Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Security IT

Anonymous Threatens Robin Hood Attacks Against Banks 529

Posted by samzenpus
from the forced-charity dept.
gManZboy writes "Just in time for the holidays, hacktivist collective Anonymous has announced that it has teamed up with like-minded group TeaMp0isoN to donate to charity. The catch: they're using stolen credit data from big banks to make donations, in a campaign they're calling Operation Robin Hood. Is the #OpRobinHood campaign for real, or like previous threats against Wall Street and Facebook, just another hoax? Aesthetically, at least, the OpRobinHood video ticks all of the traditional Anonymous aesthetic requirements: a mashed-up 'p0isoaNoN' logo (green on black), a liberal dose of swelling choral music (via that movie trailer staple 'Europa,' by Globus), together with selected clips of Kevin Costner as Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Threatens Robin Hood Attacks Against Banks

Comments Filter:
  • Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)

    by russotto (537200) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:34PM (#38222730) Journal
    OK, so banks get screwed, but charities get screwed too. Unless they're "donating" to the RIAA charity fund, this seems pretty evil in itself.
    • by masternerdguy (2468142) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @12:16AM (#38223004)
      This is fucking great, now anon is going to get some awesome new laws passed to hurt us even further.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01, 2011 @12:54AM (#38223222)

        First they ignore you,
        then they laugh at you,
        then they fight you,
        then you win.

        Of course spineless always passive losers like you, with their crab mentality, will never know that, since you would never dare to endure a short period of bigger pain, but, in your cowardly short-sightedness, choose to live in the usual pain forever.

        TL;DR: No pain, no gain, you sissy!

        • by mbkennel (97636) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @12:59AM (#38223254)

          First they ignore you,
          then they laugh at you,
          then they fight you,
          then you get the attention of Fox News,
          then you get incinerated by a Predator drone.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01, 2011 @01:46AM (#38223516)

          If they steal credit card data, how is that going to hurt the banks ? It's just going to hurt the people whose credit card data was stolen.

          • Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:4, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01, 2011 @02:29AM (#38223680)

            Banks refund their consumers in the case of stolen cards data / fraud.

            • by operagost (62405)
              And the customer doesn't have to call the bank to report the theft. And they certainly won't we stuck somewhere with no credit when they need it, having the cashier or waiter hand back the card when it comes up with insufficient funds. I'm not going to call them terrorists, but they're Robin Hood only if Robin Hood had stolen from your lord, spent the money however he saw fit, then kicked you in the nuts and fondled your wife before disappearing into Sherwood Forest.
          • I'm immune; I'm with a credit union they're not targeting with this ridiculous ass dance. Of course that's just a hassle; it's the charities that will pay the money out on this, and the banks that will rake it in.
        • by meerling (1487879) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @04:52AM (#38224226)
          Ok, so I agree with some of their targets, even if I don't agree with their methods, but this one is different.
          Yes, the big banks need to be brought to heel.
          So they want to do it by stealing money from people.
          The people they are stealing the money from are the customers, not the company, banks issue credit cards, not use them.
          Sure, the people can dispute the charges, but that doesn't always work, and then who gets screwed, either way, it's not the bank.
          Now for all those false charges that get reversed, that's money the charity sort of had, and then had it taken away. That's going to be a real pain in the neck for them and their accountants, and if there's enough of them, it's going to cost them enough money to cause problems. (That's problems for the charities, not the banks.)

          Yeah, real well thought out, punish the other victims, even if they aren't too bright, oh, and smack around the charities while you're at it.
          Try thinking these things through before going of half cocked.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by qxcv (2422318)

          Sweet, let's all take Gandhi quotes out of context and use them to justify credit card fraud.

    • Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thogard (43403) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @01:27AM (#38223398) Homepage

      The charities will be worse off since the banks will take the money back and then charge the charity a charge back fee. This action could bankrupt some charities.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:36PM (#38222746) Homepage Journal
    People who frauded entire world by selling water vapor through deriving assets to 60x their value and then lending 10 times nonexistent cash over them are still sitting pretty and posting record bonuses and profits. Thats 599 times nonexistent cash lent as loans to governments, megacorps, factories, organizations, whereas there was only 1 unit of asset to back them. the correct amount of lending should have been 10x at maximum.

    To simply put it in streetspeak - these people engaged in cash fraud. And they are drinking champagne in wall street. world suffers through their fraud. at this state noone can persuade me that what anonymous doing is wrong.
  • Great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdot@@@uberm00...net> on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:38PM (#38222760) Homepage Journal

    They're going to steal money from the middle class to... theoretically... give it to the poor? And this is going to affect the people at the top, who probably don't even have a consumer credit card (and at the very least have people watching them, and charging back any unauthorized transactions), exactly how?

    98% of the 99% are getting a little pissed at this bullshit.

    • Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)

      by EdIII (1114411) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @12:31AM (#38223088)

      Well.. they are not stealing from the middle class. That's an assumption. Credit data is going to be used which can possibly cover all the demographics.

      Stealing is not going to occur anyways. Anybody with a debit card is highly likely to be protected from unauthorized charges with no damage being done to them, other than the inconvenience of filing a claim. Most banks will issue a provisional credit, especially if they notice it is a large pattern of fraud.

      A huge number of charge backs are going to occur, which would create a operational cost burden to the financial institutions. If it is a large scale pattern of fraud too, the charities will not be affected by the charge backs with respect to account suspensions, reputation, etc. Giving the money back will happen obviously. Which, if I recall correctly, most money from merchant accounts is held for a period of time. So those charities will not actually see any of that money in all likelihood.

      Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Anonymous will not try large donations on any debit cards. From looking at the bin numbers you should be able to tell the difference and act accordingly. So any middle class person might lose 10-50$. Not likely to push them over the edge. Credit cards will probably be hit for larger amounts, but that is going to be even more protected by fraud prevention and have a much quicker resolution time to the consumer.

      The people that will be hit hardest by this are the banks.

      Don't get me wrong. Pushing all this inconvenience on regular people is asinine.

      That being said, FUCK THE BANKS. Those are the same people that killed the economy with their bullshit, got bailed out from government, failed to live up to their own obligations with the money (namely home loan modifications), and recklessly and ruthlessly sold financial instruments multiple times so home owners had one or more banks after them for foreclosure, used Deeds of Trust to bypass due process, and generally have been ass raping the American Public to the tune of a trillion plus dollars.

      Ohhhhh, and not to mention are engaged in a conspiracy to accelerate foreclosures and not work with homeowners because they can make more money with wealthy investors (themselves and their friends) by picking up the properties cheap with government assistance. Do they pay HOA fees or property taxes? Of course not. Fuck that shit. Not only do they refuse to work with people, they fuck over their local communities by failing to pay these fees which local government needs for police, fire, etc.

      They are a blight on humanity, and in that regard, I fully support Anonymous sentiment regarding the fact these people need to pay and suffer in some way. I applaud the ends here, but not the means.

      My heart bleeds for them in their protected gated communities and luxury yachts. Poor little fucking bankers.

  • by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:41PM (#38222784) Homepage Journal

    I'm sure the big donation targets won't mind the hassle of dealing with angry people trying to get their money back... and likely police involvement. That's just what charities need.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:44PM (#38222806)

    is bringing up that terrible Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves movie. That's unforgivable.

  • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:45PM (#38222814)
    So, they want to steal peoples' credit card info and use that to donate those peoples' money to charities. Then the banks have to reimburse the people whose info was stolen. There are a lot of things wrong with this. First off, for those people whose info gets stolen, they are out money until the banks go through the process of reimbursing them. With the numbers of people that would be affected by this, that could take a while. So, people will be short of cash at a time when they need it most: the holidays. This is not going to endear people to their cause. Also, what is going to happen to this data? I really doubt it's going to be deleted. Remember, Anonymous can be anyone. This information will end up for sale on black market sites. You should not be breaking the law and endangering innocent people/invading their privacy just because you don't like the bank. They are really showing themselves to be no better than the banks themselves; they are taking other peoples' money and doing whatever they want with it that servers their purpose, regardless of the consequences.
    • by Shikaku (1129753)

      There are a lot of things wrong with this. First off, for those people whose info gets stolen, they are out money until the banks go through the process of reimbursing them. With the numbers of people that would be affected by this, that could take a while. So, people will be short of cash at a time when they need it most: the holidays.

      This is a brilliant plan if they can actually pull it off at a high enough scale. This forces people to NOT spend for the holidays. Big banks (Visa gets a cut everytime you use your credit card!) and retailers like Walmart take a hit.

      • by Nidi62 (1525137)

        This is a brilliant plan if they can actually pull it off at a high enough scale. This forces people to NOT spend for the holidays. Big banks (Visa gets a cut everytime you use your credit card!) and retailers like Walmart take a hit.

        Yes, but people should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. People talk about "voting with your wallet" a lot on Slashdot (usually aimed at companies like Sony or music labels), but voting with your wallet only works when the election isn't rigged. If this happens and the banks don't get their cut, they aren't going to change their ways, because they know their depositors weren't the cause of this; they were forced into it. Essentially, this is like the opposition party posting armed thugs outs

    • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @12:52AM (#38223210) Homepage

      This is Anonymous we're talking about. The same group of pissed-off adolescent-minded individuals who think it's perfectly reasonable to kill the livelihood of thousands of online retailers because MasterCard and PayPal didn't want to risk dealing with WikiLeaks.

      The kind of people who participate in Anonymous's activities don't often care about silly things like "consequences". They care about making news, so they can feel like they're a part of something bigger than themselves. They want the good feeling of doing something to improve the world, without any of the hassle involved in actually contributing to improving society.

      Sometime over the past few decades, people have forgotten that major cultural changes were preceded by essays, speeches, and persuasive arguments, endorsed by displays of public support. Now, "protesting" has turned into an orgy of destruction and disruption, in the hopes of extorting change.

      • by ThorGod (456163)

        Sometime over the past few decades, people have forgotten that major cultural changes were preceded by essays, speeches, and persuasive arguments, endorsed by displays of public support. Now, "protesting" has turned into an orgy of destruction and disruption, in the hopes of extorting change.

        Bingo! Somehow, I've noticed a distinct turn away from the written word. We don't have time for it. "Oh, I have to read something? Forget it, I'll go play Angry Birds."

        That might just be the people I know, though...this city has that affect upon people.

  • by artor3 (1344997) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:49PM (#38222828)

    So, given the demographic that most often uses credit, they're going to steal from the poor to give to the poor? Except they're not even going to give to the poor, but rather they'll give the stolen funds to people who normally help the poor, thus causing trouble for them. So really, they're going to steal from the poor to harass the people who help the poor. This seems poorly thought out.

    If they somehow manage to steal exclusively from millionaires, and if they don't keep a dime for themselves, and if they do it in such a way that it doesn't cause headaches for the charities involved, then fine. More power to them. But somehow I suspect that none of those three criteria will be met.

  • by Hartree (191324) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:49PM (#38222832)

    Someone needs a lesson in credit card merchant agreements.

    Wait till the charities they give to start getting their transaction fees raised or processing frozen for astoundingly high chargeback and fraudulent transaction rates. I'm sure they'll really enjoy that.

    Big win.

  • by Dr. Spork (142693) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:53PM (#38222856)

    If they send the money to honest charities like Oxfam, Unicef or Médecins Sans Frontières, they will probably just re-credit the transferred money back to the bank. And if they use some less scrupulous charity, well, that charity shouldn't be getting money in the first place. In any case, there's no real win here.

    What would be really cool, though, is if Visa (to demonstrate their unbreachable security) set out a Hack-for-Oxfam challenge, in which any money that hackers manage to route to Oxfam would be stay with them and be considered a charitable donation from Visa. It would be great free publicity if the hackers failed, and a very good deed would be done if the hackers succeeded - plus, they could patch the exploited security holes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jmottram08 (1886654)
      Except that all they need to do is buy credit cards online and use those numbers. Bad bank publicity even if they explain that they weren't technically hacked, the elephant in the room is that it exposes inherent security flaws in the credit card system. There is no way the banks could "win" that challenge.
  • Ready, Fire, Aim (Score:4, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:54PM (#38222866)
    I've often wondered if a lot of these Anonymous posts are really Department of Homeland Security officials looking to justify their massive overspending for imaginary threats. These are the guys that coordinated sending in 1400 police to round up 50 protesters (and the media had little or nothing to say about the excessive display of force, instead focusing on how much it's costing taxpayers). Given the current climate of committing acts of excessive violence against its own citizens, using military weapons on a peaceful populace, and recent actions about entrapping average people and setting them up to be paper terrorists...

    I think there's ample evidence to conclude that this could very well be an attempt by the DHS or the FBI to create more paper terrorists. You can expect some arrests around the holidays. They're almost stalinist in their punctuality of the trials, whether public or secret.

  • by bigonese (1606593) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:54PM (#38222872) Homepage
    All of the charities will end up paying out big bucks in chargeback fees. It is the merchants that are on the hook for credit card fraud. They'll be forced to return the money and pay a chargeback fee ($30 or more). They will end up doing more damage than any potential (and misguided) good.
  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @12:08AM (#38222964)

    Send the home addresses of stay-at-home wives of bankers to sexual predators getting out of jail. Since obviously 2 wrongs make a right, might as well go all out.

  • by schwit1 (797399) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @12:19AM (#38223032)

    Let's see Anonymous try that one. Only politicians are legally permitted to do that.

  • by blanks (108019) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @02:53AM (#38223808) Homepage Journal
    I've stood behind many of the things Anonymous has done in the past but this just seems stupid.

    The only thing this will do is cost charities millions in audits, time, etc and make many lose services they use to collect donations. You know what will happen if a charity receives illicit funds through paypal? Their bank account gets frozen and paypal will in most cases never allow them to use their service again.

    If they want to be dicks they should use these attacks through online services that the music/movie industries run / make money from, or big evil online retails like walmart and bestbuy or make payments to other banks customers mortgages / dept.
  • by Mike610544 (578872) on Thursday December 01, 2011 @03:06AM (#38223848)
    They should have used Errol Flynn, or even Russell Crowe. Hell, Cary Elwes was a better Robin Hood than Costner.

    Prince of Thieves has to be the only Robin Hood story where you're kind of rooting for the sheriff of Notingham.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James

Working...