an Aussie, I feel that this is enough for me to put him in the "didn't break the law" pile.
If the US Justice Dept had a strong case, why not try Assange in absentia, the way they did for Bin Laden following the first WTC bombing and the USS Cole? Because they don't have the case, that's why. After Gitmo, many of us in the rest of the world don't really trust your govt to release someone if they can't prove guilt (Google "David Hicks"), so Assange will fight tooth and nail to avoid US territory. I would too in his position.
As far as I am aware, there has been no concrete path to charging Assange laid down. The Chapter 115 approach - treason or sedition - relies upon proving Bradley Manning had direct contact with Assange prior to allegedly stealing the cables (I say allegedly, since Manning hasn't been charged publicly with anything either), which they haven't been able to do. They then have to prove that Assange incited Manning to act against his country, which they certainly can't do as far as I've seen. Finally, they'd have to show that he was not acting as a journalist at the time, since journalistic efforts like this are legalised under whistleblower laws.
I know that Australia's AFP has formally stated that Assange has broken no Australian law. As an Aussie, I feel that this is enough for me to put him in the "didn't break the law" pile.
If the US Justice Dept had a strong case, why not try Assange in absentia, the way they did for Bin Laden following the first WTC bombing and the USS Cole? Because they don't have the case, that's why. After Gitmo, many of us in the rest of the world don't really trust your govt to release someone if they can't prove guilt (Google "David Hicks"), so Assange will fight tooth and nail to avoid US territory. I would too in his position.
I think It would be unwise to assume what lengths people are willing to go to. Aaron Barr assumed anons would just respond with DDoS and look what happened.Starke said:
As for me I have considered the possibilities. I am prepared to go to court for what little I have done with my head held high, if it comes to that. It will only serve to bring more attention to what anons are fighting for. But yes, I am behind several layers of protection.
The inhumane treatment of Bradly Manning I find deeply troubling. More protests on this to come.
If a few thousand of those files contained "DESU DESU DESU" and "MILHOUSE IS NOT A MEME" HBGary could be telling the truth. But it wouldd have to be in the region of 59,900 to 59,999 of them.Greg Tito said:
Otherwise...
I'll just leave you with a great quote from author Richard K Morgan:Pandaman1911 said:
"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a willful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses."
So go ahead and keep taking the blue pill brah, people like Julian will do the fighting for you.
Nuff said.
I'm in favor of the right to free speech.Starke said:
Whether or not you think free speech is worth the death of prisoners is up to you, but my opinion is that if people roll over and let an oppressive government do whatever the fuck they want because of those prisoners it allows said regime to stay in power. Whether or not that causes more deaths in the future I can't say, but it sure as hell isn't good for human rights.
Excerpt from Greenwood's Blog-
"And perhaps most disturbing of all, Hunton & Williams was recommended to Bank of America's General Counsel by the Justice Department -- meaning the U.S. Government is aiding Bank of America in its defense against/attacks on WikiLeaks.
That's why this should be taken seriously, despite how ignorant, trite and laughably shallow is the specific leaked anti-WikiLeaks proposal. As creepy and odious as this is, there's nothing unusual about these kinds of smear campaigns."
They have already helped to destroy Assange but now they are trying to do the same to those that speak out at the cause, not just the man.
People like to believe they live in a world of rainbows and far off wars. Remember those crazy survivalists? Frankly, they had a good idea.
"And perhaps most disturbing of all, Hunton & Williams was recommended to Bank of America's General Counsel by the Justice Department -- meaning the U.S. Government is aiding Bank of America in its defense against/attacks on WikiLeaks.
That's why this should be taken seriously, despite how ignorant, trite and laughably shallow is the specific leaked anti-WikiLeaks proposal. As creepy and odious as this is, there's nothing unusual about these kinds of smear campaigns."
They have already helped to destroy Assange but now they are trying to do the same to those that speak out at the cause, not just the man.
People like to believe they live in a world of rainbows and far off wars. Remember those crazy survivalists? Frankly, they had a good idea.
ugh, this stuff ticks me off..........the hackers are DBags, and so are the corrupt business peoples. Two sides who both deserve a kick in the crotch.
I personally hate the idea of WikiLeaks (mainly because they support hackers), and do not support anyone who hacks/displays personal information as a retaliation. I hope the FBI finds the tools involved (not saying the corrupt should go unpunished, but come on WikiLeaks is the most douchey thing out there) HBGary however.........I gotta say whaaaaaat?!?!?! you guys are too funky for words (not "oooo that's funky fresh" but "damn man yo bathroom smells funky as hell") why on earth would someone hire these guys......maybe they do deserve the attack. And come on don't be desperate and try to lie about the accounts being fake
That is all of my hungover angry rant, now if you excuse me I need to go take an advil, revisit last night's munchins and drinkins, and pass out for a few hours
(oooooooooo or skip all that and go to Chipotle)
I personally hate the idea of WikiLeaks (mainly because they support hackers), and do not support anyone who hacks/displays personal information as a retaliation. I hope the FBI finds the tools involved (not saying the corrupt should go unpunished, but come on WikiLeaks is the most douchey thing out there) HBGary however.........I gotta say whaaaaaat?!?!?! you guys are too funky for words (not "oooo that's funky fresh" but "damn man yo bathroom smells funky as hell") why on earth would someone hire these guys......maybe they do deserve the attack. And come on don't be desperate and try to lie about the accounts being fake
That is all of my hungover angry rant, now if you excuse me I need to go take an advil, revisit last night's munchins and drinkins, and pass out for a few hours
(oooooooooo or skip all that and go to Chipotle)
That being said, it can still be Assange's personal defense and annonymous. After all anyone who's identity is unkown is annonymous after all.Carnagath said:thethingthatlurks said:
Didn't claim anything about Anon, but about this specific group of people who happen to be calling themselves Anon. I don't think they'd be so well informed and skilled if they were your typical basement dwelling 20-something trolls, and I don't think they are performing all those impeccably timed "hacks" randomly and for free. I think it's more likely that Assange might have hired some "personal defense", and there's nothing conspiratory about that.
Actually on a second quick pass the only mentions of the FBI in conjunction with HB Gary Federal are that 1) The FBI wanted to question Aaron Barr and 2) Anonymous thought Barr was going to sell the information to the FBI. But here's the weird thing there Barr announced the information claiming it was going to go up at a security conference. Now, if the FBI was intending to use this the last thing they'd want is for the information to be publicly available on a white paper.FluxCapacitor said:
As for the Pentagon, yeah, they're the shits. I'm not really inclined to defend them. Though it has been actions on the part of the executive, exploiting a modern loophole in the deployment language that has gotten the American military into every major engagement in the last decade, not the Pentagon's lust for power. What can I say, we chose poorly (or were duped) in 2000 and 2004, I'm sorry.
Sorry, Chapter 37, I was tired and for some reason the distribution of classified data was under 115, my bad. Now, he almost certainly did violate Chapter 37, Section 793, without ever stepping foot in the US. Unusually dense wall of text incoming. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html] Now, obviously that isn't an Australian law, and that's fine for Oz, but it does certainly apply any time he gets within grabbing distance of the US.FluxCapacitor said:
Do I think he should be tried? Or rather that he wasn't doing something with good intent? I'm not sure. His intent appeared to be to encourage America to clean up its act by airing its dirty secrets. Which is actually quite laudable. But it won't be enough to protect him from prosecution if he ends up in the US. And he did quite certainly violate US laws by distributing the intel he got his hands on.
Assange has made people who were on the ground willing to work to rebuild Iraq and Afganistan hunted men. Prices have been put on the heads of people who collaborated based on the things he's released. Assange has gotten people killed for telling someone with a flag on their shoulder what they knew.
So, at the end, here's my problem, what he intended was laudable, but he also got people killed, and that's a much tougher pill to swallow.
Sorry, I'm rambling, but there you go.
I am also in favor of free speech, but I also know a few things about Iran that you don't. In 1952 the CIA overthrew the Iranian President Mohammad Mossadeq and installed Shah Pahlavi. The reason for this was fears that Mossadeq's cabinent had communists, but Mossadeq himself was a strong advocate of a democratic state, so when the Iranian communist party had been able to win some ground during the election, he attached them to his cabinet. He also nationalized Iran's oil industry.danpascooch said:
In 1940's and 50's Iran's oil industry was an exploitative contract with BP. BP had negotiated the contract while Iran was a British protectorate under the League of Nations Mandate.[footnote]I think, I'm a little fuzzy on this bit of the history.[/footnote] So BP was negotiating with other Brits for the rights to Iran's oil, not Iranians. BP was regularly under-reporting to the Iranian government how much their equipment was worth, how much they were exporting, and how much the oil was selling for. Mossadeq paid them for their equipment and concessions based on their under-reported numbers and told them to get out.
BP went to someone in the British Government and complained. Whoever it was in the British Government went to MI6 and told them to "fix this". MI6 went to the CIA and pointed and said "communists". The CIA sent an individual with the highly unfortunate name of Kermit Roosevelt jr. Roosevelt set up and executed a coup which removed Mossadeq from power, and instituting Shah Pahlavi.
Shah Pahlavi, and his son, were, by all accounts oppressive dictators, who were far more interested in having power and wealth than in ruling. The Iranian revolution in 1979 was initially a fairly broad spectrum uprising, the Islamic faction that ended up taking control after the revolution is a separate (and for the moment irrelevant) story.
The point is this, I like free speech, you like free speech, and so do the people in Iran. But, what the people in Iran don't share with you or I is a perception that America is a state that does not care about the ideals we preach, and believes (or understands) that this is simply the rhetoric we use to subjugate others.
To insert American Jingoism into Iran blithely believing it will make a difference is naive, and is entirely likely to cause more harm than good.
So, is free speech worth a couple of lives? Yes, if that is what they're dying for. If they're dying because someone who doesn't understand the political and historic environment is off there blundering around then it is a tragedy, they aren't dying for free speech, they're dying as a monument to incompetence blinded by jingoism.
In general, when it isn't your area of expertise then that's a good idea, don't. But, as it is my area of expertise, I feel a little more qualified to make that assessment.AnonOperations said:
It's a little irrelevant if you're willing to go to court, the question is, are you willing to spend the next 15 to 20 years in prison and accept a sentence that will preclude you from touching a computer again for 10 years after that?AnonOperations said:
Aaron Barr is a security expert that investigated anonymous and he still made that assumption. What expertise do yo have, that you think allows you to make such an arrogant assumption?Starke said:
You also are bringing up the claim that some of the cables caused the deaths of people. This is a claim made by the pentagon that was likely made to try influence public opinion. There is no evidence that any of the cables caused someone to come to harm. Needless to say, they are trying their best to find evidence of this to try make wikileaks look reckless.
It seems your opinion is strong in that wikileaks is causing damage. Well my opinion is strong in that any bad is far outweighed by the good.