Details Of FBI Surveillance In Lulzsec Takedown Emerge 278
uigrad_2000 writes "Yesterday, we learned that one of the top members of LulzSec (Sabu) had been an FBI informant for almost 6 months, and that this confidant of the LulzSec leader 'anarchaos' had given the feds what they needed to take him down. More details have come out now, completing a picture of how the sting took place from start to finish. It turns out that even the server space given from Sabu to anarchaos storing the details of 30,000 credit cards (from the Stratfor hack) had been funded by the FBI."
Traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesson for other hacking groups (Score:5, Insightful)
Set out code-words you can use to indicate that you're under coercion.
Re:Traitors (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
There will be more (Score:4, Insightful)
This Hammond person is basically exactly who you'd expect him to be. There will be more. The amount of effort it took to catch him was considerable, and required an inside man. More people will follow this path. This problem cannot be solved this way.
It could be solved if the man had turned out to be duping everybody about his values and beliefs. It could've soured and destroyed his credibility and made it less likely that anybody would trust the motives of anybody else who tried to do things like this. And while I expect a smear campaign, I also expect the smear campaign to be obvious and easily rebutted.
The FBI is fighting an idea, and is under the mistaken impression they can shut it down by finding and arresting people. It won't happen.
Re:Traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
...but fuck snitches....
So, if a friend of mine murders your , robs your house, kills your dog, trashes your car, or other such things, and then tells me about it, I should just keep my mouth shut. Got it.
Re:Traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think there is a difference between being involved in an organization and:
- seeing something you wern't expecting going in and disagree with to such a degree that you are compelled to reveal it (what I consider a whistle blower)
- turning on your friends / colleagues not on ethical grounds, but to save your own ass
The first one I consider a very gray area and really don't know how I feel about it. The second are definitely scum.
Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni (Score:5, Insightful)
If Bradley Manning had revealed those secrets because someone had bribed him or for some other sort of personal gain, sure.
Though, I do not apply the term 'traitor' to this Sabu fellow. The FBI can bring a lot of pressure to bear and were highly motivated to solve this case. I wouldn't be surprised if his children were obliquely threatened with some sort of negative consequence should he not cooperate. So, just like I would not apply the label 'traitor' to a soldier who cracked under torture, I will not call Sabu a traitor. I do not think highly of him, but a traitor he is not.
Not likley to do any good (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to remember the deals the police make are very much a "You help us and get results or all bets are off." So if you agree to turn CI and then tip all your mates off, well they are going to figure it out. Mysteriously everyone disappears after you talk to them and so on. Then you get no deal.
Remember the reason people do this is to get a better deal for themselves. The prosecution says "We've got X evidence on you which can result in Y different charges giving you Z time in prison. However cooperate with us and we'll drop/reduce some charges and you'll spend less time in prison." It is a carrot and stick situation. They offer you a reduced (or sometimes even eliminated, but that's rare) sentence if you help them.
The people who cooperate do so willingly. Some don't, they tell them to fuck off. That was a big thing with the original mob back in the day, the Omerta, the code of silence. When someone got caught they wouldn't say a thing, they'd take the fall. Made the organization hard to break up. However many others do. People are often self interested, and criminals often even more so. So they'll cooperate willingly to get themselves a better deal.
You Paint the World so Perfectly Black and White (Score:5, Insightful)
While sympathetic to the fact that Sabu's children may have influenced his decision, he didn't understand how Sabu could have put his family at risk in the first place. "Why would you get involved with something like this if you had kids that relied on you?" he asked. "If I had kids I would get a 'responsible' job/hobby."
It appears that his children and their future were used against him to coerce him into snitching on LulzSec.
... you know ... he's a conflicted man with an internal conflict between morals and money. Sabu could have very much so been in a similar position.
... well ... that doesn't mean the situation is completely black and white.
It appears that Sabu's children were an exploited liability. Would you risk your loved ones for your ideals? Or is your answer still simply and obviously "fuck snitches"?
And since you're quoting imaginary Disney characters, I'll remind you <Scarface spoiler alert> of the scene in Scarface where they're going to blow up a car of a politician's family in order to stop legislation but at the last moment Scarface realizes there are children in the vehicle and instead shoots the bomber in the face? Yeah, Scarface is a traitor at that point but
Please note, this Sabu character appears to be an unsavory character with delusions of grandeur [guardian.co.uk] who maybe should have his children taken away from him anyway but
Re:Traitors (Score:4, Insightful)
The "friends / colleagues" weren't collecting food for orphans, they were stealing people's financial futures. Someone who's involved in such crimes was already scum before they turned in their co-criminals, turning snitch means they're still the same scum but scum that happened to turn out useful to society in general.
Re:Lesson for other hacking groups (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone should have code words like this. I have some and my family knows what they are. If I'm in Serious Trouble, I can drop one of the phrases into casual conversation and they'll know to get help.
So, I can sue the FBI for my identity theft? (Score:4, Insightful)
At least now I can go after them. Let me call the FBI to start an investigation... Wait... who are the "good guys" again? Can I really ask the authorities to prosecute themselves? And then the rest of the world wonders why some are drawn to vigilante justice.
Re:Traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Leak poisoning (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Wikileaks' credibility be undermined? Wikileaks' primary purpose is to publish what is leaked to them, and they did just that in this case:
WikiLeaks believes that best way to truly determine if a story is authentic, is not just our expertise, but to provide the full source document to the broader community - and particularly the community of interest around the document ... Journalists and governments are often duped by forged documents. It is hard for most reporters to outsmart the skill of intelligence agency frauds. WikiLeaks, by bringing the collective wisdoms and experiences of thousands to politically important documents will unmask frauds like never before ... How does WikiLeaks test document authenticity? [wikileaks.org]
Re:Traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
The "friends / colleagues" weren't collecting food for orphans, they were stealing people's financial futures. Someone who's involved in such crimes was already scum before they turned in their co-criminals, turning snitch means they're still the same scum but scum that happened to turn out useful to society in general.
I thought we were talking about lulzsec and not bankers and people bailing them out?
now: who's financial future did lulzsec steal? yours? someone who's cc they had? WHO? someone who got fired because of them??
Re:Traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
That was basically the situation they had him in. Betray your fellow hackers, or lose your kids. It's a cruel choice, but ultimately he's the one responsible for making the kids a pawn in this game. Nobody forced him to break the law in the first place. The FBI agents, on the other hand, have to enforce the law of the land. They don't have the option of saying, "yeah he broke the law and hacked some websites, but he's got kids so we'll let him off with a stern warning". Once they had evidence that he'd broken the law, they have to pursue a case even if the kids become casualties. Offering Monsegur this way out is just about the only act of mercy they are allowed. He made a poor choice as a parent when he chose to engage in illegal activities while acting as the caretaker for two children. That's not to say that he shouldn't have been an online activist, but he could have found a way to do so in a responsible fashion that didn't pose the risk of the kids losing their father.
LulzSec: a failed movement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unit, Corps, God, Country. A few good men (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Traitors (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a zero sum game
Bankers may earn contempt without making any behavior that attacks them golden.
Re:Traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning took the same oath that everyone entering the military takes, to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Part of every soldier's training states that if you see an officer or other members of your squad, platoon, battalion, or even Joe Random Officer committing crimes, treason, or acts unbecoming of an officer or enlisted man of the United States military, you are to take the appropriate action.
I feel he took most of the appropriate action. He saw how the war in Afghanistan was being handled, and how civilian casualties and torture of prisoners was condoned by those all the way up the CoC. He also saw how our allies were smoking up before patrols and putting the lives of every single American soldier they were near at risk.
Manning did the right thing. In hindsight, he probably shouldn't have turned the data dump over to someone like Asange, but he didn't seem aware of anything other than "Wikileaks is a safe place to get the word out and not have the data suppressed."
The response from the military and the government has been absolutely deplorable.
Re:Traitors (Score:4, Insightful)
There were ground troops 3 blocks away engaged with armed militants at the time.
Which justifies them opening fire on the good samaritans who stopped to aid their first victims how?
The copter was doing forward reconnaissance in support of those ground troops.
Which justifies them opening fire on the good samaritans who stopped to aid their first victims how?
There was even audio of the helicopter pilots getting permission to fire from their commanders who were in turn being advised by JAG lawyers assigned to the group.
Which justifies them opening fire on the good samaritans who stopped to aid their first victims how?
The rules of war are very, very clear on this: civilians aiding the wounded are not to be fired upon.
Note that I am not talking about the original attack. I am not talking about all the cases where the use of deadly force conformed to the rules of engagement the helicopter crew were operating under. If you reply to justify those attacks as if I was arguing about them it will just show you are an idiot.
I am specifically and only asking about the illegal attack on the good samaritans who came to the aid of the victims of the previous, legal attack.
How do you justify that attack on those good samaritans, who were taking their kids to their music lessons and happened upon dying people in the road?
So you're ignoring the Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning's oath was to protect the Constitution, not American Imperialism.