FBI Raids Texas Company in Hunt for Anonymous

[Low Key]

I didn't realize there were so many closet anarchists in the Escapist forums. Actually, I did, that's why I hardly post here anymore, but it's just dumbfounding reading some of these replies.

 

[JonnWood]

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

notSureIfSerious.jpg

Because DDOS attacks against websites that don't support a controversial website is just "Chaotic Good", amirite?

 

[Cheesebob]

F.B.I may be hitting the hornet's nest with a baseball bat if they arrest anyone

 

[RA92]

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

What baffles me is this - when the government's actions are attacked in any way, people take it personally. Hell, how would these people have reacted back when Nixon was caught with his pants down? "Yeah, yeah, we know politicians don't play by the rules. Move on, there's nothing to see. Let Nixon do his job." Also probably: "Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and David Frost are terrorists! Hang William Mark Felt for treason!"

The government simply does not care about its people. It's not run by the people. It's run by lobbyists. Otherwise they wouldn't be spending $700 billion to bail billionaires out, or spend another $700 billion a year to keep military contractors in business and keep Middle East allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc) happy in the middle of a dire economic crisis. Or ship out every single job there is out to China, as the Chamber of Commerce does to the benefit of large corporations. Every single country has its problems of these nature, but the sheer amount of apathy some Americans show baffles me.

Good day to you too, Sir.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Consequences will never be the same! Anonymous Dun Goofed!

Anonymous is like a hydra, each individual involved in a single head, cut one off and over 9000 will replace it. Amirite guys?

You are correct sir. Correct indeed.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Only a matter of time until those angry teens are put in jail! And anonymous will end forever!

Please tell me that was a joke or sarcasm. If not, I am kind of worried. Do you honestly think Anon is like 4 teens in their basement? No, their DDoS attacks take hundreds or thousands to pull off. 98% will never be found as they are probably working through many proxies or off unsecured wireless networks.

No, I'm not. Those 98% will be caught if it relates to a computer it can be tracked.

"Unsecured wireless networks."

So, basically no. Some kid with a powerful laptop could sit outside Starbucks and launch part of a DDoS attack. Or use a neighbor's network.

Also, proxies get pretty messy.

Hell even if they track some of them down, most anons have a kill switch which basically vaporizes their hard drives to oblivion. (Only leaving behind scratches and burns) Actually a kid in Britain got caught an the cops spent 8 months trying to decrypt his hard drive, only to find out it had been totally wiped.

Most of the anons doing this are a very tricky bunch.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

I'm not sure whether they could find a judge to grant it or not, we'll never know, because with the Patriot Act, why should they ever bother to try?

It allows them to bypass an important check and balance in the system

 

[SinisterGehe]

So much for the anonymity of "Anonymous".

Three cheers for the FBI and their bureaucratic crusade against freedom.

"For one to gain, other must give"

Lets say when Anon attacked Paypal servers they limited my freedom of how I can use my money that to access I had to connect to that server, a money that I could had possibly used to by a book from amazon or... Donate it to use Freedom of speech organization... (Get where I am going with this?)

When they attack some website that holds Data of some kind or is used to share data of some kind, that I might be interested to share or to study, they are limiting my freedom to study data and/or share my data.

It would be like fighting against use of nuclear weapons by detonating one... They are fighting against limitation of freedom of speech by limiting freedom of speech...

(And when someone attacks my freedom of speech or disturps my life by illegal means. I hope they get hunted down and punished.)

Freedom of speech is right of a being to share ideas in any chosen form. Companies are beings, Nations are beings, communities are beings (Because they are a constructions that form from meta atoms (people in this case)), you, me and every other living being is a being is a being, therefor they have right for freedom of speech.

And just think about this, you make a blog post on your blog, where you question the means/legality/rights of anon and anon brings you down for questioning their means/legality/rights. Would you be ok with this?
Since anon has taken down blogs and websites of people who has questioned them or spoken against their ideals.

 

[LCP]

Thank god. I hate them.... Bunch of spineless idiots who do more harm to people than good.

Some people are too thick-skulled to realize that wikileaks is not a good thing, and some angry nerds taking control of computers and taking down money sites, isn't good either.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I'd say Anonymous is about to learn that none of them are truly untraceable.

about 200,000 computers participated in the DDOS attacks on paypal. they found 2 people. YES, they are untraceable. and about 199,000 of those computers were hijacked. if the fbi wanted to do this, it would have to invade thousands of innocent homes.

Or take out the 1000 people who infected them in the first place, then the 199,000 would have nothing to worry about.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Anon is just a bunch of ethic-less morons who only claim they're fighting for people's rights when its convenient for them. Most of the time, they're 'fighting for people's rights' while they infringe on other's rights.

 

[KCL]

What you did there is called "a straw man".

No, it's not. What you're doing is called moving the goalposts [http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Moving_the_Goalposts]. Get back to me when you actually have a handle on informal logical fallacies.

Oh, and by the way:

Ofc I dont know that the FBI will spend more resources on this compared to piracy, but seeing how they start raiding potential anon members so fast compared to piracy (how long did piracy exist before the law started to see it as a problem, or rather, do something about it? If I remember correctly, we needed a certain metal group to whine the law enforcement down, to get rid of napster), id say theyre taking this a bit more serious.

"The law" didn't go after pirates immediately because piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. You yourself are responsible for enforcing your copyrights; it's not "the law's" problem. "The law" still doesn't go after pirates--only services like TPB that facilitate infringement--because enforcing copyright is a civil, not a criminal matter. That's why Metallica had to sue Napster. And that's all they did: sue. Law enforcement wasn't involved.

It seems you have some reading to do.

 

[Vakz]

As far as I know, the "anonymous"-thing simply meant that they were so many, that while the whole group was easily detectable and found, there are simply so many of them, that even if a few are caught, the rest (the majority) will remain unknown.

 

[Calbeck]

If no one ever broke the law, the law would not be changed

Right, so obviously if enough people commit Murder One, the law will eventually change to make it legal.

There's a fine line between "civil disobedience for social change" and being a moron...such as with Assange aiding and abetting international espionage. Yeaaaah, I don't really think they're ever gonna change the law on that one.

 

[mew4ever23]

And here's where the 7 proxies come into play. They probably won't catch all of Anonymous, maybe 1 or 2 of them. Might be a different story if they go after the place everyone and their dog know as the home of Anonymous..

 

[Wicky_42]

Snip.

Were you talking about me? Because if you were then you could have just asked me what I meant.
...

Yeah, I guess so - must have got the quotes mixed up, sorry about that.

What I meant by 'people in the UK know already' is that news gets around in the UK. Wikileaks hasn't revealed anything about UK military or politics that wasn't already pretty well known or fairly obvious. Things like civilian deaths are always a part of war and the numbers aren't really above other wars fought in the same way. It's one of those things that could have been projected from figures in similar wars (Gulf war, Vietnam, Korea) and most people I've talked to about this seem to agree. I mean, yes it's a lot but most people knew this would happen before the war started.

See, you take it for granted, I take it for granted, but the majority don't seem to even acknowledge it, or are disinterested to the point where corruption in the government and outright lies from our leaders don't fuss them. It should, if they have half a brain. The principle of the UK government is that it is formed by the people in the interest of the people, to protect and serve the people. As soon as it is working primarily in the interest of multinational corporations at the expense of significant swaths of the population it has all gone wrong.

We have cavalry rushing crowds of unarmed, relatively peaceful protesters whilst the violent mob is elsewhere using the excuse of 'missiles being thrown', which later turn out to be empty plastic bottles and police tactics specifically designed to aggravate peaceful crowds to subvert and undermine the political message of tens of thousands trying to exercise their democratic right to protest. The majority of papers follow the party line, denouncing the 'violent protests' whilst ignoring the 98% of the protesters not vandalising the police van abandoned strategically in the middle of the kettle. The only paper to really take both sides and deliver balanced reportage was the Guardian, which many people ignore as being 'wishy-washy socialist stuff' or some such clap - the BBC even ewnt so far as to imply a man with Cerebral Palsy was capable of posing a threat to riot police when he couldn't even propel his own chair.

Now, all that stuff is irrelevant to the topic and war stuff in general, but I find it to be synonymous with how perceptions in the UK are formed. The news media is the main source of information for the majority of the population; very few look around for themselves or try to form their own opinion, and in fact there was a study recently [I can try and find the link if ur interested] that showed that once you've formed an opinion, if the information that opinion was based on is proved wrong and correct information given the original, wrong opinion is actually believed more.

Literally, if anything comes up from an anonymous source in the UK it will be front-page news on half of our papers. Government corruption, lost documents, anything seems to be fair game. It's not that I'm jaded and don't care about Government secrets, it's that for some reason almost everything that would normally end up on Wikileaks instead ends up in our papers...

Trouble is, of those reporting on it, most of them will spin it to their own agenda, eg. putting a positive spin on it, reducing emphasis on the negatives or transferring blame to some other body to suit their vested interests. Conservative papers blame everything on the previous government, liberal papers want the current government to have to deal with whatever it is, and neutral ones, I dunno, go with the flavour of the month - though there's not many papers that fit that category.

Basically, the point is that whilst I agree that our papers love report on everything that's going on, and we've had plenty of public scandals in recent times to demonstrate that (census data and trains, anyone?), but we just don't react to it in a way that makes it any less likely to happen again, and anyone who does get indignant gets slapped down by public opinion as formed by the large body of conservative tabloids.

Case in point, political party gains power based largely on a public pledge to reduce and eventually abolish tuition fees. Once in power they completely renege on that promise, calling it a 'mistake'. We, as a nation, voted for that manifesto - if they take it back, can we take back our votes? No? Can we protest about it? Well, only if you like being illegally detained in the coldest weather for 17 years all night. Surely that's going to make people angry? Nope, in fact they side with the police because earlier, somewhere else, someone else threw a stone through a window.

Go go Democracy...

/rant :3

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I have to agree with the guy that related it to piracy, if there's 50,000 people involved, and the FBI manage to track down one or two of them, even if they manage to pin jail time on them, most of Anon are gonna see 50,000 to 1 as fair odds to keep going, and now they've got a reason for personal revenge when the FBI take some of them.

Same goes for piracy, it just doesn't matter if you sue some file sharer for $50 million, because they'll have been one of hundreds of thousands of people on that torrent (or whatever), and most people will just look at the odds and go 'well, it's not gonna happen to me'.

Doesn't matter what you do, to make a difference you need to do it to hundreds, maybe thousands, and with the economy in the state it's in, can you afford to track down and prosecute 500 13 year olds?