Attacked By Anonymous, HBGary Pulls Out of RSA 415
itwbennett writes "HBGary Federal cancelled a talk the company's CEO Aaron Barr was planning to give at the BSides San Francisco conference on his investigation of WikiLeaks. 'I was receiving death threats,' Barr said in an interview Tuesday. 'There was lots of talk that was being made of in the Anonymous IRC channels of harassing us at our booth and sending people to heckle [HBGary speakers at the conference].' The company has also decided to pull its booth from the RSA Conference floor after it was vandalized on Sunday, said Jim Butterworth, HBGary's vice president of services. 'We... came back the next morning and it was very apparent that the group responsible for the activities in the news had decided to make another statement,' he said."
Re:That's War (Score:4, Interesting)
Want to mess with the NSA, DOD, CIA, and FBI? People talk about when dealing with Anonymous that you shouldn't "poke the bear".
In this case if they want to go to war it would be wise to take a good look at the bears that Anonymous is poking. So this is war... The problem is they are starting a war with people that fight wars for a living and have real guns.
Across the world thousands of basements will soon be going dark.
Right..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Option 1: Members or associates of a loose-knit group of hackers who are likely subjects of federal interest after illegally penetrating and utterly humiliating a private-sector spook shop decide that it would be a great idea to show up, in person, at an event with some amount of security likely to be in the vicinity, just to heckle somebody they have already pwned good and hard. They think that this is a good idea because showing up in crowded areas and making a disturbance is an excellent way to remain anonymous.
Option 2: Aaron Barr and the rest of the losers at HBGary really don't want to show their faces at RSA, after having been ruthlessly punked by a bunch of amateurs; but decide to cry about "security threats" in an attempt to look less than totally pathetic.
Y'know, I don't think that this is a terribly difficult decision...
Sigh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Vandalized? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is just another perfect example of just how full of himself AND how much of a crybaby Mr. Barr is.
Re:Right..... (Score:4, Interesting)
The great thing about Anonymous is that, had I been at RSA and placed that sign, I would have been in Anonymous for that time, despite having never been associated with them in any other way. It's an ideal, not a club you apply to join.
If you still don't get that, you don't get Anonymous at all.
Re:You can't beat the crowd (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I suspect that if a number of "Anonymous" "Ringleaders" got caught by the FBI and sentenced to pretty hefty sentences the overall membership of their activities will probably sharply decline.
Most of them are in it for the lulz after all and lulz are not worth several years in prison or higher fines then you can pay off in your lifetime.
let me put it in cartoon context : (Score:4, Interesting)
anyone trying to prevent me from knowing what my government is doing with my money, for ANY reason : evil
anyone helping me know what my government is doing : good.
anyone defending those who are helping me know what my government is doing : good.
at our time and age, with the point our societal corruption has hit, unfortunately things are as black & white as this.
and talking about fascism and lack of freedom - dont worry. fascists already have taken over your country long ago - you are just being repressed willingly, living only in proportion to your material wealth, while the rich has cornered the economy before you and controlling you through their bigger wealth, and you think that as freedom. you have nothing to fear - you are already willingly participating in what you fear.
Re:Anatomy of the Hack (Score:5, Interesting)
Just read the article. Is this guy for real? He sounds like he stepped out of a webcomic about wannabe-hacker IRC lurkers.
It's very frightening that someone could get 3 (potential?) innocents arrested with little to no evidence.
I mean honestly, using badly thought out heuristics to analyze social networking data and guaranteeing "100% Success"? This guy obviously never attended a CS class.
P.S. I am not condoning the actions of Anonymous in any way, this guy just seems like he could use some more schooling. (and he got some schooling in the great college of Real Life!)
Re:Vandalized? (Score:2, Interesting)
A sign that says, 'in it for the lulz' is a death threat? Do you really think that? If so, you must also think that Nelson on the Simpsons, going 'Ha Ha' is a death threat.
Re:Anatomy of the Hack (Score:4, Interesting)
While I generally agree that taking the law into your own hands is inexcusable criminal activity, I also understand that under certain circumstances, vigilante actions may be excusable. This is as true today as it was in the American Far West back in the days following the Civil War, when roaming bands of outlaws with cavalry training and deadly-crazy cases of PTSD were preying on isolated farms and ranches a day's hard ride or more from the nearest lawman.
Vigilante activity may be excusable when
There is a widely held belief that these conditions exist on today's Internet. Something new in the way people relate to each other is definitely happening there, and the law is definitely too far behind the technological advances to be able to do anything useful. The people who are spending time forging things like Tunisia and Egypt on these new and lawless fringes of society have to protect themselves and what they are trying to build, because the law is not yet capable of doing that.
Now whether this argument holds in the specific case of Anonymous' attack on HBGary Federal is something that historians will argue over after the dust is settled. I certainly won't venture a guess. The thing is unfolding now, and there is no way to judge who is right and who is wrong, under laws that do not yet even exist.