Slashdot Mirror


Authorities Closing On LulzSec

mask.of.sanity writes "The noose is tightening on hacker group LulzSec, according to a coordinated group of like-minded users, some from LulzSec-Exposed that claim to have uncovered the identity of LulzSec members and supplied them to the FBI. An arrest Monday of a UK teenager was rumoured to be former hacker scene member Ryan Clearly, and the trackers, which includes a former FBI agent, say this arrest is the first of many. They refused to disclose the identities of LulzSec chief, saying it would cause the members to burn the evidence of attacks and scatter."

354 comments

  1. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The [propaganda] noose is tightening around LulzSec?

    1. Re:lol by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Once they compromised his cookie it was just a matter of time

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  2. Logic disconnect... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 2

    But publishing a news story about the arrests isn't going to cause the members to destroy evidence and scatter? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.... Fuck.

    1. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are aware of all of this, don't worry. We can protect ourselves for the lulz as well..

    2. Re:Logic disconnect... by Marc+Madness · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe that's the intention. By putting out a press release stating that arrests are imminent, maybe they are hoping that LulzSec will destroy their own infrastructure and go into hiding, thus eliminating them as a threat. It's true doublethink; it can mean that they have no leads whatsoever, or that they do.

    3. Re:Logic disconnect... by cgeys · · Score: 2
      Nice way to ruin your life.

      Ryan, described as a loner who ‘lives his life online’, faces the prospect of extradition to the U.S. where he could face 60 years behind bars for allegedly hacking into the CIA and Senate websites.

      The funny thing is, soon everyone will forget about the whole thing, but he gets to spend his life in the prison. For a few "lulz".

    4. Re:Logic disconnect... by biodata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if he's ever charged with anything

      --
      Korma: Good
    5. Re:Logic disconnect... by singhulariti · · Score: 2

      Something tells me he might end up being hired by the FBI after a few years

    6. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I hear they really need someone with 1337 "i can run an irc server" skillz.

    7. Re:Logic disconnect... by sosume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can someone who has never entered the US be convicted to 60 years for breaking US laws??

    8. Re:Logic disconnect... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      That's what we poker player know by the technical term "bluff". And methinks, you just called it... Congrats!

    9. Re:Logic disconnect... by smelch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Something tells me you underestimate true hacking talent, and the value of not being a dumbfuck attention whore. Seriously, what makes you think this guy is a more talented hacker than any of the people who actually write viruses, malware, develop jailbreaks, reveal encryption keys in hardware etc.? The only thing that got this guy attention was sticking his e-peen where it didn't belong and waving it about in people's faces.

      I don't think the FBI needs more people to hunt out low-hanging fruit. Not to mention it's hard to run a sensitive investigation with some jackwad flopping his dick about. "You guys need any SQL injection writers?" ::thrust thrust thrust:: "I know how to make ASCII art too, and run IRC servers!" ::thrust thrust thrust:: "Somebody start DDoSing the" ::thrust:: "mafia!"

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    10. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because UK wuvs US.

    11. Re:Logic disconnect... by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      The Frank Abagnale situation has happened precious few times. It's not typically a recruitment method. Most likely, if he's convicted, "Federal pound-me-in-the-ass" prison is what awaits, not cushy employment with the FBI.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:Logic disconnect... by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      To describe it differently, authorities are now having a "lulz".

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    13. Re:Logic disconnect... by telekon · · Score: 1

      Infrastructure? LOL.

      --

      To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

    14. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, then they won't have to go through the trouble of actually exposing the real members.
      I'm sure they'll arrest someone, though, to avoid losing face. Oh wait, they already did arrest someone. Problem solved!

    15. Re:Logic disconnect... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      this is just another "war on something". They are about as close to lulzsec as imagination is to reality.

    16. Re:Logic disconnect... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Entered physically perhaps but he accessed US server allegedly. Of course, he's lucky they don't just call him an "enemy combatant" and send him to Guantanamo.

    17. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      international treaties..you thought international commerce laws were just for trade? har har, jokes on you/us

    18. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what? He didn't break into HBGary (which probably had some real hacking merits), just organised coordinated loic attacks on a few sites.

    19. Re:Logic disconnect... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      The same way if someone in North Dakota fires an arrow up into the air and it lands in the chest of a little Canadian boy on the other side of the border the American who fired the arrow can be extradited and tried for breaking the Canadian laws regarding murder because the countries have extradition treaties. How is this at all confusing? Just because someone breaks the law online doesn't mean the legal system can't possibly figure things out because your in a different country AND online.

    20. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not worried. Hope you guys get hung out to dry.

    21. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, since in most cases all that it takes to turn an imagined idea into reality is a little bit of hard work, then if they were that close to catching them as imagination is to reality, I'd be scared if I were them.

    22. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am thinking that maybe the police have no clue, and just want to try monitoring communications that perhaps eventually will reveal possible suspects, if someone were to casually communicate ideas of destroying infomation.

    23. Re:Logic disconnect... by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      It could be argued, and will be I'm sure, that since the CIA servers are on US soil then the crime he committed was on US soil even though he was physically outside the US.

      We can't let criminals get away with stealing or destroying data simply because they are sitting in another country while they do it.

      If I put a bomb on an airplane but it only explodes once it is in another country am I not responsible? And wouldn't the country where the bomb exploded have the right to charge me for breaking their laws?

      A crime is a crime. Whether it's committed in person or at the keyboard of a computer 5,000 miles away.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    24. Re:Logic disconnect... by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By putting out a press release stating that arrests are imminent, maybe they are hoping that LulzSec will destroy their own infrastructure and go into hiding, thus eliminating them as a threat. It's true doublethink; it can mean that they have no leads whatsoever, or that they do.

      -The FBI has identified the members, can capture them, will capture them, put out this statement to scare them into stopping the attacks until they can be arrested
      -The FBI has identified the members, can capture them, will capture them, couldn't keep a lid on the rumors, leading to this leak
      -The FBI has identified the members, can capture some of them, but want to scare off the ones they can't with this
      -The FBI has not identified the members, and wants to scare them off
      -The FBI thinks it has identified the members, foolishly bragging about it beforehand, and will be have egg on their face when the people they arrest have little to do with it, attacks continue

    25. Re:Logic disconnect... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I agree with your point, but that's the most ridiculous example of a cross-border crime I've ever heard. How about using smuggling, mail fraud, or some other crime that actually happens?

    26. Re:Logic disconnect... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, because running an IRC server gets you into CIA servers...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    27. Re:Logic disconnect... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    28. Re:Logic disconnect... by makomk · · Score: 1

      Quite easily. In fact, thanks to Britain's one-sided extradition treaty with the US it's even possible for British citizens to be extradited to the US for crimes committed entirely in the UK against UK corporations, and this has actually happened.

    29. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't it a ddos on CIA? How is that teh 1337 skillz?

    30. Re:Logic disconnect... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      One thing about prison - he'll probably have a lot more sex than he had been having. ;-)

    31. Re:Logic disconnect... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

      I agree with you up to a point in theory, but in practice I think we run into issues.

      The problem comes when you realize that some places have some very weird laws, and their laws don't require you to even be anywhere near the location in order to be "breaking" those laws.

      I'm pretty sure I remember reading some stories 6 months or a year ago where a company in California was was selling sex toys and the like via website, and some municipality in Florida tried to charge the employees of the company with breaking local laws because some -Florida residents- (why aren't they the ones being charged???) ordered from the website and were shipped exactly what they ordered, but those products ran afoul of the local laws. The employees of the company where nowhere anywhere near Florida when these "crimes" were committed.

      How long till we get something like that from an entire country? Take it to it's ridiculous end, what happens when Iran or Saudi Arabia wants the political cartoonist from Denmark extradited for making a cartoon of their prophet? etc.

      Because of this, I am still of the opinion that if you do something that is legal where you live, you shouldn't be able to be charged with a crime elsewhere, just because it is illegal there, even if what you did somehow affects businesses or people in this second location. I understand completely the complications of this, but I am convinced it is still the only fair way to go. Most likely, you can let the local authorities know what is going on and they'll arrest the hacker under their own local laws. On the other hand (going back to the original point), if it's legal to hack the US in another country, send Hillary Clinton over there to discuss that with their government, because if "go ahead and hack the US, we don't care" is their policy, I think it's high time we had a talk with them about that.

    32. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, here is a better one:
      Imagine a cow smuggler on the US-Canadian border who uses catapults to fire cows over the border and the heads of customs agents.
      Unfortunately, catapults are very hard to aim and the cow lands on an unsuspecting Canuck with most unfortunate consequences for cow and Canuck.
      In this case the cow smuggler can be extradited to Canada and tried there for cruelty against animals and assault and battery. Note: the landing is cruel in this case, not the launch as the cow might enjoy a nice space ride. Hence, he will be tried in Canada for cruelty against animals.

    33. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you missed the part where they've arrested a guy who ran an IRC server that LulzSec had a channel on. Real 1337.

    34. Re:Logic disconnect... by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the arrogance of hackers. the ones who haven't been arrested probably think they are in the clear, as they haven't been caught yet.

    35. Re:Logic disconnect... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Because of this, I am still of the opinion that if you do something that is legal where you live, you shouldn't be able to be charged with a crime elsewhere

      "should" doesn't enter into it. The US *CAN* extradite him, so they will. Government isn't about right or wrong, justice or injusice, or even legal or illegal. It's about sheer power and nothing else.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    36. Re:Logic disconnect... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Yea, I guess your right, that example is a bit absurd with it requiring someone to actually be in North Dakota and all.

    37. Re:Logic disconnect... by X.25 · · Score: 2

      The same way if someone in North Dakota fires an arrow up into the air and it lands in the chest of a little Canadian boy on the other side of the border the American who fired the arrow can be extradited and tried for breaking the Canadian laws regarding murder because the countries have extradition treaties. How is this at all confusing? Just because someone breaks the law online doesn't mean the legal system can't possibly figure things out because your in a different country AND online.

      So, if American hacks into Chinese server, you agree that it will be ok to extradite said American to China?

      Or even better, if you insult King of Thailand, you just broke some Thai laws. Therefore, you should be extradited to Thailand.

      Right?

    38. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Well, that is basically what happens now. The US asks the UK to extradite someone for a crime committed in the US. The UK can say 'no'. In fact, they do this when a case could result in the death penalty, if the US does not give assurances that the death penalty will not be used.

      Saying that the act must be 'illegal' in the country where the person is is unreasonable. For instance, the US has a federal law that says unauthorized use of a US government computer is a crime. The US does not have a law that says unauthorized use of a UK government computer is a crime, nor should they - that is the UK's responsibility. However, both the US and UK recognize that unauthorized use is a problem, and thus may agree to extradition. There is no other way for it to work.

    39. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And just to clarify, the first thing in the extradition treaty is:

      "An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty."

    40. Re:Logic disconnect... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The same way if someone in North Dakota fires an arrow up into the air and it lands in the chest of a little Canadian boy on the other side of the border the American who fired the arrow can be extradited and tried for breaking the Canadian laws regarding murder because the countries have extradition treaties. How is this at all confusing? Just because someone breaks the law online doesn't mean the legal system can't possibly figure things out because your in a different country AND online.

      So, if American hacks into Chinese server, you agree that it will be ok to extradite said American to China?

      Or even better, if you insult King of Thailand, you just broke some Thai laws. Therefore, you should be extradited to Thailand.

      Right?

      In the case of China, no, I do NOT agree that we should extradite citizens to a country we don't even have an extradition treaty with, duh, this would be illegal. In the case of Thailand, I believe we have a dual criminality treaty (most of our extradition treaties are dual criminality, while a few specifically list extraditable offenses) , and since insulting the King of Thailand isn't a criminal offense in the United States, it doesn't fall under an extraditable offense under the treaty. If I'm incorrect and we have a list treaty I'm pretty sure that one ain't on the list. Now if a citizen started committing a bunch of mail fraud or hacking a bunch of servers belonging to the Thailand government (acts that are also illegal here) and that government requested extradition through diplomatic channels then sure, by all means extradite him as long as it agrees with our current foreign policy goals.

    41. Re:Logic disconnect... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you missed the part where the guy I'm talking about has allegedly broken into CIA servers. That's specific wording. They are not seeking extradition for a denial of service.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    42. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Here is the extradition treaty. Which are the one-sided parts, or the part that allows what you claimed happened?

    43. Re:Logic disconnect... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      what happens when Iran or Saudi Arabia wants the political cartoonist from Denmark extradited

      Extradition agreements are generally two way streets. If Iran or Saudi Arabia wants to be able to extradite citizens of Denmark, they would need to be willing to also grant Denmark rights to be able to extradite citizens of their respective countries. Too make a long story short, none of the countries you have mentioned will ever agree to mutual extradition policy.

      I am still of the opinion that if you do something that is legal where you live, you shouldn't be able to be charged with a crime elsewhere, just because it is illegal there

      Pretty sure that there are similar cybercrime laws in the UK that exists in the US. Also what you are on the verge of suggesting is that every foreign national in the world be treated with diplomatic immunity. Can you honestly not see how that could never work out? If that were the case, we would be very much broadcasting the message of "go ahead and hack the US, we don't care".

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    44. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they hack us companies, they break laws in the us and should be prosecuted accordingly. I'm sure all the lulzsec guys will eventually find themselves in a federal "pound me in the ass" prison. From what I've read, they're primarily code kiddies using exploits developed by others such as ddos tools you can go watch tutorials on youtube about.
      Real hackers don't publish hack details, code kids do.

    45. Re:Logic disconnect... by westlake · · Score: 1

      How can someone who has never entered the US be convicted to 60 years for breaking US laws??

      The gun was fired in Ontario.

      The victim falls dead in New York.

      You cannot allow a murderer to escape prosecution because he commits his crimes by remote control from some safe haven across the border.

      It comes down to two choices:

      Extradition under an established legal process.

      Action outside the law by the victim's family or the state. Bin Laden is the perfect example.

    46. Re:Logic disconnect... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

      Oh I am perfectly aware that extradition treaties work both ways, and Denmark isn't too likely to send their cartoonist to get his hand chopped off or something like that, that's why I said it was the "ridiculous" extreme, I was simply pointing out that you may be able to get only slightly less ridiculous and still fall under the umbrella of "oh shit this could actually happen".

      Also, you make my own point for me. Since both UK and US have cybercrime laws, we don't need to charge the British kid with breaking our laws because he is already breaking the UK laws. He can be charged under those laws. furthermore, if the UK (or some other country) didn't have cybercrime laws of their own (that the kid could be prosecuted under), then they aren't too likely to extradite to us anyway, in which case it's our job to go in there and convince them (diplomatically dammit, I mean diplomatically!) that the lack of cybercrime laws is something they need to rectify.

    47. Re:Logic disconnect... by singhulariti · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hear they really need someone with 1337 "i can run an irc server" skillz. Shouldn't we be worried then? Even someone with just 1337 skillz(s) can break into the CIA and FBI?

    48. Re:Logic disconnect... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Sounds good in theory, but how do you suggest that countries like say China, Syria, Libya, Egypt etc. are going to be convinced to spend their own money tracking down criminals that are attacking what they consider to be their enemy basically? Sounds like pure fantasy. Things like that have been attempted before unsuccessfully. And money is one of the main reasons. That is why the country where the crime has been committed is in charge of paying for the investigation, extradition, and incarceration costs. Trying to solve a problem like this with diplomacy would be like trying to end piracy in Somalia through diplomacy. it is a nice thought, but will never work out.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    49. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US citizens can't be extradited to anywhere, so yes, it's one-sided.

    50. Re:Logic disconnect... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      China, Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc aren't going to extradite a cybercriminal to us in the first place anyway, so whether we charge their citizens with our laws doesn't matter, we'll never get them unless they are stupid enough to come here. Is the Denmark cartoonist dumb enough to travel to Syria? Same situation.

      That said, those are -exactly- the countries that we need to work with diplomatically. To that end, we -have- sent Hillary and others to china to discuss their lack of enforcement of IP laws, etc. (this being slashdot, whether you agree with those laws is another matter entirely). There has even been some success, albeit limited.

      Really though, that's not what's important. What I worries me far more about your argument regards the countries who are friendly to us, the countries who we do have extradition treaties with, but may still have different laws than us. let's say it's perfectly legal for you to burn trash on your property, but it's illegal to do that in some country that we're buddy-buddy with cause they're all about the green inititive. Let's even say it's the equivalent of a damn felony there, and somehow they believe that smoke from your burning trash pile is affecting them by increasing global warming or something. Should you get extradited to that country to face the felony charges for what was legal where you did it?

    51. Re:Logic disconnect... by cavreader · · Score: 2

      They hit the public facing websites which are little more than ebrochures and contact info. They did not penetrate any secure systems. I seriously doubt the CIA offers a public portal for thier spies to login and make reports.

    52. Re:Logic disconnect... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Considering the extradition agreement would have to be ratified by representatives of both countries, I seriously doubt any situation like you describe would ever come up. Unless both countries agree that trash burning is an offense worthy of extradition. It isn't like we issue "blanket extradition" treaties that give a country the right to extradite for any crime. Only certain offenses are deemed "extradition worthy" and are generally serious offenses - in both countries.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    53. Re:Logic disconnect... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      So, if American hacks into Chinese server, you agree that it will be ok to extradite said American to China?

      So if a Chinese hacks into an American server, you agree they should be immune from prosecution by US courts? It's easy when you want it to work just one way, it's harder when you realize that they won't give up their citizens unless you give up yours. If you're shielding your criminals from our justice system, we'll do the same. I'm not saying it doesn't have complications, but the lack of extradition treaties often means that people get away with everything, including murder. Most extradition treaties require the act to be illegal under both laws, so yes you could be extradited for hacking servers but not badmouthing the Thai king.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    54. Re:Logic disconnect... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Extradition treaties are negotiated in depth between the countries involved. They are specific as humanly possible to avoid an extracted shit fight every time they are invoked. They also tend to be very conservative in scope and even when the treaty is invoked it gets reviewed in depth by the country asked to extradite someone. People are offered the chance to contest the extradition under their own countries justice system.

    55. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 2

      That makes no sense at all. First of all, if the CIA's website (for example) gets hacked, the FBI is going to investigate it, not Scotland Yard or whoever investigates such things for the UK. All of the procedures followed, etc are going to be US procedures, not UK procedures. All the rules of evidence are going to be US rules.

      Secondly, and more importantly, the crime was committed against the US, not the UK. Why should the UK be burdened with prosecuting the case and paying for incarceration, etc for a crime that was not committed against them? Why would a UK jury convict someone of a crime not committed against them?

    56. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Complete bullshit. First of all, the treaty says no such thing. More importantly, 10 seconds of Googling found the following case

    57. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this guy wasn't extradited to Peru?

    58. Re:Logic disconnect... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      +1 Informative.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    59. Re:Logic disconnect... by Runefox · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Just working harder doesn't suddenly make things any easier. Take a look at the war on terrorism: It'll never truly 'end', no matter how hard anyone tries. Terrorism is an idea, and ideas exist as long as people are around to have them. Frankly, I think Lulzsec/Anon's antisec movement is similar in scope, particularly since there are participants from everywhere in the world, not just in the UK and US.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    60. Re:Logic disconnect... by Uhyve · · Score: 1

      Why would a UK jury convict someone of a crime not committed against them?

      Haha. You wanna rephrase that, that was really stupid. That's like saying:
      "Why would I convict that guy of murder? It wasn't me he killed..."

      The point in a jury is that it's impartial, hence the "Impartial Jury" stuff in that constitution thingy.

    61. Re:Logic disconnect... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      Why should the UK be burdened with prosecuting the case and paying for incarceration, etc for a crime that was not committed against them? Why would a UK jury convict someone of a crime not committed against them?

      Perhaps because the crime was committed in the UK, by a resident of the UK, using UK infrastructure?

      What if instead of hacking the FBI, the kid had been hacking the Aston-Martin corporate database? Is Aston-Martin responsible for investigating and prosecuting? By your logic, no crimes are prosecuted unless they are against a sovereign government or representative thereof. That's not the way things work. If you commit a crime, you are investigated and prosecuted by the authorities you are under the jurisdiction of at the time you commit the crime.

      In either above case, hacking a US government server, or a corporate server, the victim would presumably assist as possible in all investigations thereof, and may do independent investigation on their own if they personally feel the need to do so, but they are certainly not bearing the ultimate responsibility of doing so. Otherwise the next time your house gets robbed, the police would tell you "Well, the crook didn't hurt us any, just you. So, let us know when you figure out who stole your stuff, and can prove it. Maybe we'll go with you when you arrest him, detain him, and prosecute him, it should be a good show."

    62. Re:Logic disconnect... by 228e2 · · Score: 1
      I'm not going to spend too much time responding to a AC, but Article 1 states:

      "The Parties agree to extradite to each other, pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses."

      Could you please provide a counterargument?

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    63. Re:Logic disconnect... by fscking_coward_2001 · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are clearly a Socialist.

    64. Re:Logic disconnect... by Uhyve · · Score: 1

      You think they hacked into sites using "ddos tools"?

      Come on dude.

    65. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -The FBI has identified the members, can capture them, will capture them, put out this statement to scare them into stopping the attacks until they can be arrested
      -The FBI has identified the members, can capture them, will capture them, couldn't keep a lid on the rumors, leading to this leak
      -The FBI has identified the members, can capture some of them, but want to scare off the ones they can't with this
      -The FBI has not identified the members, and wants to scare them off
      -The FBI thinks it has identified the members, foolishly bragging about it beforehand, and will be have egg on their face when the people they arrest have little to do with it, attacks continue

      -LuzSec is a false flag operation and "leaking" that an arrest has been made means that its time for those who are running it to go to ground.

    66. Re:Logic disconnect... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      How can someone who has never entered the US be convicted to 60 years for breaking US laws??

      Haven't you heard? US law applies everywhere the US is able to threaten to 'bring democracy.'

    67. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Are you really that dumb? Criminal law represents society, not individuals. When you murder someone you have committed a crime against the state (ie the people). Juries have good reason to convict murderers, because they have committed a crime against them (even though they are not the victims). Someone in the UK who hacks a US website has committed no crime against anyone in the UK. UK society has no interest (meaning stake in) in the case at all.

    68. Re:Logic disconnect... by secretcurse · · Score: 1

      It's also specific wording from a journalist. For most journalists, running a client on your computer that is taking part in a DDoS attack can only be done by a true computer genius criminal mastermind.

      --
      I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
    69. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The US would have no interest in a UK kid hacking Aston-Martin's database. Even if the kid hacked Ford's corporate database the US would have no interest, because there is no federal law against hacking corporate computers (only government computers and computers used for interstate financial transactions). It would, in fact, be completely up to Ford to find the hacker and prosecute (sue) him.

      Even in the case of a murder the FBI is not going to investigate it (unless asked to help by the local police), as it is not a federal problem. It is not a federal problem because there are no federal laws against murder, murder laws are written and enforced by the states. As it is not a federal problem, the federal government has no interest in the case.

      So the question is: does the UK have a law against hacking computers in other countries? I don't know for sure, but I am guessing the answer is no. Why should they? How does protecting computers in other countries benefit the UK in any way?

      Things like actual laws and jurisdictions matter.

    70. Re:Logic disconnect... by PoopCat · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is:

      The FBI do or do not have real information.
      The attacks will or will not continue.

      Thanks so much for the clarification!

    71. Re:Logic disconnect... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      I know, those crazy ass yanks have the audacity to try to extradite people for committing serious crimes. Craziness, I tells ya! I mean, who does they think they are??!!?!

    72. Re:Logic disconnect... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you can work a car analogy in there if you work at it.

    73. Re:Logic disconnect... by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      So if a Chinese hacks into an American server, you agree they should be immune from prosecution by US courts?

      Well unfortunately, yes - it has to work both ways. I may not like it, but I do have to abide by it.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    74. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, Article 3 states:

       

      Extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.

      The AC is just making stuff up.

    75. Re:Logic disconnect... by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      ...somehow they believe that smoke from your burning trash pile is affecting them by increasing global warming or something.

      While I do see your point, I think the devil is in the details here. Surely before extradition the country with which the evil trash-burning planet-destroyer has citizenship would want to see more than just unsubstantiated whining on behalf of their neighbor (i.e., does this country have an actual list of the damages caused, backed up with data, etc.?) Also, IANAL but I think extradition treaties do generally have lists of crimes which are worthy of extradition, and I seriously doubt said crime would be on the list.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    76. Re:Logic disconnect... by elucido · · Score: 1

      Very good question.

    77. Re:Logic disconnect... by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      "You are without doubt the WORST pirate I've ever heard of!"
      "But you HAVE heard of me"
        -- Jack Sparrow

      The thing is, how good you are is not always that important. Sometimes, the important part is what other think you can. And the excellent hackers that noone hears of, well.. They got the "problem" that noone knows about them, and thus don't recruit them.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    78. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      Secondly, and more importantly, the crime was committed against the US, not the UK. Why should the UK be burdened with prosecuting the case and paying for incarceration, etc for a crime that was not committed against them? Why would a UK jury convict someone of a crime not committed against them?

      Wow, are you insane? That right there is exactly why the US should not be prosecuting this.
      The recipe for organising an unfair trial virtually begins "Start with a jury who you can convince that they are the victims"

      All of the procedures followed, etc are going to be US procedures, not UK procedures. All the rules of evidence are going to be US rules.

      Like thorough, careful and well documented isn't the same wherever you are in the developed world...

      That makes no sense at all. First of all, if the CIA's website (for example) gets hacked, the FBI is going to investigate it, not Scotland Yard or whoever investigates such things for the UK.

      Probably SOCA. But what's to stop the FBI having their investigation, putting all their eveidence in a FedEx bag, and sending it over to SOCA so they can get the CPS to organise the prosecution? (except the likelihood of FedEx losing the bag, of course)

      --
      FGD 135
    79. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Why is this so hard to understand? Before you can arrest, prosecute, and convict someone an actual on-the-books law must be broken. I am fairly sure that the UK has laws that say unauthorized use of UK computers is illegal, just like the US has laws that say unauthorized use of US computers is illegal. However, the UK most probably does not have any law that says unauthorized use of US computers is illegal, nor should they. What does the UK care if someone hacks US computers?

      So now a person in the UK hacks a US computer. Under your plan, he would be arrested and prosecuted in the UK, by the UK. What are they going to charge him with, violating a US law? Violating the law against hacking UK computers (even though he didn't hack a UK computer)? That makes no sense at all.

      And no, the procedures are certainly not the same everywhere. They may be similar, but they certainly are not 'the same'. For instance, court orders may be required for different things, etc.

      Your last comment is the dumbest of all. Did you ever hear of the right to confront your accuser? It is pretty difficult to cross-examine a FedEx bag. So now I suppose you would have the FBI agents (who did the investigation in the US) travel to the UK to testify at the trial of a UK suspect who didn't actually violate any UK law.

    80. Re:Logic disconnect... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      While IANAL, I am pretty sure that what you fail to understand is that the US cybercrime laws do not say "It is illegal to hack a US computer", they say "It is illegal for you (you being a person on US soil, under US jusrisdiction) to access a computer without authorization".

      check out http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/computer-hacking/

      it's 100 different shades of legal speak, but it basically boils down to "if you're in a computer and you're not supposed to be there and you know you're not supposed to be there, you're in deep shit". it doesn't say "this rule only applies to US computers", although it does specifically mention at one point how much more pissed off they are if it IS a us govt computer, but that's along side things like how much more pissed off they are if you are stealing financial records, or stealing money directly, or uploading viruses, etc. Additionally, one of the things they mention is that they're extra pissed off if your hacking screws up diplomatic relations.

      long and short of it is, "Hacking" as defined by the federal government of the US is most emphatically not "Breaking in to a computer on US soil", it is "Breaking in to a computer you don't have authorization to access". A computer you don't have authorization to access, period. Therefore, breaking into a computer in Zimbabwe is just as illegal as breaking into a computer across town acording to the Feds.

      While I do not know for certain, I would be surprised if UK law isn't similar.

    81. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You are completely incorrect. The plain text of the actual law (USC 18 Section 1030) states:

      intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
      (A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
      (B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
      (C) information from any protected computer;

      It further goes on to define what is meant by "protected computer"

      the term “protected computer” means a computer—
      (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
      (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

      The law quite clearly protects ONLY computers used by the US. Hacking into Buckingham Palace's web site is not a crime under US law.

    82. Re:Logic disconnect... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you that section (B) of the definition of "protected computer" will be used against you in a court of law if you hack anything outside the US, as the federal government will claim that that your actions "affect foreign commerce or communication".

    83. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Now you're really stretching. You have gone from "most emphatically not protecting US computers" to "the law could be twisted to mean what I say". Look, if they wanted the law to be against hacking any computer anywhere in the world, why didn't they just say so? Why have all that stuff about 'protected computers' and the explicit definition thereof if it is meaningless?

      The intent of the law is to protect US interests, not to control the actions of people within it's borders. What interest does the US possibly have in preventing people within it's borders from hacking systems that are not of interest to the US?

    84. Re:Logic disconnect... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      Here, I found this on the Department of Justice's own cybercrime website.

      This broad definition addresses the original concerns regarding intrastate "phone phreakers" (i.e., hackers who penetrate telecommunications computers). It also specifically includes those computers used in "foreign" communications. With the continually expanding global information infrastructure, with numerous instances of international hacking, and with the growing possibility of increased global industrial espionage, it is important that the United States have jurisdiction over international computer crime cases. Arguably, the old definition of "federal interest computer" contained in 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2) conferred such jurisdiction because the requirement that the computers used in committing the offense not all be located in the same state might be satisfied if one computer were located overseas. As a general rule, however, Congress's laws have been presumed to be domestic in scope only, absent a specific grant of extraterritorial jurisdiction. E.E.O.C. v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991). To ensure clarity, the statute was amended to reference international communications explicitly.

      I don't see how it can be any more clear than that. They weren't 100% sure that the law as it existed would allow them to prosecute for instances of hacking that crossed international boundaries but included US computers or persons located in the US, so they amended it specifically to allow them to do so!

      source: http://www.cybercrime.gov/1030analysis.html
      Subsection 1030(a)(5)

      Hacking a computer you do not have authorization to access is a crime in the United States. period. Once you get in, it just gets worse for you depending on what you do.

    85. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You say something is completely clear, then get it entirely wrong. It says nothing at all about 'persons located in the US'. All it says is that jurisdiction is assumed to be domestic only, unless otherwise stated. In the case cited, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lost a case against an American company doing business in Saudi Arabia, because the law did not include a special 'foreign' statement giving the EEOC jurisdiction. The only reason the US had any interest in the case at all was because it was an American company. The language was added to the hacking law to prevent the situation where someone hacks a 'protected computer' (like one used by a US bank) that happens to be located in a foreign country, and the US can't prosecute because of that technicality. It says nothing at all about the US claiming jurisdiction over international hacking of things that are not US interests or protected by US law. That would make as much sense as the EEOC claiming jurisdiction over every company operating anywhere in the world, which clearly it does not (and can not) do.

    86. Re:Logic disconnect... by bstender · · Score: 1

      damn straight

      --
      look sig is kool
    87. Re:Logic disconnect... by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure (having just read them) that the UK has laws making unauthorised access to computers illegal, so long as either the computer, or the person, is in the UK. That they would have been written any other way would be inexplicable.

      So now a person in the UK hacks a US computer. Under your plan, he would be arrested and prosecuted in the UK, by the UK. What are they going to charge him with, violating a US law? Violating the law against hacking UK computers (even though he didn't hack a UK computer)? That makes no sense at all.

      He'd be prosecuted for breaking the law against hacking any computers from within the UK.
      Frankly, it's your idea that each government has written itself a narrow little law where an offence only exists if the computer attacked is within their borders that makes no sense. Under that, I could sit in any country and break into computers in any other country which has no "you can't break in to my computers law" with impunity. That's virtually privateering by omission.

      And no, the procedures are certainly not the same everywhere. They may be similar, but they certainly are not 'the same'. For instance, court orders may be required for different things, etc.

      I didn't say the actual proceedures would be the same, I said that certain essential characteristics are the same. And is it really so hard, when gathering evidence with a view to its being used in a different jurisdiction, to get a hold of that jurisdictions rules and make sure you don't do anything which would render the evidence unuseable?

      Your last comment is the dumbest of all. Did you ever hear of the right to confront your accuser? It is pretty difficult to cross-examine a FedEx bag. So now I suppose you would have the FBI agents (who did the investigation in the US) travel to the UK to testify at the trial of a UK suspect who didn't actually violate any UK law.

      Sorry, my mistake, when I used a gross oversimplification to make my point in a light-hearted fashion, I assumed that you were smart enough to see the point being made. My bad.
      Yes, you would absolutely have the FBI agents providing prosecution evidence come to the UK to be cross-examined at the UK trial of a UK suspect who is accused of (what we've already discussed to be) violating UK law.
      You're arguing for dragging a defendant thousands of miles, to stand trial in an inappropriate jurisdiction (for 4 reasons: Because it's not where the defendant was when the alleged offence by them was committed, because it's not where they were initially detained despite that place having a law which could be used to prosecute the alleged offence, because the defendant is not based there and would be in a poor position to defend themselves, and because the jurisdiction they're being taken to claims itself to have been the victim) primarily for the convenience of the prosecution and its witnesses.

      --
      FGD 135
    88. Re:Logic disconnect... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I just read the UK law, and you are correct. All I can say is: holy crap your law sucks. It looks to me like the big difference between those two laws is that the US law is designed to protect the interests of the US and it's people, and the UK law is designed to control it's people. Kind of brings into sharp focus the difference between the US and the UK, doesn't it.

      Yes, you are correct that if a foreign country does not have laws against hacking someone in the US can hack them with impunity. So what? If another country doesn't care enough to protect it's interests why should the US care? And no, it is not privateering. Privateering is AUTHORIZED by the government. The US does not authorize citizens to hack into any foreign computer, it just doesn't care if someone does, but if they get caught (by the foreign government) they can be extradited. Part of that whole 'freedom' thing.

    89. Re:Logic disconnect... by makomk · · Score: 1

      The part that allows people to be extradited to the US for crimes committed in the UK is this bit:

      4. If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances. If the laws in the Requested State do not provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the Requested State, in its discretion, may grant extradition provided that all other requirements of this Treaty are met.

      For some reason I can't remember off-hand, it's not actually possible to do the reverse and extradite someone from the US to the UK for crimes committed in the US, even though the treaty suggests it should be. The other one-sided bit is that there's a higher standard of proof required to extradite someone from the US to the UK than vice-versa:

      for requests to the United States, such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested.

      In fact, I don't think that extraditing from the UK requires any sort of evidence that the person being extradited committed a crime at all.

  3. Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by RivenAleem · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do it, do it now, they are on to you. No really, it's not just what they want you to think, they really mean it, your time is up, go to ground and never resurface again. Someone within your own organisation has outed you to the Feds, you can't trust any of them, scatter and break all contact with all your members, as any one of them could be the informant. They will get you if you remain organised.

    1. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by RivenAleem · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Seriously? *sigh*

    2. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      LOL

      +1 funny

    3. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What, you clicked on it despite the fact that it says "[goatse.fr]" right there next to the link?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      WARNING: Parent can't read, but thankfully the low-flying joke still whooshed right over his head.

    5. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by PNutts · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do it, do it now, they are on to you. No really, it's not just what they want you to think, they really mean it, your time is up, go to ground and never resurface again. Someone within your own organisation has outed you to the Feds, you can't trust any of them, scatter and break all contact with all your members, as any one of them could be the informant. They will get you if you remain organised.

      I always wondered what the tin foil hat says.

    6. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      All is discovered! Flee at once!

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    7. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I always wondered what the tin foil hat says.

      Damn. Mine only says crumple-crumple-crumple.

    8. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      "Now wrap me around that potato and put me in the oven! Burn me! BURRRRRNNNNNN MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

    9. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone within your own organisation has outed you to the Feds, you can't trust any of them...

      In fact YOU may be the one who outed you to the Feds. You can't even trust yourself.

    10. Re:Burn the evidence of attacks and scatter by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      It was already wrapped round a potato

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  4. Huh? by Afforess · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, the FBI isn't afraid that capturing one alleged member of LulzSec won't cause the other members to bolt and hide the evidence, but disclosing the names will?

    It's days like these I think elementary logic classes should be manditory.

    --
    If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    1. Re:Huh? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Really, the FBI isn't afraid that capturing one alleged member of LulzSec won't cause the other members to bolt and hide the evidence, but disclosing the names will?

      It might, but in they may see themselves, at least individually, as well hidden and smarter than the FBI and others. Besides, they want attention, and what better way to get it than taunt authorities

      Sure, they could hide evidence but, in the US at least, hiding evidence could be construed as obstructing justice, which could land them in jail even if they committed no actual crimes. In some ways, that makes it easier for the government since all they basically need to show is they acted to influence the investigation and directed the hiding of the evidence; even if they are not the target of the investigation. it's a pretty broad set of powers, and can be used to "persuade" people to provide information.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Huh? by arth1 · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering when did FBI get jurisdiction in the UK? Can we blame John Major or Puppet Blair for this one?

      And if the FBI didn't pull the strings here, why, they need to slap Ryan Clearly with an ASBO so he won't do it again.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well first off they will have to hide the evidence because destroying evidence is illegal at least in the US and I would assume in any modern country.

      Second, exposing the news they found a member of LulzSec can work to the advantage of the FBI. First, if the FBI is wrong this can make LulzSec come out and brag about not being found thus exposing themselves once again. This can leave more of a trail for the FBI to follow if the current trails went cold.

      Now if they do indeed have a member of LulzSec this could force the other members to go into hiding. The advantage here is that if the FBI has a good indication of who the other members are they can watch the activities of the other suspected members. If all of a sudden their normal activities change then you know something is up with them and you allocate resources to those individuals. If they decide to bolt from their respective country then the FBI / State Department can issue an alert to have them picked up once they try coming back. Of course we have a lot of legal entanglements here but its an option.

      The other advantage is the amount of loyalty these members have to each other. If one them gets caught, what keeps another member from going to the FBI and making a deal to expose the others while protecting themselves?

    4. Re:Huh? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's days like these I think elementary logic classes should be manditory.

      Elementary spelling classes, too.

    5. Re:Huh? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If one them gets caught, what keeps another member from going to the FBI and making a deal to expose the others while protecting themselves?

      That they're in countries without an FBI office, or that the FBI has no judicial authority to make deals in those countries?

    6. Re:Huh? by smelch · · Score: 2

      When did they sign the extradition treaties? I don't know when but it certainly wasn't recent. And it's not just a game of applying US law to UK citizens whenever we feel like it. This is standard international law and has been for a long time. US/UK Extradition Treaty of 2003 was the most recent treaty affecting extradition. This isn't a last minute "we want that guy lets get him" move, this is standard legal procedures when somebody in country A fucks country B.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And spelling classes should be mandatory.

    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elementary logic isn't always accurate for real world applications. Too many variables, look at how many times the "Ban Dihyrdogen Monoxide" trick has worked.

      One person was captured, the alleged leader of their message boards by an indication. Could he/she reveal some hints? Possibly, but not likely enough to completely blow everyone's identity. Elementary logic for me, however, is that they all know they are being hunted. They themselves may not be picked out, but if they go bolting and trying to hide evidence now they could be picked out of the herd of metaphorical zebras. Trying to bolt and hide evidence now may very well reveal clues the law enforcement failed to notice and would fail to notice.

      By revealing known names, or the name of the person likely able to take them all down, it goes from hiding possible evidence that may identify them to hiding evidence to reduce the level of punishment.

    9. Re:Huh? by Adaeniel · · Score: 0

      I think spelling classes should be mandatory.

    10. Re:Huh? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Really, the FBI isn't afraid that capturing one alleged member of LulzSec won't cause the other members to bolt and hide the evidence, but disclosing the names will?

      I think it's more likely that people at the FBI are afraid they'll lose their jobs if people start thinking they're nowhere with this.
      Congressman: "How is it that the FBI hasn't caught these 'loosesex' people yet? What are you people doing? I think we need to investigate the FBI's ability to-"
      FBI brass: "Well Congressman, you must have missed the rumors that we're about to capture them."
      Congressman: "Oh. Well then, back to doing nothing."

    11. Re:Huh? by Afforess · · Score: 1

      It's days like these I think elementary logic classes should be manditory.

      Elementary spelling classes, too.

      That or the ability to edit posts. ;)

      --
      If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    12. Re:Huh? by delinear · · Score: 1

      I don't know - it reminds me of police press conferences on the news here in the UK. Generally if the case is proceeding well and they have a good trail of evidence/witnesses to follow they don't give press conferences (why risk spooking the criminals into hiding, let alone waste police time?). When they have nothing they'll often do a conference saying that they believe the net is closing and whoever is sheltering the criminal should give them up - this is pretty standard operating procedure when they have nothing and either want to scare the criminal into making a mistake or scare someone who knows their identity into turning them in.

    13. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, the FBI isn't afraid that capturing one alleged member of LulzSec won't cause the other members to bolt and hide the evidence, but disclosing the names will?

      They probably expect that a number of the members are thinking "they're not on to me. I'm too good at this to get caught".

    14. Re:Huh? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      They probably expect that a number of the members are thinking "they're not on to me. I'm too good at this to get caught".

      This. Just look at the number of comments here alleging that the FBI doesn't have a clue and are just saying this to keep everyone from thinking they're totally incompetent. If they named a specific person within the organization at least some of the members would probably crap their pants and start running for cover. As it is LulzSec is probably just laughing it up.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    15. Re:Huh? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      For extradition, there is a due process that has to be followed. This was why Julian Assange wasn't immediately handled over to Sweden.

      FBI asking UK police to arrest someone isn't enough. They may have informed UK police, but then the UK police has to determine that a crime was committed by common law, and arrest him for breaking that. They cannot arrest him for breaking US law without due process, unless Americans have now been given special privileges the rest of the world doesn't have. Which wouldn't surprise me one bit.

    16. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, they could hide evidence but, in the US at least, hiding evidence could be construed as obstructing justice, which could land them in jail even if they committed no actual crimes.

      So... encryption is now illegal in the US? That doesn't sound right.

    17. Re:Huh? by smelch · · Score: 1

      Well that's just not true. None of it. That is not the way extradition works.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    18. Re:Huh? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Attacking cia.gov is a criminal offence in English law (and Scottish etc law), and the English police can arrest him for that. He can then be handed over to the US to be tried for the US equivalent of the English law he broke.

      In the countries that make up the UK, the police will generally want to raid the place while he is in the act of doing a hacking attack, as that is good evidence that it wasn't a trojan or a neighbour using his wifi.

    19. Re:Huh? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Sure, they could hide evidence but, in the US at least, hiding evidence could be construed as obstructing justice, which could land them in jail even if they committed no actual crimes.

      So... encryption is now illegal in the US? That doesn't sound right.

      No, but that really doesn't hide it since they could be required to provide the key or face charges.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    20. Re:Huh? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      You kind of missed the point of the extradition treaty....

    21. Re:Huh? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      In that case, say hello to TrueCrypt hidden volumes.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    22. Re:Huh? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      In that case, say hello to TrueCrypt hidden volumes.

      True, but doing that and then not revealing the second password could be considered obstructing justice. The issue is not can they hide the data but what are the consequences of doing that. In addition, just because you hide the data doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't suspect you have it. Missing information, such as email sent from or to you would point to someone trying to hide something; giving them an opening to hold an obstruction charge over your head. Finally, you assume government forensics experts can't crack TrueCrypt or deduce the existence of a hidden volume.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    23. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....Really? You think that's how the government and FBI communicate? Through media releases? Maybe they have back room conversations and *don't* reveal all details externally.

    24. Re:Huh? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Well that's just not true. None of it. That is not the way extradition works.

      That due process must be followed is not true?
      I refer you to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/70

      First, the person has to be formally accused in the country who requests the extradition (in this case USA).
      Then, the Secretary of State has to certify the request.
      Then, a judge has to approve it.

      I.e. FBI can't just tell UK police to go arrest someone.

    25. Re:Huh? by iainl · · Score: 1

      Since it would appear that the same people who DDOSed cia.gov also did the same to the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), the UK equivalent, there's plenty of local criminality to arrest him for, even before we get as far as extradition.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  5. Another Hacker Group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a group of Japanese hackers who've been able to shut down businesses, infect users with rootkits and remotely remove functionality from consumer electronics.

    They call themselves SONY or something...

    1. Re:Another Hacker Group by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      sony? Other than the japanese part, don't you mean microsoft/EA/Intel?

    2. Re:Another Hacker Group by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No, he's referring to the (music) CDs that shipped with auto-install anti-piracy software hidden on them that behaved basically the same as a rootkit and remotely removing the Other OS feature from the Playstation 3. Not sure about the reference to shutting down businesses, but the other points are valid.

    3. Re:Another Hacker Group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lik-Sang?

      Sorta like a legal DDOS haha

    4. Re:Another Hacker Group by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I would have expected more corruption from an organisation the size of Sony, they've done pretty well considering.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:Another Hacker Group by delinear · · Score: 1

      I believe the shutting down businesses is a reference to Sony's practice of going after people selling modchips, or imported consoles and the like - the most prominent of these probably being Lik Sang.

    6. Re:Another Hacker Group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft and Intel doesn't fit that list.

    7. Re:Another Hacker Group by Gravatron · · Score: 0

      To be fair, all the big companies went after them. You can't ignore grey market import businesses and people who make piracy-enabling devices. You have to defend your platform, or you risk losing your business.

    8. Re:Another Hacker Group by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      A company can only be corrupt as much as it's customers let them. For real corruption it requires a government that can extort from it's customers(citizens) by the point of a gun in order to stay in business(control) A company still has to provide something people want. A government just has to threaten something people don't want.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    9. Re:Another Hacker Group by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Maybe you missed my inference here. Microsoft, EA, and intel have done the exact same things as sony. They're just not japanese.

    10. Re:Another Hacker Group by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Wha?

      The "Grey market" is not grey. it's perfectly legal. The only reason it iexists is because of country code restrictions in the first place. They are quite literally adding value to the product that had artificial scarcity added in the first place.

      That's not platform defense, it's unethical.

    11. Re:Another Hacker Group by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      I guess the difference is that SONY produce stuff while the HACKERS give us nothing.

    12. Re:Another Hacker Group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They give me lulz.

  6. Not the brightest by Xest · · Score: 1

    "They refused to disclose the identities of LulzSec chief, saying it would cause the members to burn the evidence of attacks and scatter.""

    Yes, because announcing you know his identity on the internet wont do that anyway will it?

    Obviously not the sharpest tool in the box, such a comment doesn't instill much confidence that they have in fact got the right people.

    Let's be honest, the LulzSec people will know if they've let their identity loose to anyone or not, if they have they'll already be watching their backs, if they haven't, then they'll know they have nothing to worry about. Doing what they're doing, attacking the targets they are means you're bound to recognise that keeping evidence around in the first place would be foolish.

    1. Re:Not the brightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i kinda wonder how easy it would be to get all the evidence. personally if i was lulzsec i wouldn't keep much evidence at all. once you post it on the internet, no need to keep it.
      second, being in lulzsec, i suspect you know a little bit about security and how to make it fail/work.
      wouldn't most of their evidence be pretty well secured?

    2. Re:Not the brightest by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you suggesting that these people are incapable of mistakes, and cannot ever possibly be outsmarted by feds?
      I believe you're vastly overestimating these guys, and similarly underestimating authorities.

    3. Re:Not the brightest by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm suggesting that when you've been thinking about such things long enough there's very little room to make mistakes, and that if you have, you'll tend to know about it. The hacker mindset is one of meticulous attention to detail and obsessive thought about a subject on their mind, you can guarantee that particularly when paranoid about being caught which is going to be more the case with such announcements as this that the scope for mistakes will be so small, and the scope for mistakes that can't be cleaned up after the fact and before discovery is even smaller.

      I'm not saying they couldn't be outsmarted by the feds, simply that they wont be outsmarted by someone foolish enough to post on the internet "We know the leader's identity", before he's actually been brought to justice. I also suspect that to actually catch them they're likely to somewhat cheat, and throw due process out the window- they may have a rough idea who is involved but not have the evidence to legitimately question them or seize their kit, so they'll make up some false charge to seize it and build up evidence upon that anyway. They may not even have a case then but the authorities including the judiciary seem quite competent at ruling against people even when the evidence is unacceptably weak in the first place.

      They probably will get them some way or another, but it may not be through a legitimate thoroughly proper and clean legal process. Sure many such hackers have been caught in the end, but how many haven't over the years? How many spammers go untouched, how many criminal hackers do the authorities not even know the rought whereabouts of? how many DDOS attacks against major corporations even before anonymous started doing them went unpunished? you only have to look at the rather famous case of Al Capone, where physical evidence should theoretically have been much easier to come by and see that they had to do him on tax evasion in the end to see that sometimes, achieving proper justice against criminals can be quite the impossible task. The result then is either failure to deal with them at all, or a bending of the law.

      I think more realistically you're underestimating the ability of smart criminals, particularly in the digital world to evade justice. For all the feel good stories about "criminal X has been caught" hammered into us on the news, and newspapers, there's plenty more who are not. It's perfectly possible they will fall into this category, and it seems blurting out to the world that you know the identities of these people even if you don't announce said identity is only going to make life that much harder for the authorities who may truly find any potential evidence has already been burnt and shredded already whether in the physical or digital sense. A smart investigation would simply not announce knowledge of the identity of the target until they were already in custody, anything else is just foolish penis waving.

    4. Re:Not the brightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The hacker mindset is one of meticulous attention to detail and obsessive thought about a subject on their mind"

      There is another almost omni-present attribute of hackers that you forgot to add: They are compulsive braggarts.

      Yes, there are exceptions, but Lulzsec, with all of their grandstanding and taunting, isn't one of them (or made of them).
      They routinely announce their hits BEFORE they make them (on their public Twitter feed no less) and love to leave taunting images or text files on servers they violate (as opposed to just DDOS).
      These actions are very much like a serial killer who wants to get caught/stopped. They may have different motivations (like "because we can" and "because %$#& you, that's why!") but they display the same compulsive behavior that will cause them to get caught.

      ~Profiler

    5. Re:Not the brightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think more realistically you're underestimating the ability of smart criminals...

      What you're not getting is that authorities don't think, or won't admit, smart criminals exist. Because every criminal they catch made some stupid mistake; and in high profile cases like this, it's normally after some announcement has been made. They're just following the "how to catch bad guys" playbook one moronic step after another. As long as it works 80% of the time, they'll keep doing it and point to their past successes. Since actually training some scary good Sherlock Holmes mofo's would be waay to cost prohibitive, this is the way it will always go. It's always cheaper to just bend the rules those few times the blanket approach can't hack it, and in the end it saves money, and some police chief some where gets a bonus and a nice pat on the back.

    6. Re:Not the brightest by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      I think more realistically you're underestimating the ability of smart criminals

      The smart criminals usually get away because they know when to stop. Greedy criminals, who continue to commit their crime time and time again tend to get caught because they slip up eventually. I think it's evident LulzSec doesn't know how to quit while they're ahead.

    7. Re:Not the brightest by LBJLVC · · Score: 1

      Just think about gun homicide in the United States, there are over 11 K a year just with guns, not including other means of murder, and I never see 11 K convictions. I would just go with quantity. Commit so many crimes that they can not possible investigate them all. Its like a DDoS attack in real life. This is even harder because look at how many governments you have to coordinate with and the span of geographic distance you have to cover.

    8. Re:Not the brightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that the feds actively recruit the kind of people you just described...
      Also: "I also suspect that to actually catch them they're likely to somewhat cheat" - lol, what? Are the hackers gonna call h4x on the feds and ragequit?

      I like the weak little defense you built up for the hackers: "they're smarter than those stupid dick-waving feds" and "they'll only get caught if the gov't cheats". It sounds like a 12 year old. I think I understand, though - you see these people as modern Robin Hoods. I still can't see why you place so much trust in complete strangers, just because they put up a front that symbolizes your hacker fantasy. Of course, you might be a member, in which case, watch out! Agent Dickwaver might be on the way! If you're not a member, think for a second - they SAY that they're willing to mess up your life (steal and distribute your supposedly private data) for the lulz. If that's not bad enough, you have no way to know if they're liars, with completely different motivations!

      Let's play the "make assumptions about lulzsec" game. Your first turn was "lulzsec is full of smart, honest guys who won't be beaten in a fair showdown with the FBI (who suck btw)."
      Ok, my turn: I'm assuming that lulzsec cares that I'm laughing at them. I'm just going to assume that I've hurt their feelings very badly with this post, and that they are all crying and clenching their fists at the screen, right now. What a bunch of whiners! Also, lets say that their real motivation is to get money for their drug habits, and to buy whores. Assholes!

    9. Re:Not the brightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hackers I know and respect who have the meticulous attention to detail you mention don't spend their days bragging about being idiots to the rest of the world.

      That's also why they don't get in trouble.

    10. Re:Not the brightest by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Also, lets say that their real motivation is to get money for their drug habits, and to buy whores.

      Many people think this is a valid and honourable motivation.

      (me, I don't trust the dealers or the whores - neither career is sufficiently lucrative for the individual handling customer contact, and I don't want to fund the businessman exploiting those people)

    11. Re:Not the brightest by Wovel · · Score: 1

      These are not smart criminals. They are fairly well organized criminal script kiddies.

    12. Re:Not the brightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to catch the stupid criminals. They're not the threat, especially in this theater.

    13. Re:Not the brightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like a 12 year old.

      And this, to me, sounds like a useless personal attack.

      I think I understand, though - you see these people as modern Robin Hoods. I still can't see why you place so much trust in complete strangers

      Possibly because he has a different opinion than you (and it's not necessarily "wrong," either).

      If that's not bad enough

      "Bad" is subjective (much like morals).

    14. Re:Not the brightest by Xest · · Score: 1

      No think about my example of spammers, they cause real financial damage in the world and are a major burden to businesses, yet how many go uncaught? Even in the case where we're talking about criminals using pre-built tools without really understanding them the authorities have yet to show much strength in being able to deal with the problem.

  7. Shouldn't have messed with EvE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've been wardec'd...

    1. Re:Shouldn't have messed with EvE by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      And they live in highsec. Should have moved to nullsec, aka Somalia. Wardec ain't going to hurt there

    2. Re:Shouldn't have messed with EvE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn carebears...

  8. Very Unfortunate. by crow_t_robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is unfortunate considering what lulzsec is currently doing for the IT job market. These attacks are getting incompetent people fired and making companies go out and look for competent people to hire in their place. Also, it is forcing them to actually invest money in their IT infrastructure instead of just slapping some servers together and letting some clowns straight out of a degree mill run them. People need to realize that this is a net good thing because if a 19 year old with no formal education is ripping servers owned by multi-billion dollar international corporations then the Chinese have already been there. A company would not even know about the Chinese intrusion much less publicize it once they found out so what lulzsec is doing is shining the light on how poorly these companies that hold your data are run.

    1. Re:Very Unfortunate. by wintercolby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While it is good for the IT industry as a whole, as far as investment in infrastructure and qualified administrators, it is also bad for Internet freedom. The less secure people feel on the Internet, the more we will lose anonymizing proxies and the more public everything we do on the Internet will be. Today we have the "sexting representative", tomorrow it will be a senator that looks at free porn on his home computer. The extreme cases convince us that we need to lose some privacy, and then government passes laws that are harsher and harsher, and relaxes warrant requirements, because no one loses elections for being strong against "crime".

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I understand what you're saying, and to some degree I agree: The state of security on Internet-facing web properties is staggeringly bad, and the fact that companies who do an incompetent job protecting their users are getting publicly called out is, in its own way, a good thing.

      Still, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things and LulzSec is clearly on the wrong side of the line. This is particularly true when you read their own postings about how they do it "for the lulz." "You wouldn't know we hacked people if we weren't arrogant shitheads about it!" was nothing more than a post-event attempt at rationalization. And their nonsense with hacking into porn sites and trying to publicly shame people who visit them made me want to strangle them with my own hands.

      Some good can come of all this, and I hope it does. But yes, I also hope these people are caught and punished. There are a lot of horrible things people can do to one another that might, in some way, lead to good conclusions, but that does not mean that they should be done. Robbing your neighbor to prod them into locking their doors at night may end up with a good outcome, but I should still go to prison for it. The same applies here.

      Once they have done their time and paid their debts, I'm sure they can make quite a handy little salary doing these same damn things the right way.

    3. Re:Very Unfortunate. by gaspyy · · Score: 0

      The broken window fallacy is old and tired. The misery they caused to companies and users alike benefits no one.

    4. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't the broken window fallacy. Nobody is trying to boost the economy by breaking perfectly good things.

      They are showing the weakness in the existing system, exposing people who can't do their jobs, and generally forcing everyone to up their game.

      It's a completely different situation.

    5. Re:Very Unfortunate. by crow_t_robot · · Score: 2

      Actually, it isn't. The government does this every day with consumer automobiles. If they don't pass safety standards, the company is told to go back and fix it. This is the same thing except the CONSUMER is telling the company to go fix their shit and stop being so fucking lazy.

    6. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Borland · · Score: 1

      Now if only they could have highlighted incompetent security with courage and integrity. Instead, I consider the good outcomes of their actions a beneficial side-effect of criminal actions. And not the kind of Robin Hood or Jean Val Jean criminal...more the Joker dickhead criminal that few will mourn.

    7. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Except that this isn't the broken window fallacy. IT people aren't paying lulzsec to go around poking holes in people's security in order to increase IT jobs. It's more the "tornado that ripped through town and is now proving good for the construction industry" scenario. Stop repeating what you think you know like a parrot, and sit and think for a while.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Very Unfortunate. by MareLooke · · Score: 1

      Why so serious?

    9. Re:Very Unfortunate. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      And their nonsense with hacking into porn sites and trying to publicly shame people who visit them made me want to strangle them with my own hands.

      Keep your energy for your chicken, that feels much better...

    10. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

      This is unfortunate considering what lulzsec is currently doing for the [door and lock] job market. These attacks are getting incompetent [locksmiths] fired and making companies go out and look for competent [locksmiths] to hire in their place. Also, it is forcing them to actually invest money in their [door and key] infrastructure instead of just slapping some [keyholes] together and letting some clowns straight out of a [high school] mill [install] them. People need to realize that this is a net good thing because if a 19 year old with no formal education is ripping [doors] owned by multi-billion dollar international corporations then the [hobos] have already been there. A company would not even know about the [hobo's] intrusion much less publicize it once they found out so what lulzsec is doing is shining the light on how poorly these companies that hold your data are run.

    11. Re:Very Unfortunate. by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      This isn't the broken window fallacy. Nobody is trying to boost the economy by breaking perfectly good things.

      Rubbish. The systems they are targeting are working fine. They are breaking perfectly working things, thus demonstrating that they are BREAKABLE. That's irrelevant. In the broken window fallacy the windows are breakable too. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing to break them and then smugly suggest that the shop owner replace them with steel plates for extra security.

      Not to mention that this ass-clowns have not even bothered to try and put for that tired old "we're just trying to demonstrate security holes" excuse. Their whole motto is that they're doing it for the "lulz".

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:Very Unfortunate. by phatphoton · · Score: 1

      'Magine that! Consumers demanding something instead of whining to the government about it...I guess there is still hope.

    13. Re:Very Unfortunate. by crow_t_robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      And their nonsense with hacking into porn sites and trying to publicly shame people who visit them made me want to strangle them with my own hands.

      Anyone who pays for porn on the internet should be shamed. Seriously.

    14. Re:Very Unfortunate. by phreakv6 · · Score: 1

      why cry foul if the govt. resorts to the same tactics? (say if they planned an attack that helped pass a bill)

      --
      fifteen jugglers, five believers
    15. Re:Very Unfortunate. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Even Penny arcade agrees
      from the article on PA:

      Like the electronic smash and grab at Sony, I think the endgame here is better security at the places we trust with our data. It’s been an education for me, to be sure: custom passwords everywhere, now, 2-step where available, and when I need a new password I let my daughter go fucking crazy nuts on the keyboard. And then I say who’s my little hash function? Who is it? She knows who.

      Focusing on harming lulzsec is really ignoring that people are really fucking stupid with passwords. Why is government so pissed off? Because they are the worst offenders outside of specific very technical groups.

    16. Re:Very Unfortunate. by woolpert · · Score: 1

      You just made the broken window fallacy yourself!

      The fallacy isn't that a person (instead of a force of nature) performed the damage, but rather that money is diverted into replacing perfectly functional things.

      A tornado is never good for the economy, for while it may divert money towards the construction industry it has a net negative impact on total wealth.

    17. Re:Very Unfortunate. by phreakv6 · · Score: 1

      this is stupid. you don't go picking locks to make your neighbor get better locks

      --
      fifteen jugglers, five believers
    18. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Exitar · · Score: 1

      This isn't the broken window fallacy. Nobody is trying to boost the economy by breaking perfectly good things.

      They are showing the weakness in the existing system, exposing people who can't do their jobs, and generally forcing everyone to up their game.

      It's a completely different situation.

      Are you sure that a group defining itself "the world's leaders in high-quality entertainment at your expense" is working for a better world?

    19. Re:Very Unfortunate. by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Working" and "set up properly" are entirely different.

      They aren't breaking into complex shit, they're breaking into the equivalent of the old adage: "leaving the barn door wide open." If you are vulnerable to a SQL injection, whose fault is it that you set up your website that way? You're acting like it was working perfectly fine. It wasn't. It was left with a clearly bad process, almost guaranteed to have been done either a: as a cost cutting measure or b: by incompetent/underqualified people. Et cetera.

      They have also very explicitly said whenever they release things that people should be more secure. Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue.

    20. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately few companies will see it that way, the more targets lulz succeeds at attacking, the more likely companies will view them as an unforeseeable and unstoppable act of god rather then a sign their security is garbage. History has shown that the response to a hacker is almost never, oh gosh our security is bad, and more often OMG this criminal must be stopped, push better laws to monitor who's online, catch these criminals and make sure they all get life sentences, and hey while we're at it, the freedoms we've taken away to deal with this problem, will also come in handy to catch those pesky pirates.

    21. Re:Very Unfortunate. by woolpert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't the broken window fallacy. Nobody is trying to boost the economy by breaking perfectly good things.

      Rubbish. The systems they are targeting are working fine. They are breaking perfectly working things, thus demonstrating that they are BREAKABLE. That's irrelevant. In the broken window fallacy the windows are breakable too.

      Wrong.

      If the systems they are targeting are breakable they are not working fine.

      A window can be breakable and still perform its primary mission. The breakability of the window has nothing to do with the point of the story.

      An authentication server can not be susceptible to such attacks while still be considered performing its primary mission.

    22. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Broken window fallacy. 'nuff said.

    23. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Broken Window Fallacy, sort of...

    24. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Insecure websites are not "perfectly functional things". In fact, an insecure website is "cheaper" up front in the same manner that dumping raw sewage into a river is "cheaper". There are hidden costs involved. In the sewage case it will be the dead ecosystem in the river, and in the IT case it will be the costs incurred when the website eventually gets hacked and confidential information is made public.

      And no, the fallacy isn't specific to a person, it's about the argument that the glass-maker paying the kid to break windows is actually helping people, when he's not. However an IT person commenting that an independent event like a group of anarchists who go around breaking into websites for fun is going to end up increasing security overall is not the broken window fallacy. If anything it's the glass-maker saying "oh by the way you guys know I also sell unbreakable glass, right?".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    25. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To continue the broken window analogy, suppose somebody were selling defective bulletproof windows. Are you doing the world a favor by demonstrating that these windows are defective? It depends on your demonstration. Are you shooting at the windows on a firing range and posting the result to Youtube, or are you driving through Manhattan emptying a submachine gun into banks all over town?

      Lulzsec is in the wrong both in terms of goals and methods. Better security may be a beneficial outcome of their actions, but it's not their goal, and even if it were, they've chosen a highly destructive method to achieve it.

      I shouldn't need to lecture Slashdot on the difference between white and black hat hacking. (And no, it has nothing to do with whether you actually steal stuff or not.)

    26. Re:Very Unfortunate. by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      It's funny. I agree that this isn't exactly a broken window fallacy. However, it's funny that you say that this is like a tornado being good for the construction industry, because my understanding is *that* would actually be precisely an example of the broken window fallacy.

      My understanding of the broken window fallacy does not require that the boy goes around breaking windows. The parable has been expanded to ponder that possibility as well, however it was not assumed in the initial parable and is not required for the fallacy to be valid.

    27. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly companies with stagnated IT departments are usually too proud to admit to, or be grateful of any outsider help when exploits are found, usually saying that everything is fine. Sometim rocking the boat is the only way for the severity to be noticed.... either way it sad

    28. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We shouldn't hate lulzsec for fucking our mothers, we should thank them for our new little brother/sister!

    29. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is unfortunate considering what lulzsec is currently doing for the IT job market.

      Seriously? They're not doing anything for the IT job market.

      These attacks are getting incompetent people fired and making companies go out and look for competent people to hire in their place.

      Quite unlikely that more than one or two people in the whole country have lost jobs over any of this.

      Also, it is forcing them to actually invest money in their IT infrastructure instead of just slapping some servers together and letting some clowns straight out of a degree mill run them.

      I doubt it. And from the sound of things, you shouldn't be pointing fingers at people from "degree mills".

      People need to realize that this is a net good thing because if a 19 year old with no formal education is ripping servers owned by multi-billion dollar international corporations then the Chinese have already been there.

      Unlikely, but that's a good lift straight from the official LulzSec rhetoric. The Chinese probably don't much care about PBS, and there's nothing sensitive on CIA.gov. LulzSec isn't going to seriously compromise the NSA and save us from the evil Chinese. They're griefers.

      A company would not even know about the Chinese intrusion much less publicize it once they found out so what lulzsec is doing is shining the light on how poorly these companies that hold your data are run.

      Again, not really a big concern. And wouldn't make any of it ok if it did.

      But do try again. I find it interesting how much people want to turn pranks for lulz into some kind of really good thing for society. The only real gain is the few people that finally start maintaining more than one password.

    30. Re:Very Unfortunate. by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I strongly disagree. The ones who pay for porn on the internet are the reason you and me can get it for free. If no-one pays for it, it doesn't get made.

      That being said, these days that no longer fully holds true, thanks to xtube and the like providing oozes of homemade; but one has to wonder how much of their money comes from paid advertising accounts posting 15-second clips of commercial porn.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    31. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Kakihara · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up: +1 insightful

      --
      "Has the rule of law degenerated into the rule of lawyers?" (Niall Ferguson)
    32. Re:Very Unfortunate. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Again, not really a big concern. And wouldn't make any of it ok if it did.

      But do try again. I find it interesting how much people want to turn pranks for lulz into some kind of really good thing for society. The only real gain is the few people that finally start maintaining more than one password

      Do you think CTOs read about all of this high profile crap happening around them complete with massive losses due to liability and public humiliation and still feel no pressure of any kind to at least try and get their act together?

      Heck IT shops flinch whenever defcon is in town. To think otherwise is exceedingly foolish.

      Any pressure that can be brought to bear on society to take the security of their electronic shit seriously without having to suffer destructive attacks in order to learn ones lesson should be viewed as a godsend to all of us.

      You see lulz and think mischief... I look at the space as a whole and see that security conciderations are not being properly externalized to the detriment to all. The market and society (lawmakers) will only respond to shame (lulz) or loss (criminals, state actors...) shame is the better evil.

    33. Re:Very Unfortunate. by delinear · · Score: 1

      Focusing on Lulsec is taking the heat away from massively insecure, multi billion dollar global corporations. I made exactly this point when the Sony PSN attacks first happened - we will see very little in the way of recriminations against the companies who play fast and loose with our data to save a few dollars but the hackers will be demonised all over the media and by politicians. Lo, it came to pass - is anyone surprised?

    34. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but they admit they are doing this for the lulz, and have no noble aspirations. If they were a legit company, offering their services up front that would be one thing, but they aren't. the break in, steal stuff, then gloat about it on twitter.

    35. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Still, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things and LulzSec is clearly on the wrong side of the line. This is particularly true when you read their own postings about how they do it "for the lulz."

      What exactly does that change? If they're providing a service, why can't they have a little fun meanwhile?

      But yes, I also hope these people are caught and punished.

      The people who need to be caught and punished are the ones who are storing sensitive data behind the digital equivalent of a screen door.

      Robbing your neighbor to prod them into locking their doors at night may end up with a good outcome, but I should still go to prison for it. The same applies here.

      Your neighbor has no duty to keep their doors locked. Banks, credit card companies, and the US government do. We are safer for having those servers hacked than if they were not hacked.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    36. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a porn DVD on Amazon the other week. It's *hilariously* tame.

    37. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Bryan3000000 · · Score: 1

      Robbing your neighbor to prod them into locking their doors at night may end up with a good outcome, but I should still go to prison for it.

      It seems you use the same strategy as Lulzsec and are at least as bad at articulating it, if somewhat less pompous. :)

    38. Re:Very Unfortunate. by woolpert · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you said just above, but what's that business you were trying to say about a tornado?

    39. Re:Very Unfortunate. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      there are large piles of regulation and auditing that counter exactly what you are saying. HIPPA PCI SOX FIPS and many others just to start you off.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    40. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      This assumes that progress can be made in a legal manner. Actually this situation is quite similar to many other types of vigilante justice. If the populace cannot trust law enforcement to enforce the law, or if the laws are deemed immoral by the populace, it leads to actions by groups like Anon and Lulz.

      The Sony breakin in particular is a prefect example. Sony used their clout to beat down someone, thereby corrupting the intent of the law (in the eyes of the hackers and many others). The only recourse the people saw was to punish Sony where they would notice, their money.

      People are always saying vote with your pocketbook, and that is what is happening.

    41. Re:Very Unfortunate. by rawler · · Score: 1

      I wish more people would come to this conclusion, especially those targeted by the attacks.

      However, I'm afraid they're just moaning and complaining of the poor morality of computer criminals. The idea that there may be better and worse ways to run IT systems aren't likely to get through to them nomatter what happens.

    42. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The tornado metaphorically represents the anarchists. Both of which are out of control. Both of which are unexpected. Both of which do very limited damage to our analogous "town" but devastate the small areas where they strike. And neither of which are hired or paid for by our metaphorical glass-maker. But you know, I guess analogies aren't very good when you have to explain them in such detail. My bad, I suppose. /needs moar carz

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    43. Re:Very Unfortunate. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Pornstars do have a place in my heart, but a lot of the producers are already getting paid back the money they invest by "auditioning" the girls they cast, before they get 100% of their badly-made videos' revenue.

    44. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that we've had N number of security researchers screaming about these security vulnerabilities for years. We have tons of books, white papers, and lists of "security good practices. Every IT admin with even 10 minutes of formal education can tell you that "security is very important". Yet, despite these things, we have multi-million dollar companies and companies that handle very sensitive data (credit card numbers, personal information, etc.) giving next to no effort to keep things secure.

      Every single time one of these companies has some massive data breech they try to hide it for two months, then they send a message to customers saying that "nothing is wrong but the law requires us to tell you that we disclosed some data that will allow any person to steal your identity and ruin your credit inside of two weeks. Good luck with that."

      People have tried the diplomatic actions for far longer than is reasonable and they haven't worked. Frankly, it's time this kind of shit happened. It's much better that "lulzsec" or whatever hacks into various targets and announces the breach so that everyone can take steps to prevent malicious use of their data; rather than a far more malicious hacker breach the system and everyone keep quiet about it so that users are unaware that their data has even been compromised.

    45. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And their nonsense with hacking into porn sites and trying to publicly shame people who visit them made me want to strangle them with my own hands.

      Paying for porn on the internet is fail. (As in you're doing it wrong. Just knowing how to use a search engine gets tons for free.) Paying for porn on the internet and having passwords used with that site shared with other sites and online services is epic fail. (So many things are wrong there, that it is lulzy.)

      ...I'm sure they can make quite a handy little salary doing these same damn things the right way.

      If the companies affected were arsed enough to pay for such services in the first place, LulzSec would have never been deemed much of a threat and we wouldn't be hearing about them so much. Ever hear of the ol' phrase "Penny smart, pound foolish?" This is very much the case. In a way, LulzSec is actually providing a service for free. They could easily cause a lot more damage than they have been, so there must be some little bit of restraint. They're also doing the public a favor. You wouldn't want to use a bank with a vault made out of swiss-cheese painted black, so why should we accept the equivalent for things done online?

    46. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      A little fun is fine. However, when real people start getting their personal details posted online it changes from "fun" to "harmful" behaviour. Now that they've rolled back to the script-kiddy tactics of DDoS attacks on random targets they've fallen further and are now officially just a bunch of fucking idiots with no appreciation for the harm they're doing to actual real people.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    47. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And their nonsense with hacking into porn sites and trying to publicly shame people who visit them made me want to strangle them with my own hands.

      I would appreciate it if you washed said hands before strangling me.

    48. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly disagree. A BangBros.com subscription is remarkably good value for the amount of filth you can get on there at very very fast speeds.

      That said, Xhamster.com is a beaut.

      (Posted anon for obvious reasons)

    49. Re:Very Unfortunate. by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      this is stupid. you don't go picking locks to make your neighbor get better locks

      Not to single you out personally, but this is a meme I'm seeing a lot of in these more recent articles - the implication is that us regular schmucks may be vulnerable because WE may end up with the kind of power that would be threatened by the actions of Lulz, etc. But individuals are not corporations, banks, or governments. This is how political leaders get people to vote against their own interests.

      I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but using an analogy that replaces Comcast NBC Viviendi Viacom Universal GE with Joe the plumber supports a false correlation. The FBI isn't out to save our pensions (whoops! what pensions?), they're out to protect major interests which usually don't serve us and often work against our best interests as individuals and as a society.

      I'm not saying AntiSec is a Good Thing, but I don't think it's reasonable to behave as though they are The Enemy, either.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    50. Re:Very Unfortunate. by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that a group defining itself "the world's leaders in high-quality entertainment at your expense" is working for a better world?

      Maybe not, but the honesty is refreshing. Ironically, the bald statement of hostility makes me trust them more than all the people and organizations insisting they're doing things for my own good while crushing all the ideals I hold dear.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    51. Re:Very Unfortunate. by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      'Magine that! Consumers demanding something instead of whining to the government about it...I guess there is still hope.

      Not if those consumers are branded as terrorists.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    52. Re:Very Unfortunate. by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Now if only they could have highlighted incompetent security with courage and integrity. Instead, I consider the good outcomes of their actions a beneficial side-effect of criminal actions. And not the kind of Robin Hood or Jean Val Jean criminal...more the Joker dickhead criminal that few will mourn.

      I'd have to agree with this, but I'm still going to be glad for better outcomes.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    53. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      A little fun is fine. However, when real people start getting their personal details posted online it changes from "fun" to "harmful" behaviour.

      Everyone got notified that they had to change their account info. No big deal. If it prevents some real criminals from breaking into Sony in the future and actually using that info, they've done good.

      Now that they've rolled back to the script-kiddy tactics of DDoS attacks on random targets they've fallen further and are now officially just a bunch of fucking idiots with no appreciation for the harm they're doing to actual real people.

      They're just demonstrating that this wonderful city we've built is on a foundation of quicksand. Don't blame them for the demonstration. The fucking idiots are the ones who want to keep building.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    54. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 LOL!

    55. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only consumers had some way to work with each other to get those huge companies to do things. Oooh! Maybe they can form some kind of...organization! Like a...a club! Hummm. But then it'd be more effective the more people who are in it. Oh, I've got it! What if we make everybody a member. Perfect. And then we'll get people to agree on the things we want to have happen. Okay, fine, you're right, that'll be pretty unwieldy, 300 million people all sounding off. What if we get them to pick people to do the voting for them. And we'll call them...representatives, or something like that. And they'll all meet together for a while and debate about what the best options are then that's the thing they'll make those huge companies do.
      Great.
      Awesome.
      Sounds like a plan.
      Now we just need a name for this thing....

    56. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      s/hobos/(industrial spies|professional gangs)/

      --- hey, now it actually sounds a bit sensible

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    57. Re:Very Unfortunate. by jesser · · Score: 1

      I'd be more worried about the senator who doesn't look at free porn on his home computer.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    58. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet I find your modification of the original post to be equally as true. If some multi-billion dollar lock-making company was found to be making all of the metal parts out of soft, maleable aluminum that can break by just pulling hard, they damn well better upgrade, and be shown as the useless twats they are to protect people from buying their shitty locks.

    59. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking into a server that's been set up as a demonstration of how easily a badly-configured server can be to break into doesn't make the IT guys at $FINALCIALINSTITUTION think "Oh damn that could have been us! Maybe we should close out our 42 tabs of Memebase and fix all those security holes we've been sitting on for the last decade!"

    60. Re:Very Unfortunate. by hexagonc · · Score: 1

      If it prevents some real criminals from breaking into Sony in the future and actually using that info, they've done good.

      Except that the "real criminals" don't have to break into Sony because these hacker groups (don't know if it was LulzSec or not) have already done it for them. That's the flaw in this type of argument. Hacking to teach a lesson when real people's data is exposed lowers the barrier to entry for identity thieves and similar criminals. Before, they may have needed some nominal level of competency with computers to break into Sony and get people's credit card info. Now, all they need to do is sit tight and wait for LulzSec and related groups to expose people's info and reap the ill-begotten rewards before the victims have a chance to respond. Sure, future victims might be avoided but they may have been avoided anyway since the "real" criminals might have been focusing on targets other than Sony. Hell, for all we know, Sony might have been planning to patch the vulnerabilities that were exploited. Now, I'm not excusing Sony's incompetence but it seems to me that there were a lot better ways to make a point about security holes than hurting innocent people.

    61. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Didn't one of lulzsec's previous shanenigans include a few .gov mails in porn site accounts?
      Yes, worry, they probably paid that porn with public funds.
      Well maybe not, but it'd be quite the scandal if it happened.

    62. Re:Very Unfortunate. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I think that says more about the people willing to throw away their own privacy because someone hacked websites on the internet than it does about Lulzsec.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    63. Re:Very Unfortunate. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      LulzSec is clearly on the wrong side of the line.

      That depends on who you ask (because morals are likely to be subjective).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    64. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish, if these clowns didn't pay for the porn, then those who make all the good porn wouldn't and I'd be stuck watching videos of your ugly fat sister.

    65. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking douche bag. It's somehow OK that they posted millions of people's personal information and credit card data online in order to prevent it from being stolen in some worse way? Never mind that the data is pretty much freely available now to who knows what scum bags. Mine was part of that data, and there not a damn thing I can do about it now aside from signing up for fraud alerts and credit monitoring for the rest of my life. Yeah no big deal though. Congrats to thinking only about yourself ass hole.

    66. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that makes it ok that they went into the barn and let loose all of the farmers cows, many of whom have now been eaten by wolves? (people whom have become victims of identity theft as a direct result of their data being posted online) That'll show the lazy farmer not to just tie the door shut with twine.

      These guys are douchebags, stop defending them.

    67. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't the enemy huh? If that's the case why did I have to cancel my credit card (which I've had for 10 or so years with never an unauthorized charge) as a direct result of their actions? And why do I have to put a fraud alert on my credit report? And sign up for credit monitoring. I've been careful with my personal data (though apparently sony hasn't) but now I'm forced to jump through all of these hoops, and still there's no guarantee that nobody will be able to screw with my credit/identity. This majorly sucks for me and millions of other people, but I guess they aren't the enemy. Right.

    68. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about all of us IT-related folks who DO know what they're doing, but are underfunded by upper management? There's only so much we can do to protect our organizations, and their information, when financial resources for software upgrades, improved network hardware, etc., are continually denied by senior management. There's only so much that can be done when your budget continually gets slashed. What happens instead, is that an intrusion occurs, data is lost, and the competent IT people are fired, upper management brings in new IT people (at a lesser salary, because they won't spend the money) which just compounds the problem...yet the upper management folks are never the ones who (a) are blamed, or (b) lose their jobs.

    69. Re:Very Unfortunate. by hedpe2003 · · Score: 1

      The less secure people feel on the Internet, the more we will lose anonymizing proxies and the more public everything we do on the Internet will be.

      I'm sorry... but unfortunately, the internet is NOT secure. That is the problem. These people are not making us FEEL that the internet is insecure...we're being shown just how insecure it really is. Not that I attribute any altruistic intentions to this group - but I don't understand the 'get rid of these guys, so we can put our heads in the sand' mentality.

      I would, frankly, prefer using this recent publicity to push the corporate sector to actually fund their IT and Security department(s), instead of trying to undermine the only silver lining we can find in all of this nonsense. I know there is a fine line between 'pushing people to get something done' and 'giving an opening for the government to take move power'... but if we can figure out how to walk that line, we'd all be better off for it. Can we discuss how to do that, instead of giving ourselves a false ultimatum of insecurity and helplessness versus loss of freedom?

      --
      Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
    70. Re:Very Unfortunate. by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      Everyone got notified that they had to change their account info. No big deal.

      I think that's just about the most idiotic and ill-thought out post I've ever seen on /.

      No big deal you say. One wonders if you'd feel the same if you CC info and passwords for online banking were floating out there for anyone to use. Jesus. Such a selfish and short-sighted sentiment.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    71. Re:Very Unfortunate. by woolpert · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if the metaphorical glass-maker paid the destructor or not. The point of the metaphor is that wealth was destroyed (windows) to create economic movement and how that is a zero-sum (in simplified terms) game.

      In the lulz-sec scenario arguably no wealth is destroyed, therefore it is not a zero-sum game.

  9. lulzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 you all are so uninformed lol what gives the first clue he really is lulzsec.
      2 after seeing this they are either gonna go harder or move the op.
      media is the reason y this is so big lol thousands have claimed to be anon and lulz the feds will arrest anyone they think is them with minor to no evidence

  10. Re:FBI press release by RivenAleem · · Score: 0

    Suspected Goatse Link

  11. Yeah, so close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to the arrest of some random scapegoats for crimes they have not committed.

  12. My ass by unity100 · · Score: 0

    just say that 'we are not able to get to the real people in russia, china, and arresting pimpleface kids to save face'.

    disgusting.

    1. Re:My ass by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Hey at least they're not shooting random brazilians in the head on the tube now. Yet.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  13. PR madness, Something strange going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is all this media attention on LulzSec, it is kinda amusing. The character assassination of Ryan Clearly in the UK news is crazy. They have interviewed people in his road, called him a shut in and other things, I think i heard terrorist today as well. I have even had 2 family memebers call me up to disscuss lulzSec (my 60 year old mother), this whole story is dominating the news WHY? I have not seen rapists get this kind of media attention and character assassination. The fun thing is, Ryans Role is pretty clear, he was the IRC server host. That's it, so by extension the FBI and UK believe he is now part of Lulzsec. Well Ryan provided a medium for anyone to chat on his IRC server, Its like saying because Google link to the lulzsec page they too are in league with them. Just because someone supply's a medium and someone abuses it, it is not the fault of that person.

    This is a massive PR thing and I wonder if LulzSec is government funded. Is it not strange that other hacking groups have been on the slow raise, now a Super hacking group has appeared to create waves just as the government wants to lock down the internet, LulzSec is now running operations with AnonOps maybe this is just one big government honey pot to pull the last reminding old school hackers and take them out in one go while also locking down the internet because of the evil goldstein sorry I mean LulzSec and their abuse of power.

    tl:dr Ryan Clearly = IRC host and ScapeGoat, LulzSec could be the new goldstein (might be government placed to get access to other hacking groups), Governments are going to win whatever the outcome, Internet gets locked down and OR the hackers go to jail.

    SIDE NOTE (YES I AM SHOUTING)
    WHY ARE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS WITH SENSITIVE DATA EVEN ON THE INTERNET? STOP USING THE PUBLIC NETWORK THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR SHARING INFORMATION AND ATTEMPT TO LIMIT IT TO CREATE YOUR OWN INTERNET> SERIOUSLY GET A PRIVATE NETWORK AND AMERICA STOP TRYING TO CONTROL IT.

    1. Re:PR madness, Something strange going on by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      The fun thing is, Ryans Role is pretty clear, he was the IRC server host. That's it, so by extension the FBI and UK believe he is now part of Lulzsec.

      If he had a modicum of common sense he would steer very well clear of people engaging in activities that are illegal in the country in which he resided. Alternatively he would realise that just by knowingly providing a place where people could discuss illegal activities english law would consider him an accomplice. The english legal system does not have any decent protection of freedom of speech and we have no bill of rights. The police in this country do not even need to ask a judge before writing themselves a search and seizure warrant any more.

      The police in the UK also have the power to demand that you decrypt something and if you refuse or have forgotten the key you used then they can throw your arse in prison for up to 5 years. They can even now arrest you under the terrorism act and keep your in prison for a period of 28 days without bothering to charge you with any criminal offence. Anybody can be arrested under the Terrorism Act and it is frequently used against people who are not suspected of any sort of violent crime.

      I am not saying any of this is a good thing, but it is the way it is and seemingly not a single one of our political parties is interested in changing it. The only way any British people not liking this can escape these laws is by leaving the country and sending back your passport after you have found another country to take you. We can try and change them, but since Britain is a democracy and the British public keep electing clowns that support these laws what can we do?

      In light of all of this most people simply knuckle down and try and steer well clear of any sort of run in with the police. This is by far the most sensible course of action unless you have an infinite source of money to live on. Thanks to that risk of 28 days in prison and obviously the sack from your employer it is a very serious gamble to do anything that would expose you to this, anybody with a family to support simply cannot risk it.

      Even before you have a family like this guy there is the problem of having your name and photo plastered all over the papers and hence making many companies view hiring you as a risk. This guy has screwed up an IT career before it had even begun. Unless he can somehow demonstrate to a potential employer that he is head and shoulders above every other person attending an interview for a particular role he is not going to get the job.

      Of course, that is assuming he does not get extradited to the US and repeatedly gang raped in prison there for the next 60 years. The only good thing about the UK from his perspective at the moment is that this is less likely to happen in UK jails.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    2. Re:PR madness, Something strange going on by X.25 · · Score: 1

      If he had a modicum of common sense he would steer very well clear of people engaging in activities that are illegal in the country in which he resided. Alternatively he would realise that just by knowingly providing a place where people could discuss illegal activities english law would consider him an accomplice. The english legal system does not have any decent protection of freedom of speech and we have no bill of rights. The police in this country do not even need to ask a judge before writing themselves a search and seizure warrant any more.

      So, you have no more pubs left in the UK?

      I see.

    3. Re:PR madness, Something strange going on by jesser · · Score: 1
      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    4. Re:PR madness, Something strange going on by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      If he had a modicum of common sense he would steer very well clear of people engaging in activities that are illegal in the country in which he resided. Alternatively he would realise that just by knowingly providing a place where people could discuss illegal activities english law would consider him an accomplice. The english legal system does not have any decent protection of freedom of speech and we have no bill of rights. The police in this country do not even need to ask a judge before writing themselves a search and seizure warrant any more.

      So, you have no more pubs left in the UK?

      I see.

      We have pubs, but if you open a pub specifically aimed at clients who all flout the law then you will be closed down fairly quickly. Any pub or club that finds itself on a police shitlist will not be open very long before they object to it having a licence to sell alcohol. If the police object at a licensing renewal then usually the license is withdrawn.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  14. i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 0

    i still have put thought into how the hell you might have concluded 'with most of Lulzsec being teenage kids' ...

    in the end, i decided that you are a moron, else you wouldnt conclude the below without having enough information - which anyone cant have.

    1. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about all the people on LulzSec are posting on Flickr, Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, and 4chan... Many of them have posted videos of themselves, and there are a lot of "leaked" videos where they did video conferences with each other regularly.. Make no mistake, the majority of them are teenagers..

      Remember when they hacked PBS to post the news story about Tupac being alive and well in Australia? There's a video of one of the LulzSec guys bragging about what they've done and he's got a Tupac poster on his wall right behind him... Another video of the same kid and he is trying to rap like tupac (see the LulzBoat rap). Voice matches, face matches, hobby matches.. It's not so hard to track these guys down.

    2. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Basic profiling I'd say. Look at what they're doing and ask yourself who would do that kind of thing most often? A 40 year old IT security expert? A pissed off old man? Or a teenager/young adult? Maybe you missed the AOL script kiddy days, because it was essentially the same situation(with much much lower stakes).

    3. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by txmcse · · Score: 1

      conclude... assume... what difference does it make? /. has been a collective of overly opinionated morons for decades. As this is a well known fact, and yet you write a post a comment like that (not even as AC) proves that you fall into the same category as the rest of us. As for information that anyone can't have... we know ryan's age... and I think if you wait a moment, there is a pretty good chance we'll find out about a few more. time will tell, and you, my moronic little sister, will know the truth.

    4. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 0

      Just about all the people on LulzSec are posting on Flickr, Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, and 4chan... Many of them have posted videos of themselves, and there are a lot of "leaked" videos where they did video conferences with each other regularly.. Make no mistake, the majority of them are teenagers..

      i dont know which is more appalling - the above, or the fact that you BELIEVE that those kids are who they claim to be .... posting a video on facebook and claiming to be someone, makes you someone ? are you forgetting that these are kids ?

    5. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 0

      or maybe you dont know shit about server administration/security ? are you aware that the foremost method to break into servers is ddosing them, causing normally unexploitable bugs and exploits become vulnerable ? and no server, even the most secure oses and cluster balanced servers are impervious to this ?

    6. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      or maybe you dont know shit about server administration/security ? are you aware that the foremost method to break into servers is ddosing them, causing normally unexploitable bugs and exploits become vulnerable ? and no server, even the most secure oses and cluster balanced servers are impervious to this ?

      Can we have some citations on this matter, please? I'm failing to find them myself on Google.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    7. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 1

      time will tell, and you, my moronic little sister, will know the truth.

      so then, you are in the same basket with us ...

    8. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      If so, they are kids about to learn that public confessions can and will be used against you in a court of law.

      What idiot would confess to crimes they didn't commit (or being part of a group committing those crimes) and then be surprised when that draws the attention of the authorities?

      "Pig, you can't prove anything"
      "Really? I've got this video of you saying you're part of the group that did it."
      "That won't hold up in court!"
      "Really? Let's see what the jury thinks."

    9. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by txmcse · · Score: 1

      so then, you are in the same basket with us ...

      yeah... that's pretty much exactly what i said:

      you fall into the same category as the rest of us

    10. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      are you aware that the foremost method to break into servers is ddosing them, causing normally unexploitable bugs and exploits become vulnerable

      No.
      This is a complete, undiluted bullshit. Everything can be harmed by DDoS, it's only a matter of DDoS being large enough -- though distributed servers can withstand a truly massive DDoS. Consequences of DDoS are limited -- at very worst, server becomes unusable for the duration of DDoS.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    11. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 0

      What idiot would confess to crimes they didn't commit (or being part of a group committing those crimes) and then be surprised when that draws the attention of the authorities?

      kids.

      with your logic, you can convict a 6 year old who says 'dodo' during a national anthem.

    12. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 0

      read server security/compromise cases you can find from google. its something trivial. i cant be bothered to provide eloquent summaries for someone so far off the field.

    13. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 1

      'harm' and 'compromise' are two different things.

    14. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because you're young and stupid doesn't mean you don't have to deal with the consequences of being stupid. Sure kids do stupid things. I did, I'm sure we all did. That doesn't mean kids immune from the responsibilities of their actions. They are given more leeway, certainly, for having poorly developed sense of judgement, and because of that in this situation you have to take into account that kids are liars and could be falsely claiming responsibility for street cred. But then you look at circumstance:

      If some 8-year-old kid who just got his first laptop 3 months ago says on his facebook page that he hacked the FBI, maybe that claim is not trustworthy. But if it is a 17-year old who has been into computers since he was 8 bragging about the same thing, using the lingo, demonstrating the knowledge, etc... maybe you believe him. Or at least you treat it as a credible possibility and investigate. Perhaps even prosecute if you have enough evidence. Maybe he really didn't do it, but then he's going to have to deal with the consequences of saying he did so because he certainly seems like he could have done it.

      If you try and convince somebody that you committed a crime, and you do a convincing enough job that they believe you, that's your fault. You better damn well believe that authorities care about high profile felonies, especially ones that are targeted at THEM, which if I recall, some of these attacks were.

      Here's a slashdot analogy for you. I was taught not to poke a bees nest when I was a kid. Weren't you? What we're talking about here isn't just poking the bees nest (which the lulzsec guys did), we're talking about somebody else who walked over to the now-angry nest of bees, picked up the stick that was used to poke the nest and stood there under the nest holding the stick. Look, even most kids aren't stupid enough to do that... and the ones who are, what do you make of that? Do you blame the bees for stinging them? He chose to stand there with the stick!

      with your logic, you can convict a 6 year old who says 'dodo' during a national anthem.

      What in the world does that have to do with our discussion of publicly confessing to felonies?

    15. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      'harm' and 'compromise' are two different things.

      DDoS (or any kind of DoS) has absolutely nothing to do with compromising systems. What you claimed, doesn't and can't happen.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    16. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by CapnStank · · Score: 1

      The real issue is more simple than that I think. By stating (with reasonable probability) that they commited the crime they probably give the feds enough to gain a warrant. With that warrant they'll confinscate PCs/hard drives and scrub them for the factual evidence that will/willnot lead to a conviction.

    17. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Next question is, when they find something illegal on those hard drives that does not pertain to the investigation at hand (and perhaps you'll forgive my assumption that they probably will), how likely are they to prosecute for that, considering that they've already spent the time and trouble to gather evidence?

      I'd say pretty likely.

      Even if these kids are innocent of the crime they're trying to cop to, they're just setting themselves up for a world of hurt.

      Conclusion? Sucks to be them, I hope my kid doesn't turn out that dumb.

    18. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by teslafreak · · Score: 1
      What logic are you using?

      You may be able to bring them to court if the 6 year old had said "I was involved in that crime that happened.".

      As it would happen though, I agree with you on the age thing. The news I have been reading seems to place most of them in their mid to late twenties. Which is much worse for them, since people will think they should have known better.

    19. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      News to me. DOSing is usually done with the purpose of making sure no one can get a reliable connection to the server. That "no one" usually includes any person trying to also execute a more sophisticated attack.

    20. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by PoopCat · · Score: 1

      The real issue is more simple than that I think. By stating (with reasonable probability) that they commited the crime they probably give the feds enough to gain a warrant. With that warrant they'll confinscate PCs/hard drives and plant the factual evidence that will definitely lead to a conviction.

      FTFY.

    21. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 1

      news to you. it is quite frequently used for making the vulnerabilities come up. had you been in hosting industry trenches for long, you would know.

    22. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 1

      come back when you have worked in hosting industry trenches for enough.

    23. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by unity100 · · Score: 1

      You may be able to bring them to court if the 6 year old had said "I was involved in that crime that happened.".

      and that would be right ?

    24. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      read server security/compromise cases you can find from google. its something trivial. i cant be bothered to provide eloquent summaries for someone so far off the field.

      Nothing I can find involving DDoS being "the foremost method to break into servers is DDoSing them", honestly.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    25. Re:i dont know whether youre a moron or not by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      I am a developer, you idiot (and you seem to have absolutely no idea how security vulnerabilities look like)!

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  15. Unfortunate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you mean I should lock the door on my house, because I'm incompetent if I want a community where I actually can keep it open?

    Saying we need security people in every company to close down all that's possible to close down, is saying we want a structure where we need to safeguard everything. That's a bit strange, since we want the Internet to be open.

    LulzSec claims that they do what they do because they want to harm to people trying to close down net. Well, the result of what LulzSec do is that we close our doors. Nice logic.

    1. Re:Unfortunate? by delinear · · Score: 2

      You're not incompetent if you want a community where you can keep your door unlocked, but yes, you are incompetent if you keep your door unlocked in the real world and expect it to adjust to your romanticised version of how things should be. We'd all love to live in a world where security isn't necessary, but we don't. Anyone who doesn't secure the data of other people that they have been entrusted with, and in many cases who are paying customers, to at least an agreed minimum standard, should be held criminally liable - and if they use the excuse that they were helping to create a free and open internet by allowing anyone to pry on customer data, they should be certified insane. By the way, you're confusing an open internet with an insecure internet (just because people want to be able to share data and content with open formats, doesn't follow that they don't want to be able to protect their bank accounts), but that's another matter entirely.

  16. LulzSec's downfall is that clearly it is NOT anon by Borland · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's been obvious from the beginning that Lulzsec might be fickle in their targeting like anons, but that they are a coordinated group. That lends them a bit more power, but also means that despite their bravado they are connected. And since they're not thinking like terrorists, I doubt they have formed "cells" like any organization which doesn't want to fall quickly to a coordinated assault.

    Maybe I don't give them enough credit and the IRC operator was careful to shield everyone and knows no one by name. But despite the publicity, and the fact that they have more skill than I, somehow I doubt they are true black hat masters. Braggarts are the most likely criminals to land in jail.

  17. burn the evidence? by smileynerd · · Score: 1

    They make it sound like they keep hard copies of all of the hacks

    1. Re:burn the evidence? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Well when I say that I am "burning the midnight oil" I am not literally burning oil anymore but the metaphor still works.

  18. How by unity100 · · Score: 1

    "Governments are going to win whatever the outcome" - how will that happen with the root of the hacking scene now being in russia.

    1. Re:How by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Russia will extradite them to the US for trial, wait...

  19. Ryan ClearLy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok CmdrTaco, I let the "SpiderDASHman" error pass, but... CLEARLY?! with an L!?

  20. I call bullshit... until by toxickitty · · Score: 1

    I call bullshit until I see some actual devolpments. From the article: "LulzSec, in typical style, has laughed off the effort; and said the exposed details were pulled from low-level chat rooms used to recruit sub-crews, or "grunts". LulzSec operators remain free and anonymous, the group said, operating from "cells" in the UK. One tracker in contact with SC Australia refused to provide the names of the suspected LulzSec crew, fearing the group would scatter and "burn the evidence"."

  21. Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In a shocking turn of events the Chinese Communist Party has just discovered that the leader of LulSec is none other than the renowned international terrorist the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government will be seeking his extradition to China to answer for his heinous crimes.

    The majority of Slashdot readers are expected to cheer this victory for justice against the evils of hackerism.

    1. Re:Also... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      What is it with Americans, Chinese, and the fucking Dalai Lama. It's like you only have room for a single thing in your heads. Get the fuck over it, Tibet was 50 years ago. Otherwise you have a shitload of occupied land you should be giving back to Mexico, not to mention a few other countries having "the shit freed out of them" by American occupation at present. To the victor the spoils, and it ends there. Otherwise you turn into a fucking arab and 1000 years from now you're still arguing about shit that is no longer relevant.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise you have a shitload of occupied land you should be giving back to Mexico,

      HahahahahaHAHAHAhaha. Hardy har har.

      The only reason there is an argument is because the Americans went soft and let the Mexicans live. Get the fuck over it. There is not one square millimeter of land anywhere in the world that has not been claimed by multiple groups of people at various times in history.

    3. Re:Also... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making my point for me. What used to be Tibet belongs to China, whether you like it or not.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Also... by makomk · · Score: 1

      Tibet is still happening, though - the existing Tibetan residents are still systematically being treated as second-class citizens compared to members of the more powerful Han Chinese ethnic group, despite only a small minority of the population there being Han. You just don't see much about it on the news because it's nearly impossible to get reporters in there andthe general public doesn't care much. (Oh, and the big media owners have business interests in China that would be harmed by such reports.)

    5. Re:Also... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because they didn't have a de facto caste system before the Chinese came in, right? Oh.. wait.

    6. Re:Also... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "To the victor the spoils, and it ends there" Now if the Palestinians and it's supporters would just recognize this truism we could ratchet down the animosity floating around in the middle-east.

  22. Oh, really? by HikingStick · · Score: 1

    They refused to disclose the identities of LulzSec chief, saying it would cause the members to burn the evidence of attacks and scatter.

    As if the news coverage hasn't been enough to start the burning and scattering?

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  23. More misinformation. by rhadamanthus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ryan Clearly housed a lulz IRC chatroom. He has nothing to do with lulzsec.

    --
    Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
    1. Re:More misinformation. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      What's important is what a judge/jury will hear and think. They don't understand the difference and even saying "IRC is an anonymous chat system" will mean you're a hacker terrorist that needs to be locked up.

      Thanks to the sensationalist media and government even the First Amendment rights have been all but relegated to the academia. Guilt by association is the norm now.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:More misinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chat logs.

    3. Re:More misinformation. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2rGTXHvPCQ

      Clearly indicates that IRC is nothing but a den for hackers.

      Thankfully there's no chance whatsoever that any jury will have ever seen it.

    4. Re:More misinformation. by optymizer · · Score: 2

      I question your reasoning that "he has nothing to do with lulzsec". A 70 year old grandma in Kenya would have nothing to do with lolzsec, but, in this case, Ryan willingly hosted an IRC server for lulzsec, hence he had *something* to do with them and the feds will find out what. And btw, why did they need their own public IRC server? Did we run out of IRC networks? Last I checked, freenode was still alive.

    5. Re:More misinformation. by iainl · · Score: 1

      Ryan Clearly housed a lulz IRC chatroom. That's easily enough to count as 'something to do with lulzsec' as far as the law is concerned.

      Lulzsec have just pissed off the CIA, and got themselves regarded as terrorists. If Clearly was also on IRC duties for Al Qaeda he'd already be in Guantanamo, and you know it.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    6. Re:More misinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking hell.. that's simultaneously the funniest and saddest thing I've seen in a while. Gotta love it when technology is distilled for the lowest common denominator (aka - a CBS primetime audience).

    7. Re:More misinformation. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Why are they even using IRC anymore? It's not exactly an anonymous system. There are much more plausibly deniable ways of communicating.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:More misinformation. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Hosting the server is hardly illegal. It's the logical extension of the rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Doesn't matter how badly the FBI wants lulzsec, the constitution does apply.

    9. Re:More misinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is BS. He had much to do with Lulzsec. And if you want names, their dox have been dropped.

      Seems that many of them are very sloppy... nothing but kiddies.

    10. Re:More misinformation. by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      While hosting a server is not illegal, if you are knowingly supporting criminal activity with said server then it is actually illegal

    11. Re:More misinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has supported them. But he also has nothing to do with them.
      ^
      no logic behind this

  24. China v. Google by Borland · · Score: 1

    Yes Virginia, the companies generally know when they've been compromised. Really, it's only lack of integrity when you don't hear about it on the news.

  25. True /. fashion by MisterJohnny · · Score: 1

    "The noose is tightening around lulzsec. Trust me, I have sources." said a random blogger. In true slashdot fashion, no fact checking was done before the editors approved this story.

    1. Re:True /. fashion by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my BS detector went to 11 on this story.

      Wait a sec, Slashdot has editors? Is this new? I've been here a while and I don't remember editors.

  26. disclose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or they could just give us their names and addresses so we can f'ing destroy them. then nobody will do it again. it is this hide and seek bullshit that makes people continue to do this crap.

  27. Pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI/CIA are trying to "put pressure" on them. From my knowledge of cheap detective and spy novels I'd say that you do that whenever you have no clue and want your opponent to make some moves that give you more data. Likely, the lulz boat underestimates the SIGINT capabilities of their adversaries, though. We'll see soon enough how much these agencies are willing to reveal about these capabilities -- probably more than they should, hehehe...

  28. Hackers 4.0 by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

    If they turned that into a movie, I'd totally watch it... P.s. If you're wondering where I got the 4.0 from, here's my list: Hackers (1995), Hackers 2 - Operation Takedown (2000), Hackers 3 - Antitrust (2001).

    1. Re:Hackers 4.0 by Smirker · · Score: 1

      Thanks for explaining that reference. For a moment there I thought nobody ever made a movie named Hackers. The 4.0 was very confusing.

    2. Re:Hackers 4.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were only labelled Hackers 2 and Hackers 3 on P2P sites. the movies have nothing to do with each other.

    3. Re:Hackers 4.0 by stderr_dk · · Score: 1

      Hackers (1995), Hackers 2 - Operation Takedown (2000), Hackers 3 - Antitrust (2001).

      I think you forgot one: Hackers 0, WarGames (1983)

      I learned all my mad 1337 skillz from that movie... ALL of them!

      --
      alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
    4. Re:Hackers 4.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sneakers > Hackers x.0

      Captcha: crafty

  29. low hanging fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lulzsec are just going after low hanging fruit; they aren't using any script kitties or DNS attacks anyone else who actually reads a book and is interested in who the internet actually works. I am shock at the amount of people( a lot of who work in IT departments) who believe that you just connect two servers with a wire, then do that 100 more time as; they believe that's the internet.
    I got my job just by correct defining DNS; they thought I was a genius, since at 20 I had no degree or certs.

  30. Forewarning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...They refused to disclose the identities of LulzSec chief, saying it would cause the members to burn the evidence of attacks and scatter."

    If LulzSec even remotely suspected that the Feds were that close to them, the burning of the evidence has already happened.

    1. Re:Forewarning. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Their servers probably have a DBAN disk in the boot drive ready to go.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  31. Not Just Ryan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, it isn't just Ryan. LSE posted kayla's identity as well. You may remember kayla from the HBGary anon hack.

    Also: these guys aren't 16-year-old girls. They are IT professionals. Some of these hacks may have been possible because of insider information. That makes the hacks less impressive, but possibly more effective.

    Something bad will come of all of this, like digital fingerprints attached to hardware and computer ownership registries like they have with firearms.

    If you're going to hack, and want the recognition for your skilz, you can make a lot more money being a security consultant, effect a lot more positive change, and still get the lulz out of making in-house people look bad; and you can probably get the recognition at conferences and by blogging or writing books about your exploits.

    You'll get fame, fortune, and amusement. All for doing what you are doing destructively, constructively. Otherwise you are just as evil as the organizations whose incompetency you are attempting to expose.

  32. Authorities definitely closing in on LulzSec by David+Gerard · · Score: 2

    DRAMATICA, Wackyleeks, Wednesday (textfiles.com) — The noose is tightening on LulzSec, oh yes it is, with a red-handed capture nearly almost imminent, said FBI Media Liaison today, and don't you worry about that.

    The drug-running terrorist paedophile probably-Chinese-government members of LulzSec have used their horrifying and "l33t" "Internet Relay Chat" skills (or "sk1llz0r," as "hackers" call them) to break into some of the most complicatedly protected computery gadget devices on the Inter-web-thing, particularly the ones running Microsoft Windows. Just like your computer does!!

    "Fortunately," fed an off-the-record FBI source, "we have tracked down these dastardly fiends to their festering basement lairs, where they sit all day exchanging BitCoins via their 'four-channel' systems. Our agents are poised right now to swoop, swoop! upon these avatars of delinquency! Multiple US agencies are involved. They might be right outside!"

    Authorities worry the "hackers" will get wind of the raids and scatter and burn the evidence. Repeat, the authorities don't want the group to scatter and burn the evidence. Just so that's clear with everyone.

    LulzSec was formed by a group of Scientologists interested in Guy Fawkes. The group is named after "lulls," which is when the four-channel system goes quiet, and "sex," the availability of which would cause the group's immediate collapse.

    Picture: Practice safe computing!

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:Authorities definitely closing in on LulzSec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard from the guy next to me at the barber shop who's uncle has a golf buddy whose brother works for the DoJ that the activities of LulzSec already cost the American economy 2.5 billion dollars and counting, as well as led directly to the confirmed loss of over 125,000 jobs!

    2. Re:Authorities definitely closing in on LulzSec by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the 3 billions dead, only in Milwaukee.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  33. LulzSec vs LulzSec Exposed by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    I think I liked Sharks vs. Jets better. Better names.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:LulzSec vs LulzSec Exposed by AioKits · · Score: 1

      So... Expect a campy musical with scripted dance fights to happen in the next few days?

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
  34. Short-lived? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All's well that ends well. Still, as good as that news is, potentially, the real threat of US National Security still looms large and probably won't be realized until we are up against an all-out cyber shutdown/ grid-off/ massive rocket attack and that will spell the end. These malicious nuisances are a waste of time and resouces, but practice for the authorities if nothing else as the real enemies are poised lurking, skulking, crouching. E-N-D

  35. FBI vs Lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI etc are full of fools. But who are Lulz kidding? The FBI hires a LOT of very smart people too, as do the NSA etc.
    All it takes is for a handful of those very smart people to set up a team to track the kids down...smart people with (nearly) unlimited resources getting paid to chase down some cocky kids and the lulz are gone.

  36. How easy is it? by no-body · · Score: 1

    To frame somebody with all this secrecy going on?

    It takes a certain character (needing) to become a spook and same goes for the other side.....

    Maybe it's just boredom, need for a purpose and stimulation?

  37. Lulz-less slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand all the hate for lulz. As distasteful as some of their activities have been (DDOS == lame, publishing password files != cool) lulz enriched notes with ascii art still make me smile.

    Whatever you think of lulz they are making people take security seriously...better a group of kids force people to fix their shit than a serious lulz deficient state actor working in anger.

    1. Re:Lulz-less slashdotters by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Whatever you think of lulz they are making people take security seriously...better a group of kids force people to fix their shit than a serious lulz deficient state actor working in anger.

      What makes you think there isn't also a state actor working in anger as well? As much as people might think, the government does not have unlimited time, money, personnel, and energy to do everything. And, with high profile attacks like these kids are doing, the government is most likely having to pull people from other investigations and monitoring, which makes it that much easier for the state actor to do what it wants, quietly and without drawing attention to itself. So, the damage they may me doing is minor in comparison to what a state actor like, say China could/would do, but they are definitely making it easier for them to operate.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  38. Aiding and abetting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look it up.

  39. Sounds more like disinformation to me... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    If they are closing in, why in the world would they announce it to the world. I mean seriously. Seems they are doing more barking to me than biting.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  40. Narcs. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    Notice this isn't the FBI saying they are closing in. It's a group of narcs who claim this. Having their own little witch hunt. They better hope they have strong evidence against the people their accusing.

  41. fbi ... uk... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fbi on uk? wtf?

  42. Spellcheckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ryan Clearly

    Spell-checkers running amok today. His name is "Ryan Cleary", without the 'l'. The linked story spells it both ways so they at least caught some of the auto-changes.

    Hmmm... Internet anonymity - change name to something close to a common word and no one will ever be able to type your name correctly. Lessee... "Bob Teh". Heh.

  43. sript kiddies or close enough by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I mean people use other people's buggy anonymizing technology. They hadnt invented it themselves nor deeply understand it, so are prone to discovery. And these people are often young, still in school or not in adult positions yet. Find more of a game challenge than a potentially dangerous activity.

  44. That is so disappointing... by voss · · Score: 1

    I know young men on slashdot would wish that there really was some 16 year old girl superhacker goddess out there.
    There may very well be but since the world loves female hackers they will likely be too worried about losing their college
    scholarship to be doing lulzsec kind of pointless crap.

  45. What would Julian Assange do... by billmarrs · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Wikileaks would publish documents that exposed LulzSec.

  46. I am reminded of a quote... by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. I dont think that catching a few individuals will do much, if anything, the backlash may recruit more people into the ranks of Anonymous and LulzSec, and make them angrier.This is a classic insurgency and they are a real bitch to fight.

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
    1. Re:I am reminded of a quote... by JockTroll · · Score: 2

      No, it's not insurgency. Please do not compare those stupid loserboys to people who actually risk their lives doing practical stuff. There is no popular support for those clowns, who will be branded as data thieves and criminals. Once the authorities get one of them, he'll spill everything because they don't have the guts to resist interrogation. One hard stare from a cop and they'll crap their pants.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    2. Re:I am reminded of a quote... by Phizzle · · Score: 1

      White color crime, internet crime, and in general the "bad boy" rebels are glorified in pop culture and have no problem recruiting into their ranks - the evidence is irrefutable. Marginalizing and underestimating these groups is shortsighted denial. Typically the foot soldiers in these types of groups have little grasp or care for the consequences, so the whole thing about resisting interrogations and stares from cops are after-the-act fluff. The people and organizations that want to protect themselves against these threats need to pull their heads our of their butts and use a lot more common sense in their security setups. These kids are kicking the balls of decades of complacency - the cure is obvious.

      --
      I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  47. lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lulzsec claims man in UK wasnt part of Lulzsec

  48. Re:LulzSec's downfall is that clearly it is NOT an by hedwards · · Score: 1

    You can't form cells when you have that few people. I'm not sure how many people are in lulzsec, but all the indications I've seen is that it's less than ten and that includes the noobs who aren't even capable of going into the IRC without compromising themselves.

  49. Make your way south to Nicaragua by July! by AkkarAnadyr · · Score: 1
    --

    I bought this house and you know I'm boss
    Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off

  50. Again! The security falls between the gaps... by rathaven · · Score: 1


    I find the "get a private network" comment interesting. It is an opinion which will largely be ignored if you state it within an organisation and is unlikely to make a difference to the way that anything is run.

    I'm not surprised by the comment - I made it myself until recently, however, its an area where you will not win the argument and it is because of what our industry is telling people. Our industry is influencing at senior levels in organisations for cloud based everything and managers (IT and none IT) are being told that the cloud is the right way to do things, open, accessible and someone else's problem. I don't really find it surprising that security breaches happen in this environment as you have a disconnect between those running the servers (that are concerned with the security of their hosting environment) and those writing the applications (that are concerned with the functionality of their applications).

    In the pre-cloud computing model you had a middle layer where those teams met and argued security. Now I believe they meet less and less and those arguing security are seen as blocks to success and bypassed. I don't doubt that there are those IT teams who are hot on security who have had someone start to host an application in the cloud without them being aware of it? If people have then I suspect that noone is checking the application security and are either expecting the hosting company to do it or the developers,

  51. what!!! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    >They refused to disclose the identities of LulzSec chief, saying it would cause the members to burn the evidence of attacks and scatter.
    Just the fact they ran this story would make anyone within that group hesitant to continue as plan A and divert to plan b just for the sake of exercising precaution.
    That's what i would do if i was in an international hacking group that was the cause of many downed servers....i would want to be 100% that i was not being traced.

  52. On the other hand by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    My jack-off club, LulzJack, is still stroking away happily.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  53. what a bunch of goofballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can we please go back to the point when there was only one sinister anti-authoritarian hacker group.

  54. His name is CLEARY not fucking CLEARLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake up editors!

  55. Counter-doublethink by non-members surrendering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say you know someone that owes you a debt, and they are uneducated, and everyone knows they are fully uncapable of achieving anything what resembles LULzSec, and you ask them to surrender to the FBI claiming that they are a memer of LULzSec.

    What will the FBI do? They think they are a decoy? Is it a hostage situation where a hostage is forced to claim to be the hostile force and that they are surrendering?

    What do? WAT Dooooo?

  56. What evidence do you have CIA servers were broken by elucido · · Score: 1

    DDOS does not count as being broken into. Show me some evidence the servers were broken into because I think you are spreading a myth or urban legend which isn't true.

    CIA servers were DDOS'd. There is no definitive proof that the kid they arrested did it. The kid could have been framed.

  57. typically hopeless by Shadukar · · Score: 1

    It is almost as if authors didn't know that lulzsec already burns all evidence and is already scattered.

    "...and here in this dark closet cleverly hidden behind david bowie poster I keep the still-sticky keyboard as well as a hard copy print out of the logs from the time i hacked into PSN"

  58. Love Boat Theme?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone visited their page? 19 yr old hackers with "The Love boat" theme? somehow that doesnt seem right...

  59. Thank you! apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good one: That truly got a chuckle outta me ( & I needed one).

    APK

  60. Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They refused to disclose the identities of LulzSec chief, saying it would cause the members to burn the evidence of attacks and scatter."

    Yeah, like this kind of media coverage will make the hackers feel like backing up their exploits in triplicate.

  61. Re:LulzSec's downfall is that clearly it is NOT an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are any good, they won't have divulged their real names in IRC and will have connected through at least one proxy so the IP addresses in the logs will be useless.