FBI Raids Texas Company in Hunt for Anonymous

[teknoarcanist]

"Alright guys, we're up against a mercurial, randomly-striking, decentralized network of individuals driven dually by activism and their own desire for amusement. What's our plan of action?"

"...randomly attack a single target and hope for the best?"

"...eh. That...should work. BUT WHAT IF IT DOESN'T?!"

"DO IT A BUNCH!!!"

"BRILLIANT."

Boy thank god the FBI doesn't have anything better to do. Like hunt dangerous domestic terrorist cells or anything. <_<

(Party van to the rescue.)

 

[Wise_Smiling_Panda]

The very same people who criticized the Soviet Union for leading a closed society are now themselves enforcing a closed society.

"In Soviet America, law breaks you!"

...someone has been reading too many (de)motivational posters recently...

 

[Super Toast]

Somewhere, someone is shitting their pants.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

I love it how everyone thinks it was anonymous that did this. You would need upwards of 200 000 participants to take down both those sites for such a long time. Sure maybe they helped but I doubt over 200 000 /b/tards just thought it would be cool to fire up their LOICs.

 

[Grimlock Fett]

People are quick to judge when "the gov" does something in its own interest but unless you're living in a cave and are fully self sufficient (water/electricity/food) you probably shouldn't be complaining about them! Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
But don't misunderstand, I'm all for freedom of speech and all that good shit but if you could stop someone from saying something discrediting about you you would! They're just defending themselves to the best of their power! Which is ALOT!

 

[Calbeck]

The very same people who criticized the Soviet Union for leading a closed society are now themselves enforcing a closed society.

Yeah.

You're not an open society unless you allow people to freely distribute stolen classified documents. You must also condone efforts to shut down other folks' businesses if they have the temerity to not want to do business with the aforementioned distributors. And of course you REALLY can't go after folks who hijack other folks' computers for the purpose of carrying out the attacks in the first place.

Because having issues with any of that would be wrong.

 

[Kair]

The very same people who criticized the Soviet Union for leading a closed society are now themselves enforcing a closed society.

Yeah.

You're not an open society unless you allow people to freely distribute stolen classified documents. You must also condone efforts to shut down other folks' businesses if they have the temerity to not want to do business with the aforementioned distributors. And of course you REALLY can't go after folks who hijack other folks' computers for the purpose of carrying out the attacks in the first place.

Because having issues with any of that would be wrong.

If no one ever broke the law, the law would not be changed, and the law would be more wrong than it is. Keep in mind that the law is not what is right, but it can be what is right.

Take South Africa, was it wrong of the protesters to work against the apartheid government? It was counter-productive to the purposes of the white elite, and many protests went against the law.

 

[Evil the White]

Sad thing is, once the FBI find the people who did it, they'll just turn around and hire them to work for them as well paid "consultants" to help stop other hackers.

Who beter to catch a thief than an experianced thief?

But yeah, the chances of them getting those actually responsible is very slim.

 

[standokan]

This would be cool if the anonymous would be actually evil, or bad at least.

 

[Brian Hendershot]

I don't support Anonymous or what they did. I also don't support WikiLeaks. I am all in favor for the government telling us the truth and keeping us informed, but some things are meant to be a secret for our safety.

Everyone knows Russia is basically run by Vladmir Putin though. Don't know why people are still surprised by that.

I suppose ignorance is bliss...

It is still ignorance though, don't forget that.

PS: check out this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelmEZe8whI&feature=player_embedded
If you can watch that and still love our government, or even trust them you are something.

Dude..don't make me explain this again. Look I don't trust our government by any means. And love...well I tolerate them. I just don't think WikiLeaks is a good idea when it could potentially endanger not only out lives and troop lives, but other nations as well.

Then again, killing off four billion people would do wonders for the economy and the environment

 

[loremazd]

Look, they aren't going to get caught, and thankfully they're too ADD to ever cause a DDoS attack that lasts more than a few hours at most.

The only reason they're being chased is they did an attack on what is essentially a bank and stopped commerce, not because the government doesn't like them.

And frankly, given that my taxes pay for their salaries, hell yes, i want them to investigate people who interrupt commerce.

 

[Avatar Roku]

There is little if anything illegal about WikiLeaks.

A Federally funded reactionary security force, judicially exempt from the 4th amendment and answerable to no elected official on the other hand... I digress.

A DDoS attack creates no true damage, only disruption. The same as a giant protest outside of a bank.

I can still donate to the American Nazi Party and the KKK through Pay Pal, and HAVE donated to WikiLeaks. If Fox News and CNN hosts are considered "Journalists," then by that standard what is WikiLeaks?

"Judicially exempt from the 4th amendment"...ok, I don't know a whole lot about the FBI, but I do know some about the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the 4th amendment specifically allows for exceptions (i.e, warrants) when there is probable cause, right? I'd say there definitely is probable cause here, so where is the unconstitutionality?

Why do you people think "anonymous" is some unified group?

This entire thread is populated by people who don't -know- what the hell an anonymous group actually means, even if it's in the goddamn name.

And yet, they all have rather well defined opinions on what whatever their interpretation of this group is. Classy.

An anonymous group, by definition, can be ANYTHING. Random people out of nowhere can bomb a hospital or do bank robberies and claim to be anonymous. There's nothing stopping this. Anyone can do anything under the name "anonymous," and that's the entire point.

Talking about "anonymous" as if it were a specific group of people is wrong. I mean, maybe 80% of this thread is anonymous "members?" Who knows? Certainly nobody will say anything that directly links them to this public image, which is obvious.

Be fair, here. It should be obvious that we're (or at least, most of us are) simply saying "Anons", in this case to refer to the specific anons behind this attack, since there is not other short way of referring to them.

Everyone talks about the "rights of this" and the "rights of that" and how Anonymous are either villians or heroes.. but you know who the real victim is?

Paypal and Mastercard and their CUSTOMERS.

Why don't these two companies have the right to decide with WHOM they will and will not do business? Did the American government pressure them into dumping wikileaks? Possibly. But So what? Anonymous doesn't realize they are just on the other end of the stick... the government would force those companies not to aid wikileaks, but Anonymous on the other hand by their actions apparently take the stance that they WOULD force them to.

And the customers? They are the most innocent in this, because they are unable to utilize the services of these companies or develop fears about the security of their assets.

This is why they deserve EVERY BIT of what is happening to them. The FBI is in the right here, regardless of your political beliefs, because what some people are calling "freedom" is actually "anarchy", and NOBODY really wants Anarchy except 14 year old idiots who have had everything handed to them on a platter and have yet to realize that if there is no AUTHORITY, there is no one to stop OTHER people from imposing on your freedoms.

Sometimes secrets are necessary. Government secrets are necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Average Joe Public doesn't NEED to know every single little thing. Subterfuge and clandestine actions are sometimes preferable to showboating every little action.

Paypal and Visa had a choice to maintain their fair services to wikileaks or to cave in to unreasonable demands from a government that overstepped its bounds. They deserved those DDoS attacks as a reminder that we shouldn't just cave in.

"Overstepped its bounds". Not at all. There are laws in place, such as The Patriot Act, that specifically allow that. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of the Patriot Act until the heat death of the universe (and, for the record, I'm against it), but the fact remains that this law is on the books and has been for years. They're using authority they've had for quite a while.

It's like a criminal organization and the cops.
If the cops demand that you can no longer sell guns to a group of people, and you do it, how does it make it right if that group comes and breaks your legs and burns down your store for complying with the authorities?

If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:

You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.

An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".

Sorta, except that instead of not being allowed to sell to people who look Middle Eastern, they're not allowed to sell to one specific person who is known for being a criminal.

I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't say "You have 4th amendment rights unless they have probable cause to break them" The exceptions are a LITTLE more specific that that for Christs sake! And what the government is doing does not fall under any of the exempt conditions.

Ah, well now I'm glad I couched my statement in "I don't know much about the FBI". I assumed they still needed to get a warrant, my bad.

They DO still need to get a warrant, that's the problem, nothing in the article says they got one.

...I'd think that's sort of assumed, isn't it? Can you imagine the legal shitstorm if they didn't get one? And there's literally no reason for them not to, you think they can't find a judge who agrees with them?

You'd think they would get a warrant, but in these sorts of raids the FBI often doesn't because the vague clusterfuck of policies in the Patriot Act often allows them to slip out of getting one. The funny thing is the argument is usually "THIS IS URGENT! WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET A WARRANT!" but in an urgent situation, they are actually allowed to get a warrant a little bit AFTER a raid, so there is literally never any reason to not get a warrant unless they KNOW they can't get one because a judge wouldn't be willing to call the raid legal.

I'm not saying what they did was illegal, but it WAS unconstitutional in my opinion, because the Patriot Act, which basically allows them to take a shit on the 4th amendment by not having to deal with a pesky judge telling them "Are you guys fucking serious? This raid isn't legal, there is no fucking way I'd ever give you a warrant for this" is a complete circumvention of the 4th amendment.

For the record, I agree completely on the constitutionality of The Patriot Act. Thing is, its on the books and has been for years, so...

Also, I find it very, very hard to believe that they could not find 1 Federal Judge (or 1 judge in the jurisdiction to be raided, not sure how it works) who would grant a warrant. The Justice Department is far from monolithic, so they should be able to find 1 judge to grant a warrant for anything, conceivably. Hell, that's not even going into the prospect of judges who would...put other matters before the strict interpretation of the law, if you follow me.

 

[SimuLord]

Find them, break them, make an example of them, and once you're done, send moot to a Slovakian torture chamber.

The despicable cyber-terrorists are about to find out they're not above the law, and I love it.

 

[DaggerOfCompassion]

Anonymous did what was right, and I stand behind them on that.

 

[KCL]

If they take out the "troops", who will risk being one?

How many people have been sued for pirating? How many people have stopped pirating as a result?

Are we discussing pirating? I thought this was about DDOS-attacks, spreading of CP and harrassing parents of deceased children.

Your argument was that prosecuting people for participating in DDoS attacks will deter them from participating. This argument is demonstrably false, as the war against piracy has shown.

 

[Wicky_42]

content snip

wow, reading your posts was actually almost pleasurable - it's great to see someone who actually gives a damn and is informed (shock horror!) in his opinions. Kudos, Sir, even if Game Informer prefers to keep his head in the mud.

I've no idea what he meant by '[the UK] already knew about everything' - sure, the sceptics always assumed the worse but I have friends who are more than happy to believe the party line, even to the point of supporting cavalry charges on student protesters... even the peaceful ones.

Game Informer's problem IMO is that it's easy to become jaded and give up on changing things for the better, to just take what happens as the expected result without hoping or even thinking that things could be done better.
As an example
"Yeah, people die in war, it's just what happens"
1) then protest against going to war, else you're condoning all those people's deaths.
2) call for greater accountability for soldiers - that chopper crew made a slew of bad calls; they should be made accountable, just as the A-10 crew who bombed a British military convoy in the opening stages of the war were.
3) scrutinise the government's reasons for war and see if they have any idea how to resolve it - as you've pointed out, all the reasons given were lies or undermined by the absolute mockery of a government the coalition has installed and the actions it's taken already and there's no improvement to the situation on the horizon; what possible reason for supporting the continuing conflict is there?

As far as I can see, it's an even bigger fuck-up than Vietnam as there's not even an actively opposing nation backed up by a world super-power working against the Coalition in Iraq, just a bunch of people doing what they can to protect their homes, country, and way of life from marauding invaders.
/end ramble