Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Sony United Kingdom IT

LulzSec Suspect Arrested By UK Police 361

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the lulz-till-it-isn't dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The UK's Police Computer e-Crime Unit (PCeU) has arrested a 19-year-old man in Wickford, Essex, in connection with the series of LulzSec attacks against organizations including the CIA, PBS and Sony. The man, who has been arrested under the Computer Misuse and Fraud Act, has had his house searched and a significant amount of material taken away by police for forensic examination. The PCeU worked with local Essex police and the FBI on the investigation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LulzSec Suspect Arrested By UK Police

Comments Filter:
  • It must be Tuesday (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cultiv8 (1660093) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:47AM (#36511220) Homepage

    It's important to note at this point that it has not been confirmed that the arrested man is suspected of being involved with LulzSec by the authorities. But many observers are speculating that that could be the case.

    So this "news" article is nothing but speculation?

    • So this "news" article is nothing but speculation?

      In the dark ages before the internet, when dinosaurs ruled the earth and grammar nazis were kept caged in cellars underneath college english departments, journalists learned to never directly state the person was guilty. Guidelines were developed to prevent over-zealous lawyers from destroying the freedom of the press through endless lawsuits. So, in the event of a crime, we are not allowed to refer to it as "your" crime, merely "a" crime.

      • This is true. But the "some observers say" thing should set off anybody's bullshit detector. Who the hell are those observers? Are they people who actually have inside knowledge of the case? Random Slashdot posters? The journalist's drinking buddies?

        • Yeah, it's along the same lines as "Some people say" or "We're hearing." It's a way for journalists to bring up a topic without owning it. "Not that I'm calling you a murderer, but some people are. How do you respond?"
      • by ifrag (984323)

        we are not allowed to refer to it as "your" crime, merely "a" crime

        Of course it's company policy never to imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article a dildo, never your dildo.

    • by rapiddescent (572442) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:56AM (#36511308)

      in other news, the usually vocal Lulzsec twitter feed [twitter.com] stopped at the same time as the arrest.

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:48AM (#36511228)

    Opening arguments next month:

    Judge: "Can the defendant please state, for the record, why they felt it was necessary to take down several high-profile website, costing those companies hundreds of thousands in lost income, cleanup costs, and angry support calls?"

    Defendant's Lawyer: "Ah, your honor, let the record show... they did it for the 'lulz'".

    Judge: "I see. Well, in the spirit of their crime, sentencing will be 'for the lulz'."

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by txmcse (937355)
      Oh, that would be great! Let's hope the judge works in "the oceans", "aiming the guns", "butthurt", and "the long arm of the lulz" :)
    • by DamienRBlack (1165691) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:56AM (#36511304)
      Judge: "You are sentenced to 1337 years."
      • by JamesP (688957)

        'Yo're sentenced to 100 years!'

        'Huh?!?'

        'In binary'

        'Hell yeah!'

      • by Inda (580031)
        He's from England. Our gaols are full. He'll be given an ASBO and told not to do it again, via a typed letter.
    • In their defense, if this person is convicted on the crimes sentencing will be much lighter than if he had done it for some more nefarious reason like financial gain...see: sentence mitigation.
    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      You raise an interesting question: what will he be tried for? Penalties under the Computer Misuse act presumably, but in that case it seems unlikely he would get a long sentence. Maybe they could go for criminal damage but nothing was actually "damaged" per-se, just temporarily rendered unusable.

      Loss of income is a civil matter and the affected organisations would have to sue him themselves for restitution.

      Assuming they have the right guy of course, judging by the police's usual level of competence in these

  • by chemicaldave (1776600) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:49AM (#36511236)

    It's important to note at this point that it has not been confirmed that the arrested man is suspected of being involved with LulzSec by the authorities. But many observers are speculating that that could be the case.

    How can you go from that to "Lulzsec suspect arrested?"

  • What I don't get is why is this shit always publicized? Instead of waving their dicks around every time a dumb fuck is caught, it'd make more sense to use that caught individual to provide new leads, and catch as many as possible before the rest of the organization goes further into hiding. Seems to me they're doing it purely for PR, rather than because it's their damn job.
    • by Xest (935314)

      Or because their own site was taken down last night, and, well, they decided a "Hey, look how quickly we can respond!" PR opportunity is better than sitting and waiting to catch the rest.

    • by arkenian (1560563)
      Its publicized because its pretty much illegal to arrest someone secretly -- one of those things in place to prevent police abuse of power. Arrest reports are public records. At that point you can try to slip it in to the daily feed, but its generally easier to just issue a press release in a high profile case. In this case, however, it looks like they didn't do that. They just arrested the guy and haven't talked yet about the details.
      • True, but not so if it's an issue regarding National Security, and given the court's recent stance on cyberterrorism being "an act of war", they could very easily manipulate this to be such a case so they won't have to immediately disclose anything.
  • has had his house searched and a significant amount of material taken away by police for forensic examination

    Frankly, I can't imagine that even the less prepared script kiddie wouldn't keep all their hacking data inside a TrueCrypt partition allowing him to claim plausible deniability.

    That, an open wifi, then claim "it came that way, or I couldn't make my netbook connect, so I had to open it".

    Given those basic security measures, what evidence could the police use to incriminate him? Video/screen surveillance? I can't think of any other way.

    • by nedlohs (1335013)

      It's the UK. Surely having a TrueCrypt partition is a slam-dunk jail sentence under http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/49 [legislation.gov.uk]

      After all they can keep asking for the key to the hidden partition they "know" is there and when you refuse to provide them (because there is no hidden partition) you get 2 years in jail (5 if they can make it look terrorism related)...

      • This is why I have a tiny hidden partition on my TrueCrypt volume, using the same key as the container, holding a single text file, with the contents "This file exists to prevent any prosecution case stating that I have not provided the encryption key to any "hidden" volume on my computer, and would otherwise not exist."

        All I have on there is some personal finance information, a password database and the obligatory BitCoin wallet anyway. I just don't want to spend 2 years in jail because the prosecution's
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @09:22AM (#36511612)

    I know it makes for boring news but apparently Ryan Cleary did nothing except host the IRC where lulzsec had a channel.

  • I truly think that Lulzsec is doing good work, and they should be applauded for their efforts. I really hope this kid was using strong encryption and covering his tracks enough to provide a credible legal defense, although considering he was caught probably not. What they are doing is a good thing, there needs to be a force in the world working to encourage better security practices--there wasn't previously to a sufficient degree, nothing like this. My data is safer because of the heightened vigilance they

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Lysander7 (2085382)
      Sure, and I think people should fly planes into buildings to demonstrate the lack of airport security.
      • by sqrt(2) (786011)

        If you can't see the difference in those two scenarios then you're beyond my help. Sorry.

        • Both of the scenarios involve groups who believe in their rightous cause and are willing to break the law and create harm to others to prove their point. One is certainly more extreme and damaging then the other however by condoning one you are implicitly condoning the other. Who gets to decide what constitutes a "good cause" that justifies breaking the law?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You really are a complete prat, aren't you? Staggered by the idiocy of your comment, I have looked through your comment history, and am somewhat surprised to find that it's not a one-off. You despise rules imposed by other people, but nevertheless believe that everyone should abide by your own.

      Someday lulzsec, or some equivalent group of twats, will release your own personal details on the Pirate Bay. And then you will be back here to tell us all how information should be free and that lulzsec are great. I

    • I really hope this kid was using strong encryption and covering his tracks enough to provide a credible legal defense,.

      Using encryption gets you nowhere in the UK. If you are suspected of using it, they can't break it and when they ask you for the key you refuse, you get an automatic 2 year jail sentence.

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @10:07AM (#36512206) Homepage Journal

      Because attacking a PBS website because they broadcast a story you didn't like makes all of us safer. I mean no need in hearing any news story that might upset us now is there?
      I hope the catch as many as possible. They have attacked freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They have hurt many innocent consumers if not out right hurt them all for the lulz. You have a really odd idea what good work is.

    • needs to be a force in the world working to encourage better security practices

      That force is usually called "the bad guys." If no one ever tried to steal anything, we wouldn't need any security. And your stuff would be just as safe.

  • LulzSec Responds (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abyssalson (2178044) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @09:47AM (#36511900)
    LulzSec has already responded on Twitter. "Seems the glorious leader of LulzSec got arrested, it's all over now... wait... we're all still here! Which poor bastard did they take down?"
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If they're anything like Anonymous, they won't stand by their fallen comrade, unlike actual guerrilla groups.

      This will breed resentment among the ranks (why work for people who won't have your back?) and LuzSec will fall apart.

  • "Seems the glorious leader of LulzSec got arrested, it's all over now... wait... we're all still here! Which poor bastard did they take down?"

    See: www.twitter.com/lulzsec

  • It wouldn't be beyond LulzSec's ability (or maybe just one member) to frame someone 'for the lulz'
  • In a tweet: "Seems the glorious leader of LulzSec got arrested, it's all over now... wait... we're all still here! Which poor bastard did they take down?" https://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/statuses/83164092998758400 [twitter.com] http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/261303,lulzsec-linked-uk-teen-arrested-in-fbi-sting.aspx [scmagazine.com.au]
  • FTFA: "It's important to note at this point that it has not been confirmed that the arrested man is suspected of being involved with LulzSec by the authorities."

    So wtf? Can we get it straight?

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...