Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Leaks New Batch of Data

Posted by timothy on from the free-for-all dept.

Orome1 writes "Anonymous has made available for download another batch of data, including those belonging to the Zimbabwean government, Mosman Municipal Council, Universal Music Group Partners (umusic.com's usernames/passwords and other data), Viacom (internal mapping of Viacom and its servers) and Brazilian Government (dumps and passwords)."

53 comments

  1. Good for them by tmosley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I enjoy seeing nasty people like record executives and genocidal maniacs having their dirty laundry aired. I wish we had more detail, though.

    1. Re:Good for them by carpenoctem63141 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now that they've dealt with Zimbabwe, maybe they can find out what's going on with all those Nigerian princes.

    2. Re:Good for them by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2

      I had no idea that the people of Mosman (population 26000) elected genocidal maniacs to their Council, and for some reason I had thought that Brazil was a functioning democracy.

    3. Re:Good for them by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I had no idea that the people of Mosman (population 26000) elected genocidal maniacs to their Council, and for some reason I had thought that Brazil was a functioning democracy.

      Eh, it's because you use linux. Don't worry too much about it, no one pays attention to what you think anyways.

    4. Re:Good for them by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 0

      I had no idea that the people of Mosman (population 26000) elected genocidal maniacs to their Council,

      They have elections and councils in Prisons? (remember this is Australia)

      and for some reason I had thought that Brazil was a functioning democracy.

      Thats what they want YOU to think.

    5. Re:Good for them by lennier · · Score: 1

      and for some reason I had thought that Brazil was a functioning democracy.

      Heh. Yes, Brazilian democracy functions exactly as designed if you're rich and know the right people. If you live in a favela... maybe not so much.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    6. Re:Good for them by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      I wish we had more detail, though.

      Well, that's kinda why they release it like this, to crowd-source the digging. Go look for something! ...or just wait a couple days, I'm sure stuff will come out soon, like what happened with LulzSec's dump of the Arizona law enforcement data. I'll admit I haven't heard a whole lot about that, but there were some posts on BoingBoing a day or two later detailing some of the more interesting bits.

    7. Re:Good for them by scubamage · · Score: 2, Informative

      Brazil is a democracy, but not functioning very well. In Rio gang warfare is bad enough that it was considered worse than a warzone, and there is a hell of a lot of corruption. The only reason you don't hear a lot about it is because they depend on tourism. Source: best friend lived there 3 years as an inner city teacher. Also told me to stay in tourist areas if visiting, the population in general doesn't like Americans/Europeans.

    8. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say "Hah, just like America" but...

      America's democracy isn't broken just because people are rich. America's democracy is broken because a lot of us are sheeple and don't think about things. And this then allows the rich to herd us into pens and tell us vote for this or vote for that.

      Me, I try my best to vote after hearing both sides and seeing their past records instead of listening to the talking points and the mudslinging. But I'm probably still caught up in the same hole as most of America.

    9. Re:Good for them by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So, essentially, like most other democracies today?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Good for them by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You had me until you said "both sides". Next time, try "all sides". Try to notice that there are other options besides shooting or hanging before the execution.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Good for them by vbraga · · Score: 4, Informative

      the population in general doesn't like Americans/Europeans

      Also told me to stay in tourist areas if visiting,

      Not at all.

      Tourist area means the what cariocas call the "South Zone" (and parts of the "West Zone", namely Barra). This is where Rio's own middle class lives. Going far from this area doesn't mean trouble not just for tourists, it means trouble for middle (or upper) class Brazilians and tourists alike #)

      While tourism is a significant share of the Rio economy, it's also hard to say that Rio depends on it.

      Living in Rio as a teacher, unless your friend was teaching at a (big) University, actually sucks because salaries actually suck. A relative of mine who works as a teacher earns about a 1/10 of I earn as a software developer. This immense gap between the middle class and the poor has always been the root of most of Rio social problems.

      Despite left wing protesters, I think no one care about Americans or Europeans. The only place where I could sense a dislike of tourists (Italians, actually) was in Fortaleza (northeastern Brazil). Most Italian tourists there go there for sexual tourism and, often, children exploitation. There was a general feeling among many people I met that the city would be better off without the tourists.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    12. Re:Good for them by EEPROMS · · Score: 2

      They have elections and councils in Prisons? (remember this is Australia)

      That old chestnut, the only reason they sent convicts to Australia is the English couldn't send them to the USA any more. FYI more convicts were sent to the USA than Australia, we only had a few ships before the english gave up as we released them when they arrived.

    13. Re:Good for them by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Its soo rare that there is actually someone that you want to vote for on a ballot.. Most of the time your trying to figure out who will do less evil..

      They should just change how voting is done... you might as well go in and vote against someone.. It would make figuring out who your gonna mark on the ballot alot easier..

      That or add in a No Viable Candidate(Aka they all suck)..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    14. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have elections and councils in Prisons?

      What's a "prison" darling? (remember this is Mosman)

    15. Re:Good for them by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      FWIW, that Australia was once the English prison colony is pretty much the only thing they teach American kids about Australia, at least when I was in school.

      Which, silly, but if you're wondering why you hear that one so much that's probably why.

    16. Re:Good for them by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      They don't want the little ones to know about the "Hand of Faith"... lest everyone run off down under.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    17. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We need a rank vote system-- but the establishment will not like actual democracy so this will likely take a revolution before democracy returns to many of the hacked former democracies.

      That also means we must limit the corporations. Somehow the concept behind the separation of powers was completely lost outside of government. Any over concentration of power in one group of individuals is going to become a threat to all -- it doesn't literally only exist within government and that is how the system was rigged from the outside.

      The big problem that I see is that people GIVE UP because of the unpleasantness which has become a major tactic to shove the masses towards their TVs and away from involvement.

      The public wouldn't know two crooks from two honest politicians and the system makes everything the same BS so its no surprise the results are always so close. Hell, look at how they give equal footing on the most extreme situations. (I am frankly surprised they don't give a neo-nazi equal time any time the ACLU is on tv.) A few tricks or crimes and that is enough to sway it--- This also keeps anybody good from getting too far assuming they even can get up high enough into one of the two parties; which is probably not that common but more than the American public thinks it is. (because dysfunctional levels of cynicism is a big tactic.)

      Smears stick. (fox "news" is great at them) Where there is smoke there is fire... A good public servant can be brought down to the level of a bad one. Promotes closer elections... Plus the upset people can be somewhat manipulated into going for the anti-government side.

      Look at results. Actually, do not read their plateform because if too many people read those they will start lying more and I like that they are way more honest in those (because it helps them find like minded people who are motivated and I don't think the press even reads them anymore.) Remember, these people are looking for real supporters so they usually put out fairly honest info for those people to FIND, especially early on (later they don't need to.) Some stuff is for the sheeple and some is for leaders who will help them succeed later.

      In the USA, the republicans fuck everything up and then say "see democratic government does not work" by proving their point then they are rewarded instead of punished for their incompetence-- if not intentional malice against public institutions. It benefits them for people to hate government and elected officials. I wonder why any of them quit over scandals etc. because it rarely harms them unless the press constantly reminds people (which is why sex issues are usually the only threat.) The democrats on the other hand are stuck preaching populism and democracy BUT must serve their corporate masters as they degrade into the same insanity that has already gripped the republicans. Its like good cop vs bad cop -- they both are now trying to please their boss... at our expense.

    18. Re:Good for them by hitmark · · Score: 1

      And across history...

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Grain_supply_to_the_city_of_Rome#Politics_and_the_grain_supply

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    19. Re:Good for them by scubamage · · Score: 1
      Awesome! She was there teaching high school, and had some stories to tell (she was in Rio). Also...

      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.

      Your English as a second language is better than many people who speak it as a first language. You should be very proud. :)

    20. Re:Good for them by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      the population in general doesn't like Americans/Europeans.

      No, they love white people in Brazil. They have the same cultural self-hate for dark skin as everyone else. If you're white and fair and tall expect to be called a German all the time though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why I refuse to vote in the current system.

      I refuse to vote for someone who will "represent" me. I will start voting when I can represent myself (i.e. get rid of congress entirely, decrease the power of everyone in the executive branch). I don't see why, in a digital age, it is necessary to have these middle men at all.

  2. This is what we get by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

    When we secure servers with fear and obscurity. Looks like no one is safe, they all have less than ideal set ups.

    1. Re:This is what we get by lennier · · Score: 4, Funny

      When we secure servers with fear and obscurity. Looks like no one is safe, they all have less than ideal set ups.

      We secure our servers with fear! Fear and obscurity! Fear, obscurity and 512-bit RSA public-key biometric tokens... I'll come in again.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    2. Re:This is what we get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a security consultant, I can tell you the last month has made me a LOT of money.

      Everyone and their grandmother's CEO is falling on themselves to fund IT security initiatives right now.

      It's great!

      Maybe that's the goal of LulzSec? Are they just a bunch of security consultants looking for a raise? :-)

  3. Wikileaks is silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anon and Lulzsec are releasing lots of data but Wikileaks has gone quiet, all those juicy titbits that WL said was coming but after Assange gets arrested we have heard nothing in 3+months, what gives ?

    1. Re:Wikileaks is silent by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Would you send your data to an organization that is probably residing upside down chained to the wall of a dungeon in Northern Virginia and replaced by online simulacra?

      Wikileaks screwed with the wrong people in a way that left them open to legal repercussions and sub-legal interdictions. They're burned.

      Luckily, for data theives, their business model is entirely fungible and not protected by any IP restrictions. So everyone with an IP address is, in essence, a Leak server waiting to happen.

    2. Re:Wikileaks is silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would Michael Weston do?

    3. Re:Wikileaks is silent by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 0

      What would Michael Weston do?

      Same thing jesus would do....

      Nothing, since they're both TV stars and have people to do it for them.

  4. Viacom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm too lazy to look up the internal mapping of viacom, so could someone who looked at it just let me know where Pauly Shore fits into the layout? Thanks.

    1. Re:Viacom? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Turns out, Pauly Shore is actually behind the Bilderbergs, the Federal Reserve, the Illuminati (which isn't as cool anymore), and more ... they gave all that power just so he wouldn't make a new movie. Yahoo Serious is second in command. Steve Guttenberg of course retired..

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  5. THIS IS COMPLETELY UN-AMERICAN !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How dare they tarnish the good name of The Unuited States of America !!

    1. Re:THIS IS COMPLETELY UN-AMERICAN !! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wrong thread. Here is where you probably wanted that comment to go.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Torrent link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show me dem torrents!

    1. Re:Torrent link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e182e04f3253b1e655dc2ffc9d1079ef4699dcda&dn=antisec01&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80

  7. Data mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate data miners, composting, they are like little tattle-tellers and I could never stand tattle tales, I used to beat them up as soon as I got out of trouble.

  8. A new era of security by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

    what's that? Most IT entities i've worked with (small business) don't have dedicated security teams, they have critical personal information that would make identity theft cheezy ez, but not security. The assumption has always been this can't happen to us, and chances are it never will, but NOW the "it may happen to us" mentality is starting to take over. Good time to work in the IT security sector, though some of the people I've met from there make me giggle :)

  9. Useless article by bsDaemon · · Score: 0

    Torrent or it didn't happen ;)

    1. Re:Useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you download the torrent without getting into trouble?

    2. Re:Useless article by biodata · · Score: 1

      https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6502765/antisec01 seems to be nonresponsive as of now.

      --
      Korma: Good
    3. Re:Useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then use the magnet:

      magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e182e04f3253b1e655dc2ffc9d1079ef4699dcda&dn=antisec01&tr=http://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80/announce&tr=udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80/announce&tr=http://tracker.publicbt.com:80/announce&tr=udp://tracker.publicbt.com:80/announce&tr=udp://tracker.ccc.de:80&tr=http://announce.torrentsmd.com:6969/announce&tr=http://exodus.desync.com/announce

  10. SO wait.. by ideaz · · Score: 1

    Is Anonymous trying to support the Wiki-leaks movement but explicitly not sayin it?

  11. Wrong. Or at least probably. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article has it wrong. This is a group calling itself AntiSec (not an "AntiSec release" by Anonymous), which claims that it is a successor to, but different from, LulzSec.

    In fact, the announcement of the release was so clear on that point that I do not see how the author of that article could have easily made that mistake.

    I suppose it's possible that it's Anonymous claiming to be somebody else, but it is indeed a group claiming to be different from Anonymous, and I have neither seen or heard of any evidence that Anonymous was involved at all.

    1. Re:Wrong. Or at least probably. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      When AntiSec was originally announced, it was as a collaborative project between Anonymous and LulzSec. So yes, this is definitely related to Anonymous.

    2. Re:Wrong. Or at least probably. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose it's possible that it's Anonymous claiming to be somebody else, but it is indeed a group claiming to be different from Anonymous, and I have neither seen or heard of any evidence that Anonymous was involved at all.

      the only people that are 'Anonymous' are those who attribute their actions to Anonymous, otherwise those actions aren't of Anonymous at all because apparently Anonymous doesn't have members or an organizational structure.

    3. Re:Wrong. Or at least probably. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Interesting, because I thought that WAS the original announcement of AntiSec, and I saw it with my own eyes, and Anonymous was not mentioned.

      I'm not saying you are wrong. But if there was some prior announcement, I would be interested to know where/when it was.

    4. Re:Wrong. Or at least probably. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      See this. Quote:

      Welcome to Operation Anti-Security (#AntiSec) - we encourage any vessel, large or small, to open fire on any government or agency that crosses their path. We fully endorse the flaunting of the word "AntiSec" on any government website defacement or physical graffiti art. We encourage you to spread the word of AntiSec far and wide, for it will be remembered. To increase efforts, we are now teaming up with the Anonymous collective and all affiliated battleships.

    5. Re:Wrong. Or at least probably. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes, I see. Thanks for the link.

  12. not the same anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are false anonymous

  13. Zimbabwe? by haus · · Score: 1

    Is this news because they were hacked, or because they had computers to put data onto in the first place?

    1. Re:Zimbabwe? by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      You must be American.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  14. viacom? by hitmark · · Score: 1

    Sounds interesting, if only as a look into how they prioritized security of their subsystems...

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm