FBI Executes Nationwide Raid of Anonymous Members 343
Nominei and suraj.sun write in with news about a nationwide raid of Anonymous members. CBS reports that raids occurred in California, New Jersey, Florida, and New York. At least 12 arrests were made with 15 warrants executed. Surely this has nothing at all to do with their recent infiltration of a certain company.
How about no (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely this has nothing at all to do with their recent infiltration of a certain company.
I doubt there was 12 hackers working on it or that they would had busted them all within 24 hours. How about it's all the other bullshit "Anonymous" has been causing within one year, like the countless amount of DDoS against various companies and governments.
word! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:word! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think going tin foil and yelling "Black Flag!" is going overboard, but you can bet that the feds had (have) members at core levels. Probably a mix of traditional undercover and turn-coats taken in unannounced arrests. I'm sure the same can be said about most widespread underground groups that give the feds the heebie-jeebies. And, frankly, I don't really have a problem with that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't fight conspiracy theories. (Score:5, Insightful)
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away. Conspiracy theory derives from an inability to accept the chaotic nature of reality, that "random" events outside the control of any central power can utterly destroy someone's life. The belief in conspiracy theory is a belief that SOMETHING is actually in control: THE GOVERNMENT!
And if THE GOVERNMENT could just have its secrets revealed, or if it was destroyed, then all would be right with the world and peace and justice would reign.
Re:You can't fight conspiracy theories. (Score:4, Interesting)
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away. Conspiracy theory derives from an inability to accept the chaotic nature of reality, that "random" events outside the control of any central power can utterly destroy someone's life. The belief in conspiracy theory is a belief that SOMETHING is actually in control: THE GOVERNMENT!
And if THE GOVERNMENT could just have its secrets revealed, or if it was destroyed, then all would be right with the world and peace and justice would reign.
The problem with all of this, what fuels the conspiracy theories, is that false-flag operations really do happen. The various governments destroy their own credibility by engaging in such things.
Re: (Score:3)
"governments (at least the USA) is really bad at keeping secrets"
I would love to know how anyone (conspiracy theorist or non-conspiracy theorist) thinks they can evaluate this one way or another. I'd love to estimate the odds of government leaking a given secret, O=f/g (f the number of secrets leaked, g the number of secrets kept). We can reliably count f. But the idea that we can count g is self-contradictory.
Re:You can't fight conspiracy theories. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hemingway in his later days was generally considered a conspiracy theorist, believing the fbi was tracking and bugging him everywhere.
It took 70 years [slashdot.org] for it to be discovered he was actually right.
While I'm sure there are exponentially more false claims of conspiracy than legitimate ones, people who sound paranoid can be completely right sometimes. When governments can successfully keep it secret until enough generations have passed for all involved to be dead, it demonstrates the capability of easily destroying peoples lives and credibility (at the very least for the duration of their life).
Re: (Score:3)
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away
You might say the same thing about people who make the blanket assumption that governments, corporations, and other organizations are all completely open and transparent, only operating in the light of day, and completely without hidden agendas of any kind. But that seems at least as idiotic, doesn't it? Maybe even more so, since it requires nothing but blind trust and not the minimal considerations of motivation and plausible strategy that even the kookiest conspiracy theorist has to ponder.
Sure, there are
Re:You can't fight conspiracy theories. (Score:4, Interesting)
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away. Conspiracy theory derives from an inability to accept the chaotic nature of reality, that "random" events outside the control of any central power can utterly destroy someone's life. The belief in conspiracy theory is a belief that SOMETHING is actually in control: THE GOVERNMENT!
And if THE GOVERNMENT could just have its secrets revealed, or if it was destroyed, then all would be right with the world and peace and justice would reign.
In fairness, it's not just theory. There is ample evidence that News Corp conspired with Scotland Yard. It's not inconceivable that the FBI has a similar relationship with them, but there would need to be evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Whilst I'm not agreeing with that theory per-se, I think the timing of Anonymous arrests have been very convenient. The problem is the people being arrested are almost certainly people who used LOIC without masking their IP at all.
I do think it's a little odd that each time a country has a big story relating to law enforcement the day before, the next day we get a story of "xx anonymous members arrested!"- last time it was SOCA, this time it's the whole NoW deal. Turkish police similarly did the same thing
Re: (Score:3)
I heard some tinfoil hat types suggesting that lulzsec was actually fascist law enforcement types providing cover for legislation giving them more power to combat "cyberterrorism". They might be temporarily surprised, though they'll quickly rationalize that law enforcement just needed some fall guys.
Its not that far out there given recent events at the ATF and DoJ: http://news.google.com/news/search?&q=fast+furious+atf [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But if the cyberterrorism is all coming from the police, giving them power to stop cyberterrorism will just stop the police from committing cyberterrorism.
Score one for abatement of the police state.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:word! (Score:4, Funny)
did anyone NOT see this coming?
I can think of 12 people who didn't...
Re: (Score:2)
And I hear some of them were actual attacks and not just counterintelligence operations to discredit them.
Couldn't have waited? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Couldn't have waited? (Score:5, Insightful)
That they are even tangentially related gives the feds an opportunity to make big headlines about raids to show that they are 'doing something' (TM) and they aren't incompetent and/or impotent by skill or distance/jurisdiction respectively.
Re:Couldn't have waited? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo!
Dumb little fake anarchist kiddies that wear trenchcoats... I wanna be a part of the revolution... Ohh I can download this app and be a part of it! SCHWEET!!!!
Thanks for installing trojan-zombie 3.42r7 Dimitri in Slanovia now uses your computer.
That's pretty cynical (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're presuming that the FBI's l33t-squad doesn't know the difference between a proxy and an active participant.
Re: (Score:2)
They only got 12 people. I'm sure there's people who can still release it.
They're probably going to come down on the FBI next.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a feeling the FBI would not actively discourage this, particularly when a honeypot is so tasty.
Re: (Score:2)
They've already got a nice honeypot [wikipedia.org] up and running, staffed by their old plant at Wikileaks no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Couldn't have waited? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Couldn't have waited? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe so, but just like low-level drug gang soldiers, these people are going to be very, very helpful as they contemplate long prison sentences. Eventually the trail will lead to the people who matter. Most people don't realize it, but financial and computer crimes carry pretty hefty penalties. Some of these people are thinking "Oh, hacking ${evil_corporation_or_government_organization} sounds like fun. Even if I get caught, they'll probably give me probation." Yeah... probation after you finish your 20 year sentence. If you were going to risk this kind of time you would have been better off robbing a bank.
Re:Couldn't have waited? (Score:5, Insightful)
But to clarify the expected result of this raid, I thought it might be valuable for those unfamiliar with Anonymous to know that the group is entirely anonymous, even among members. The people who were captured would probably love to roll on others in order to avoid jail time. That is not a choice for them, however. This makes it an attractive mob to manipulate.
The feds will relish a day or two capturing headlines, pretending that "something" has been done to curtail these nefarious hackers. It's exactly as theatrical as the war on terror. At most they'll charge these individuals with possession of child pornography, as their browser cache is undoubtedly filled with thumbnails of illegal content inadvertently picked up while trawling 4chan. It's quite doubtful the FBI has captured anyone of significance.
Seth
Re:Couldn't have waited? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, they'll finger someone; because sometime soon, there will be a paper handed to them, across a desk in a dark room, and it'll have names on it, of people and aliases of those who this particular individual may or may not have interacted with... But it won't matter. The truth never does, during a witch hunt. A lawyer will urge his client to sign it; because it's either a slap of the hand, or utter ruination of your life when you deal with these sort of folk, and the men with guns who act in their stead.
Re: (Score:2)
Until background sneaker makes the mistake of recruiting an FBI agent to be his front-line troll.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I'll bet they're entirely capable of setting one up to run so it could be executed the next time Anon/Lulz did something newsworthy. Great PR on a day Google News searches are running, etc.
Here we go! (Score:2)
Round 2 of The World Will Never Be The Same Again game has begun!
"In a Post Anonymous World, you will need a passport stamp for every bit you download."
Re:Here we go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"One day I will have your kind of optimism. Hey! That's today!"
You can start and finish down that road all at once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, whack a mole is a fun game and will keep them in overtime for years to come.
ROTFL yes very effective. I bet catching 12 people, who may or may not have been anyone of real interest, will shut the anonymous collective right down. Yup this is it for them lol.
They made some points biting at the anonymous hand. Bitchslap is now pending. Now the FBI moved, its time for their betters to make their move.
There's punishment, and then there's deterrence. How many of those participating in Anonymous thought there could be no repercussions or consequences from participating in Anonymous? I'd wager there's less than before.
No one realistically expects the FBI to track down every single participant, but if they manage to get enough to affect the risk/reward perception, it still works.
Nationwide crackdown of 12? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the definition of "crackdown" ("crack down: to repress, to take strong measures against"). Arresting 12 members of Anonymous is not going to repress them, and is not a strong measure.
Re:Nationwide crackdown of 12? (Score:4, Insightful)
Eeh, typical Newsie hyperbole. I heard an NPR story this morning about Somali kids from Minneapolis going off to join Al-Shabab that described them as "leaving in droves," then went off to say there were 24 of them. I thought to myself, "That is one drove, max."
Re: (Score:3)
"leaving in droves," then went off to say there were 24 of them. I thought to myself, "That is one drove, max."
I could see a case for 2 droves here.
Re: (Score:2)
One bakers drove and one Krispy Kreme drove*.
* - Somehow theres always one donut missing between when I pick the order up and when I get home.
Re:Nationwide crackdown of 12? (Score:5, Funny)
That's what I was thinking.
Ok, ok. I confess - I'm part of Anonymous and I'm willing to cut a deal. I'll roll over on everyone. You know those pseudonyms in the IRC channel you've been monitoring and caught me in? That's the rest of them... *sob*
Very effective.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So they're arresting Kevin Bacon?
What about the script kiddies. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to wonder just how many people are going to have to be arrested until the grunts get the picture and bail.
Anon "We are a Hydra chop off a head and two grows back" == You are expendable. Grunts are cheap and made by unskilled labor.
AKA it sucks for you if you are the head that gets chopped off.
Re: (Score:2)
If many of the arrests turn out to be made in error and quietly dropped, that would create a greater apparent than real risk. Similarly, if many of the grunts are vaguely disgruntled minors whose parents are glad that they aren't out on the street getting into real trouble, the legal repercussions might be fairly slight and sealed at majority.
I'm not following the matter c
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they are under 18 you are right. Over 18 and even an arrest looks bad on your record. A slap on the wrist and a few weeks jail time can mean you don't get a lot of jobs. Of course they will not get anyone and the very young and very stupid think it could never happen to them.
Like Anon says "They are expendable" so rush that machine gun nest it will not get all of you.
Re:What about the script kiddies. (Score:5, Insightful)
A slap on the wrist and a few weeks jail time can mean you don't get a lot of jobs.
In the current US economy, I think this is becoming increasingly moot. You don't get a lot of jobs regardless.
Re:What about the script kiddies. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really believe in a cause it doesn't matter how many "examples" are made, in fact as Syria is finding out, the more "examples" you make the more martyrs the people have to avenge.
While the stakes of Anon as a political movement are not as high as the suppression of dissidents in totalitarian states, Anon has become undeniably a political movement, and there are idealists willing to sacrifice themselves for political ends born every minute. Let me tell you something as a former young idealist: it isn't real until it happens to you. You imagine that the purity of your principles makes you invincible until the establishment turns its gaze on you and actually does something.
However once an idea gains enough momentum and there enough people involved, actually acting against them becomes politically more difficult in Western democracies generally. At a certain threshold law breaking becomes civil disobedience, and if you end up fighting masses of people in the streets you've already lost. It will be only a few election cycles before those chickens come home to roost.
I'm not saying this is necessarily going to happen, but I do challenge your interpretation of the situation as overly simplistic and in denial of historical scenarios of similar sociological pressures.
Re:What about the script kiddies. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no there there. It's not a political movement, except for the possibility of the idiots who have been arrested being classical "useful idiots" in the service of someone else who has preyed upon their boring existence and broadband connection to use them as weak-willed meatbots who make the mistake of thinking they're being cool. You are way over analyzing things. It really is for the lulz, as it turns out. These are just your basic punks. Vandals who think they're impacting The Man, or at least say so, because that babelicious Goth girl in their algebra class seems to nod her head when she hears tales of angsty rebellion from nerds using Mom's FiOS pipe as meat puppets for lefty activists.
Re:What about the script kiddies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Political Targets + Political Reasons = Political Movement, like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Political Targets + Political Reasons = Political Movement, like it or not.
That's where you're wrong. It's "High Profile In-The-News Targets + Desperate Personal Need To Seem Dangerous And Cool = Oldest Story In The Book"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
just because you don't think their message is significant (information wants to be free, internet is for lulz, corruption is bad) doesn't give you the authority to define their actions as non-political, hell, you could successfully argue that the KKK were a political movement.
i think you're just over-simplifying what politics IS.
corrisive flailing about in order to avoid having to actually think, act, or (especially) produce anything.
and yet are able to out wit "security professionals", "government agencies" & "corrupt regimes".... for FREE.
And me without mod points... (Score:2)
This is the most insightful post I've seen all day... as the quote goes, "He who does not remember history is doomed to repeat it."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about the script kiddies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, thousands die in wars all the time. All the grunts there know they're expendable too.
Why is this modded Troll? (Score:4, Funny)
If not modded up for being on-topic and insightful, it should at least be left alone... s/he actually managed to use "they're" and "there" correctly.
Meanwhile, In America... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, cars made of hundred dollar bills fall under the jurisdiction of the Treasury dept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile, In America... (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws, however, are subject to the highest bidder....
Re:Meanwhile, In America... (Score:5, Insightful)
> You get what you vote for.
I wish that were true but sadly, I seem to keep getting what politicians' campaign sponsors want instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember, this is your government. You get what you vote for.
Nah, you get what the ignorant stammering majority choosing between a turd and a douche, if they could even be arsed to waddle down to the polling place and take 5 minutes within a 12 hour window on a Tuesday out of fear the other guy might win.
Re: (Score:2)
Good, I want them not to vote. That makes my vote effectively more important.
(BTW, I often simply don't vote for anybody for many offices, especially local government. I vote on the issues I care about & know about.. and leave the others blank.)
Re:Meanwhile, In America... (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep voting for the candidates who promise not to murder any innocent people. They don't seem to win the elections, though -- not above the municipal level, anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a moronic refrain, and you're a jackass for repeating it. The real truth of the matter is that we get what we DON'T vote for... meaning it's the intentions and behavior of which we AREN'T told before the election that we actually get in the end.
The problem, of course, is that we have virtually no useful criteria whatsoever to identify the unethical self-interested bastards before they take office. Even mr1911, who smugly implies that he's never ever voted for a rotten candidate himself, has no frea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how do you know that? The same way you know to avoid *ever* voting for a candidate that works against the public good? Yeah, you're quite the authority on everything, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Except by the time we are allowed to vote for them, it's a choice between fast painful death, or a painful fast death. Maybe a death that is fast and painful? Hey, how about a death that is painful and fast.
Sure, it may look like redundancy the way I wrote it, but they're still considered 'democrats', 'republicans', and so forth.
The idiom was intentional.
When every single political figurehead is corrupted in one form or another, with very few, if any exceptions, it frankly doesn't matter who you pick. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
> the harshest critics of government often DON'T vote for their government
Interesting conclusion. Please show your work.
Re: (Score:2)
Complex problems don't have a simple answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meanwhile, In America... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they can also investigate DVD licensing violations and track the cars of unsuspecting college kids. Multitasking FTW.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile, In America... (Score:5, Funny)
I once heard a single FBI agent could listen to 7000 wiretaps of innocent civilians at the same time.
She must have a serious headache.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, they are required to spit out gum before a raid.
No, Nothing To Do With The Sun (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous has been hacking into enough of the right kind of computers that it was a given they were going to get Federal attention. It takes a while to pull together a coordinated series of raids, so it's extremely unlikely the Sun (newspaper) exploit had any bearing on these arrests.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, the police wait nearby and move in to conduct the raid while they are in the middle of the act, so they have evidence it was them, and not a trojan or an insecure wifi router that did it; so it is quite possible that thesun.co.uk exploit was the trigger for them to move in on their pre-planned raid.
Translation from Law Speak (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous member = IRC server owner who may not have anything to do with Anonymous
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people may find this strange, but society generally doesn't like it if you harbor criminals. Hopefully the FBI has the brains to realize the IRC owners are not always the hackers, but that doesn't mean that the IRC owners are in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not grasping the difference (Score:2)
The distinction is that AT&T has army of lobbyists and lawyers to ensure they're not "held accountable," but the IRC server "owners" don't. Whether or not they should be is beside the point.
One problem with TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
"..Fox News was reporting.." I would disregard that portion of the article pending a reliable source of information.
Re:One problem with TFA (Score:5, Funny)
'reporting' is probably too strong a word here; they probably just heard it in a FBI agents voice mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smooth.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "Fox News was astroturfing their homepage to pretend nothing is happening in Britain today..."
FBI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FBI ... 21st century Pinkertons.
You've got it precisely backwards. It's Anonymous that fancies themselves the self-described law and who are deployed by interested parties to interfere with someone else's daily lives. It's angry lefties that egg Anonymous on to virtually lynch people with whom they disagree. Get it straight. The FBI are the historical marshals or the military, and Anonymous/Lulzsec are playing the role of self-appointed posse/executioners doing the bidding of their idealogical masters. They get paid in the currency they
thumbs up to Fox News? (Score:2)
Sarcasm from the article summary:
One of the reasons I've respected Anonymous is because not only do they do what everyone else cannot, but they get away without leaving tracks.
When HBGary claimed to have tracked them down and threatened to release their identities, they broke into HBGary, discovered that the information was faulty, and released it themselves.
So, no one can beat Anonymous at their own game, except for...
Curious Timing (Score:2)
Really? Much less worried about this... (Score:2)
Just GTFO (Score:3, Informative)
you arrest 100 people in usa. you arrest 100 people in france. you arrest 100 people in germany.
what about the millions in china, russia, india ? how are you going to 'arrest' or 'scare' them ? morons.
this is no more than a publicity stunt to satiate the bastard that is murdoch, since his ass is on the line now. and fbi and other government organizations in u.s. are making evident who they are serving. they didnt conduct a nationwide raid when all kinds of govt. organizations were attacked by anon.