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."
Re:Traitors (Score:4, Interesting)
He was dox'd by members of his own group before the FBI even started keeping tabs on him. They ousted one of their own before the whole thing even really got rolling, the feds were just paying attention is all.
So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manning? (Score:3, Interesting)
After all that's what he did. Worse still he had actually taken a formal and solemn oath (written and oral) not to reveal the secrets he did.
Leak poisoning (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the most interesting part of this by far is how the FBI managed to undermine the credibility of Wikileaks by getting them to leak arguably bogus material: Sabu actually used FBI equipment to hack Stratfor while under their employment. So... next time an intelligence leak rolls around, how are we supposed to know it wasn't a three-letter-agency spreading disinformation?
Sabu was the small fish (Score:4, Interesting)
TFA: As it turns out, this Sabu guy wasn't the real target of the FBI. They just used him as the linchpin for a long effort to ensnare Hammond, who already has quite the lengthy rap sheet. This implies to me that the FBI was not conducting detective work to bust Lulzsec/Anonymous, but were more interested in hunting down someone who was known to be an effective anti-government actor and finding a way to put him behind bars for a long time. For all the slashdotters who often claim that allowing political dissent is the difference between US and China, well, this is how we silence political dissent in the US. Take out the people who can actually effect change and reform, and allow the masses of the powerless to believe that they are free because they can speak (and nothing more). This government is no better than China's, it's just more tactful/less blatant about achieving its end goal and thereby more insidious. In either country, the average citizen is powerless against the marriage of government and corporation.
So, was Stratfor taken down on orders of FBI? (Score:5, Interesting)
It raises a lot of questions about which initiatives of Lulzsec are actually genuinely their work and which as really the work of FBI, carried out by the willing hands of Lulzsec. Maybe FBI wanted to take down Stratfor, but lacking a legitimate way, siced their inside man on it. It will also make for a very obvious defence for anybody arrested - they have a very easy way of claiming that what they did was on orders of Sabu and hence the law enforcement agency themselves now trying to prosecute them.
This is also going to be a big blow to credibility of FBI.
Re:Traitors (Score:3, Interesting)
I bet you would be singing a different tune if the police needed leads on the people who gang raped your mother, wife, and daughter.
Re:Sabu was the small fish (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA: As it turns out, this Sabu guy wasn't the real target of the FBI. They just used him as the linchpin for a long effort to ensnare Hammond, who already has quite the lengthy rap sheet. T
This is exactly what many articles are stating. The unsettling thing is, Hammond had to ask the Judge for a copy of his charge sheet so he could see what he did wrong. Did the FBI not have the evidence / ability to find Hammond on their own? Or did Hammond happen to be the "leader" of Anon the FBI was seeking when they compromised Sabu?
It doesn't sound like Hammond lived the life of a hermit, and that people knew who he was and how to find him. So why did the FBI need to go through Sabu to arrest him? It may be the connection from Sabu -> Lulzsec -> Anon -> Hammond which will demonize this activist in the eyes of the general population. Hell, I don't know... I just live here and think out loud.
The police are smarter than you think (Score:5, Interesting)
Particularly the FBI. They'd figure this out. The "convenient" breaking up of a group wouldn't fly.
Also you have to keep in mind the mindset of a CI. So let's say you've been doing something highly illegal the FBI shows up at your place and arrests you. They take you away and sit you in an interview room. You ask for and get a lawyer. They then proceed to lay out the evidence they have against you and the crimes you are guilty of. You can see that their evidence is through, they've got you. You are looking at a LONG time in prison.
Then they have a proposition. You turn states evidence, you work for them and help them bust the people you were working with and they'll reduce your sentence a LOT. You were looking at 60 years, now you are looking at 5 and could be out in 2. The charges are a lot less too, they'll reflect less poorly on you upon release. Your lawyer says "Do it, it is a good deal."
What do you do? Remember getting the deal is predicated on you helping them completely and it getting results. You tip off your buddies and they scat and at best you get back to your original charges and at worst they can stick a new tampering charge on you.
Think about this seriously, don't try and play Internet Toughguy and say "Of course I'd do it! Fuck da' police!" Would you really? Or would you act in your own interests?
Also please remember that this guy was probably in complete shock. Like most of these haxs0r types I'm sure he thought he was invincible and untraceable. So all this crashing down on him scared the hell out of him. I'm sure he was extremely willing to cooperate.
Re:So, was Stratfor taken down on orders of FBI? (Score:3, Interesting)
Stratfor was not a joke. It still is not a joke, even if they have issues with computer security, but in that specific regard, they are no different to some random comapny and should not really be judged any differently. There are not many organisations that can do what they accomplish(ed).
If you want a motive for why FBI might want to have Stratfor be "trashed", you need not look any further than "foreign corrupt practices act". Stratfor would have been toeing the line in many cases, and yet have had powerful protectors telling FBI off from investigating. I'm not claiming FBI ordered it, or that this was the reason, but these are possible scenarios.
Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni (Score:2, Interesting)
You're on Slashdot. I think a high proportion of the people on here will not have a remote chance of having children. But if any of the neckbeards on here want to justify their lack of children by saying they lived in fear of one day having kids used against them by the FBI, rather than the fact that no sane woman with most of her own teeth would sleep with them, then you have helped the less fortunate of the world and done your good deed for the day.
Re:The police are smarter than you think (Score:4, Interesting)
"Think about this seriously, don't try and play Internet Toughguy and say "Of course I'd do it! Fuck da' police!" Would you really? Or would you act in your own interests?"
This article made me think a little about the whole morality and justice aspect to the purpose of lulzsec / anon / any internet vigilante group. Are they truly doing this thinking they're the robin hood or batman - dispensing justice for others that can't find it themselves? Vigilantes of the internet? Or just troublemakers looking to stir up trouble, but doing this as a way to feel justified.
If it's a crime that benefits yourself (i.e. gathering mob protection money, burglary, blackmail) like in the parent analogy - then I would think there's a higher chance the criminal would work with authorities to benefit himself with a reduced sentence. But what if you truly believe that what you're doing isn't a crime, or that you're truly doing something for the world? For example if you're a captain of a ship and work for greenpeace, and you basically harass fisherman & oil tankers during your daily routine (or something like that) - and you're arrested, interrogated and told you'll be given a reduced sentence if you rat your friends out - would you do it? I would think that this captain is less likely to rat out friends than a criminal, because he thinks he's making the world a better place
So to me, it kind of questions the integrity of the members of these online "movements". Are they doing this because they truly believe they're making a difference in the world and dispensing justice? Or are these the type of people that just like watching shit go down - the kind that would be writing malicious viruses for no profit if these groups didn't exist? Obviously, the actions of one individual aren't representative of the whole movement - but it makes you wonder how much "good" he thought he was doing by running lulzsec if he was willing to compromise his own principles to save his ass.
Re:FBI Sting (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of kids, you would think the FBI would have some sympathy for his. They way they outed it all for maximum publicity with total disregard to the impact on his children. Kids are cruel and you can imagine the kind of attacks his kids will suffer as the children and such a publicly exposed betrayer.
Also one has to wonder at how those victims of the FBI orchestrated attacks over many months must feel. If I was one of those victims I'd be lawyering up to sue the hell out of the FBI for the crimes they orchestrated, not only allowing them to occur but initiating them. Easy money to make because the FBI will be forced to settle rather than battle out their criminal actions in court and considering wilful damages and penalties as well as loss of reputation and long term harm settlements could readily blow out to the millions.