Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

[derob]

political and socio-political skirmishes are now more likely to take place online. this just happens to be a good example for the more public cases of such scenarios.

 

[Starke]

That's a very mature reaction thank you. There's nothing wrong with hating Anon's methods, that's a matter of opinion.

To be honest I actually had to look that up just to present to you, and much of my earlier arguments were based on assumption, so in a very real way we were equally ignorant. As someone who gets most (if not all) of my IRL news from Colbert and the Daily Show (people scoff at that, but hell, it's SO much more reliable than Fox News it's not even funny) I can relate to being behind on this stuff, I literally get no news on the weekends, I didn't even know about that Arizona shooting until like 3 days later.

Honestly the only reason I keep track of the news at all is because I installed rainmeter and set up the feeds setting to pull CNN.

EDIT: As an aside, there was a study done a while back where they were looking at factors for news and political awareness. Viewers of The Daily Show (this predated Colbert spinning off) scored substantially higher. In other words, nothing wrong with that.

Sourcing off the original link sent me to a blog, citing off another news source that could use some pointers in objective writing. However, a few minutes of searching did bring up this gem [http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112158387191255.html] (and a following incident [http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112169518348693.html]). Read between the lines and it looks like the police opened fire and are trying to pin it on someone else. And here's [http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/01/20111302244769874.html] some corroboration of the National Post article that sourced your link. So while they're writing could use some improvement they're not completely nuts...[footnote]I'm sourcing off of Al Jazeera because they're one of the only news networks out there that actually has active desks in the Middle East, as opposed to shuffling reporters in for a story.[/footnote] Though I can't shake the suspicion that the reason she was executed as a drug trafficker was because she couldn't be legally executed for what she said.

Read between the lines and it looks like Iran is scared shitless of becoming the next Egypt, which may ironically put them directly in a path for that if they do start cracking down on protesters the way these reports seem to indicate.

 

[Desert Tiger]

Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

snip
HBGary also released a statement this week which seemed to suggest that the information Anonymous posted was faked. "Please be aware that any information currently in the public domain is not reliable because the perpetrators of this offense, or people working closely with them, have intentionally falsified certain data," the statement read.

Besides the fact that forging 60,000 emails as well as PDFs, Word docs, and presentations is ridiculous, it is not Anonoymous' modus operandi to think the way these mooks do. I don't know about you, but claiming that the information is false is disingenuous. It's clearly a deliberate attempt to discredit Anonymous that's worthy of the way these guys think, say, like proposing to do the same thing with a liberal reporter.

snip

Is that not what so right wing nuts did by falsifying emails making global warming look like a hoax?

(read neutral voice) I would not put anything past terrorists. and that is what Anonymous is terrorists. They support a man who critically weakened the US's ability to negotiate by releasing our negotiating strategies. They caused Millions (if not Billions) of dollars in damage to companies for Following the law.

These people claim freedom but only for their point of view. They are dangerous to all free nations because they attack anyone that disagrees with them. If this evidence was real then take it to the media or the authorities wait they can not because they broke the law to get this info. If I hacked into the Escapist's website (which I will not because it is illegal and I try not to break the laws) and stole everyones bank numbers. Noone would support me, even if I used the money to fund Anonymous. Why? Because I just stole your money. Anonymous is nothing more than thugs going after (maybe not innocent but not illegal) organizations and then crying foul that a bank tried to go after them.

You sadden me, sir.

It's kinda different when you consider that they put them up for torrent as soon as they obtained them. They may be "Hackers on steroids" (thanks for that image, FOX) but I doubt even they could falsify 60,000 emails convincingly in such a short amount of time, much less even read through them.

Also, the entire reason they're doing this is to expose illegal and unethical operations and procedures by these "legal" businesses (read through some of the articles already posted thorughout this comments section as to a couple not so legal examples) to the public. What happens when these guys in their ivory towers are so high above the clouds they're well above the law? They need something to bring them back to Earth - let them know that even if there's nobody above them there's always going to be somebody keeping an eye on them if they try to push it. It's fighting fire with fire.

Also, no offence, but I'd say that's a pretty poor comparison, to be honest. If you stole bank numbers, then nobody would support you. If you stole information that a business stole bank numbers, I'm pretty damn sure a lot would. I would, at any rate. That's the kind of operations that Anon take part in.

 

[ProGrasTiNation]

Been following wiki along time now & im glad there are hackers out there that stand for something,other than malicious attacks on people for money...fuck big corporations,they rule us with money.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Anonymous' Target Planned to "Take Down" WikiLeaks

snip
HBGary also released a statement this week which seemed to suggest that the information Anonymous posted was faked. "Please be aware that any information currently in the public domain is not reliable because the perpetrators of this offense, or people working closely with them, have intentionally falsified certain data," the statement read.

Besides the fact that forging 60,000 emails as well as PDFs, Word docs, and presentations is ridiculous, it is not Anonoymous' modus operandi to think the way these mooks do. I don't know about you, but claiming that the information is false is disingenuous. It's clearly a deliberate attempt to discredit Anonymous that's worthy of the way these guys think, say, like proposing to do the same thing with a liberal reporter.

snip

Is that not what so right wing nuts did by falsifying emails making global warming look like a hoax?

(read neutral voice) I would not put anything past terrorists. and that is what Anonymous is terrorists. They support a man who critically weakened the US's ability to negotiate by releasing our negotiating strategies. They caused Millions (if not Billions) of dollars in damage to companies for Following the law.

These people claim freedom but only for their point of view. They are dangerous to all free nations because they attack anyone that disagrees with them. If this evidence was real then take it to the media or the authorities wait they can not because they broke the law to get this info. If I hacked into the Escapist's website (which I will not because it is illegal and I try not to break the laws) and stole everyones bank numbers. Noone would support me, even if I used the money to fund Anonymous. Why? Because I just stole your money. Anonymous is nothing more than thugs going after (maybe not innocent but not illegal) organizations and then crying foul that a bank tried to go after them.

You sadden me, sir.

It's kinda different when you consider that they put them up for torrent as soon as they obtained them. They may be "Hackers on steroids" (thanks for that image, FOX) but I doubt even they could falsify 60,000 emails convincingly in such a short amount of time, much less even read through them.

Also, the entire reason they're doing this is to expose illegal and unethical operations and procedures by these "legal" businesses (read through some of the articles already posted thorughout this comments section as to a couple not so legal examples) to the public. What happens when these guys in their ivory towers are so high above the clouds they're well above the law? They need something to bring them back to Earth - let them know that even if there's nobody above them there's always going to be somebody keeping an eye on them if they try to push it. It's fighting fire with fire.

Also, no offence, but I'd say that's a pretty poor comparison, to be honest. If you stole bank numbers, then nobody would support you. If you stole information that a business stole bank numbers, I'm pretty damn sure a lot would. I would, at any rate. That's the kind of operations that Anon take part in.

And if you stole information that put my buddies at risk. Information that did not relieve illegal activity (some may have been ethically wrong or just embarrassing) just because Anon does not believe that governments have the right to keep secrets. For every crime they exposed, they put me and my friends in danger. For every embarrassing secret they showed, more danger. Are the banks clean, No. But do they have the right to hire security companies to counter-attack a site releasing sensitive information, I say yes.

If I had the Hacking skills, I would go after wikileaks and claim self-defense. Because I have probable cause that releasing that info put me at risk.

At least we agree that Anonymous needs to be taken down a notch.

 

[AnonOperations]

And if you stole information that put my buddies at risk. Information that did not relieve illegal activity (some may have been ethically wrong or just embarrassing) just because Anon does not believe that governments have the right to keep secrets. For every crime they exposed, they put me and my friends in danger. For every embarrassing secret they showed, more danger. Are the banks clean, No. But do they have the right to hire security companies to counter-attack a site releasing sensitive information, I say yes.

If I had the Hacking skills, I would go after wikileaks and claim self-defense. Because I have probable cause that releasing that info put me at risk.

At least we agree that Anonymous needs to be taken down a notch.

There is already plenty of hackers attacking wikileaks and anonymous.

Both wikileaks and most Anons do not believe that the Government should have no secrets. We believe that they shouldn't be able to use secrecy to hide unjust and unethical behavior. Assange has plainly stated this many times in his interviews. Although, I will agree that some things did not need to be leaked.

 

[Starke]

If I had the Hacking skills, I would go after wikileaks and claim self-defense. Because I have probable cause that releasing that info put me at risk.

At least we agree that Anonymous needs to be taken down a notch.

Mostly a nitpick, but the term "probable cause" has to do with situations where the government can override the fourth amendment. At least in the United States private citizens don't (and can't) have probable cause.

You could argue extenuating circumstances, but you'd lose. You might have cause of action for a tort, against someone, however.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

And if you stole information that put my buddies at risk. Information that did not relieve illegal activity (some may have been ethically wrong or just embarrassing) just because Anon does not believe that governments have the right to keep secrets. For every crime they exposed, they put me and my friends in danger. For every embarrassing secret they showed, more danger. Are the banks clean, No. But do they have the right to hire security companies to counter-attack a site releasing sensitive information, I say yes.

If I had the Hacking skills, I would go after wikileaks and claim self-defense. Because I have probable cause that releasing that info put me at risk.

At least we agree that Anonymous needs to be taken down a notch.

There is already plenty of hackers attacking wikileaks and anonymous.

Both wikileaks and most Anons do not believe that the Government should have no secrets. We believe that they shouldn't be able to use secrecy to hide unjust and unethical behavior. Assange has plainly stated this many times in his interviews. Although, I will agree that some things did not need to be leaked.

But it's apparently fine and dandy for Wikileaks and Anonymous to have secrets apparently?

See, that's where I have my problem. I don't believe I need another group of "nameless, faceless" people exposing other "nameless, faceless" people and their hidden agendas/secrets/activities.

Wanna impress me, step out from behind the veil. To hell with V and the Guy Fawkes mask "hidden avenger" crap. In the real world, guts count for everything. You wanna man up, gain trust and respect, and show that you're trying to be better? Then BE better. REAL heroes in history didn't hide their faces. Whether it be Martin Luther King, George Washington, or Robin bloody Hood, those guys stepped forward and said "Here I am and THIS is what I believe in. I'm ready to risk it all."

Simply claiming that you're willing to accept punishment for your cause while hiding yourself as much as possible doesn't really earn my respect.

 

[Starke]

And if you stole information that put my buddies at risk. Information that did not relieve illegal activity (some may have been ethically wrong or just embarrassing) just because Anon does not believe that governments have the right to keep secrets. For every crime they exposed, they put me and my friends in danger. For every embarrassing secret they showed, more danger. Are the banks clean, No. But do they have the right to hire security companies to counter-attack a site releasing sensitive information, I say yes.

If I had the Hacking skills, I would go after wikileaks and claim self-defense. Because I have probable cause that releasing that info put me at risk.

At least we agree that Anonymous needs to be taken down a notch.

There is already plenty of hackers attacking wikileaks and anonymous.

Both wikileaks and most Anons do not believe that the Government should have no secrets. We believe that they shouldn't be able to use secrecy to hide unjust and unethical behavior. Assange has plainly stated this many times in his interviews. Although, I will agree that some things did not need to be leaked.

But it's apparently fine and dandy for Wikileaks and Anonymous to have secrets apparently?

See, that's where I have my problem. I don't believe I need another group of "nameless, faceless" people exposing other "nameless, faceless" people and their hidden agendas/secrets/activities.

Wanna impress me, step out from behind the veil. To hell with V and the Guy Fawkes mask "hidden avenger" crap. In the real world, guts count for everything. You wanna man up, gain trust and respect, and show that you're trying to be better? Then BE better. REAL heroes in history didn't hide their faces. Whether it be Martin Luther King, George Washington, or Robin bloody Hood, those guys stepped forward and said "Here I am and THIS is what I believe in. I'm ready to risk it all."

Simply claiming that you're willing to accept punishment for your cause while hiding yourself as much as possible doesn't really earn my respect.

In a word, this is a major reason why Anonymous can't pull any media attention. They cannot forward a face to talk to the media, so they end up with the media controlling their access, and look at the HB Gary fallout. Anon doesn't even rate a mention in the articles anymore, it's all about "look at this neat/funny stuff we found out about these idiots."

 

[HyenaThePirate]

In a word, this is a major reason why Anonymous can't pull any media attention. They cannot forward a face to talk to the media, so they end up with the media controlling their access, and look at the HB Gary fallout. Anon doesn't even rate a mention in the articles anymore, it's all about "look at this neat/funny stuff we found out about these idiots."

Exactly. It's all too TMZ for me.

 

[Neferius]

old
we did not attack amazon.com

we attacked egyptian government sites last month as well to join the newly succesful Egyptian revolt.

We're moving on to Iran

Official Press release below.

MOST RESPECTABLE AND HONORABLE CITIZENS OF IRAN,

YOU ARE SPEAKING OUT- AND WE ARE LISTENING

We have not forgotten.

The protesters who are imprisoned and beaten, the bloggers who are censored, the citizens who are executed for speaking against the regime, you are the ones truly loyal to your country.

A new dawn is nearing that will set you and your great country free from the shackles of oppression, tyranny and torture. It will let you exhale, and finally take the first breath that will fill your lungs with strength, wisdom and freedom.

Anonymous will support and stand by your side all the way to the liberation of the body and mind for all Iranian citizens.

You and I who are anonymous are fearless of the discriminating regime. They already know of us, but can do nothing to stop us. They already fear us, but stand helpless to what will be unleashed upon them.
But most of all they fear you, which is why they have kept you in shackles for so long.
This is your time, you can now seize it and pave the way for your own future.

The government of Iran deliberately confuses dissent with disloyalty. It unjustly makes examples out of those who speak against its actions, hoping that it can scare others from doing the same by delivering harsh punishments. The government needs to be held accountable for its crimes against you, its citizens.

People of Iran, you will not be denied your right to free speech and free press; your right to freedom of assembly, uncensored information and unlimited access to the Internet; your right to a life without oppression and fear.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.

You claim to be a news-release mouthpiece for Anonymous (to which your default title of "Anonymous Source" is a hilarious coincidence)
...yet you yourself are not in the least bit Anonymous.
In-fact, you have gone so far as to connect a Facebook account which lists your Highschool AND your mother's name.

From this I can draw two plausible conclusions:
1. The information listed on Facebook is entirely fictitious.
or
2. You have created a Facebook account with someone else's personal details ...someone which I can assume you must really, really hate.

OR
3. You really are stupid enough to list your own personal details on an account which can then later be used to send an unmarked white-van to your front porch.
And under the new "Patriot Act" you will never be heard from again.
But you're not Really THAT Stupid ...ARE YOU?!

PS: If I do not receive a reply to this Message within a week or so, I will go ahead and post this on the message-board for discussion.

So here it is.

 

[AnonOperations]

In a word, this is a major reason why Anonymous can't pull any media attention. They cannot forward a face to talk to the media, so they end up with the media controlling their access, and look at the HB Gary fallout. Anon doesn't even rate a mention in the articles anymore, it's all about "look at this neat/funny stuff we found out about these idiots."

As I said, its not all about the media attention. And I guess you are choosing to ignore the anonymous interviews on RT and other news channels? There has also been plenty of reporters doing text and audio based interviews. But according to you, if its not all on mainstream media it means nothing?

Eg.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars
http://www.rferl.org/content/iran_hackers_anonymous_cyberarmy_opposition_internet/2313350.html

These articles is on the official wikileaks facebook page: http://blogs.computerworld.com/17827/hbgary_federal_quits_rsa_over_anonymous_wikileaks_email
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/14/hbgary-ceo-also-suggested-tracking-intimidating-wikileaks-donors/

 

[Starke]

In a word, this is a major reason why Anonymous can't pull any media attention. They cannot forward a face to talk to the media, so they end up with the media controlling their access, and look at the HB Gary fallout. Anon doesn't even rate a mention in the articles anymore, it's all about "look at this neat/funny stuff we found out about these idiots."

As I said, its not all about the media attention. And I guess you are choosing to ignore the anonymous interviews on RT and other news channels? There has also been plenty of reporters doing text and audio based interviews. But according to you, if its not all on mainstream media it means nothing?

Eg.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars
http://www.rferl.org/content/iran_hackers_anonymous_cyberarmy_opposition_internet/2313350.html

These articles is on the official wikileaks facebook page: http://blogs.computerworld.com/17827/hbgary_federal_quits_rsa_over_anonymous_wikileaks_email
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/14/hbgary-ceo-also-suggested-tracking-intimidating-wikileaks-donors/

Honestly, if it isn't mainstream media it is nothing. From the perspective of trying to keep yourself from getting hit hard, or even having an effect, yeah, if you don't have mainstream attention, you're nowhere.

You can't make people care about something if they don't hear you. You can't champion a cause if no one cares. No one does hear you, and no one does care except the people already inside the bubble. So all you can do is preach to the choir until the FBI comes and kicks down your door. That isn't a protest. That isn't championing a cause. That isn't martyrdom. That's a waste, and no one will care.

Now, you're doing a fine job in getting people in the tech sector to go, "hey, these guys are doing something" but for the average person? No media attention means you don't exist. There is NO mention of Anonymous on CNN at the moment. That means, as far as people who pay attention to you, they don't exist. The last time I heard from something about you from Fox News they were calling you terrorists, and unfortunately the people who do hear that, and believe it, will continue to believe it, that's the label you've been stuck with. Once you're stuck with that label and the mainstream media is ignoring you the inability to get media attention is fatal. You're going to be dragged out and paraded around as a show by the right of why we need stronger controls over what goes on on the internet, your crusade will end up being used against you to everyone's detriment, and no one will give a shit because what they were told was "they're just a bunch of terrorist hackers."

EDIT: I try to avoid Fox news as a matter of course, so if they have changed their stance, I haven't heard it. But, I doubt that will happen.

 

[Starke]

Here's the thing. I don't object to anon conceptually. In an era when political involvement is on the decline and political apathy is on the rise in this country, your intent certainly laudable.

The problem is all this amateur hour bullshit anon engages in. You're methods suck. Your press releases read like they were written by an 8 year old. No offense, but they do. Your rhetoric pushes towards doing more harm than good, especially in cases like Iran or Zimbabwe. Your methods cross the threshold into criminal activity, and if you think you can't be hunted down for that because you're hiding behind a proxy connection you're just simply fooling yourself.

I mean, you claim you've worked in networking, so I don't need to tell you what a proxy does or how it works. Or, more specifically what it does not do. It does not hide you from a criminal investigation. The only thing a proxy will do for personal concealment is hide you from a person. A single targeted individual. When it comes to law enforcement, hiding behind a proxy doesn't mean you can't be identified, arrested and prosecuted.

You've got the right idea, but you're doing it in all the wrong ways. What you need to do is to step back, and reemerge as an actual organization, with intelligent people who know what they're doing at the helm. None of this shadow anons bullshit. None of this we'll bring democracy to Iran via American jingoism bullshit. None of this 7am raids by the FBI. You had the perfect situation to make a genuine difference, and then you went and shat all over it in the name of being funny. You need to stop doing that.

 

[AnonOperations]

I don't live in America or Europe and I'm not behind a proxy (there are other methods). So you can stop with the tough guy law enforcement crap, especially since I haven't even participated in anything illegal.

You've made it clear that you don't agree with 1 of the methods used but choose to ignore everything else the group has done, and continues to do to help. And you have failed to provide any practical suggestions for anonops and instead try to downplay and criticize them in any way you can.

 

[Cavouku]

This is the second time I've had to necromance a subject for the sake of Colbert.
C'mon guys, this is prime stuff right here!

 

[Denamic]

Not too sure about Assange hiring some form of protection but this does seem a 'little' perculiar. The regular anonymous was never capable of this.

Yes they were.
Anonymous is millions of people.
Literally.
It'd be strange if some of these people weren't competent hackers.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people who design security systems were part of anon.