Former Anonymous Spokesperson Indicted 114
A reader sends this quote from Ars:
"On Friday, a federal grand jury in Dallas indicted Barrett Brown, a former self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesperson, for trafficking 'stolen authentication features,' as well as 'access device fraud' and 'aggravated identity theft.' Brown has been detained since he was arrested in September for allegedly threatening a federal agent. 10 counts of the 12-count indictment concern the aggravated identity theft charge (the indictment references 10 people from whom Brown is alleged to have stolen information), but the most interesting charge is probably the first; a single count saying Brown, 'did knowingly traffic in more than five authentication features knowing that such features were stolen and produced without lawful authority.' But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, 'from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called "#Anonops" to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called "#ProjectPM."' That hyperlink happened to include over 5,000 credit card numbers, associating Ids, and Card Verification Values (CVVs) from the Stratfor Global Intelligence database."
link = trafficking? (Score:3, Insightful)
So now posting a URL can be trafficking in whatever it links to even if you're not serving it?
This is nuts, think of the implications;
Post a link to pirate bay and you've trafficked copyrighted material!?
Re:link = trafficking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Real world analogy would be, "See that car round the corner? I think it's stolen" = Trafficking in stolen vehicles / Grand theft auto.
Re:link = trafficking? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, real world analogy would be, "See that car around the corner? It's unlocked and you don't need a key to start it. You're welcome." = Trafficking in stolen vehicles
If the feds want you they can get you. Learn that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let this be a lesson to any cyber pranksters or not so serious e-revolutionaries. These sorts of games are very dangerous and only lead to two possible outcomes, getting yourself killed or getting yourself locked away in prison.
The same thing happened in the 60s-70s when the Black Panthers, Crips, Gangster Disciples and many urban gangs wanted to fight for social justice through unity. The problem with these gangs is they did not understand that the FBI wasn't going to go along with that. FBI has had a counter intelligence program since the 1940s founded after the business plot coup attempt against FDR. Originally COINTELPRO was designed to protect the USA from fascists but when World War 2 ended World War 3 began (the Cold War) and it reached it's peak in the 60s-70s.
The problem with these e-revolutionaries is they don't study history. They don't understand that many of them are being exploited by foreign intelligence agencies, basically being tooled, and in many cases are nothing more than useful idiots. Just as the USA launched a war on drugs to fight and win the 60s Civil War, and now due to the crackdown on gangs you have millions of prisoners who are directly connected or the descendants of Black Panthers and or other groups. No one was paying any attention or fighting for these political prisoners and it's not over.
The new front is the internet. The government has made Julian Assange enemy of the state. Anyone who isn't prepared to go to prison or get killed should immediately distance themselves from this situation because the stakes are too high. You may disagree with your government, you may agree with the values of Julian Assange, but it does not mean it is going to be wise for you or your family to get involved in the situation. Cyberwarfare is not fun, it's not fair, there are no human rights, you can be entrapped, framed, set up for crimes you didn't do, or tricked into doing things you didn't know were crimes. You'll never know who among your friends are informants, you'll never see all the angles or know who is trying to get you killed or get you arrested.
The life of a revolutionary is very similar to the life of a gangster. It's often a shortened life. This is something many of the kids involved do not understand because they did not grow up around gangs and had somewhat sheltered childhoods. If they understood the dangers they wouldn't get involved. Barrett Brown is in over his head, he did not understand the dangers of which he got himself involved in. He also underestimated the lengths that governments will go to take someone out. The governments who want to take people like him out do not have any limits, they have way more technology than he can possibly hope to deal with, way more resources than he could possibly fathom, and a ruthlessness he cannot hope to understand.
He never was an Anon. He was a self promoter. (Score:5, Insightful)
He was promoting himself. He did not understand what he was doing. He was a typical kid from the suburbs getting himself involved with cartels, pissing off the FBI, and challenging the US military establishment. He is lucky to be arrested and be alive, and yes he's going to be spending many years in prison as apparently he did not agree to become an informant.
Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone has to do it.
Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
If you point me towards a locker full of drugs, then ya you can get charged. You can't get out of trouble just by claiming you didn't actually do anything, only provided information. If it is clear you are an accomplice, you can get charged.
Remember laws are written around the "reasonable person" standard, not the "overly pedantic geek" standard. So if you knew to point me to a particular locker, and you knew the combination to that locker, and that locker was full of drugs, what is a reasonable person to assume? That you had no idea the drugs were there, and had nothing to do with it? No not so much, they'll probably conclude that you were involved in a drug deal.
Now context and intent are important as well. For example if you knew about the drugs because you overheard someone talking about it, and you told a police officer with the intent of letting them foil a drug deal, then you are in the clear. However if you knew about the drugs because you had someone place them there, and told me with the intent to complete a drug deal then you are guilty.
You don't have to be directly involved in a crime to be culpable of that crime. If that were the case, we could never bust crime bosses who order murders since, after all, they don't actually murder people, just instruct others to do so.
Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (Score:1, Insightful)
Or, if you see some naive geeks, thinking they are brilliant because they've read a lot of books and can nitpick the meanings of words, admiring foolish people, you might warn them they coexist in the real world, even if from their bedroom they see it through a screen shaped a lot like a television.
Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (Score:4, Insightful)
A way to rephrase what you wrote in the proper jargon is:
Anonymous aren't revolutionary. They're adventurists. [marxists.org]
Same as it ever was when middle class kids decide to take on 'The Man.'