FBI Raids Texas Company in Hunt for Anonymous

[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.

What kind of person chooses ignorance?... Oh right, the ignorant.

I knew someone would comment to that effect.

Look I am not saying EVERYTHING should be kept a secret. I am all in favor of the government telling us what they are doing so we can make informed decisions. HOWEVER, ( and keep in mind, I do not think that our government is perfect in any way. I think we need a system reboot. However, it is the best we have right now) the government keeps certain issues from us for a reason. WikiLeaks crossed the line when it revealed that many Arab world capitals called for the United States to do what it must to rid the world of the fear of the Iranian regime headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I shouldn't have to explain that last bit, but I will if I have too. It's a pretty simple connect the dots scenario.

This isn?t like the Pentagon Papers, or even Afghanistan and Iraq documents that WikiLeaks poured out earlier this year, which helped to expose or, in most cases, confirm what we already knew about very badly conceived and executed wars. This would appear to be a direct assault on the whole idea of confidential diplomatic correspondence. And that?s not just a bad idea, it?s a stupid one.?

 

[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.

What kind of person chooses ignorance?... Oh right, the ignorant.

I knew someone would comment to that effect.

Look I am not saying EVERYTHING should be kept a secret. I am all in favor of the government telling us what they are doing so we can make informed decisions. HOWEVER, ( and keep in mind, I do not think that our government is perfect in any way. I think we need a system reboot. However, it is the best we have right now) the government keeps certain issues from us for a reason. WikiLeaks crossed the line when it revealed that many Arab world capitals called for the United States to do what it must to rid the world of the fear of the Iranian regime headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I shouldn't have to explain that last bit, but I will if I have too. It's a pretty simple connect the dots scenario.

This isn?t like the Pentagon Papers, or even Afghanistan and Iraq documents that WikiLeaks poured out earlier this year, which helped to expose or, in most cases, confirm what we already knew about very badly conceived and executed wars. This would appear to be a direct assault on the whole idea of confidential diplomatic correspondence. And that?s not just a bad idea, it?s a stupid one.

 

[Druyn]

I'm always in favour of the authorities showing that they have a good handle on modern crime but can't really get behind them on this one.

The Paypal DDoS attacks were made in retaliation for the American government putting unlawful pressure on PayPal and other financial institutions and for those organisations bowing to the government pressure.

While two wrongs don't make a right are we really expecting a third wrong, arresting the leaders of the cyber attack, to make the whole sordid affair better?

I disagree in that I think this is a wake u call for Anonymous. While I of course suport wikiLeaks and dislike the federal government for what theyve been trying to do, I think NAonymous has gotten a little out of control. Theyre on a little bit of a high it seems from all these attacks, and I think they need to see that they arent untouchable and there can be serious consequences if they get caught, which now we see they can.Thats the first that popped into my head at the "War on Snow." That looked like attacking just for attacking. What was the purpose of that at all, besides atempting to cripple innocent companies? This looks just like what Anon needs to get back on track.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I don't care about the rape charges, I care about the other laws he broke. Does it matter what was in the documents? No! Good Lord people need to shut up about what was in the papers he released. It could have been a picture of Obama saluting to a giant portrait of Stalin and that wouldn't change the fact that the documents were top secret and he should be punished for breaking the law.
If a man tortures another man that raped his daughter, some people might see that as justice (like me). But its still breaking the law so that man needs to be brought to justice by the government.

Except for the fact that he didn't break any laws. It was perfectly legal, and that is why the US is just looking like dicks in the wind by not being able to charge him for anything. Just like they aren't charging the newspapers for publishing the same exact stuff.

By the way, they weren't even top secret.

Not illegal! Ha! He released government papers without the permission of the government.
He committed espionage, which is punishable by death in most countries. In the US, he'd probably get 40 years hard labor in a work camp. Don't think he broke that law? Lets look at the definition, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
1. Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, lest the legitimate holder of the information change plans or take other countermeasures once it is known that the information is in unauthorized hands.

Yup, he did that. Get your head out of the clouds. I'm with you in the fact that I'm all for whistle-blowing. As long as it doesn't mean people committing crimes punishable by death.

And the Sergent that gave him the documents committed High Treason, a crime punishable by death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason
High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's government. Participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state are perhaps the best known examples of high treason.

Yup, the Sergent certainly did that. And he should be punished. Should they make an exception in the law just because a few people agree with what he did? No way.
There may be situational ethics in your mind. But there are no situational ethics in the law.

 

[Ewyx]

I can't believe the ignorance of some people, in a world where the government fucks up everything, a group of people actually wants to make a stand, and let their voice be heard the only way that actually warrants a reaction from the government and bring some attention to the issue at hand and you people condone such actions?

It's a brilliant tactic, that does NO DAMAGE to the server, but more as a sign of protest, if these people would walk up to a big walmart to protest whatever child labor/whatever and fill up a store so no one would be able to enter and buy new products, that would be a unique form of protest, but because it's virtual, you're all bitching about it? What have you done for your freedom of speech? If it's not for the vigilance of people the world will fucking descend into a totalitarian state, I mean the US is a prime example of that, and you guys are actually condoning that?

Also since it's distributed they can arrest one person, but in turn, this will only make people angrier. But what the hell am I talking? Can you people for once in your pathetic lives think for yourself without just blindly accepting what you've been told?

(Also the world needs whistleblowers, if you think the government should keep things hidden if they have a reason, I'd recommend reading up on project MKULTRA.)

edit: to the person above me, if you think the law actually makes any sense in this world, you're a complete moron, because something is against the law, it doesn't mean it's immoral, fuck it doesn't even mean it's wrong. It's something the government doesn't want you to do to protect it's own ass for the most part.

 

[Actual]

I'm always in favour of the authorities showing that they have a good handle on modern crime but can't really get behind them on this one.

The Paypal DDoS attacks were made in retaliation for the American government putting unlawful pressure on PayPal and other financial institutions and for those organisations bowing to the government pressure.

While two wrongs don't make a right are we really expecting a third wrong, arresting the leaders of the cyber attack, to make the whole sordid affair better?

I disagree in that I think this is a wake u call for Anonymous. While I of course suport wikiLeaks and dislike the federal government for what theyve been trying to do, I think NAonymous has gotten a little out of control. Theyre on a little bit of a high it seems from all these attacks, and I think they need to see that they arent untouchable and there can be serious consequences if they get caught, which now we see they can.Thats the first that popped into my head at the "War on Snow." That looked like attacking just for attacking. What was the purpose of that at all, besides atempting to cripple innocent companies? This looks just like what Anon needs to get back on track.

Perhaps you are right they could be more carerful with their targets. However; the War on snow was a joke, they were making fun of themselves and never actually performed any of the actions outlined in the War on snow announcement. At least, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Actual]

Not illegal! Ha! He released government papers without the permission of the government.
He committed espionage, which is punishable by death in most countries. In the US, he'd probably get 40 years hard labor in a work camp. Don't think he broke that law? Lets look at the definition, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
1. Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.

He was given the information, he did not obtain it. No evidence has ever been provided that he committed espionage. Don't you think if the American government had that evidence they would have had him arrested already?!

The only reason he's not in an American prison is because they have no evidence of any crime being committed.

It does seem that the Sergeant who provided the information committed treason. It's a shame but he obviously did what he felt was right and accepted the risk to his own life. I hope the courts can find leniency for him.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Not illegal! Ha! He released government papers without the permission of the government.
He committed espionage, which is punishable by death in most countries. In the US, he'd probably get 40 years hard labor in a work camp. Don't think he broke that law? Lets look at the definition, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
1. Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.

He was given the information, he did not obtain it.

It doesn't matter how he got it, the fact that he has it is the illegal part. How the information got there is irrelevant to the crime.

 

[Actual]

Not illegal! Ha! He released government papers without the permission of the government.
He committed espionage, which is punishable by death in most countries. In the US, he'd probably get 40 years hard labor in a work camp. Don't think he broke that law? Lets look at the definition, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
1. Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.

He was given the information, he did not obtain it.

It doesn't matter how he got it, the fact that he has it is the illegal part. How the information got there is irrelevant to the crime.

No, by definition he needs to acquire it himself. If he'd committed espionage he'd be in prison, instead the governments are posturing and name calling, trying him in the court of public opinion rather than with real evidence.

 

[typhoon17]

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.

That might not be such a bad thing, we will need these people down the road to handle China and everyone else doing an hourly assault on the US.

 

[x434343]

So much for the anonymity of "Anonymous".

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

would you rather anonymous grow out of control and get so sucked up in its own power that it will eventually take over our governments? (i really think that if one controls the internet, they can control the world)
well hell no, this should teach those little cunts a lesson.
don't
fuck
with the government.

They're fighting for us in this case. What has happened to Assange is total bullshit. Those rape charges are fake, the case against him in slanted heavily, and when anyone opposes, they get attacked.

So much for equal stance on crime. /b/ puts up child porn 5 years ago, no one bats an eye. They help a man fight an unlawful case against him, they get rolled.

Five years ago, they weren't as big as they are now. Five years ago, in 2005/2006, did you really know about /b/? I sure didn't. I don't think too many higher-ups did. Hell, because /b/ had the idiocy to attack big-name, government-backed institutions, they deserve to get rolled.

Before you bring up 'unlawful case', let me just say, if a man releases operation reports from the military, that's a problem. If said operation reports contain the identities of Special Operatives, that's a HUGE problem. They're not supposed to 'exist', technically. Hell, ij the 90's, Delta Force operatives were using, "I work for a computer company that makes some weird program for the government" as a cover. Burn the covers, you ruin lives.

Not illegal! Ha! He released government papers without the permission of the government.
He committed espionage, which is punishable by death in most countries. In the US, he'd probably get 40 years hard labor in a work camp. Don't think he broke that law? Lets look at the definition, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
1. Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.

He was given the information, he did not obtain it.

It doesn't matter how he got it, the fact that he has it is the illegal part. How the information got there is irrelevant to the crime.

No, by definition he needs to acquire it himself. If he'd committed espionage he'd be in prison, instead the governments are posturing and name calling, trying him in the court of public opinion rather than with real evidence.

He still released classified government documents. It seems like it would be a type of treason, if not espionage. Therefore, he is guilty of possibly burning government agents, possibly compromising planned operations, and possibly releasing high-value intel. It sure sounds like a crime.

 

[Actual]

He still released classified government documents. It seems like it would be a type of treason, if not espionage. Therefore, he is guilty of possibly burning government agents, possibly compromising planned operations, and possibly releasing high-value intel. It sure sounds like a crime.

Possibly, possibly, possibly. Except he did none of those things.

The releases are carefully checked to make sure no-one's life is put at risk before they are released. The only thing hurt by the releases was the U.S. governments pride.

Also, you can only commit treason against your own government. As Assange is Australian he can't commit treason against the U.S. this is why most people are calling what he did espionage, incorrectly.

 

[Denamic]

eesh... imagine a world under Anon's power... we'd all be forced to crack racist jokes every 3 seconds and probably lynch minorities.

It would be the other way around.
Rather than being forced to or banned from doing whatever, you'd be allowed to do stuff.
Forcing people to do stuff is the exact opposite of what anon wants.
That's why anon uses strong-arm tactics as revenge.
"A taste of their own medicine", as it were.

 

[x434343]

He still released classified government documents. It seems like it would be a type of treason, if not espionage. Therefore, he is guilty of possibly burning government agents, possibly compromising planned operations, and possibly releasing high-value intel. It sure sounds like a crime.

Possibly, possibly, possibly. Except he did none of those things.

The releases are carefully checked to make sure no-one's life is put at risk before they are released. The only thing hurt by the releases was the U.S. governments pride.

Also, you can only commit treason against your own government. As Assange is Australian he can't commit treason against the U.S. this is why most people are calling what he did espionage, incorrectly.

I'm not going to lie, I used possibly because I didn't read the documents. And I'm not going to read summaries because there'll be no middle ground, either "It's all an attack" or "It's nothing big".

Meanwhile, Its not treason, its not espionage. Its still a high crime against a government. That's the problem.

 

[Actual]

I'm not going to lie, I used possibly because I didn't read the documents. And I'm not going to read summaries because there'll be no middle ground, either "It's all an attack" or "It's nothing big".

Meanwhile, Its not treason, its not espionage. Its still a high crime against a government. That's the problem.

Except it's not a crime, there is no law saying that a journalist can't release information which shows a government is doing something it shouldn't.

There shouldn't be such a law, because it would be an unethical law.

The problem here is that America is one of the most patriotic modern countries and a lot of the people are seeing this as an attack on them personally which it isn't. It's a wake up call to all governments that you can't always get away with doing immoral things just because you have power.

 

[x434343]

I'm not going to lie, I used possibly because I didn't read the documents. And I'm not going to read summaries because there'll be no middle ground, either "It's all an attack" or "It's nothing big".

Meanwhile, Its not treason, its not espionage. Its still a high crime against a government. That's the problem.

Except it's not a crime, there is no law saying that a journalist can't release information which shows a government is doing something it shouldn't.

There shouldn't be such a law, because it would be an unethical law.

The problem here is that America is one of the most patriotic modern countries and a lot of the people are seeing this as an attack on them personally which it isn't. It's a wake up call to all governments that you can't always get away with doing immoral things just because you have power.

Its information that probably should not have been released. Military docs? That's not good. Government docs? That's not good. No matter what, it shouldn't be released by anyone except the government unless its proven that, by releasing the docs, it will show that the nation is doing highly illegal activities such as genocide or arms trading to terrorist groups.

 

[RA92]

Wikileaks has blood on their hands? Funny coming from a country that is simultaneously waging wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan... did I miss something?

Anyways, there is a reason why Wikileaks hasn't released all their thousands of documents at once. News organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security. The newspapers "established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war," according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. "All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted," the newspaper said in what would be an unprecedented act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.
The newspapers also communicated U.S. government concerns to WikiLeaks to ensure sensitive data didn't appear on the organization's website.


Unlike the release earlier last year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn't been vetted by the U.S. government.
The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais.

Most importantly, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity. So please, don't blame Wikileaks on presumptions. And none of you are possibly better than Pentagon on their damage assessment.

And what kind of information have been released? The fact that US gunmen shot down Reuter's agents while laughing about it? That the US installed an Iraqi security force that held its prisoners without charges and abused them through beatings, burnings, electrocutions and rape? Against which Bradley Manning spoke out, for which he is currently being held without charges in solitary confinement 23 hours a day? The fact that 15,000 Iraqi civilian deaths were being withheld? That the American diplomats were under orders to spy on UN officials? That the US maneuvered to stop High Court cases, with the American embassy issuing threats over the cases of Guantanamo, Couso and CIA flights? That the US pressured Germany not to prosecute CIA officers for the torture and rendition of an innocent civilian? That the US was shipping arms to Saudi Arabia for use in Northern Yemen even as it denied any role in conflict? That the UK agreed to shield American interests in Iraq probe? That Obama and GOPers worked together to kill Bush torture probe? Anonymous gets so much heat for taking down sites for a couple of hours as a form of protest, and the US government gets nothing? I guess because the people being killed are not white or something?

And hating 4chan for CP? How about this - DynCorp is a US corporation contracted by the US government to train the Afghan Police force. Reportedly 95% of its $2 billion annual revenue comes from taxpayers. Well, some of that money was flowing into a child prostitution ring. On April 11 DynCorp apparently threw a party at the Kunduz Regional Training Center where prepubescent boys were dressed in women's clothing and made to dance seductively as they were sold as sex slaves to the highest bidder.

Of course these are damning! They'll destroy your carefully constructed view of global politics based on 'Call of Duty'.

If Hunter S Thompson was alive today, he'd fork your eyes out - eyes that you've decided to put out of use.

 

[Actual]

Its information that probably should not have been released. Military docs? That's not good. Government docs? That's not good. No matter what, it shouldn't be released by anyone except the government unless its proven that, by releasing the docs, it will show that the nation is doing highly illegal activities such as genocide or arms trading to terrorist groups.

The latest releases, the cables showed Hilary Clinton ordering illegal espionage activities against the United Nations. This isn't actually a big deal, I'm sure all governments do something similar, but they really shouldn't be. nothing in the cable releases were the sort of crime you're describing but we shouldn't let a government hide whatever they want because it's invariably used to hide things they shouldn't be doing.

Earlier releases by wikileaks did show the American government committing serious crimes, such as the torture manuals issued to Guantanemo Bay personnel and the Iraq war diaries which showed the criminal disregard for civilian life. Here's the first release which really brought wikileaks into the spotlight:

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

The video takes a while to get going, it's almost 18 minutes long.